I move—

In this Bill the House is asked to approve of the expenditure of a further sum of two and a half million pounds on Revenue Account and a comparatively small sum on the Defence Endowment Account. When the House adjourned last it had granted supply for four months of the present financial year. The four months will expire at the end of the present month and the supply which was granted on Revenue Account will also be practically exhausted at the end of the month. We still have sufficient supply on Loan Account and the House is accordingly not asked to sanction an additional amount for loan expenditure. Hon. members will see that the amount now asked for will suffice for only another month, that is, until the end of August. It is hoped that by that time the House will have passed the main Appropriation Bill and will have agreed to the estimates which I laid on the Table yesterday and which the House will have an opportunity of discussing very shortly. Hon. members will see that a clause is added to this Bill in regard to the appropriation from the Defence Endowment Account. It has not been customary in the past to make special provision in the Part Appropriation Bill but, as the result of certain representations from the Auditor-General during the recess, it has been decided to ask the House to make this special appropriation. Expenditure from this account is at present covered by Governor-General’s warrant. The main estimates have been tabled and there is a motion for the House to go into Committee on Friday and members will then have an opportunity of reviewing the whole of the Government’s proposals under that motion and I therefore hope this little Bill will have an easy passage. The same, I hope, will apply to my proposals in regard to the main Estimates as, I am sure, members all agree we should expedite the work as much as possible so that the House will not need to come back again after the end of August when the supply now asked for will be exhausted. Of course I might mention that should it appear during the course of the discussions that hon. members are anxious to come back, it will be necessary for me to come to the House again to ask for a further supply.

I quite appreciate the Minister’s request for an easy passage. I notice that most Governments, with a comfortable majority behind them, ask for an easy passage. We are not here to obstruct or to make the passage difficult, but we are here to give fair and full discussion to the affairs of the country. We have had all sorts of terrible things already put before us—all night sittings, the prospect of having to come back again in September or October, if we do not keep quiet; and we had the most surprising statement of all made yesterday by the Prime Minister, that the affairs of the country had received full discussion during the late general election. Well, that shows the Prime Minister in a new light—that of a supreme political humorist. Anybody who went through the last general election—that orgy of scare propaganda and misrepresentation of facts—and who says that the affairs of the country had a full and fair discussion, must he a humorist.

Why did you not state the facts?

We recognize that victory obtained by these means is the first step on the road to defeat.

Do not prophesy.

I am not prophesying, but stating a fact. We are not here to talk for the sake of talking; we recognize that this session is one called to deal mainly with financial matters, that the Minister has to get his Estimates through, and they should be got through as soon as possible, because half the year for which they are drawn up has already gone by. With regard to coming back later on, we think that if the country requires it we are quite prepared to do so. It is desirable, not only for the convenience of hon. members, but for the greater interest of the country itself, to avoid another session; but, after all, hon. members must remember that we have come back after a general election, and we have many new hon. members, who naturally want to express their opinions and those of then constituents, and we have to remember, above all, that every opportunity on the part of private hon. members to express their views has been taken away, except to express them on financial Bills; therefore the Minister must expect a certain amount of discussion and criticism. He pointed out quite fairly that there is to be another opportunity of discussing the financial situation on Friday, on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. As far as I am concerned, I propose to limit what I have to say to the opportunity we have when the discussion of the Budget comes before the House.

I feel a certain amount of difficulty, as one of the new members of this hon. House, in assenting to the invitation of the Minister simply to vote for this part appropriation. I am rising in the hope that the Minister will give this House certain information which I think it is necessary it should have. I confess that before I became a member of this House, my interest in the Budget and the estimates was confined to the small share of a taxpayer. It seems to me that it is right and proper that we shall have an inquiry whether we are in a position to pay the sum of money which we are asked to appropriate. Two and a half millions is a small sum when you say the words quickly, but a globular sum of no mean magnitude to South Africa, and one cannot be blind to the fact that this vote is only a portion of the estimates, which run into an annual sum of thirty millions sterling. One cannot be blind also to the fact that South Africa has a national debt, as I understand, of £243,500,000. In the absence of information from the Minister how South Africa can pay for these Estimates, I feel justified in asking for further information. Before one spends the money, it is right and proper to see where the money comes from, and to see whether it is right, proper and prudent whether that amount should be spent. In my innocence I suggest that the information is fundamental, and of fundamental importance. I am confident that the public of South Africa has great searchings of heart whether the expenditure should be on a scale such as is proposed by the Government. There should be an inquiry into our national income, and also into the effects of the expenditure on our national income. I have searched, as far as time will allow me, in the rather indigestible literature placed in our lockers, as to the information what our national income is, and to see what proportion the amount budgeted for bears on our income, but I did not find anything that throws much light on that subject. What are the facts of the situation? Our expenditure has been growing very largely and our national debt has been growing, but the white population has increased at a very slow and disappointing rate. Since the great war closed other vast areas, in South America particularly, have filled up with immigrants of a by no means indigent character, and they have produced wealth to an extent unparalleled in that vast continent. Why is it that South Africa has not had immigration on a similar scale? It has nothing to do with our climate or the quality of our population. Why is it that they have not come here? I suggest that the one reason will be found in the very extraordinary and unjustifiable extent of our public expenditure, which correspondingly cramps private enterprise and corporate enterprise, and hits very hardly the poorer immigrant who comes here unprovided with capital. Our national income is based mainly upon minerals and upon sheep, and it has not shown that resilience which would justify an enormous expenditure. I suggest, therefore, that before it is justifiable to vote for a measure of this kind we should have some sort of grasp of what the national income is. I tried to extract some figures for the purpose of arriving at this conclusion. They are not given in any returns. I do not think that even a private calculation brought up-to-date upon this matter could be regarded as amiss. The problem is, what is the national income? It is clear, I think, that a nation lives upon what it produces, and it is only out of what it produces that it can pay taxes. South Africa is not a creditor country, and we may, I think, rule out the idea of any wealth coming to South Africa from investments oversea. We are therefore confined to a consideration of what is the actual production in South Africa itself. I think we may consider production under three or four heads, namely mineral, agricultural and pastoral, industrial, and the small one of fisheries. The actual figure which is given for our total agricultural production is, I find in the latest blue book, given to us in two different ways, a figure for the farm value of produce and a figure for the wholesale value. There is a great discrepancy between them. The farm value is given at £57,000,000 and the wholesale value at £70,000,000, the difference being accounted for, I presume, in the value leaving the farm and the value actually leaving the market. I think we can take the larger figure of £70,000,000 as being the proper basis. From that you have to deduct what goes towards it in the way of South African products. You have to avoid the danger of duplicating your income or of quadruplicating it by taking account of several things several times over. I calculate that we have only some £67,000,000 of national income derived from agricultural produce. With regard to manufacturing industries, we have a total figure given in the blue books of some £97,000,000, but the cost of that is largely made up by the consumption of South African produce and of imported produce, which has to be deducted. Take off those two figures and you arrive at £47,500,000 only as being the increased value put on to our produce by being handled and worked. You have to deduct from that the cost of fuel, light and power some £4,500,000, and to deduct what has been turned out in mine workshops, and is therefore calculated in the mineral production. The net result is a figure of £45,000,000. The mineral production is £61,000,000 given in the blue books, and deducting from that South African products used in winning it you get a net figure of £45.000.000. You have fisheries at about £1.000,000 or £1.250.000, and you have a total of about £155,000,000. Out of that you have to pay the dividends which have been earned on all your working, mining and industrial, your profits derived from capital overseas and the interest on your debt. I calculate those at about £15.000,000. That will give you £138,000,000 as the national income. That is the amount which has got to sustain every man, woman and child, white, black and coloured, in the Union of South Africa; it is from that they have to derive their sustenance, make their savings and pay their taxation. Let us take that a little further and see what the actual amount is which remains to the white population. I have not calculated the incomes of the natives, but a calculation was made by a learned professor some years ago and he gave it at £30,000,000. That gives a figure of £108,000,000 as the sum from which the white population of South Africa has got to live and save and pay its taxation. A budget which runs to £30.000,000 out of a national income of £138,000,000, is a startling one. It comes to some 22 per cent. of the national income. It would show that the income of the white population, per head, is little more than £60 per annum. The incidence of this taxation falls very heavily in two directions. First of all it falls very heavily upon the poor, and we have a very large number of poor people in South Africa. South Africa is a poor country, and not a rich one, and the agricultural and pastoral population are not a rich portion of it. Look at their income tax returns, and you will find that made abundantly clear. The existence of this taxation has fallen very heavily upon the agricultural population as well as the towns. It is quite an erroneous supposition that the agriculturists have not been paying their share of the taxation I have enumerated. But is it fair to ask that under these conditions more than 22 per cent. of the total national revenue is being devoted to the expenses of Government. Of course this is not merely for the working of Government in the sense of maintaining law and order, but covers education, and the maintenance of public services of great utility, but the question is what is left behind of the money out of national revenue and interest on savings out of which your future industries have to be built up. I am free to admit that I expect a large measure of criticism in the making of estimates, but surely the Census Department could assist in making up for this House an estimate of how much money we could afford to give, and on them our estimates could be based. If something on these lines could be done it might lead to a very radical change in public expenditure to the great advantage of the country. Before voting for this I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance to place further information at the disposal of this House, which may perhaps lead him in the future to consider the modifications of the proposals he has made.

