This is, in a way, a second edition of the budget debate on the Estimates of Supply for the present year, but although a certain amount of time was given in the last session of the last Parliament for the discussion of the budget there are many matters of the greatest importance which have come up on the financial estimates now before us and I beg to avail myself of the opportunity, as we intend to do on this side of the House, to raise certain matters which, in our opinion, call for the attention of this House and the country. The first point I want to raise, which is always raised first in a discussion of this kind, is the question of our steadily growing and mounting expenditure. I suppose the Minister has not forgotten the day when he and his friend, the late Mr. Fichardt, used to tell the country that expenditure was greater than the country could afford, that the country was suffering under the weight of Government expenditure. Has that expenditure grown less since those members changed their places in the House?

What is the difference ?

What is the difference? The difference is this, instead of spending our money on things that make for the development of the country, we are spending it in sending gorgeous ambassadors to other countries.

Why not?

We are sending these ministers plenipotentiary and envoys extraordinary—they are extraordinary, I agree. That is one of the differences but I will come back to that point later. There has been no reduction in expenditure. The expenditure has grown by roughly a million pounds a year since this present Government came into power and it is going on. In the last year of the late Government, 1923-’24, our expenditure on revenue account was just over £24,000,000. Now it is just over £30,000,000, a difference of £6,000,000 since this Government came into power. We see no hope of a reduction. The Minister told us the other day that it was all very well for us to criticize expenditure but what help had been given to reduce it? He knows perfectly well there is only one body that can reduce the expenditure of the country and that is the Government in power and nobody else, and there is only one government of late years that has had the courage to reduce expenditure and that was the late South African party Government.

You were forced to.

We were forced to and the Minister ought also to be forced to if he had the interests of the country at heart. But it is so very simple to go on! It is not the weakness of the Opposition; it is the supineness of the Government that leads to this evil. “We have the money, why not spend it,” they say. “We have surpluses every year, why not spend them?” The reason why we should not spend them is that we are living at too high a rate of expenditure as it is. The Minister gave us a warning about farmers who buy motor cars when they cannot afford them and people in the country spending above their income. He is doing the same thing. The country is spending more than it can afford. It has a weight of taxation higher than it ought to have. But it is very simple to go on spending. It is so unpopular to reduce expenditure, as we found to our cost, but we had the courage to do it.

What did the country say?

The country, of course, would always be in favour of new expenditure because the majority of the voters who support the members over there do not feel taxation as they ought to do.

Who are they?

Tell us.

The hon. member ought to have some sense of gratitude. Our complaint is this, that it is all very well to have these enormous budgets in years of prosperity, in years when the revenue is rolling in and you have surpluses on revenue account, but what are we going to do when times change? We cannot expect to go on living with this flowing tide of revenue for ever. The Minister himself warns us that it will not last forever. We see signs already that it cannot last for very long. We are already taxed up to the limit. We have no reserve of taxation to fall back upon. What is the Minister going to do? I suppose he will leave us to do the retrenchment again. I should like to see a state of things in which you do not live up to the absolute maximum of what the country can afford. What are we spending this money on? Larger establishments, more expensive appointments.

Research.

There is precious little chance of getting much for research.

Old age pensions.

I do not quarrel with that.

What do you quarrel with?

I will tell you what I do criticise and quarrel with and that the new appointments in the public service, to the administrative and clerical branches not including natives and labourers. These appointments are going up at the rate of about a thousand a year. In the last three years, from 1926-’27 to 1929-’30, the numbers have gone up from 27,444 to 30,259, an increase for 1927-’28 over 1926-’27, of 859 and for 1928-’29 over 1927-’28, an increase of 883, and this year an increase of 1,000. The increase in public officials has been at the rate of about 900 a year. That is what we complain of, these enormous and bloated staffs being built up. All have to be paid for by the taxpayer, and I say what is the Minister or any Minister going to do when bad times come? Where is he going to find the taxation to uphold these enormous establishments? I want now to give a few instances of what our money is being spent upon, and I go back to this subject of our representation abroad. The estimates this year contain £20,000 for providing envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary at Rome, Washington and the Hague. I know they are magnificent, but what are they going to do? We have now a trade commissioner on the Continent—I am not sure where he is now—and one in New York who can look after matters of trade, the improvement of our external markets and to help us find new outlets for our exports, but what are these envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary going to do? If we have money to throw away, for heaven’s sake, let us spend it on something that is going to make South Africa really great in substance, and not throw it away on show. I remember how hon. members opposite used to criticize the expenditure on our High Commissioner’s Office in London. I say without hesitation that it is a waste of our money to spend it on these envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary. I do not object to see South Africa well represented abroad, but I want to know what more than our trade commissioners are these envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary going to do. It is all very well if we can afford it, but I say without hesitation we cannot. I am not going to overload instances, but when you turn to state alluvial diggings, we find a manager there who receives £3,500 a year. I do not know what his qualifications are, but it is a very handsome salary, and not to be overburdened by his work, he has a technical manager who gets £2,500 and an assistant technical manager who gets £1,700 a year. That is doing things in extraordinary style.

