I would like some information about this. Where are these people going to be housed? They have been there for years and years.

My hon. friend knows it is a question for the provincial authorities. The Provincial Administration have undertaken building operations on a new site with moneys to be obtained from the sale of the old site, the old Somerset Hospital.

Surely the House ought to be informed whether any other provision is being made for these people. I do not think it is fair at all. Poor people have been accustomed to go to this place for assistance, and now where are they going to go to?

This is the oldest hospital in the Union. To-day it is really more a poor house for the aged people. Where are you going to house these people? I think we ought to have some information.

I am informed the Provincial Administration has a new site on the old Uitvlugt Forest Reserve near Maitland where they will send these people. Hospitals are not under the Union Government, so it is not for use to say what should be done. There is a provision in the old title that it cannot be sold without Parliamentary approval, otherwise it need not have come before us at all.

That is all very well, but Parliament has a perfect right to know before these old institutions are sold, what is going to become of the inmates. Where are you going to house them? I think everything done in these matters should be done above board.

I think I may be able to throw some light on this. The Provincial Council wanted to improve the condition of the people of the old Somerset Hospital, as the conditions were disgraceful there. They applied to the Minister and to the Garden City Trust to give them a large piece of land, about 25 morgen, near Woltemade No. 3 station. It is a very excellent thing, and I hope there will not be any difficulty.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) says these things should be dealt with openly and above board and not “in this hole and corner way.” I would like to remind him that the committee which dealt with this is a Committee of this House and we went thoroughly into all aspects of the case. The way these people are housed is disgraceful, and it is quite right that a change should be made, and it would be pure obstinacy if we objected.

We are entitled to the information. The hon. member has information which we have not. We cannot just simply endorse everything the Crown Lands Committee does, because I have known of instances where they have recommended certain things and I have been able to upset them.

This is giving away a good deal of money. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about it.

I would like to ask some of the hon. members over there what they would like to do in many of these cases. Do they want to make these settlements a success, or do they want to drive people off the land? We have had to rectify a large number of mistakes made in the past, and it has to be done.

This is land belonging to the State, and you are giving away several thousands of pounds. As trustees of the country we are entitled to some explanation.

This is a settlement in Johannesburg. There was an initial mistake. The land itself is not so valuable. Captain Scott suggested the house should not be sold with the land, but the then Minister refused to agree to that. These people have pointed out to me that they cannot come out if they have to pay these high instalment prices.

There is a reduction there from £13,000 to £9,000. Perhaps the Minister will furnish an explanation.

That is the same. It is a very poor soil there, and more suitable for cattle than agriculture. These people are also claiming a reduction, and the Land Board made strong representations to me that these people should be assisted, as others have been. This settlement is in my constituency and is known to me—the settlers have suffered very much from drought and hail, the soil at the best of times is not very productive.

The reduction is absolutely necessary if these settlers are to remain on this land.

Here the reduction is from £10,000 to £4,000, and perhaps the Minister will give some explanation.

If there is one unfortunate purchase, it is this. The land looks very fine, but it is the poorest soil you can possibly expect. A soil expert was sent there and he reported that the soil was no good for any practical purpose whatsoever. The people can hardly make a living there. White labour was employed, costing from £15,000 to £16,000, which really should not have been added on to the land. The idea is to have bigger holdings. We are losing a lot of money, but it cannot be helped. The price paid was higher than the real value of the land.

Perhaps the Minister may give some information about this.

This matter was before Parliament two years ago, and it was decided that we should call for tenders for such period as the Government might decide. As a matter of fact tenders were called for a shorter period, Mr. Stern was the highest tenderer and was accepted. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) were sent to inspect the property, and advised that it would be only fair to give an extension of the lease seeing the large amount of money which had been spent on the property and seeing that Mr. Stern was putting in more money. The lease was extended further.

We came back convinced that unless this lease was extended, the lessee could not carry on. We found that he had done a great deal of excellent work, and put on the market one of the best wines in the country. Unless we extend the lease, the whole thing would lapse. This should be done subject to satisfactory conditions being entered into.

Is the Minister satisfied that the capital will be forthcoming within a reasonable time?

There is a condition attached. The resolution reads that my department must be satisfied that the capital will be forthcoming, and the company must meet with our approval. The committee drew up a report containing all these precautions which had to be taken before the lease was extended.

I would like to ask the Minister what the special point is about this particular land being granted?

A committee was formed in the Transvaal to erect a monument on that spot, where these people were buried by the voortrekkers. They found the bones there. It was reported that no one was looking after the place, and that the fence was not in order. The only body to which I could entrust this was the Historic Monument Commission.

The report does not convey any idea of the historical associations in regard to this ground, and it is because of that that I particularly ask this question. The Commission is eminently a body to which land with historical association should be transferred that I want to draw public attention to that fact.

Has any investigation been made by the Government regarding the indiscrimnate slaughter of whales? Has the Government taken the matter into consideration with a view to international action if possible.?

I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member any information on that point. That is a matter which falls under the department of Mines and Industries, but I think it might very well be gone into. I agree with the hon. member that the whales should be preserved as far as possible.

If the Government is going indiscriminately to give these whaling station facilities along the coast it will mean the continued slaughter of whales, and I therefore hope that the Minister will translate his appreciation of the case into action, and bring it to the notice of whichever of his colleagues is responsible.

I think it will be better if the Government take over the fisheries from the provincial councils, and the sooner that is done the better.

I quite agree. For years I have urged that the proper thing is that the entire control of our fisheries should be vested in the Government, and that it is not a matter for the provincial adminstrations.

I am afraid I cannot allow that.

The point I am making is that the Government, in leasing this piece of ground, should go into the whole question, because the granting of facilities such as that under consideration makes the indiscriminate slaughter of whales possible.

At the outset I should like to congratulate the Minister on the clarity of his statement and also on the intrinsically sound financial position of the country which he disclosed. But my special felicitations are reserved for his decision to assist in establishing an air service connecting England with South Africa and the other British States in Africa. The Government’s decision in this connection was a great surprise, and it was much more in the spirit of the South African party and of our great leader, the right, hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) than in the spirit of the Nationalist party as disclosed quite recently in debates in this House. Therefore, I congratulate him all the more heartily on this action. Taking as I do the very greatest interest in the development, of the Union and also of other parts of South Africa, I am personally very well pleased indeed about this development. I am quite sure it will assist very greatly in ensuring that the Union and Johannesburg in particular shall play their part in the development of those northern territories which offer such great mining possibilities. Two of the financial houses chiefly in control of the Northern Rhodesia development are already established in Johannesburg, and I am quite sure that in consequence of this very easy communication between Johannesburg and Northern Rhodesia, which is contemplated, it will be much simpler for those houses to remain in contact with the new enterprises and thereby ensure their permanent establishment in the Union. And I must say that I feel that the Minister has rendered a great service to the South African party by his action, because this air service will prove to the youths of the country that the South African party spirit, namely the African spirit, as opposed to the spirit of isolation, of which Nationalist legislation bears evidence, is the right one. Every hon. member must have been interested to hear from the Minister about the very handsome contributions which result to revenue from mining, gold and diamonds, but to emphasize how much these contributions are, I should like to quote two passages from the Minister’s speech in the House. This is what Mr. Havenga said—

And then again—

Hon. members will see that mining is in truth a national industry, that it plays next to farming the greatest part in this country.