Before the House votes on this Bill, put before it by the hon. Minister of Finance, I should like to draw attention to certain matters affecting disabled soldiers and the dependents of deceased soldiers in this country, not merely those who took part in the great war a few years back, but others who took part in previous wars in this country, including the war of 1899 to 1902: men of the republican forces as well as the British forces who took part in that war. I can say that, as a member of one of the two organisations who have devoted themselves to the cause of ex-soldiers and the dependents of the deceased men, I am aware that the hon. Minister has met representations in regard to these in a fair and reasonable manner. He has met them very fairly and very reasonably in questions arising out of the administration of the Pensions Act, and in so doing has removed a number of hardships and grievances. But there are a number of other hardships which still exist and which do not arise from mere matters of administration, and it is to some of these that I venture to call the attention of the House in the hope that they will receive the treatment which they merit. Those of us who live in the large towns have better opportunities of seeing and judging of these hardships than many in the country. But, nevertheless, there is a feeling not only in the towns but throughout the country that the cause of the ex-service men and their dependents is not receiving the treatment it deserves. I had hoped to have the opportunity of moving for the appointment of a select committee, so that it might be possible to put before this House, through the proper channel, evidence to show what these grievances and hardships are. The Act provides for pensions on two alternative scales. A man is assessed according to disability, and he may be awarded a pension on a fixed scale according to the extent of his disability; this is known as the flat rate of pension. If a disabled man can prove that the pension he receives on that basis does not bring him up to the level of his pre-war earnings, he may apply to come under the alternative scale of pensions, always provided that he can prove what his pre-war earnings were. Under the flat rate the maximum pension for 100 per cent. disability is £2 per week, but under the alternative system the maximum is £6 per week. If a man is 50 per cent. disabled he may get £1 a week under the flat rate and a proportionate amount under the alternative scale. The first of the grievances a number of ex-service men feel is, that, in many cases, it is impossible for them to prove what their pre-war earnings were; for instance, a man’s employer may have died or the man himself might have owned a one-man business and during the years he was fighting for his country his books may have been lost. I have a case in mind of a widow who applied for a widow’s pension; her husband had a small one-man business and used to make approximately £300 a year. Unfortunately his books have disappeared, and the widow is, therefore, restricted to the flat rate of widow’s pension—£65 per annum. The result is that where a man is unable to prove his pre-war earnings or a widow is unable to prove what her deceased husband’s earnings were, they are condemned to live on an allowance which is utterly inadequate to keep them in a respectable condition of life. A man who has lost a leg or an arm is ranked as 50 per cent. disabled, and under the flat rate he receives only £1 per week, although he may be as completely prevented from earning his living as a man who is 100 per cent. disabled. Out of 1,280 war widows in this country, 737 are drawing pensions at the flat rate. In order that a widow may qualify for the higher rate of pension, she has to show that her husband’s pre-war earnings were from £136 per annum upwards. Unfortunately, more than half the widows have been unable to produce the necessary proof. It is impossible to conceive, however, that more than half the men who lost their lives in the great war and left widows can have earned less than £136 per year; they would not have been married if they had been earning less than that. I submit that the flat rate for widows and disabled men is inadequate, and should be raised very considerably. I submit that where a man is disabled to the extent of 50 per cent. or more, he should not be restricted to a flat rate based on the £104 per annum scale, when he cannot prove any pre-war earnings. When a man is 50 per cent. or more disabled he should be treated more liberally than he has been in the past; his pre-war earnings should be presumed to be £6 a week, so that he may qualify for a more liberal pension on the alternative scale. There is another hardship which is felt by a very large number of ex-soldiers. During the great war more particularly, a number of lads went to the front practically fresh from school. Many of them, indeed, ran away from school in order to fight, and numbers of others enlisted before they had reached their full wage-earning capacity. Hundreds of them have been disabled. Some of them may be able to prove the amount of their pre-war earnings, but they cannot prove up to the full rate, because they volunteered when they were too young to have reached their full earning capacity. That earning capacity should be taken as being at the rate of £6 per week. As it is, they are condemned for the rest of their lives to draw a pension under a rate which they would have far exceeded if they had not participated in the war. More particularly in regard to the case of young fellows who went straight from school to the trenches we may, under the Pensions Act, conceivably have such cases as these. There may be two brothers—one aged 27 and drawing £300 a year, but the other of equal standing and just as good a man potentially as the former, leaving school to defend his country at the age of 17 or 18. They may both have a 100 per cent. disability. The elder brother, who had reached full wage-earning capacity, can draw a pension up to £300 per annum. The younger brother, just because he had not reached the stage of earning wages, is restricted to the flat rate of £104 per annum, and he is condemned to live on that for the rest of his life, although had he not taken part in the war, he would have had an equal wage-earning capacity to that of his elder brother. It is hardships of that sort that are being suffered through the administration of the Pensions Act, and it is a matter which this House should take into consideration, so that these men may be treated more liberally than they are at present, and more in accordance with what the justice of the situation demands. There is another hardship in the working of the Pensions Act. The Act of 1919 provided for pensions for widows, but it provided that a widow should only be regarded as a widow and entitled to a widow’s pension if her husband died of war injuries within seven years of the termination of the war. If that were applied rigidly, it would mean that a large number of widows, whose husbands died actually through war service, would not get a penny of pension. That hardship has been recognized by the Minister of Finance and the Department to this extent, that even where a man may have died more than seven years after the war, they do go into a widow’s claim for a pension, and grant it to her after putting it to this House, and pensions have been awarded in a number of cases, possibly in all cases, by resolution of the House. But there is still a hardship, because these widows are not entitled under the Act to go to the department to prove their claim. They have to come to Parliament, and, although I think in the majority of cases they have got their pensions, there is considerable delay. In many cases they have to wait ten or eleven months or more before their right to a pension is recognized. One knows the great majority of these women are in humble circumstances, and it is a distinct hardship, and one which should be rectified by bringing them under the provision of the Act. Then there is another hardship, not suffered by the disabled fighting man himself, but by his dependents. Under the Act, where a disabled man has a wife or children living with him, he may receive allowances to help him in their support. These allowances must cease upon his death. In a number of cases the widow cannot be brought under the definition of widow in the Pensions Act, because she may not have married this soldier before the end of the war, or before he received the wounds which disabled him. The result is that on his death she can get nothing. In many cases these women and their children have been left stranded, and that is a distinct hardship, and one that should be remedied, because these men have been prevented by their wounds from putting anything by in case of their death. The result is that, owing to their disablement, their widows and children get nothing from the country to compensate them for the death of their husbands. These women should be put on the same footing as if they were widows in terms of the Act. I have mentioned these as examples of the hardships which have resulted to ex-service men and their dependents under the working of the Acts. These are hardships impressed upon members by the B.E.S.L. and Die Bond van Oudstryders. They apply to ex-members of the republican forces as well as to ex-members of the British forces. Many of these men have returned to civil life broken in spirit and ruined in health, and with their careers blasted, and they, as well as their widows and dependents, deserve well of the country. I hope this House, when opportunity arises, will see that the hardships under which they suffer are removed, and I hope the Minister of Finance will take the whole position into consideration, and, at the earliest moment, will give the House the opportunity of expressing its opinion of these hardships, untrammelled by any party consideration, so that these men may get the justice that is due to them.