What do De Beers pay?

What do similar diggings pay?

I will say that to pay the manager of the state alluvial diggings, the technical manager and the assistant technical manager these salaries seems gross over-expenditure.

If the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) had obtained the concession, what would he have paid his man?

If he paid these salaries he would pay them out of his own pocket, and it would not be the taxpayers’ money. It is only a sign to show how the wind is blowing. This Government have lots of money on hand, and is exercizing no control over expenditure. They say: “We have a surplus, and let us spend.” We are not opposed to expenditure, but to wasteful expenditure; if we are going to have expenditure, let us have that which is reproductive. When we raise this question of expenditure, the Minister’s answer is always: “Well, it is all very nice to talk about decreased expenditure, but then hon. members get up and ask for increased expenditure; why do they not help him to reduce expenditure?” I will tell him why. Because he will not let us help him. The Government take any question of expenditure as a question of confidence. If any of us moves that the salaries of any of these gentlemen be reduced by a £5 note, it would be made a question of confidence at once, and the Government would use their majority to carry it through.

Pensions.

I think pensions in the best sense of the word is reproductive expenditure, particularly when it is a case of men who have given their health and lives in the service of the country. The present Government is running riot on the question of wasteful expenditure. If the Minister is anxious to keep some control over public expenditure I would suggest whether something cannot be done to give this House some real control over expenditure; at present they have none. The Estimates are brought in, laid on the Table, and the Government is committed to every penny of these Estimates. As long as this is so, this House has no real control over expenditure, which is sanctioned by the Government, agreed upon by the Cabinet, and put through this House by a party majority. It is a problem which has arisen in other countries, and we should see whether some better control cannot be given to this House over public expenditure, for so long as we have to vote for what is put before us as a matter of public policy and of confidence, this House will have no real control. What is the Minister going to do with his surpluses? The only indication we had from his speech was that something is going to be done in connection with irrigation, which we are all glad to hear, as it is a thing this country is crying out for; but he was careful to tell us that nothing would be done until the report of the irrigation commission was received and considered, which I think a very wise thing to say. But that was not what we heard during the election. We heard from several platforms that millions of pounds were to be spent on irrigation.

Who said so?

At election meetings we used to have people who got up with a bit of paper with a number of questions which they fired off, and one of them was: whether I was aware that the Government would spend millions on this or that irrigation scheme. They have not decided yet how they are going to spend it. The people were premature who wrote out these questions. I would like to suggest to the Minister whether, when he has got all this money in hand, he would not consider very seriously the position of the various land settlements throughout the country. Many of these settlers were put on land at too high a price.

Who bought it?

It may have been bought by the lute Government or by this Government. Supposing it was bought by the late Government? Is that a reason for keeping these people on the land at too high a figure? I say, no matter who bought the land, the land was overvalued. I suggest that some of this surplus should be used in making sure that the conditions under which these men work will give them a chance of coming through. That should be a matter of concern to the Government. It is a far better way of meeting unemployment to help people to get on to the land than by crowding them into the towns. It is no help to unemployment to crowd a few thousand people into the Government service. That is the only remedy the Government appear to have thought of, to take as many thousands as they can into the Government service. That is the way to perpetuate unemployment, not to cure it. You will be doing a far better service to these men if you will give them a chance of getting on to the land. One other matter I want to touch on is the question of the development of industries. We hear a great deal of the development of industries. One can see that the only plan the Government have for the development of industries is by increasing the tariff. That is no doubt one way, and much can be done in that way, but I would like to warn Ministers and hon. members opposite that you cannot carry that too far. Australia is beginning to learn that it has carried it too far, and is now considering what it must do. We are a country not self-contained. We shall not be for a long time to come. We have to find a market overseas for much of our produce. We have to be very careful that we do not put up our tariff so high as to cripple our producers, or we shall be up against the same difficulty that Australia has now to meet. Particularly I should like to call the attention of this House to the mining industry. Whenever one speaks about the mining industry of this country there is an idea on the part of hon. members opposite that one is pleading for the rich man, the capitalist. The mining industry has become a sort of byword. It is an industry which is a milch cow for the country, to put as many taxes on as you can, but immediately you say a word for the interests of that industry, then you are pleading for big dividends.