Next to farming?

Mining, of course, gives far more revenue than farming, but farming is the permanent, staple industry of the country. I am, of course, delighted that the Minister gave some relief to farming through customs duties and income tax. I do not quite understand how the sum of £80,000 has been arrived at, because it suggests to my mind that very much more than £1,000,000 will have to be spent by farmers on the objects enumerated, namely, agricultural buildings, fencing, dipping tanks and so on. Perhaps the Minister would in his reply give us some information as to how the figure was arrived at, and perhaps he would also tell us how many fanners there are and how many pay income tax, so that we can get some idea of what benefit the £80.000 really means as a reduction in income tax to the average individual. I really feel that, much more should have been done for the farmers, because the more is done for the farmer, the better for the country. On the other hand, as mining is so important an industry and indirectly the prosperity of farming depends on the success of our mining operations, I put forward the claim that something should also have been done for mining, especially as mining, as I have already shown, is the chief source of the enormous surplus of which the Minister is so proud. I do not claim for one moment a reduction in the income tax or profit tax for the mines. Mining being ephemeral should be taxed perhaps somewhat more freely so as to assist in promoting agriculture and the establishment of other permanent industries. But what I do claim is that in the very interest of agriculture and these industries, relief should be given to mines in such a way as to bring lower grade ore, of which there are millions of tons, into the payable zone. This could only be done by reduced working cost. Clearly gold mining cannot pass on a single penny of its expense to the consumers. The most important burden which mining has to bear is, of course, Through railway rates. I know I am not allowed to deal with this question on this occasion, but in passing I should like to say that the railway rates policy followed by the Government is extortionate as far as the gold mines are concerned. The total burden on the industry amounts to over £1,000,000 in this respect, I am sorry that the Minister of Railways has done nothing for the gold mining industry, but that will no doubt be dealt with in due course. The Minister of Finance considering that he had this very large surplus, which I would like to emphasize again that it was derived chiefly from mining, could have done, and, I maintain, should have done something for the mining industry in the direction I have indicated, namely, of cheapening working expenditure. There is very little the Minister can do directly for the mines through the customs tariff, but there are two articles not produced in this country which are consumed by the mines on which duties might be reduced or waived, namely, lubricating oils and crude oils. And that would only have been on a par with the Minister’s action in assisting farmers by a reduction in the duties on power praffin. Then, again, we have the question of native passes where the industry, low grade mines and high grade mines alike, pay over £200,000 per year. There can be no justification for the policy under which declared labour districts should pay 100 per cent, more than the districts which are not declared labour districts. The Minister would have been quite justified in giving some substantial relief in these items.

The revenue from native passes goes to the provinces.

The Minister could have suggested to the provinces that something could be done in the matter. Then, again, something could have been done with regard to the State’s share in claim licences. The mining industry is really a voice crying in the wilderness and no relief is ever given. Mining, in fact, is the stepchild of our parental Government, As the Minister of Mines puts it “We have been put into our place and kept there.” And that is no doubt why the Government did not consult the gold mining industry during the negotiations which were carried on at Lisbon when the basis of the new convention was settled. Our delegates, lacking no doubt, the knowledge of the problem which was necessary, were completely outmanoeuvred by the Portuguese delegates. I am on friendly terms with leading Portuguese people, both in Mozambique and in Angola, having the privilege of sitting on the board of directors with some of the most important people in Lisbon. I congratulate my Portuguese friends on their great achievement, but they will quite understand that I am naturally sorry that our country concluded so bad a bargain. I said before that the gold mining industry was not consulted when the basis of the agreement was settled in Lisbon. The Minister of Railways, speaking in the House on an occasion when I was not present is reported to have said that I had brought the charge that the mining industry was not consulted, but that was not true. He said that after the preliminary negotiations were concluded the Chamber of Mines had every opportunity of intimating to the Government any dissatisfaction with the preliminary basis of the agreement. He personally had no doubt—that is the Minister—that the Chamber was satisfied and if it was not why did it not object. He also said that the industry had actually made representations before in a memorandum. In the circumstances it is essential that I should explain to the House and the country the real position. I cannot leave matters at the Minister’s statement. The Gold Producers Committee very naturally assumed that they would be asked to send a representative to Lisbon who could be consulted by the Minister on native labour points as they arose. The committee offered to send such a representative, but the Government definitely refused, and no representative was sent. At the special request of the Minister, however, Mr. Wirth who is very well known to our Lisbon friends, was sent as a liaison officer for the Minister during his stay in Lisbon. But it was clearly laid down in writing that he did not represent the industry in any shape or form. I must mention that before Mr. C. W. Malan left for. Lisbon he asked for a memorandum from the gold mining industry on the native labour position, and he certainly left the gold mining industry under the impression that no material departure from this memorandum would take place without the gold mining industry being informed. As a matter of fact, we had verbal assurances to this effect, but most substantial and flagrant departures were made from the memorandum.

Without consulting the mines?

Without consulting the mines.

You are wrong.

I am not wrong. I repeat that changes were made without consulting the mines. On the contrary when the mines made representation to the Government, they were informed that neither the Minister of Railways nor the Minister of Mines thought that the mines were entitled to be consulted in any shape or form. No consultation did take place, however, and the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Mines made it perfectly clear that in spite of everything that had been said they did not consider themselves bound to consult the industry in any way. This attitude of the Government in neglecting to consult this most important industry during the Lisbon negotiations is on all fours with the policy of “putting us in our place and keeping us there,” and it also corresponds with the attitude adopted by the Government towards the Associated Chamber of Commerce, who were also “put in their place” when they offered advice an deferred pay during the Pretoria negotiations. When people who can give advice on these important questions are not consulted, but are ignored, it is not surprising that deplorable mistakes are made, and that the Government, as they say, has no friends among the commercial community. When the negotiations were shifted to Pretoria, and when the details became so complicated that the assistance of the Gold Producers Committee was required, the Government did appeal to us, and the assistance we gave was very material, as I think the Ministerwill admit.

I thought you said the gold mines were not consulted.

The basis of the arrangement was settled at Lisbon without consultation with the gold mining industry, but in Pretoria we were consulted about the details. If we had had an opportunity of being represented, and could have given the enormous experience we have had in negotiating—

I see; you wanted to be negotiators.

That is a red herring. We offered to send someone with knowledge of these matters.

Is your complaint that you had not a negotiator in Lisbon?

No, I think I have made that point clear. The most vital mistake which was made was the failure of the Union negotiators to recognize that to agree to a maximum period of service of eighteen months for the natives made it impossible for the mines even to maintain the reduced number of Mozambique natives agreed to at Lisbon. The average period of employment under the previous convention was 21 months. Under the new convention it will be 15 months. There are at the present moment 107,500 Mozambique natives employed, and the scheme laid down by the convention makes it appear that it will be a gradual reduction to 80,000 by 1933. But it is evident that this reduced figure will be reached very much sooner. This mistake could not have occurred had the mining industry been consulted, or had the advice offered by the industry been used.