It is with temerity, if not with reluctance, that I rise at this early stage of my parliamentary career, and, were it not for the seriousness of the subject, I would hesitate to do so. The observations made by the hon. member for Wynberg (Maj. Roper) have, I think, clearly enlightened members, and I feel I must reinforce his remarks with the idea, if possible, of convincing the Minister of Finance that the terms of the motion in the name of the hon. member embody matters which he, of his own volition, should suggest to this House. I feel that the monopolization by the Government of all opportunities for individual members to give expression to such matters as they have near to their hearts, is something which will probably reflect to our own credit in the consideration of this particular subject. I think he would be a bold member who would rise in this chamber and suggest that the pensions which are paid, particularly to widows, are adequate or generous. I feel that in the hands of the Minister of Finance is now an excellent opportunity to give this his blessing and approbation, and to grant the request which was tabled in the form of a motion, and which has since been removed. I would like to preface any observations I might make with complimenting the Minister, who has shown, by his conduct in all matters of administration of war pensions, sincere and practical sympathy. On no occasion has he been reluctant to interview representatives of the ex-service men, and whenever they have come before him with a request he has considered at all reasonable, he has strained every possible departmental rule to give practical effect to those representations. In this instance I would particularly like to mention, and to compliment the Minister on the reconstitution of the Appeal Board, which is a matter which does not fall within the express terms of the grievances on pensions, but has been one which has definitely shown ex-service organizations that the Minister is one who is not only sympathetic with the cause of ex-service men, but is prepared to give practical assistance and relief in every case possible. I feel this is an opportunity when the Minister should do so. One might be tempted to ask oneself if the war widows, wives and mothers who are also receiving gratuities at the hands of the State, have been labouring under the serious prejudicial conditions they have been for the past decade, how is it that the governments of the past have not remedied them? There were large funds brought forward in the time of the war, when it was appreciated that men would return handicapped by their war experiences, and would require some measure of support at the hands of the State. Such a fund was brought into existence, and is known to every hon. member. It achieved the almost gigantic proportions of almost £4.000,000, and the Governor-General’s Fund, presided over by the Governor-General, has assumed obligations which ought to rest with the State. The funds have been depleted, and to-day are less than £500,000, and on an actuarial basis one has had to limit the beneficiaries through that fund, and one learns with concern that 65 per cent. of the annual disbursements of the fund is paid to mothers and widows of those who laid down their lives to ensure the independence of this country. Were such a fund not in existence, I do not think that this country and the House would ever have permitted such a condition of affairs to continue. They would have risen to their responsibility. It is over a decade since the war has ended, and more than a decade since pensions have been voted by this House to the relief of pensioners. With the expiry of every year, very naturally, pensioners pass on to where there is no need to require this sustenance and gratuity. I do not know the figures, but I venture to suggest that the incidence of this grant is always a depreciating one, and has considerably fallen during the ten years of its administration. I seriously suggest that now, more than at any other time before in the history of South Africa, there is the opportunity for the Minister of Finance to accept the obligations which are due to his department and to this House, and should take over and remedy the inequities and anomalies of that War Pensions Act. I would not like anyone to assume that my remarks are directed in the way of criticism towards the generosity of the scale on which this House originally considered the establishment of the basis for awarding war pensions, but very naturally there are instances of numbers of youngsters venturing overseas on the great adventure, and it was the one experience in their lives they wanted to undergo. In many instances they have returned shattered in mind and body. No one suggests one should allow one’s sympathies to run away with him, but the support should be adequate. I do not mean an adequate measure on a high standard of maintenance. One’s standard of living cannot be very high on £2 a week. Very rightly the House decided to lay down an alternative basis of a maximum of £300, and I can very well understand hon. members on all sides of the House, in according their support to this measure of compensation, suggesting to themselves that there would be a small chance of any individual participant in the war proving that his earning capacity was less than £104 per annum. This House never intended, I am sure, to draw so anomalous a distinction between the case of a youngster who was disabled and had to face the prospect of 30 or 40 years of life ahead of him, and the case of a man of probably 30 or 40 suffering from some disability who would have to face the prospect of only ten or fifteen years of life. There are individual cases, comparable in every way as to the measure of disability, where one person is receiving an adequate pension, and generous when compared with pensions paid by other dominions, but where others are less fortunate, due to the state of affairs that they were too young, or that they have not been able to support since their return with such evidence as departments naturally require their claim that they were in receipt of something over £104 per annum. It is in these cases that it is within the power of the Minister of Finance to give another practical instance of his sympathy with the cause of our distressed war pensioners. There is another instance that we have on the streets of Cape Town, and of other urban centres, of participants in the war who have no bodily wounds to establish their claim to sympathy. One is always prepared to grant a measure of sympathy and of practical relief to any war-disabled person who is suffering a loss either of limb, or other disability which is evidenced in his wounds. But in all centres we have cases of men whose measure of disability is due, not to any war wounds, but to war conditions. There are many men to-day who are just as much casualties of war as others and yet they were not hit by shell, and it is these men who found it absolutely impossible to bring any evidence of wounds or of hospital record to establish their claim to practical sympathy. It was for that very reason that the generous-hearted public of South Africa raised the fund known throughout the Union as the Governor-General’s Fund. That fund was never intended to be a subsidizing second chamber to a Government fund. To-day there is not a single participant of relief through the medium of the Governor-General’s Fund who is not already in receipt of a war pension. That is rather a remarkable statement to make, but it is true. But I would like to say that prior to the very rapid depletion of the Governor-General’s Fund the central executive were administering the fund according to the need of the ex-service applicant, but it was absolutely impossible for them to maintain such a steady drain upon their resources, and the result is that only war pensioners who are in receipt of a pension of over 50 per cent. disability can claim any measure of relief from that fund. I do not think it would be unfair for me to suggest that the 50 per cent. disability pension which is granted to any war participant is not a true reflection of the disability which that man suffers in the competitive commercial world. A person may present himself to the consideration of the military medical tribunals, and with conviction make out that his physical condition due to the ravages of war and the incidence of such wounds as he received merited a disability being placed upon him of 50 per cent., and, as such, he is entitled to receive a 50 per cent. war pension, as laid down by this House. It is a very natural assumption that, only being half disabled, he is able to earn half of what he would have been able to earn had he not been disabled; but that is not the case in practice. I venture to suggest that there are few instances of war-disabled people who, were their standard of disability to be measured by their earning capacity and not by their physical disability, would not be at least 100 per cent. disabled. I know that it is not for this House to suggest that one should measure the disability of the war participant by the disability which he finds in actual competition with his more fortunate undisabled competitors; but there is this—that whilst we permit the scale of pensions and the anomalies and inequalities to last, we are precluding the Governor-General’s Fund from treating with a measure of sympathetic compassion those of our war comrades who are less fortunate than we are ourselves. I do not think any member of this House would like it suggested that we are not prepared to live up to the responsibilities and the obligations which the war has placed upon us. We have got much out of the war. I do not propose to point to any of the compensations which have accrued to South Africa as a result of that war; but there are compensations, and a certain measure of the financial stability and of the prosperity which is current in South Africa to-day, is directly attributable to the enormous efforts which the manufacturers of this country were forced to introduce because of inability of the country to rely for their manufactures upon the oversea producer. In supporting the plea of the hon. member for Wynberg, I do so in full confidence that the Minister of Finance will once again show that he has full sympathy with the hardships undergone and presently being suffered by these war pensioners, and that he is going to grant them the same practical sympathy that has always actuated him in considering these questions.