Why do you apologize?

I am not apologizing for myself but for hon. members opposite, who take that short-sighted view of the industries of this country. Thousands of men’s homes depend upon the mining industry, and we say that if the policy of the Government could be directed not to increasing burdens on the industry, but if possible to diminishing them, a vast field of industry could be opened up which otherwise will not be opened, and a vast amount of employment will be provided which otherwise will be lost. We can reduce mining costs by the reduction of rates on coal and other things, the Witbank rate especially, by a reduction of customs duties, a reduction of claim licences, and in many other ways, and we can get the cost of mining down to a point which will enable a far greater tonnage to be worked than is being worked now. I say it is to the interests of this country that taxation and charges should be reduced which at present prevents the development of the gold mining industry. I also want to know what the Government is doing in regard to the question of preference. I suppose hon. members have seen statements in the press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the British Government has announced that he is opposed to the principle of preference. I would like to know whether the Minister or the Government is making any representations in regard to that. It is not a question of interfering in the affairs of the British Government. It is a matter that concerns us very deeply, as well as them. It is a very serious matter if we are going to allow Imperial preference, which has been in existence, more or less, for a generation, to die out without any attempt to keep it afoot. It is a very vital matter for this country. It is not a question of sentiment at all; it is a question of business. Where are we going to find markets for our produce? Are we going to find them in America? Is the envoy extraordinary and the minister plenipotentiary at Washington going to open up new markets in America?

Yes.

Well, you know what happens in the United States of America. They expect us to buy their locomotives and motor cars, but they have raised tariffs against our produce to keep them out. There is no reciprocity. On the other hand there is only one country where we can get a preference and that is the British market, and we must keep this. So whatever our sentiments may be, let us, in heaven’s name, put them aside and from the viewpoint of clear business let us do our best to keep this question right and to prevent the door being closed. Now to come to railway matters. I understood there was going to be an enquiry as to the charge by the Electricity Supply Commission for power to the railways. I can understand the Minister of Railways being a little shy of any more electrification schemes, but there was no doubt that it was not economical to leave the electrification schemes in the air as at present. It is a matter of great importance to the user that there should he an enquiry. As far as we can see, the user of the railways is being called to pay a rate for the electric current which is far too high and we must see if a reduction cannot be effected and also what has been done in regard to extending the electrification. There can be no doubt that the line is not economical from Glencoe to Maritzburg. At Durban we have a new power station built at enormous cost, and until the electrification is carried to Durban that power-house is to be a white elephant. The statement of loss on branch lines contains some melancholy reading. We are losing on branch lines between £500,000 and £600,000 per year. That is a burden which is being carried by the users of the railways: The fault of our new railway construction is that we get a report from the Railway Board and estimate of the probable traffic and financial result and these estimates are never within miles of reality. They are always far away from it. This House is asked from time to time to sanction the building of branch lines, but it has never had the real information about those lines before it. We have a very heavy burden with regard to these branch lines, and it is a matter which the Minister ought to tell us about. The Minister ought to tell us why he electrified the Sea Point line and no sooner was it done than he tore it up. It was right to tear it up. Why electrify it to tear it up shortly afterwards?

Your Government approved of it.