Are you sure that question was not fully discussed?

It was discussed, and material changes were made without the mines being consulted. It is true that later on at Pretoria when the details of the convention were worked out and these details became too complicated, then the industry we brought into the discussion with what I believe the Minister will agree, a very satisfactory result. But it was then too late to remedy the fundamental mistakes which had been made at Lisbon. As I have already said, even at Pretoria the Government did not consult the commercial interests on customs matters. I shall now briefly point out the main changes between the old and the new convention. Firstly, Portuguese natives will in future be employed on gold and coal mines only. If the Union Government honourably carry out this agreement, which of course they will do, all Portuguese boys otherwise employed, including farming boys in the Transvaal and elsewhere, must be repatriated. I wonder whether the farmers of the Transvaal will look upon smaller, the income tax and other concessions which are being made to them as a proper quid pro quo for losing their labour supply, The next change is a reduction in the natives to be employed from 107,500, the present figure, to 80,000. I know we shall be told the South African party government fixed the number at 75,600. That was on the gold mines, but there was no restriction on the coal mines, so that the number of boys employed on gold anti coal mines in the Transvaal was not less than 90,000. It must be remembered this step was taken when, through severe drought and other causes, there was a lot of unemployment among the Union natives, and when the requirements of the industry were far smaller than they are now. The next change is the reduction of service to 18 months, and the result will be that a very considerable reduction will have taken place by the end of next year—a very serious problem indeed for the gold mines. I say the Government through not consulting the commercial community sufficiently have failed to safeguard the customs position, and traders on the Witwatersrand and in the Transvaal will suffer severely. The gold mines will suffer far more quickly than the convention leads us to believe. Under the old convention, for the payment of 7s. 6d. per head, certain restrictions were imposed in the customs duties charged the natives on returning to Mozambique, and now most drastic duties are levied on their return, which must restrict the purchase of goods in the Transvaal. I happen to know the Portuguese people very well. They are extremely clever negotiators. I have tried to show the very serious effect which the convention will have on the prosperity of the gold mines and on the commercial life of the towns. This is particularly important where hon. members remember that the budget surpluses are so largely due to the prosperity of the mining industry. And what is the permanent value of a Budget surplus if the very basis of the prosperity of the industry that produces that surplus is being jeopardised? The Government have not been alive to the interests of the gold mining industry, otherwise they would have taken steps to lighten the burdens of the industry, or to brig the lower grade ore into the zone of payability and thus prolong the life of one of the most important industries in the country. Even now I understand that regulations are under consideration which will have the effect of considerably increasing working expenditure. I now pass on to the next important branch of mining, that of diamonds. Hon. members must have listened with great interest to the remarks which the Minister of Finance made on the State diggings and the diamond market generally. I am pleased that he has dispelled the extravagant reports which had been spread and found currency not only in this country, but all over the world, and particularly in America, about the unlimited extent of the diamond recoveries in Namaqualand. The country and the diamond trade generally must have welcomed the statement of the Minister with regard to the Government’s attitude as to safeguarding the diamond trade. The Minister pointed out that the Government would be extremely careful to avoid jeopardizing the position of the great diamond producers, or of the alluvial diggers. He emphasised that self interest in the shape of the Government’s interest in the Premier Mine and in taxation was the powerful factor in the Government’s attitude. And he also emphasized that the Government was alive to the interests of the communities which had sprung up and which were dependent on the existence of the diamond mines. Everybody must be grateful to the Government for this announcement. I particularly so, not in my capacity as being interested in diamonds, but as member for Kimberley, which town chiefly, I may say almost entirely, depends on the success and the expansion of diamond mining operations carried on in our mines there and the success of the new diamond cutting industry. There was a time when Kimberley was the sole centre of the diamond trade, but lately other diamond centres have been developed, some of them through the discovery of alluvial fields further away from Kimberley. That is a natural development which cannot be prevented. On the other hand every effort should be made to concentrate the diamond trade in Kimberley. Sorting offices now established in other centres by diamond producers could with advantage be shifted to Kimberley, and if that were done it would be a real help to the town and lead to increased prosperity. Diamond cutting should, with a view to proper control, also be confined to Kimberley. If that is not done the Government will be faced with increased expenditure in connection with the Diamond Detective Department, because the diamond trade is clearly a trade which must be supervised, and if other centres apart from Kimberley are allowed to develop to any magnitude, supervision from Kimberley would be impossible, and an additional department would have to be created. There are difficulties in the way of this policy of concentrating the diamond trade, but I do not believe any of them are insurmountable. As the Government are interested in the various producing companies it can only be done with Government assistance. The Minister has also informed us that the diamond trade is in a sound position, and he suggested that the credit was due to the Government. While I have already acknowledged, and acknowledge once more, that the Government’s attitude with reference to Namaqualand, and generally, has been a very important contributory factor, I am justified in stating that the diamond trade could not have been protected without the assistance and the enterprise of the diamond syndicate. The Government brought in the Precious Stones Bill, which originally failed to pass the two Houses. The Minister of Mines and Industries obstinately refused to take the small powers required to control the trade, and for a whole year the diamond trade stood between a collapse in the trade and this prosperity. The Government are claiming that the credit for everything that has happened is due to the Government, and that is not quite the case, because we did give the Minister great assistance. It was the action of the syndicate in buying up and accumulating the large Lichtenburg production which prevented a total collapse, and it is in a large measure due to the friendly relations which had been established with all producers outside the Union who all subscribe to the principles of sale through one channel and limitation of output, that the present satisfactory position has been brought about, namely that we can say that there is no uncontrolled production the world over and that confidence has been restored. It is for this reason that I appeal to the Government and to any Government which may be in office to maintain closer touch with the producers of diamonds so that at all times full discussion on the problems can take place, which is not the case now. We like the others are “ kept in our place.” When the Minister claims that the results achieved completely vindicate the policy adopted by the Government in Namaqualand, I should like to say that the results achieved vindicate the policy of not having handed over these rich discoveries to alluvial diggers, because that undoubtedly would have destroyed the very basis of the trade; but what has by no means been vindicated is the policy of State enterprise. On the contrary, I think in time to come, when the actual method of working can be dispassionately examined, it will be found that if anything proves that actual State enterprise is inefficient then Namaqualand will be the outstanding example. It has been stated that the private enterprise carried on, although controlled by business men of repute, was not much more efficient than the Government, but in this connection it must be made clear that the system of mining followed was one dictated by the Government and therefore not left to the discretion of the people responsible. I would like to say a few words about diamond cutting. The Minister passes this over in a very few words, and simple says that it bids fair to become an important source of European employment. I am really anxious to assist in the development of a diamond cutting industry which shall become an avenue of permanent employment, and the criticism I offer is simply with that end in view. It must be self-evident that a diamond cutting industry can be of a permanent nature only if it so directed as to be able to cut and polish the average quality of diamonds produced in South Africa. It is perfectly evident that a 10 per cent, advantage through the saving of the export tax has the contrary result, and that a cutter will naturally concentrate rather on large size diamonds of high value per carat than on average production. The expense of cutting a diamond depends on its size and quality, and not on the value. For instance, it costs more per carat to polish small diamonds which may be worth only £5 per carat than it costs per carat to polish a 10 carat stone which may be worth £30 per carat or more. In the one case the advantage would be 10s. per carat and in the other £3 per carat or more. It is therefore not surprizing that as soon as the Government made diamonds from the State diggings available for diamond cutters, everyone of them would concentrate on the polishing of these diamonds, and no others. The figures quoted by the Minister are of particular interest in that connection. If one has a knowledge of the diamond trade, one can learn all sorts of things from these figures which would hardly be apparent to an ordinary individual. For instance, when the Minister tells us that as £2,450,000 of State diamonds have been sold during the financial year and that only £220,000 was received in export tax, which corresponds to £2,200,000 of diamonds exported, it follows that £230,000 of diamonds on which the export tax would have been £23,000 must have been sold in the Union for cuting, and taking the average price realized as the basis, one will find that roughly 19,200 carats were sold to diamond cutters in the Union during the last five months for a sum of £230,000, or, in other-words, that the Minister did forego £23,000 in export tax. It would be interesting for a moment to examine how much would have been spent in wages in polishing these diamonds in South Africa. I base my figures on the figures supplied by the manager of our diamond cutting factory about to be completed in Kimberley, and I find considering the diamonds supplied to cutters were of large size, that 100 men in five months could easily have cut the 20,000 carats. Now, assuming that the average wage of the 100 men was £50 per month, we arrive at a wage bill of £25,000! so that practically no more has been spent on wages in diamond cutting than the actual sum lost to the revenue in export tax. Hardly a satisfactory position! It is clear that diamond cutting is not being developed on sound or on permanent lines. If a permanent diamond cutting industry is to be established, a new system would have to be evolved which would graduate the benefits which accrue to cutters in this country. That is to say, instead of a flat 10 per cent, ad valorem benefit it must be a graduated scale so that the person cutting smaller or poorer quality diamonds gets more assistance than the person polishing the big size of extraordinarily good quality. This question is of the utmost importance, and should have the immediate attention of the Government because of the South Africans who have taken up and intend taking up diamond cutting as a permanent profession. If we continue on the present lines, no big industry can be established, and the apprentices will find the training they receive useless, as there will be no work for them and they will end in a cul-de-sac. Incidentally I should also like to mention that in the very pursuance of the policy enunciated by the Minister of protecting and stabilizing the diamond industry, closer collaboration should exist between the producing companies and the Government with regard to the method of supply of diamonds for, cutting in South Africa, so that the principle, of control of output and prices which has been preserved with such great efforts as far as “rough” is concerned, shall not be undermined by the system of supply to cutters. If this co-operation does exist, then I look, forward with every confidence to the brightest future for the diamond industry.