I am not proffering an indictment against the Government, but I wish to put certain facts to the Minister of Finance for his consideration, with a view to their being attended to by his department. I refer to the question of housing. I know that this question has been raised for a number of years past. I recognise that I am introducing nothing new, but I do feel that the position has become acute, and that the matter has become of so national a nature, that it is time for the Government to show appreciation of its responsibilities, and to step in and take a decided course of action. As far as I understand the position at present, the Government is empowered by an Act of Parliament to make allocations to local bodies, but I feel convinced that the matter has become so acute that something more than that is required at the present time. It has been said repeatedly that the matter of housing is one for municipal councils and other local bodies. I do not know the position with regard to housing in the other towns in the Union, but I have a slight experience of it as regards Cape Town. I understand from the official publications that the position is worse in Cape Town than anywhere else. The obvious inference is that there is a vital need at the present time for more houses. People in the country districts do not know what need there is for this. There is a certain area in Cape Town within a short distance of the precincts of this House where life proceeds under the most filthy conditions. I want to give you one or two examples of what exists in this area. One house I visited consisted of 32 rooms, which were occupied by independent persons, the lowest number of residents in one room being two. In one room there was a husband, wife, three or four children all living together, being sick there, giving birth to children there and carrying on their daily life. Each person pays the sum of 12s. 6d. for the hire of the room. I have calculated what this would cost, and have found out that this house, which is owned by an Indian, is providing a rental of over £1,000 per annum. This is an example of rack-renting in its very worst form. Another house I visited was occupied by natives and coloured people, where naked children were running about, and of the 30 persons in that house, one was suffering from venereal disease. I have no doubt that similar conditions are existing in some of the bigger towns of the Union, but when the Government of this country prides itself on bringing into the urban areas large numbers of poor whites, introducing what they call “civilized labour,” I think it is time they should take this matter into consideration with a view to taking some action. I wanted to bring the matter forward by motion, but as matters were taken out of my hands, I have no opportunity of doing so. It has been said that this is a matter for local bodies, but I would ask the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance to the matter. The Government has concentrated greatly on exploiting South Africa for years, and I will say this, that while the Government is spending large sums of money on exploiting the exterior of the country, it is time that they now bestir themselves to do something towards cleaning up the interior. The overcrowding problem is the unfortunate result of a certain policy followed by the Government, and, under the circumstances, the Government should itself give a lead in the matter. I suggest that it may be possible to have some sort of a housing commission. One has no hesitation in suggesting this if for no other purpose than providing work for those parliamentary aspirants who were not returned to the House; no doubt such a suggestion will be eagerly followed by the Minister. Quite seriously, however, I throw out the suggestion that some attempt should be made at once to obtain evidence and find some sort of a solution. The crux of the matter is that there are not sufficient houses, and the Government has encouraged a large number of people to flock into the towns from the rural districts. Therefore, a certain measure of responsibility falls on the Government, and it is the duty of the Government to show the country a way out.