I know, but before the work was begun we bad warning that it was not a payable scheme and had we remained in power, I venture to say it would not, in face of the warnings we received, have been gone on with. Before the work was undertaken, the Government was warned that it would be unpayable, that it would be a hopeless undertaking. I am now asking this Government why, in the face of this warning, they went on with the electrification when they had to pull up the lines shortly afterwards. It would have been better to have stopped the work, and not to have proceeded with it rather than to have pulled up the rails afterwards. This Government with all its wisdom—why did they not put it right? They went on with the work just because it was sanctioned. This budget makes no attempt to give back to the taxpayer directly some of the excessive amounts which are falling into the Union treasury. We are living on the customs duties and imports, the taxes which are, to all intents and purposes, taxes on capital. We are living on a high income tax upon taxation to all intents and purposes, which is a taxation on our capital. Either give the money back to the taxpayers so that in bad times we shall have some reserve of taxation to fall back upon, or let us spend the money we are now disbursing uneconomically on objects that are reproductive, on schemes that are going to extend our productive assets, and enlarge employment, and thus give our people some other outlook instead of hoping to find appointments under the Government. We, of all countries in the world, cannot afford to go on living on our capita) and making no provision for the time when those assets are going to fall away. It is no use making a big show outside our borders in sending ambassadors throughout the world if the people within our borders are going backward, leaving the land and crowding the towns to live under insanitary conditions. What does it matter if we have ambassadors abroad if we have poverty at home? Let our expenditure take another direction if we cannot cut it down—a direction towards helping the people to make South Africa a really greater and stronger country.

I fully appreciate how very troublesome it must be for the Opposition to criticize this budget again. They had to do so in March last, and we know how they then jumped about and struggled to find something. To-day the position is, unfortunately, still more troublesome, and I must say that there has never yet been in the past a Minister who has got so much praise from the Opposition when he made his last budget speech in March. I should like to warn hon. members opposite, especially the new members, in good time not to be so careless as to criticize and find fault, because in March last we saw that the leaders of the Opposition approved of the budget. I should like to quote a few examples. I was not present at the time, but I have gone into the matter. I should like to quote what hon. members then said when the position was not even as favourable as it now is. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) has already made the mistake of making grievances of things that his leaders have approved. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), whom I wish to congratulate, because I understand that in the absence of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) he will be leader of the Opposition, made the first speech on the Opposition side in March last, and said—

It made their mouths water, and I ask, therefore, what criticism there remains to expect now. The hon. member further congratulated the Minister on the statesmanlike way he had applied the surplus. I am glad they approve of it as well, and I think the whole country approves of the manner in which the surpluses are being used—whether criticism be passed on obtaining a surplus or not the temptation was very great—and it would undoubtedly be great for any Minister to go and seek popularity with the assistance of the surplus there was in March last. But this Government has no need to buy popularity. It does its duty in everything and popularity follows naturally. I wonder what would have happened if one of the hon. members opposite was Minister of Finance in those circumstances. I wonder whether the temptation would have been too great, and they would have indulged in buying popularity which quite probably they would not otherwise have obtained. But let me quote from what the former member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who, although we often differed from him politically, said about the budget in March. He said that he must congratulate the Minister on his budget, and I think the country deserves congratulation on the sound financial position for the near future. Sir Drummond Chaplin, another Opposition leader, who has not returned, said that the present financial position of the country was very sound. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) said that one could not be otherwise than satisfied with the very sound position of the revenue, as well as the loan account, the Minister had put before the House. If we look at all the praise and see how satisfied everybody is, then we wonder what criticism to expect to-day. In March they were worried to find something, but unfortunately they could not, nor can they to-day. It is, therefore, understandable how difficult it is to reply from the Government side to a criticism. You feel in the unfortunate position that you practically have to hit a man who says he does not want to hit back, a man who is already on the ground and beaten. The hon. member for Yeoville, however, asked in March last—