How far has de Beers, got with that cutting?

We hope to start in May. I would now like to deal with one aspect of the Minister’s policy which has already been the subject of attack and criticism, that is, that he has persistently underestimated his revenue. I will endeavour to show that this policy is really the outcome of the fact that early in his career as Minister of Finance, he changed the provision of the law which laid down that surpluses had to be used for debt redemption. In concluding, the Minister laid great emphasis on the fact that he had always sought to check expenditure involving extravagance wherever that was found in the administrative service of the country. He also referred with great pleasure to his regular and successive surpluses. He generally concluded from the surpluses that the position in the country was continuously improving. Now there is no doubt that a surplus revenue does reflect trade conditions to a certain extent, but obviously it does not depend so much on the state of trade as on the correctness of budgeting, which should take into account as far as practicable all factors likely to affect’ the revenue. Such correctness of budgeting is the first essential if any conclusions are to be drawn at all. That correctness has been conspicuously absent in the estimates of the Minister during the whole term of his office. In view of this it is interesting to recall that one of the most fundamental changes of the fiscal policy of the country which the Minister did introduce was the amendment by Act 50 of 1926 of the Financial Adjustment Act of 1919, and section 6 of the principal Act, No. 18 of 1911. The old provision was that any surplus as soon as ascertained, should be made available for loan redemption. The Minister changed this principle, and provided for a fixed sinking fund contribution of £650.000 per year, keeping any surpluses for revenue account, or in other words, at the Minister’s disposal. It is true that he is using £350,000 of his surplus to increase the Sinking Fund provision to £1.000,000, and that he transfers the rest of his surplus to Loan Account for financing new works, but why should not the whole have gone in the reduction of debt? Surely the expense which is saved in raising money is not a sufficient rason. If it were, so long as we continue to borrow, why should there be any debt redemption at all, and why not put the £650,000 and the £350.000 also to Loan Account for financing public works? The Minister knows quite well that it is quite a different thing to get the House to agree to raise money for capital expenditure on a considerable scale which is directly reproductive than when he can simply say, “we can afford this because it comes out of petty cash.” For instance, the scheme proposed of £1,000,000 for roads for the provinces, however excellent it may be, does not get the same full enquiry and minute examination in this honourable House it would get if the Minister came here for fresh borrowing powers for such a scheme. If extravagance is to be avoided, this full debate is most useful and the economies in capital which will finally result are by far greater than the expense of raising the new loan. The Minister knows this quite well. He admitted it at least twice in his speech. Dealing with the money coming from mining leases, bewaarplaatse, sale of crown lands, and the receipt from State mining from 1924-’29, which made a total of £10,400,000, he said: “they have a very important effect on our public debt. They have enabled the Government to devote the savings from the loans raised solely to capital works returning full interest on the money spent, and they have allowed schemes of development to be embarked upon which the Government might otherwise have hesitated to embark upon with borrowed money.” And again he said: “the accrual of these large amounts of free money enables us to contemplate with some equanimity capital expenditure on a considerable scale which is not directly reproductive.” I am fully convinced that the repeal of section 5 of Act 18 of 1911 is neither economic nor desirable from the point of view of Parliamentary control of the Treasury. The provision that surpluses of revenue over expenditure for the financial year should automatically go towards the redemption of debt, is a sound principle, never departed from in the United Kingdom, which has the safest system of finance. We see the same thing in regard to the repatriation of the Angola Boers—an admirable object, no doubt, to repatriate these people, but if the matter had been fully discussed some other part of the country might have been found better suited. [Time limit.]