I will take this opportunity of drawing attention to two matters of considerable importance. The first is the desirability of an early return to empire penny postage which existed before the war between the dominions and Great Britain. One is encouraged to ask why this reform has not taken place earlier by the fact that the annual report of the Union post office shows that out of a revenue of £3,770,000 there is a gross profit of £787,591—a prodigious profit for a comparatively small turnover, while the net profit is £108,000. In no country is the post office regarded as a revenue earning department. Another point is that the rate of postage to Great Britain and her dominions from the Union is higher than the rate from the Union to foreign countries. The postage to Great Britain from the Union is 2d. per ounce, while to foreign countries it is 3d. for the first ounce and 1½d. for each successive ounce. This means that an 8 ounce letter which would cost 1s. 4d. to send from the Union to Great Britain would be conveyed to Germany or any other continental country for 10½d. Most of the letters that go to Europe from South Africa are probably under half-an-ounce in weight, so the people of this country are paying double the amount of the postage they paid before the great war. The profit of the post office department warrants the reduction and there is no question that the country desires a reduction. Another point is in regard to telegrams. The increase of the telegraphic rate to 1s. 3d. for a dozen words seems to have reduced the number of messages, and it is undoubted that business people are utilizing the telephone very much more than they did under the old telegraphic rate, in other words, the telephone department is drawing revenue which used to go to the telegraph department. The whole of the charges for telegrams requires looking into. Our associations with some of the other territories of South Africa are becoming, closer and closer, hut when one considers the high telegraphic charges, one is amazed that we are able to have any telegraphic communication with them at all. The rate for transmitting twelve words by telegram from the Union to Southern Rhodesia is 2s. 2d., to Northern Rhodesia 3s. 6d., to Abercorn and Fort Jameson 6s. 3d., to Tanganyika 7s. 9d., Kenya and Uganda 11s. 9d., and the Belgian Congo 6s. 3d. One can scarcely appreciate that such charges can be imposed when one realizes that the beam wireless service to Europe transmits at 4d. a word on certain days of the week, and no more than 4½d. a word in the ordinary course. It is certainly high time that our telegraphic charges were lowered. I am not entirely satisfied with the suggestion to return to the shilling telegram as formerly. I am inclined to suggest that an examination of the position will perhaps warrant the Minister in introducing a ninepenny twelve-word telegram within the Union. Some of us remember the good old sixpenny telegram in Great Britain and we know from the records that it did more to popularize and increase the service than anything else ever did. I suggest that with a ninepenny telegram throughout the Union the income would be so much greater that in all probability it would pay the country very well. It is an accepted fact that the lower the price the greater is the output. This is a matter that has been too long delayed. This is one of those war increases that have remained with us far too long, and the time has arrived for it to be swept away. I believe the ninepenny telegram would be popular and payable and would be greatly appreciated by the people of the Union.

I think I am correctly interpreting your thoughts Mr. Speaker, when I say that after you have listened to these speeches by our newly joined members, you have felt there is an accession of members who will help you to uphold the dignity of debate and whose speeches will be characterized by logic, thought and vigour. The Minister of Finance has nothing to complain of in the manner in which this pension question has been presented. There are many reasons why this Government, or any government, should take into very serious consideration the claim for not only just but most considerate treatment of ex-soldiers. The whole of this country, including the occupants of the Ministerial benches, are rejoicing in higher status, independence, liberty and freedom. This freedom was not won by the sleek politician lolling in an armchair and mouthing sentiments about liberty and so on; it was won by the soldiers on the battlefields of the great war. There is no question about that. I am stating something that cannot be controverted. I wish to state it so distinctly that it cannot be misunderstood. I say this freedom we are rejoicing in now was won for South Africa by South Africa’s sons who fought in the great war. If that is controversial I would like to hear the argument against it.

Do you want a debate on those lines?

I do not want a debate. It should not be necessary to convince the Minister of his duty to these men, and I am not going to be switched off by side issues. These men have done South Africa great service. Is the Minister one of those who will not let that service be adequately recognized and the disabilities these men suffered not be put right by this Government? Where is the controversial matter in that? I hope the Minister will not try to escape from his responsibility. I do not think he will, but I think his interruption was most unfortunate. This should really receive the serious attention of the Government. I do not think the Minister ought to find it difficult. He is in the happy position of having an overflowing treasury. In addition to the surprising normal accession of revenue, he has also had a wonderful windfall with diamonds. I would ask the Minister what is to prevent him earmarking say £1,000,000 worth of diamonds, a find which was quite adventitious, and devoting a portion of the interest on that sum every year towards removing some of the hardships suffered by these men. I see no reason why this should not be done. It will not add to the burden of taxation any way. It will certainly provide, if necessary, £50,000 per annum or so towards relieving many of the anomalies, and redressing many of the disabilities from which ex-service men are suffering now through their inability to maintain themselves in a position which they would have occupied had they not gone to the war. South Africa owes a great debt of gratitude to these men, a gratitude that cannot be paid in money, but I do think it is up to the Government of the day, which has control of the funds, to take into consideration that the honour of the country is involved in seeing that these men, not only those who took part in the great war, but those who fought in South Africa on any side and in any capacity, are not penalized because they did their duty as they thought, for their country. This higher status that we rejoice in, that gives us power to make treaties and send ambassadors here, there and everywhere, the power to do that was won by these soldiers, and I think it is up to us to show our gratitude in a very practical way to those who are suffering from their efforts. There are very many cases which cannot be covered by regulations, however carefully framed. There are many cases, too, in which medical men, perhaps, may not find themselves able to certify to the satisfaction of the pension authorities as to a case being directly due to, or aggravated by, the great war. I suggest, in all those cases, the benefit of any reasonable doubt should be given, and the very fact that a man has risked life and limb, health and fortune, should be a point in his favour that should overrule formalities. I hope the Minister will not misunderstand me. Hon. members have expressed themselves very earnestly in this matter, and there is more than money involved. The honour of South Africa is at stake, and we look to the Minister to see that the debt South Africa owes these men is redeemed.