He was not certain about it, but I want to ask him to-day whether he is still in doubt. I want to warn hon. members opposite; the benches on our side are quite full, and there is no more room; after the next election we shall, unfortunately, have to ask the Opposition to move a little further back to make room for us. It is, therefore, very difficult to reply, and, as there are many new members who want to make their maiden speeches, I shall not be long. In the first place, I want to say that I fear the Minister is acting wrongly if he does not take more credit to himself and the Government than he did during the budget Speech. The hon. member for Yeoville said that during the last five years the sun had been shining; quite right, and it was specially noticeable after the dark years of the South African party Government. I hope it will continue shining. When one goes about the country it is really remarkable the spirit of optimism everywhere visible; there are still people who struggle and have a hard time, and though they have not personally benefited or gone ahead, they also feel that there has been general progress. The spirit of depression and anxiety which existed under the old South African party Government has, fortunately, disappeared, and it is expected that conditions under the present Government will improve more and more. The Government certainly ought to take more credit to itself for the good state of affairs. Here I want to mention the industrial peace during the past five years which is chiefly attributable to the Government. I want to say at once that we Nationalists attribute it to a great extent to the fortunate co-operation there was between the Nationalist and the Labour party. That is, unfortunately, one of the things which did not exist during the South African party Government, and we know what industrial troubles there were from time to time. We hope that the industrial peace will continue, and we know that the Government will not be to blame if it does not, because the Government will do everything in its power to prevent a recurrence of the conditions prevailing under the previous Government. Then we have made a further improvement in connection with the increase of unemployment which occurred under the South African party Government. The South African party did nothing to prevent it, but this Government saw its duty and tackled the matter, so that the problem is practically solved. There are to-day very few unemployed, not only as a result of the civilized labour policy, but also of the protection policy which has resulted in the erection of factories all over the country in connection with industrial development. We on this side of the House are agreed. Now after the election I should like to know from the South African party whether they are of one mind. That does not appear to be the case, because a few days ago we still had criticism on the customs duty on cotton blankets. It was said that the pool-natives and poor people paid the increased duty, and we should like to know whether the South African party is against the protection policy. In the past Mr. Jagger and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and the hon. members opposite fought each other in this respect, and as in other matters we saw that the Opposition were not united. We on this side admit that it is the policy of the Government to protect our industries, and we should like to know the views of the Opposition. As I have mentioned the question of unemployment, I should also like to ask what the Opposition policy is with regard to civilized labour. Do they approve of it, or do they not? During the election we found that every speaker had different views on the matter. When the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) appeared at places where railway workers were employed, he approved of the policy, and said they ought to get higher wages, but when be went to places where the policy was disapproved of, he said the policy ought to be abolished.

He never said so.

At Pietersburg the South African party candidate openly said that the practice would be stopped as soon as the South African party came into power, and he argued the railway rates could not be reduced while the civilized labour policy continued.

You said that the leader of the South African party had said it.

Yes, he said different things about the matter at different places. Now I ask again whether the South African party approve or disapprove of the policy?

We approve of it.

It is the first time that this has been done on behalf of the South African party, and I congratulate them on it. Now I ask if they would have adopted the policy in practice if they had come to power. I am glad to see in the estimates that the Minister is making further provision for the protection of industries, and I was particularly glad to learn that factories for making condensed milk came under it. I hope the farmers will realize what this will mean to them in the future. We know that to-day the farmers are practically only able to sell their milk and cream to the Imperial Cold Storage, because that company controls the creameries, but, if new companies now start here, competition and probably better prices, will follow. I should like the Minister to enlighten us about the iron and steel industry in Pretoria. Here also it is striking that the South African party candidates could not tell the public what their party would do if they got into office. The Pretoria South African party candidates did, indeed, say that they would continue it, but outside Pretoria the undertaking was disapproved of. We know that the Government is not going to bother itself with the administration of the undertaking, and yet we shall be glad if the Government will give us some information about the matter. There are many new members opposite who will sing the same tune as the hon. member for Yeoville has just done, namely, that the expenditure has increased The hon. member for Roodepoort has already acted as leader a few days ago and said that the annual expenditure since 1924 has increased from £24,000,000 to £30,000,000 by £6,000,000, and that shows waste. Now members opposite will have the opportunity of showing us where economy is. We know they cannot do it.

We have not a majority.

You are not in a majority, but you can suggest where economy can be effected. No one is opposed to economy, and the Government favours it, but you cannot economize at the cost of the necessary services of the country, necessary for development and progress. If I may say so, to say that the public expenditure has increased by £6,000,000 and not to take into account the altered circumstances between 1924 and 1929 is nonsense. In 1924 the budget provided for an expenditure of £24,246,000, and in 1929 for £30,316,000, a difference of about £6,000,000, but such figures are absolutely misleading, and prove absolutely nothing. In the first place, account must be taken of the increased expenditure for interest on the national debt. It cannot be said that because the public debt had increased and more interest had to be paid that the taxpayer ought to pay more taxes. The money invested is productive, and that is specially the case with the capital expenditure of the present Government. The Government pays more interest, but the money is obtained from the land bank, the Department of Lands, the Electricity Commission and others, to whom the money is advanced. It is, therefore, foolish to talk of an increased expenditure of £6,000,000, and it is also unfair, because the public imagine that the expenditure has increased by that amount. In this connection, I may also quote the posts, telegraphs and telephones. How can one compare the expenditure of different years without taking account of the increase in the services? It is an ordinary service which the state renders to the public, and for which the public pay, and it does not come out of the pockets of the taxpayer. All these amounts must be deducted when one wants to make a comparison between 1924 and 1929. The same reason applies to our railways. How can one expect our railway expenditure to be the same as five years ago? The railway traffic has increased, road motor services have been established, and new lines been built, and therefore you cannot merely look at the expenditure and say that it has increased by so many millions. So I could go on with afforestation, and other departments where there has been development. Another amount which must not be taken into account is the grants to provincial councils, yet one finds that the South African party, and unfortunately, even a leader like the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who ought to enlighten the public, creates a wrong impression. Let us now make a little comparison with 1924 without going into minor details. As long ago as 1924 Sir Thomas Watt said that even if the House appointed a committee to investigate the votes minutely he would challenge the committee to point out any unnecessary expenditure. Then economy had already been effected, and I want to give the Opposition credit for it to-day—a sort of gallows repentance.