Before dealing with the Budget, I should like to say with reference to the statement of the hon. member who has just spoken that the Chamber of Mines has not been considered in connection with the Mozambique agreement, that that does not apply to the Chamber of Mines only. There are other people who are very deply interested in that question, such as the trade unions, and particularly the South African Mine Workers’ Union, who are directly affected by the policy of the Mozambique agreement, and they were not consulted. The only point I want to make is that in the light of the policy of the Minister of Defence against the importation of native labour—I do not know whether he is the second in command, or whether he is in command of the Government—in the light of the policy enunciated by him, one is curious, to know what attitude he adopted in connection with this matter. I also want to make reference to what the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) told us last night in regard to the policy of the Government respecting banking and currency. So far the Government have done nothing in that direction. Without at present going into the merits of this, question, my complaint against the Government in this matter is based upon the fact that this is one of the questions upon which the Government was pledged. A large number of supporters of the Government and the Prime-Minister dealt with it definitely at Smithfield— pledged themselves at the last election to Statebanking—and the least we could expect was that there should be a thorough investigation into this question. In Great Britain, which is very much more conservative than South Africa you find Mr. McKenna, a former chancellor of the exchequer and one of the leading bankers, advocating strongly an investigation into the question of banking and currency. You also find men like Lord Melchett and others supporting an investigation into the same matter. Surely when you have men like these taking up that position, I cannot understand why the Government, a Government containing the Minister of Defence who pledged himself and his party, and who used it as a lever to get into the Ministry, I cannot understand why the matter has been so definitely neglected. I want to touch upon a small matter, in which I am personally interested, but which requires-little to be said about it. I refer to the question cost of naturalization. I speak as one who has assumed citizenship in South Africa by naturalization, and I say that although the amount involved is very small, it involves a distinct hardship upon quite a number of people. When the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and his Government altered the fee from 9s. to £11, the late Government incurred a great deal of odium—the Government has made a very substantial reduction— the amount is so small that the Government would be well advised to revert to the original position. In trance, during the last ten years, they have encouraged immigration, and during that period some 2,000,000people have come into France and have been encouraged to become Frenchmen by naturalization. We want people to come into South Africa and to become South Africans, and I believe that the Government, without any substantial expenditure, could do a great deal in that direction. Dealing with the Budget as a whole. I cannot say that I have been enamoured by the attitude of the South African party. We have heard criticisms about overestimating and not paying sufficient money in redemption of debt, but after listening to these criticisms I think anyone must have realized that the members of the Opposition are highly satisfied with the Budget, and I think that, had they been in office, they would not have made any arrangements very different from those which are being made by the Minister of Finance. I doubt whether they would have done very much in the direction of relieving the people. All we have heard is that the Minister is very fortunate, and that the Budget indicates that there is great prosperity in the country. But I notice that the Minister is not quite so sure about that, and that he seems to have a sense of uneasiness that this prosperity is not quite so evident, for he stated in dealing with Old Age Pensions—

These are the people who have to be dealt with under the Budget. I believe that many members of the Government are interested in the well-being of the bottom dog, and it is for them to see to what extent the Government is relieving those people of whom the Minister spoke with such uneasiness. We are told by Dr. Mitchell that 120,000 white people are living under conditions which are below the standard of a civilized native. Surely that is a very sad state of affairs, and it is no use saying in the face of that that we have a prosperous country. What we really have in South Africa is a coating of prosperity which is concealing the cruel poverty which is the lot of a very large portion of our population who are living under conditions such as those to which I have referred, and what we want to do is to get under that coating. But, instead of that, what has been done? The bulk of the surplus, £800,000, has been used by the Minister in the direction of continuing the 20 per cent, reduction on the amount payable in income tax. I admit that the well-to-do people will be satisfied with what the Minister has done. However much we have we are always satisfied when getting a little more. But this £800,000 will not do a single thing in relieving those tens of thousands of people who are not in receipt of a sufficient income to live according to a civilized standard of life. I would far rather see the Minister utilize this £800,000 in slightly increasing the pensions which are being paid to returned soldiers and Oude Stryders. They are not getting very much, and surely the country, with an overflowing Treasury, should have done something in improving the lot of those people. I would rather see him, also, apply a portion of this £800,000 in giving some relief to the civil servants. I say that knowing that the civil servants very seldom vote for the Labour party; they usually vote for the respectable party. I know that those civil servants have nothing to hope for from the South African party either, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) congratulated the Minister on not having done anything in this respect.

No he did not say that.

At any rate, he said that he agreed with the Minister in not having done anything in connection with the civil servants. He said that Mr. Burton had incurred great odium for having taken away the Graham scale. The present Minister of Finance will also incur odium through not restoring it. Mr. Burton took it away at a time when the national finances were in a bad way. The excuse given was that we could not afford to pay these salaries during a time of depression, and the reduction was made. In the 1924 election the civil servants were led to expect that some relief would be given to them, but now we find that with an overflowing Treasury nothing has been done in connection with the matter. It is an unfair method of taxing the civil servants. You must treat the civil servants in the same way as other citizens. If you require revenue, impose taxation which hits them as well as anybody else, but it is a wrong thing to cut down the wages and salaries of Government employees whilst at the same time taxing them as ordinary citizens. Has it ever dawned upon the Minister—I do not advocate it—that it would be a reasonable thing, in a period of financial stress, for the Government to go to the bondholders of South Africa and say, “Things are bad with us; you have got to reduce the rate of interest you are charging.” No, the bondholders are immune; but when it comes to the civil servants you come along and impose double taxation, which is a pernicious. thing in principle. That is where the Government will incur odium, not merely from the civil servants, but from the public generally. Then take the case of the old age pensioners of South Africa. It is not a credit to South Africa to pay the old people the miserable £30 a year which we are giving them, and to tell them, if they have a little income, that no old age pensioner shall get more than £50 a year. I do not think that the old age pensioner or the returned soldier are living beyond their means. I do not think they would be living in luxury if the Minister had utilized part of that huge surplus in seeing that these people get £1 a week without reduction. Further, when you give an old age pension it should not be given as a charity, but as a right. I want to see all sections of the people placed in the same position, knowing that when one has done service and has come to an age when one can no longer do it, one will get the pension as a right and not as charity.

Where is the money coming from?