I am sorry that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), an old member of the House has made such an unfortunate speech this afternoon. The hon. member apparently has a grievance, and the younger members have reminded him of it. He says that the Minister of Finance should use a million out of the proceeds from the Namaqualand diamonds for returned soldiers of the great war. I am glad the hon. member has been converted, because if my memory is correct he was one of the members who, when the Government laid down what the proceeds from the Namaqualand diamonds would be used for, supported the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) in his motion to lease the diamond fields to large companies. If the House had listened to that advice a number of rich persons would to-day have pocketed the proceeds. Now that the Government has preserved the proceeds and is going to use them for the general development of the country—

This is not an election platform.

Why did not the hon. member say that to his old colleagues opposite. When everything goes favourably for them, they keep quiet, but when we try to rap them over the knuckles they call it an election speech. I want to remind the hon. member for East London (North) that South Africa, for the present at any rate, has done its duty towards the returned soldiers and that the time has come to support the Government when it proposes to devote the proceeds from the diamond fields to the general development and progress of South Africa.

Like other young members I did not want to speak so early in my political career, but I am keenly interested in the matter of war pensions. The ground has been pretty thoroughly traversed, but there are two points which might be emphasized. The first point is one arising out of the principle of alternative pensions. Many a man is being demoralized by having the option of an alternative pension. If the State were prepared to award a pension on a generous scale to a man who has suffered lasting disability the question of abolishing the alternative pension might fairly be considered. If the man goes back to work the rate of pay offered may be such that he forfeits his alternative pension, and he elects to draw the pension and not work. My experience has convinced me that the time has come when the whole question of pensions to ex-soldiers and dependents should be overhauled. There are many anomalies and inconsistencies which should be attended to, and with great benefit these acts could be brought up to date. One further point I should like to mention is that a young man who has not completed his apprenticeship and is not drawing the full rate of pay draws less pension than his elder brother who has completed his apprenticeship. Hon. members will agree with me that this is morally wrong. I feel quite satisfied that the justice of what I have said is so evident that the Minister will not hesitate to make proper provision on the whole subject. Another matter I want to raise is with reference to the recent native riots in Durban. I should like to ask when the report of Judge-President de Waal who presided at the recent enquiry at Durban will become available to this House. This is a question of great interest to all people in the Union, and particularly to those of Durban. The grave significance of this native outbreak is one that need hardly be emphasized—it upsets commerce and industries, there is the stirring up of racial feeling—all aspects of the matter which must be very much deplored—and it is significant that if a parallel be drawn between the riots at Durban and those at Bloemfontein in 1924 we find in both instances that we have inflammatory talk indulged in by the I.C.U. beforehand and we have the European population so provoked by the insurrectionary spirit of the natives that it almost takes the law into its own hands. After the riots in Bloemfontein the Government introduced the Native Administration Act of 1927, which was particularly designed to deal with the administration and control of natives. This Act has failed of its purpose; of the three outstanding prosecutions under it, those of Kadalie, Walton and Bunting, each one has failed. The Act must have been loosely framed because the prosecutions have been unsuccessful through the courts holding that the phraseology of the Act did not justify a conviction. One aspect of this matter which I would like to emphasize is that the responsibility here rests on the Government, not with the town of Durban. There are many people who may be inclined to believe that the responsibility rests on local authorities, but it is perfectly clear under the Act of Union that the responsibility rests with the Government, and not with the local authority under such circumstances. In the circumstances the native administration generally throughout the country is such as to give rise to trouble in the towns. The local authorities cannot therefore be held to blame. The responsibility for allowing such a state of affairs to arise rests primarily on the Government. As an illustration I may mention the dangerous statement made by Champion, the provincial secretary of the I.C.U., when he advised them to demand that their wages be raised to £10 per month, which he would do, 5,000 native house-boys would be thrown out of work. What he said was this: “When there are 5,000 natives out of work I shall tell them to skebenga as much as they can, so as to force the Government to take action on the native unemployment problem.” What does “skebenga” mean? It means vicious, unlawful conduct, and the responsibility for permitting this man to make a statement of that kind rests on the shoulders of the Government. The local authority has no power to control or to suppress agitation of that sort. One of the causes which leads to native unrest in the towns is the failure to enforce some form of curfew regulation which would keep the natives off the streets. After midnight in the streets of Durban you will find more natives than Europeans. This very fact leads natives to believe that they can feel absolute contempt for the authorities. A bill to amend the Urban Areas Act should be proceeded with. Such a bill was introduced, I understand, last session. I mention this to point out the dilatoriness of the Government in dealing with this important matter and I wish to emphasize the importance of dealing with it this session. In regard to the suppression of the riots in Durban, I should like to make it clear that the conduct of the borough police was very commendable. Within the limits of their authority their conduct was extraordinarily good. These men suffered great aggravation, and yet, in spite of it, they never made any excessive use of their authority.

I would like to say a word or two in respect of the matter which has been brought up so admirably by the hon. member for Wynberg (Maj. Roper) and equally admirably supported by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen), namely, the disabilities of returned soldiers and the interests of the dependants of those who did not return. I congratulate the South African party upon its rejuvenation—

Hear, hear.