That was owing to the criticism from this side.

Yes, that was so. At that time the South African party Government reduced the expenditure by £l½ millions, and there is no better proof than their own actions that they had previously wasted money. If one takes the 1924 budget—about which Sir Thomas Watt said that one could go through it with a fine comb and be able to suggest no reduction—and compare it with the present budget, and at the same time bear in mind the amazing development, then you find that there has been practically no increase under the present Government. I want to give the hon. member a few figures in connection with increased expenditure during the past five years. In the first place there is an increase in the interest on debt. As I have already said, it is chiefly an increase in the national debt for productive purposes. We must try to bear in mind the increased provision for debt redemption in the budget. We then find that the increase of interest together with the increased provision for debt redemption amounted to £930,000 during 1924 and 1929. One of the things upon which the Minister must be congratulated is that he has provided for an additional £100,000 more than the law lays down. According to the Act of 1926, in which it was passed by this Government that £650,000 has to be set aside annually for debt redemption, but the Minister has provided £750,000 for it this year. Does the Opposition want to question the increase of this amount? The Minister deserves all praise for it, but the South African party want to blame him for it. I have already said that the increase in the public debt was an increase in productive debt. The present Government is to be congratulated on the position of their unreproductive debt, i.e., that is the debt that brings in no interest. Minister Burton said in 1924 that the unreproductive debt was at that time £56,700,000. The present Minister corrected the figure and told Mr. Burton that it was £58,500,000. That was in 1924, but now the unreproductive debt has been reduced to £44,000,000.

How is that?

Because the Government, inter alia, applies the surpluses to reduce the unreproductive debt. They do not act like the South African party Government, which used loan money to cover current expenditure. The position next year will be that our reproductive debt has been reduced to £38,000,000. I think the hon. member for Yeoville is also pleased about it, and I know that the country is glad that is the position. Unfortunately, however, we have learnt to expect from the South African party that they cannot praise the Government for anything. The country, however, appreciates that it is indebted to the Government. On posts and telegraphs there was an increase of £473,000 between 1924 and now. As already stated, that is only money for services by the Posts and Telegraphs Department, and every penny of it is paid back. The provincial grants have been increased by £1,263,000. Will hon. members opposite criticize that? They have not done their duty towards the provincial councils. They know it, and they know that this Government had done its duty. Do hon. members dare to propose a reduction in the amounts? They do not say that to the country outside, nor do they say that this increase is also included in the £6,000,000. I then come to pensions, which have increased by £1,452,000 since 1924. The Opposition want to increase the amount still more. Do they want to criticize that amount? In the amount of £6,000,000 all the pensions are included, also the £160,000, which we shall have to pay for the next 25 years to put the bankrupt Cape civil service in order. It was bankrupt under the South African party Government.

How do you make that out?