It is only a question of getting a little more wealth from those who can afford to give it. I think, also, that something more should have been done to reduce unemployment, and I would like to know what has happened to the report on insurance against unemployment. I want to know what the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is doing to push the Government to provide for this. I put forward these suggestions as a better method of dealing with the surplus, and I maintain that if they were adopted it would benefit the community as a whole. All those people who would then get something from this £800,000 would, by their expenditure on necessaries, benefit the agricultural community, the commercial community and the industrial community, because of the general standard of life being raised. I now wish to touch upon the question of the cost of living. It is very much better for the people of any country to pay a little more for the necessaries of life and to have work out of which they can make those payments than to be unemployed, but we have to see—and I say it as a convinced protectionist—that customs duties shall be imposed only to secure the development of industries in South Africa. I have been opposed to a tariff being utilized simply in order to obtain revenue, for if you do that you increase unnecessarily the cost of living. The time has arrived when the Minister could do very much more than he has done to reduce the cost of living. It is true that since 1924 there has been no rise in the cost of living, but in 1924 the tendency was for the cost of living to come down. But our general tariff policy has checked that tendency and as a result of applying a great deal of the £8,000,000 collected through the customs to ordinary revenue, the people of South Africa are paying more for the necessaries of life than is essential. I will mention one item, not that I wish to revive the passions which have been aroused over the question of Imperial preference. Long before I was thrown out of the Government side of the House, I stated that as far as Imperial preference is concerned, unless the rebate which has been taken off has the effect of developing industries in South Africa, it is a mistaken policy to reduce the Imerial preference, because not only does South Africa not benefit by the establishment of new industries, but the difference in the rebate—a difference which the consumer has to pay—increases the cost of living. When the Imperial preference was reduced from £1,000,000 to £400,000 without our industries being developed, the consumer was specially taxed to the extent of about £600,000 per annum. In the United States of America, which is an out and out protectionist country, there is a strenuous agitation on foot to raise the duty on certain commodities, not against Great Britain, but against Germany and Checho Slovakia, where the wage standard is so low that America, notwithstanding its mass production methods, cannot compete with these countries. The time has arrived for a thorough investigation to be made to see to what extent the customs duties result in the development of industries, and to what extent it is merely used as a taxing machine, and results in further taxing the consumer. Such an investigation will probable show that many material reductions could be made in the tariff. There is another direction in which the Minister could have done a great deal to reduce the cost of living—that is by fixing prices. One is no longer nervous about mentioning the fixing of prices, because the Minister of Finance has accepted the principle in connection with the sugar industry. If it is possible to fix the price of sugar, there is no reason why the Minister should not do the same in other directions, and particularly in the case of industries which are protected through the customs. Private enterprise has found that it can fix prices; in the Transvaal, the coal ring has fixed prices. The price of butter has also been fixed by a ring. I have been informed by the Board of Trade and Industries that the matter is being investigated, but I have yet to learn that anything is being done. In spite of the prices fixed by the Minister, the sugar industry has stated that the prices are minimum ones, and the industry threatens to refuse supplies to retailers selling below the fixed prices. If private enterprise can fix prices in its own interests, surely the Government can do the same in the interests of the community. In view of the amount of poverty in the Union, I wish to draw attention to the urgent necessity for widening the avenues of employment for white people. We have always said that it is right to make arrangements so that certain industries should be set aside for white labour, and other industries for native labour. The Economic Commission, on page 180 of its report, definitely stated that if you want to do anything in the creation of employment for white men, it should be done by direct legislation. The Government endeavoured to do this through the Colour Bar Act, which is a dead letter and the colour bar policy is a pious platitude which has never been enforced. The Minister of Labour only recently, as a result of pressure, conscious or unconscious, direct or indirect, brought to bear by his department, has brought about a state of affairs under which white waiters and waitresses in Natal have been forced to join the Indian trade union. In Johannesburg the white waiters have been forced into accepting Indians into their union. The Mineworkers’ Union also, I believe, as a result of the Minister’s attitude has now had to throw its doors open to coloured and natives. Also the Typographical Union. I do not see how that union can object to having Indians to sit alongside its white members in view of the record of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in sitting with Indians on the directorate of a company. Incidentally we are still waiting for the fulfilment of the heroic challenge which he made. The Government in the last three or four years have in the light of what I have just said shown themselves in favour not of a white South Africa, but of a mixed South Africa. The colour bar is finished; it is dead, and there is only one remedy to apply and that is, to press for a policy of a national minimum wage based on the standard on which white people can live. We have put forward the proposal that it should be 10s. a day. No, the farmers are not ready for it! In a speech the Prime Minister seemed to regard £1 a day demanded by the people of Namaqualand as a kind of moral degeneration, but surely 10s. a day is not moral degeneration, I am curious to know what is being done in connection with that matter. Are our friends on the other side who were taken completely under the wings of the Government this morning doing anything to further this policy or 10s. a day? I doubt it, because the “Burger,” the official organ of the Government, stated that one of the reasons they had to break with the Labour party was because we were advocating this terrible policy of 10s. a day. Therefore I doubt very much that the Minister of Defence and his supporters have done anything. But lie is not worrying. He is very happy about the position in which he has just been placed. This is simply a Pyrrhic victory for them which will be very evanescent. They remind one of an incident in history. In the days of George III there were men in Parliament who were known as “king’s men.” They were put in as pawns to do what they were told by ministers. The manifesto that was issued by the Prime Minister this morning—the Prime Minister is becoming an adept at issuing manifestos —has simply converted the Minister of Defence and his group into king’s men. They are simply there to do what they are told. They are placed there. But I will say to them that people who, for the sake of retaining place or pelf, desert their friends, break “their pledges and abandon their principles, those people have always through history had thundered down to them the words: “What shall it profit a man if he gain the world, and lose his soul?”

I should like to support the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), and I want to ask the Minister of Finance if, when he made up his Budget, he had any consideration whatever for the lower-paid people of this country, or whether he considered only the middle class of this country and those who are fortunate enough to possess wealth. I looked up the income tax figures of this country and I found that the number of people who pay income tax-on over £500 a year amounted to only 43,000. The whole of the money given away by the Minister out of his surplus has been given to these 43,000 people and the rest of these people, 6,000,000, have not got a penny. We of the Labour party do not agree that a Budget of that sort is a satisfactory budget for the people of this country and particularly the people we represent. I wonder how the members who once represented the Labour party in the Cabinet reconcile with their consciences the Budget delivered by the Minister. I want to refer to the manifesto issued by the Prime Minister this morning, and I want to say that the bulk of that manifesto is absolutely untrue and it is within the knowledge of the Prime Minister and the majority of his colleagues in the Cabinet that most of the statements are untrue. After saying he has come to a satisfactory agreement with what he calls “the Creswellites” the Prime Minister makes the following statement—

I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, but I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state a single specific occasion on which either the Prime Minister or himself has made any attempt whatever to come to terms with the National Council of the Labour party. Last week the Minister of Agriculture and his colleague the Minister of Lands approached the Labour party in this hon. House and asked them to come to certain terms for an election agreement, and these terms were to the effect that the members of the National Council would support Nationalist party candidates in constituencies against the South African party, but they would not oppose the Creswellite section—with the exception of one seat which was Pretoria (West). That is the seat of which the holder at present is my colleague (Mr. Hay)—it is held by a man who is held in very high respect by members of the South African Labour party. That seat was denied to us by members of the Nationalist party who wanted to make that agreement. Our Council met, and, after consideration, refused to accept that agreement, if Pretoria (West) was excepted. I want to know why they insisted on handing over Pretoria (West) to the Nationalist party. If it is the case, and I hold it is, that there are more Nationalists on the roll in Pretoria (West) than Labour voters, why do they not apply that principle to Brakpan and Germiston? As the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Watersont) knows, there are more Nationalist voters in proportion to the total number there than at Pretoria (West).

Go on!

I will go on. If it had not been for these Nationalist voters, the hon. member would not have been here. This manifesto is not true. We are still prepared to support the Nationalist party against the South African party, where there is a straight fight. We do not like the Nationalist party, but frankly, we do not like the South African party any better. Our friends in the South African party know that, and prefer an open enemy. I noticed in “Die Burger” this morning, the official organ of the Nationalist party and the Minister of the Interior, that it was our intention to support the South African party. Is that the reason why in every constituency we are opposed by the South African party, who are making every effort to see that none of us is returned to Parliament? Pretoria (West) is the reason why this breach has occurred. Let me say to the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister that it was not at the wish of the Transvaal Nationalist party, but against their wish.

Not true.