That is a heartfelt hear, hear from the hon. member for Von Brandis. Every one of those who have spoken this afternoon, young members new to this House, have acquitted themselves most admirably, and I am waiting with interest for the maiden speeches of hon. members on the other side of the House. They also come fresh from the instructions of their constituents, and they also will wring the withers of the Minister of Finance. I cannot give any concrete example like the hon. member who spoke before me on the subject, but I had the experience of serving on a commission which was appointed to deal with the grievances of the ex-service men, and I think the now hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) was also a member of that commission. It will be news to hon. members, however, that I was responsible for a minority report which was not honoured by the Minister of Defence, though the majority report was. I congratulate the Minister on doing what the South African party should have done, and there is another item of congratulation that hon. members have just come into the House who have nothing to forget in the way of sins of omission by their present confreres and colleagues, and they can come with a freshness of heart and a freshness of mind to matters which a good many at present here this afternoon have to forget. What we have to remember is this, what the country forgets is what we have to remember, and that is our duty to these men, our duty as a country and as a nation, to those men who went to the front to fight for us whatever their race or their nation, those men who went to fight for South Africa and the dependents of those men, and regarding whom we must now recognize our responsibility. It is our duty to these men, that substantial justice is done to them, and it is our business to see that it is done. One of the questions I want to refer to is the condition of partial disablement. When you talk about partial disablement you do not know what you talk about. When you assess a man as 20 per cent. partially disabled you are doing something that is perpetrating an injustice to that man. You take the fact of two men applying for the same job; one is partially disabled and is one entirely sound. Which man do you think is likely to obtain the job? The man who is entirely sound, the man with no physical disability. Whatever the degree of incapacity, the practical effect is whole incapacity, and that is one of the reasons why we urge that you should assess such a man as 100 per cent. disabled, because he is unable to obtain a livelihood and he should be protected by the State. Another anomaly was the question of being able to demonstrate to the powers what his prewar earnings were when he is desirous of having an alternative pension. That is a thing we should recognize by legislative enactment, as in the case of the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Act where, if a man was unable to state any pre-war earning, it was taken for purposes of computation as a salary of £30 a month. In that there is an assumption that some standard of living was reached by the man in his industrial occupation. I claim, therefore, that the same provision should be extended in the case of a disabled man. I am not prepared with concrete examples, and I merely get up with such little power as I have to support the members who have spoken on this question. Another matter to which I wish to draw attention, seeing that our rights are being curtailed—I want to know whether the Minister can see any possibility of amending the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Act, and to say that if this is not going to be initiated by the Government, I and my colleagues must take the initiative, and insist that the Government shall consider this much vexed question of miners’ phthisis. I want to urge upon the attention of the House and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) that it is highly inadvisable from the experience of a great many years past for the Government to lend money to municipalities and for municipalities to dish out the money in any way they think fit, for it often does not get into the right hands. Anything of this sort that is done must be done by the State, because it is in the interests of the State and in the interests of the abolition of slums. Another question I want to bring to the Minister’s notice in regard to which I have no doubt he will have pressure brought to bear upon him by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Defence. That is the question of the 10s. a day wage in this country. I feel certain that the Minister of Defence will threaten to resign if the Government will not do something in regard to this. It has been demonstrated conclusively when I pressed for the miserable minimum of eight shillings a day—the distinction for the introduction of which has been filched for the late Minister of Labour and ex-member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell) that people living within a considerable distance of localities where these contracts were given out profited considerably therefrom, so much so that when I passed through those districts, representative citizens sent deputations congratulating me and stating how much they had benefited by the fact that unskilled labour engaged in the carrying out of government contracts was paid a minimum wage of eight shillings per day. Despite it all the fact remains that as you raise the earning capacity of the whole community, so you increase the distributing capacity of the country and the general progress of the nation follows. I commend that to the consideration of the Minister and the Government generally. I understand that tentative proposals have been made in the direction of extending the principle; I hope the proposals have not fallen on deaf ears, and that the Government party will ultimately force their representatives to agree to some uplifting of the standard of living, for that section of the community on whom everybody else subsists. Just before I left office, somewhat hurriedly, I was considering the introduction of a ninepenny telegraphic rate, or as an alternative allowing the address to be transmitted free, as is done in the United States of America. All my technical advisers informed me, however, that the introduction of such cheapened telegrams would immediately result in a tremendous capital expenditure for more wires and instruments, and incidentally, for more people to operate them. My technical advisers feared that the thing could not be done. I found a very conservative element in the post office; I hope the present Minister is finding a much more amenable and plastic material than I did. I would not, however, advocate a reduction of the rate from 1s. 3d. to 1s. for that would be merely a surrender of revenue without increased traffic. I would, however, favour a ninepenny rate. Let me conclude by once more expressing on the Minister of Finance the desirability of his advising his Cabinet colleagues that in the interests of the country, and for the honour of the Government, it is now desirable to so amend the war pension legislation as to err even on the side of generosity.

I did not intend speaking, but the speeches of hon. members opposite have forced me to rise. In the first place, I want to joint out that it looks as if the Opposition is going to maintain its old reputation of being utterly illogical. The hon. member who opened the debate this afternoon (Col. Stallard) tried to make out that we were already spending too much in comparison with the national income, and he stated that the Government expenditure was one-sixth of the national income. Immediately after that protest against too great an expenditure, hon. members opposite rise to urge the spending of more money! Those who argue that more money should be spent on war pensions must remember how much the country already spends on pensions—including war pensions. According to last year’s returns, about £3,500,000 was devoted to pensions, a considerable part of which was for returned soldiers. I have nothing to say against our doing something to alleviate the lot of these poor fellows, suffering in consequence of the policy followed ten or fourteen years ago, but still we must remember many people who made sacrifices for South Africa and are in distress to-day. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has inspired me to say a few words. His speech will not assist the people he desires to serve. He at once took the question into an arena about which there is anything but unanimity in South Africa. Time and again mention was made of people who have sacrificed their lives and health for South Africa. I admit there were some who thought they were going to fight for South Africa., but there were others who did not make sacrifices for South Africa, but were inspired by people whose ideals were not exactly South African. We must not forget those who suffered for their country, not as paid soldiers overseas—because there are many who went to fight because they found it difficult to make a living in the country. We have thousands of people here who fought as burghers and volunteers in the old republican days, who were not paid soldiers, and did not receive what the returned soldiers received. That must not be forgotten. When hon. members opposite say that the returned soldiers obtained the freedom of our people and sacrificed much for South Africa, we may agree that they honestly believe it, but they must also concede that there are others who think differently. When they want something for men who suffered severely, they must not introduce anything contentious into the matter. I think the Government has already done much to meet these people, and that it is asking a great deal to want more money in addition to the large sums already devoted to pensions. I know the Government is only too ready to give relief when the burden presses on people who have made sacrifices for their ideals, and their country and people, but still we must try to be reasonable, especially when it is said that the country is already spending too much. The country will see that the old lack of logic of the South African party has not changed.

I am sorry the hon. member is not here, but it was very touching to witness the hon. member’s paternal interest in the younger members on this side of the House, and one is gratified to learn of the profound impression they have made upon him. I wish to lend my voice in support of the hon. member for Wynberg (Maj. Roper) in his plea for more generous treatment of the unfortunate men maimed in the war. One comes across many pathetic cases, many cases where men are not receiving sufficient to keep body and soul together, and their tragic efforts to earn a living make one’s heart bleed. We must remember that South Africa’s ‘independence and freedom to-day are due to these maimed sons of South Africa, who are merely asking for justice. I do hope the plea from this side of the House will move the Government to see that these cases are justly dealt by. It is a reflection on South Africa that they should exist. I want to support the point made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Borlase), who said the re-introduction of the curfew, especially in Natal, is urgently necessary. We have had the recent experience in Durban where there was rioting to an alarming extent, and I want to warn the Government that unless the curfew is re-introduced, there will be a recurrence of this trouble in Natal. It is quite common in the constituency I represent to find bands of young natives roaming about the streets after 9 o’clock armed with long knives. They jostle Europeans off the payment, and they chase the police. We want this state of affairs to stop. It was the Prime Minister’s intention last session, and I regret exceedingly he did not carry it out, to have passed this amending Act which would have re-introduced the curfew in Natal. The maintenance of law and order in Natal is just as desirable as in any other part. I would again warn the Prime Minister that unless the curfew is re-introduced in Natal, there will be a recurrence of the disturbance we have had. That can be prevented, and it would only take an hour of the time of this House to amend the Act so as to bring that about. It is a very urgent matter.