Let the Minister of Agriculture consult his colleagues from the Transvaal in caucus. Had we suffered from the inferiority complex, and given up Pretoria (West) there would have been no breach. We have nothing to gain by the truckling and domineering methods of some members of the Nationalist party. One of the reasons used on the platforms of this country to excuse the expulsion from the fold of those members of the Labour party who sit here on these benches is that we are socialists and bolsheviks. That has already been used by the Minister of the Interior. In the new Afrikaans dictionary, prepared under the direction of the Minister of the Interior, I hope a suitable definition of “socialism” and “bolshevism” will be included, because the only definition we found from him is an interesting one. It is contained in a pamphlet “Socialism; a lecture delivered at the Graaff Reinet Literary Society,” by Dr. D. F. Malan. It was printed by the “Graaff Reinet Advertiser” in 1913. I am sure this hon. House will be interested in a few of the sentiments which actuate socialists. This was at Graaff Reinet in 1913, before the Minister “saw the light”—

These sentiments are the reason why we are thrown out of the ranks. Because we accept these things and we hold to them, we are banned by bell, book and candle. I was under the impression that some of my ex-colleagues, who are retained in the fold, were also socialists. I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior to make a close investigation regarding the Minister of Labour.

A better man than you will ever be.

I have a pamphlet here, written by the Minister of Labour in 1922, on the subject of profiteering, and I would like to compare how the sentiments he expressed then compare with those he expresses to-day. Speaking about the war, the Minister of Labour said that the economic war was being waged more fiercely than ever, that if anything the new era was proving worse than the old, that the capitalist system stood naked and unashamed, and that there was no need for socialists to condemn it. What I want to know is that if we, on this side of the House, are expelled in a public manifesto for being socialists, communists and the like, what is to be done with the author of this little pamphlet? Has he given up the sentiments he formerly preached so effectively? In 1920 the Minister of Labour who was then the hon. member for Greyville and the national organizer of the Labour party, wrote another pamphlet, in which he referred to “Smuts, Hertzog, Smartt and Co.” On page 2 he refers to the fact that at Bloemfontein the Nationalist party and the South African party endeavoured to unite, and that the only difference was the republican issue. He also stated that the strongest argument on both sides was that they should combine to combat the growing forces of labour. I want to know if he agrees with the same view to-day. In the same pamphlet he went on to say that there was no difference between the two parties; in other words bread and butter politics. Is he prepared to stand by these sentiments again, and does he take the responsibility which lies upon him if he makes no protest against the untruthful manifesto that has just been issued? Let me get back to the Budget. I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance to do something in connection with the medical appeal boards. In that regard I want to quote the case of a returned soldier who was admitted to hospital as the result of his military service, and who was found, upon medical evidence, to be entitled to a pension. He went into hospital, and is to-day permanently unfit and a criple for life. The time came when he had to be re-boarded, and he had to go to Pretoria. There the Medical Board told him that the disease from which he was suffering was not attributable to his war service, and he had no pension whatever. That man has a wife and two children starving and living upon charity, while he is a crippled inmate of Addington Hospital. Medical men who attended him in Durban, and who said that he was suffering from the same disease as that for which he was awarded a pension, were never permitted to give evidence. It appears to me, and many others, that the intention of the medical boards is to cut down as much as they possibly can, and that where there is any question of doubt they invariably give the benefit of that doubt to the Government. The Minister had a lot of money, and I want to ask him to look after these people through the medical boards, and give the benefit of any doubt that may arise to the returned soldier. We are asked for a lot of money in this budget, and I say that this money is not being wisely spent. Look at the housing conditions of the common people, crowded together, bringing up children in an atmosphere where it is impossible to rear good citizens. We want more houses, and I want to ask the Minister why he could not have devoted one of the £3,000,000 to housing. We have money for housing to-day, but the bulk of the municipalities will not use it. My own town has spent more on housing than any other town, I believe, in South Africa, and still they have only touched the fringe of the question. There are Government employees living in slums, which are no credit to the Government. This is not a budget which I approve of. I know it is a budget the South African Party approve of; they have said so. Speaking from a Labour party point of view, I say that the budget has been a failure, because a glorious opportunity of lifting up the people who need uplifting has been lost.

We have heard a great deal about the luck of the Minister of Finance, until we have almost come to believe that he is lucky. I think, however, that the strictures which have been offered from this quarter of the House to-day have somewhat discounted this belief. The criticism of the budget which came from the South African Party betrays the origin of that party’s envy. Had the South African Party been in office under the same circumstances as the Minister of Finance, they would have produced just the same budget. The Minister had the good luck to be in office, and the South African party had the bad luck to be out of office. I must endorse what my colleagues have said with regard to the interests of those people who have contributed, more than any other section of the community, to the prosperity which has made this budget possible. The interests of those people appear to have been overlooked. One factor, which is not one of luck, has not been referred to during this debate. That is that no industrial trouble has been known during the Government’s period of office. I have not noticed any recognition of that important factor on the part of the Minister. But I noticed that the Minister was inclined to be peeved when the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) referred to the fact that the controllers of the mining industry were not consulted when the Ministry was negotiating the Mozambique Convention. The Minister said that the Government got very little thanks for what they had done. Surely the Minister should expect criticism from his opponents. If he wants to get all the opinions of the various political parties in this country, he should welcome criticism, and not look upon it as hostility, even when it comes from the Opposition. Members are sent here expressly to offer opinions. I have noticed that when there has been any disposition by members of the Labour party to offer any criticism on anything that the Minister brings forward, he is inclined to resent that criticism more if it comes from us than if it comes from the South African party. That seems to me a very narrow-minded way in which to treat either opponents or allies. In this budget, which owes its surplus more to industrial peace and stability than to anything else, the Minister has entirely failed to do anything for those people to whom it is primarily due. Those people will naturally look for some recognition. I am particularly interested in the mining wage earners, and I would like to inform the Minister and the Minister of Labour also, that the conditions of the underground workers have not improved one little bit; as a matter of fact, the conditions are not as good as they were when the Government went into office. Their wages and working conditions are gradually going downwards, and I should say that that is due mostly to one cause, and that is, an absence of understanding. Here I am going to say something which will be considered almost revolutionary by the erstwhile Labour members of the Cabinet. I say that the Government should have been advised by the Labour members of the Cabinet, particularly by the Minister of Defence, that not only the shareholders of the industry but the workers in that industry would be vitally affected by the terms of the Mozambique Convention. It seems to me that the Government was proceeding on the old tradition they inherited from their days in Opposition of working to the prejudice of the industry, because of the belief that that industry was controlling the political party which was opposed to them, or that that political party was acting through the controllers of the industry. I think the Government did, at that time, treat the industry in a rather unwarranted politically hostile manner. The Government would have been well advised if they had had a comprehensive survey of the position. This is a national industry. Last session I raised the point and advised the Prime Minister to set up a consultative body upon which would be represented the controllers of the mines, the mine-workers and the commercial community affected. The Prime Minister listened, and it appeared that the suggestion was not unwelcome to him. But that was the last we heard of it. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) said the gold mines were consulted after the basis of the Mozambique Convention had been laid down, but that is an entirely different matter from taking the views of all the parties primarily interested and using them for guidance. The Prime Minister seems to resent the suggestion that anyone should have an opinion contrary to that of the people directly concerned with the task of negotiating, but the people best fitted to give advice on these matters are those to whom they are of vital interest and who, by experience, have the widest knowledge concerning them. I am speaking of the wage earners on the Rand, and in this matter I am speaking for myself personally, when I say that unless the Minister of Defence has the common honesty to go to the people and tell them he is prepared to close down 20 gold mines in pursuance of his insane white labour policy, he is sailing under false colours. If the Government is following his advice, it is being very badly advised. The constitution of the body to which we on these benches belong lays down the prohibition of the importation of contract labour, whether European or coloured. That article and no other, explains the incursion of the Minister of Defence into the Labour party After the Boer war, the Minister of Defence fell out with his employers over the employment of white men in the mines. Work in the mines was to be their reward for military service. We will say this for him that at that time very little was known about the ravages of phthisis among Europeans, and it might have been quite a laudable aim at that time that we should try to employ our own white population on underground work. I will say this for the man who has had courage enough to wreck his party, that he should have courage enough also to admit his mistake. I challenge him to carry through as determinedly in the Cabinet his policy of white labour underground and the prohibition of the importation of contract labour as he is carrying through his old policy of wrecking his party. I want to see him go to the white workers of the rand and say, “I advocate the rapid elimination of the natives and their replacement by whites.” I also want to hear what the white workers will say to him. One man dies every day from miner’s phthisis and the goldmining industry is paying out something like £800,000 per annum in compensation tor miner’s phthisis. That is the toll and the price of wastage among the pick of your white population—a man a day dies in the prime of life. To continue on those lines without taking any steps to see in what way the industry can be rearranged and our available labour applied intelligently to the exploitation of the assets which Nature has endowed South Africa with—to carry on in that haphazard way of drift is, if not a deliberate evasion of duty by the Government, a most stupid oversight. So far as I know, when this convention came up for review, no invitation was issued to the workers of the Witwatersrand to give their views; but. I am perfectly sure that had that invitation been given, it would have been gladly accepted. I am also sure that the workers would have been the first to assist the Government to maintain that stability by which you have benefited in the last five years. But they know perfectly well it is an impracticable proposition to replace native workers in the mines with white workers. It is still quite possible, (if the Government will only face the position, and deal with it in a businesslike way) it is still possible to reconcile all these apparently different factors and elements obtaining in the mining industry. If you had your employers round the table with your white workers, and your natives represented also, conferring with the Government, I believe you could arrive at a perfectly sane and business-like arrangement which would confer mutual benefit and promote understanding. The white labour force on the mines to-day is not in any way redundant, but the Government, by working amicably with the industry and with the workers could initiate a policy, not of pin-pricking, or harassing in matters of no concern to white workers, but a policy of co-operation in which the white workers and the controllers of the industry could work together to get the best results. The white worker underground to-day is a supervisor, The mining regulations pretend he is not, but he is in fact a supervisor, and what is necessary is that it should be mutually agreed that he is a supervisor, and he should have supervisors’ conditions with regard to hours of work, holidays, pay, etc. You have to-day a select committee sitting on miners’ phthisis. What is the conclusion they come to in every case that arises? A good Act was passed in 1925. It removed many anomalies and gave relief to thousands of people, but it did not go one inch towards solving the root problem of this scourge. It is insoluble. If the Minister of Mines and Industries, with the knowledge he now has, does not take definite steps, not only to try and ameliorate it but to absolutely prevent and eliminate it, he is neglecting his obvious duty to the people of this country. I believe it can be done.

Do you want to take all the Europeans out of the mines?

I do not know what the hon. member says, but I know it is not of any consequence.

Do you want to take all Europeans out of the mines; do you understand that? You want all natives underground.

I thought my voice carried fairly well. I will say it again, and say plainly, that those Europeans who are working underground are, in fact, supervisors, and that fact should be recognised; the conditions under which they work should be the conditions of supervisors. I do not know whether that is clear to the hon. member’s intelligence.

It is as clear as mud.

That will simply mean that instead of having suspicion always permeating the minds of the Government that the mining industry is one that must of necessity be antagonistic to the Government, so long as it is a Nationalist Government, the mining industry, after all, will be concerned with the prosecution of its own business, and it does not matter to it whether it is a South African party or a Nationalist party Government which is in power, or, for that matter, a Labour party government if of the complexion of Labour members over there. But what we are advocating, and I am sure the Minister of Finance will confirm what I say, is that it is very much to the advantage of the state that we keep our industries going on without interruption, which is unnecessary. Provided the present Government comes back here, I wish to utter a word of warning, it is not going to enjoy another five years of uninterrupted industry on the Witwatersrand if nothing more is done than has been done—unless something substantial is done for the mine workers of the Witwatersrand. There has been a period of goodwill, and they have given the Government a chance, but they will not be overlooked and their patience is not inexhaustible. Apropos the criticisms of the Budget by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Patrick Duncan), I have been puzzled to know in what direction the cost of living has been raised by the protective policy of the present Government, and I find on investigation that the index figures published by the Census Department do not substantiate the contention that there has been an increase in the cost of living. In 1924 (compared with 1910) the index figure for food, fuel, light and rent was 1.340, and in January of this year, 1.333; and if we take food, fuel, light, rent and sundries, the index figure in 1924 was 1.453 and now it is 1.428, so it is practically stationary. There is in fact a slight reduction. We, on these benches at any rate, are ardent supporters of a policy of protection. I see the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) begs to differ very emphatically, but with the exception of a few articles which are essential for the poorest classes of this country, such as the natives working on the mines, I say that this policy of protection should be continued. It is building up industries and creating employment. While there is a substantial degree of co-operation between the different classes of wage earners and of salary earners, and politics is merely a ground on which you may differ in theory without bitter antagonisms, the country will go ahead in any case. South Africa is fool proof. I do not believe that the worst of Governments can do more than retard our progress, and I do believe that the best government possible can make this one of the best countries in the world, and that the sooner all parties get down to the tin tacks of bread and butter politics, the better. The Minister of Labour, when he was a labour man, was quite correct when he said that it is bread and butter that counts, and if the leaders of our political parties can eliminate those differences which have no reference to the thing that matters, namely, the living conditions of the people, and endeavour to find out where they do generally differ on matters of real importance, if we can get them to do that, then I think the country can go ahead still faster than it has in the last five years. I do not wish to contribute anything to the differences or schisms which are based upon other than economic facts. I think all issues of race, language, patriotism, and so forth has already been sufficiently dealt with. I think that the old population is satisfied that it does control the destiny of this country, and I do not think they are living under any sense of injustice or domination from overseas. Neither do I think that what is called “ the English-speaking population ” have any outstanding grievances or differences on these lines, but there are great differences of view in regard to how we are best going to develop our country. Speaking as a Labourite and a socialist, I associate myself with the Minister of the Interior and support all he says, when he preached the gospel of socialism, I believe he was preaching the true gospel. Our friendliness to the Government seems to be a matter of doubt. In order to give proof of it I propose that the Minister join our party where it is apparent that he rightly belongs, and, in the interests of reciprocity, we will make an exchange, we will give you the three so-called Labour ministers. We will take for our three worst socialist brains your one best socialist brain. It might not be quite fair—to the Government, but it would be an act of magnaminity to their friends.