In discussing this measure, the treasury, and I may say the country, has had the usual experience. One hon. member on the other side considered it his duty to warn the country against our annual national expenditure, and he also pointed out how our national debt was increasing. He gave the House certain figures as to what the national income of South Africa was, and he made the point that the time had arrived when we should very seriously consider and take stock of the position in regard to the rise in our annual expenditure. As I have said on many previous occasions, I have no fault to find with that. Unfortunately, in the past we have always had the experience that whenever the Government, and especially the treasury, tried to put the brake on the expenditure of the country it had very little support from Parliament and country. I am glad to think I shall have the assistance of the hon. member in this very laudable task. He will be able to assist me in my efforts to convince Parliament that some of the services for which we are asked to provide are not required. I shall probably have his assistance when I try and persuade some very enthusiastic members that some of the services required on the Witwatersrand, and for magistrates’ courts, post offices, and so on, are probably not so very urgent. I fully realize that in a small country like South Africa we should always scrutinize expenditure and see whether the time has not arrived when we should not be so very anxious to satisfy every demand, but it is a pretty hopeless task in this Parliament. It is a case of one stern economist and six clamouring for increased expenditure, which, if agreed to, would probably add hundreds of thousands of pounds to the annual Budget. One very important question raised this afternoon was that of increased benefits to ex-soldiers. If the House and the country are satisfied that the existing benefits are insufficient, the House can instruct me to introduce amending legislation—legislation to improve the scales which the House considered adequate during the war period when it was very mindful of the services rendered by the soldiers. But if that is done, well my hon. friend over there will not achieve his object, and the national expenditure will continue to rise. If the House is convinced that very much more should be done in the way of housing—I do not say I disagree with members—well, there again, you would increase the interest burden on the people of this country. The necessary money would have to be borrowed, and your expenditure would continue to rise. I do not think we can deal with this continually by pointing out an increase of so much per annum on our expenditure. We cannot deal with the question in that way. There are necessary services which have to be provided for from time to time, and our experience is that increases will occur. But it is the duty of every member of Parliament to see that we do not embark on services which are not so very urgent or which the Government cannot afford. On this matter of war pensions, I am glad to see from every side of the House that it is admitted I have tried to treat those unfortunate people as sympathetically as possible and that there is nothing to bring against the administration of my department of the war pensions during the past five years. I have, if the regulations allowed it, given all these people the benefits which Parliament intended should be given to them, and I have, in many instances, been able to sweep away anomalies and to improve their position by increasing the benefits. But what is now desired is something much more; it is nothing less than a request that Parliament should set about and revise the whole question of war pensions, and increase the benefits payable to disabled soldiers. I discussed the matter with representatives of the organizations, and, although an election was pending, I did not do what, unfortunately, I saw was being done in some parts of the country, viz., people holding out expectations to these people that they would be prepared to support a measure of this kind. I did not do so. I said frankly that I did not consider the country would be prepared to increase those benefits in a manner which would increase the already heavy pension burden borne by the taxpayers of the country. I pointed out, and it is admitted, that the benefits we give compare very favourably with those of other countries. I think it is admitted that, as far as Great Britain and most of the dominions are concerned, the scale of South African pensions compares very favourably with theirs. I do not think that we would be prepared now to put the whole question into the melting-pot again and evolve a new pensions scheme to increase the benefits in the manner advocated by my hon. friend. I am sorry that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) in supporting this measure should have tried to introduce controversial matters of the kind he did; it is altogether unnecessary to do so. That was what I meant when I interjected that it would be very much better not to introduce controversial matters, because we might very easily have a discussion on the old lines we had during the days of the war, and I think every hon. member will deprecate that. We will have further opportunities of debating the question. I think at present I can leave the matter there. In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence)—the housing question—let me here again say that I have sympathy with the efforts now being made by certain people to improve the deplorable housing conditions here. The fault does not lie with the Government that more has not been done. A few years ago I indicated to the House that the Government had made available a further amount to local authorities for housing conditions, and a few months ago, when I introduced my proposals for the current financial year, I investigated the matter and found that the full amount made available this year was not used, and that a large balance was still available. If the Cape Town local authorities come and make application, we shall consider the matter sympathetically. It will be found that it is not for lack of funds that the question has not been dealt with. If the provision which exists at present is exhausted and the position has not been alleviated, the Government will be prepared to consider making further provision for the necessary fund. But hon. members must realize that it is not a national matter; housing is a provincial matter—one which is entrusted to the local authorities—and until such time as Parliament is prepared to sweep them away, we must carry out the law and leave these people to deal with this question. It is always urged that the local authorities are not doing their duty as far as roads and public health are concerned, and now it is housing. If that is so, the remedy will be for us to deal with the provincial councils, but until we do that, we must use the machinery that has been provided. All the Government can do is to say that if you want to tackle the question, we shall provide the funds in terms of the legislation which at present exists, and that we are prepared to do. One hon. member raised the question of the reduction of postal and telegraph rates, and he referred to the profits which are being made. The hon. member must not forget that at one time the Postal Department was running at a Joss. If he analyses it on a commercial basis, he will find that the profits of the post office during the past five years or so are decreasing, and we shall have to look out. There is not a very big margin for all the concessions for which the hon. member pleads. When we sacrificed £400,000 a few years ago in postal rates, I don’t think it was appreciated very much. I want to point this out to the hon. member when he gives credit to the post office for being in such a very wonderful financial position. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) asked me what the intentions of the Government were with r egard to the question of miners’ phthisis, which was dealt with by the last Parliament. We appointed a committee then, which could not complete its investigations. It has been represented to us that it would be very inconvenient to get people to Cape Town to give evidence here, and that it would be better to deal with the matter by means of a special commission which would take evidence on the spot and enable the Government to ascertain what the actual position is with regard to our legislation respecting this matter. The Government is considering that suggestion. As far as the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the native riots at Durban is concerned, it is still being awaited, and in the meantime I think it is undesirable to have a discussion upon it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.