They ought to have made provision, but did not do so. Then there is the old age pension and if the Opposition can still blush it ought to blush because during all the time they were in office they did not realize their duty towards the old people in the country. They dare not criticize it and yet the amount was included in the £6,000,000, about which we hear so much. If we deduct all the amounts then there remains precious little of the increase. I want also to mention Union education which has been increased by £503,000. Better provision is made for higher education and we know that the Union Government have also taken over vocational education from the provincial councils. Public works show an increase of £314,000 and here again it is chiefly attributable to the fact that smaller works are now paid for out of ordinary expenditure, and not as formerly out of loan funds. The S.A.P. Government could not do it with its annual deficits. This Government however is able to carry out various little works which are very necessary. A small number of the buildings produce no interest and are unreproductive. They are however necessary. I should just like to summarize the figures—

If that is added up it is for over £5,000,000 and thus practically the full amount of the increase on the expenditure about which the Opposition is making so much noise. I then ask hon. members where has been the enormous waste. Let hon. members lay their finger on unnecessary expenditure. Unfortunately some of their followers outside believe anything but let them show this extravagance. I have not even mentioned the Labour Department which has done much and has been provided the needful, nor did I mention the state diggings. If those amounts are added up we get the £6,000,000. Can the Opposition find fault with it in one penny? We are getting tired of all the stories that are always rebutted by us but are always used again to stampede people. A second misrepresentation which is always used as is again now is that taxation has been increased by the Government by some millions. It is said that the poor taxpayer is practically suffering most under this Government. I do not think there are many countries in the world which are in so fortunate a position to-day with regard to taxation as South Africa. The taxes here are amazingly small.

So?

You know little about it but if you compare other countries with South Africa you will find that our country is in a very happy position. The hon. member for Roodepoort said the other day that taxation was keeping people out of the country. He says that immigrants are frightened away by it. Hon. members who always talk about encouraging immigration must really not tell those stories because it is just by such talk that they will keep the immigrants out. Mr. Burton made his ideal known in 1924 in making his budget speech that it was very satisfactory if a Minister could introduce a budget that balanced without increasing taxation or taking money out of loan funds. We know he talked about experience because in the past he could never introduce a budget that balanced in any other way. His only hope of balancing a budget was to increase taxation and if he had then not succeeded, by taking money out of the loan funds. This is the difference between the previous Government and Minister, and this Government and Minister. The present Government and Minister could so arrange that, although necessary services have caused increased expenditure, severe taxation had to be removed, no money was taken out of the loan funds and better provision was made for redemption of the national debt they could still show a surplus. They say that not only must a budget be produced which balances but one which shows a surplus. What would have happened to Mr. Burton if that was the case with him? He would not have been able to understand it. The Opposition cannot understand how taxes can be repealed and provision made for redemption without new taxes, and how there can still be a surplus. The case with them is as stated in the old song—“It is a wonder in our eyes, we see but cannot understand it.” The position actually is that the present Government has repealed, for the benefit of the people, taxes to the amount of £6,000,000 and has left it in the pockets of the taxpayers about whom the Opposition is so concerned. This they can calculate themselves from the abolition of the tobacco tax and of the medicine tax, the reduction of the postage, of income tax and of the customs duties, as well as the grants to provincial councils as a result of which they have raised no new taxation. The Opposition will not admit that the surpluses were caused—not by an increase in taxation—but by increased prosperity, which is especially ascribed to the Government in office. It is not increased as the hon. member for Yeoville says, because the sun is shining, but because there is a Government in office that has looked after the interests of the country. It is amusing to learn how concerned the Opposition now are about the poor people in the country who have to pay all the taxes. I will at once grant that few poor people paid taxes under the S.A.P. Government simply because they had not a single penny of income to pay taxes with. They were unemployed and no provision was made for them. The heaviest burdens were however laid on those who could pay. It amused me how Opposition speakers during the election spoke of the taxing of the poor people and how taxation ought to be abolished, and in this connection we find that their first proposal, viz., that of the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) suggested that relief should be given to the heavily taxed mines, and that coal inter alia should be carried cheaper. Not only does he say that the railways must sacrifice revenue but he also wants the surplus on the general account to be used to pay for the civilized labourers, so that the railways may be able to carry coal cheaper to the mines. This is the poor class the Opposition is so concerned about! I also believe with the hon. member for Yeoville that the same had come when the poor man who paid super tax—the man who had an income of more than £2,500 a year—should be assisted. Take the really poor man however. He pays no tax but during the S.A.P. Government he had to pay inter alia the medicine tax.

Is medicine cheaper to-day?

If the wholesale merchants did not put the full amount in their pockets medicine would be cheaper. The S.A. party were not so concerned about the poor man when they were in office which is proved when we think of the way in which they treated the provincial councils and neglected the education of the poor man’s children. Here again the Government realized its duties and properly looked after the education of the children of the poor man who could not himself afford it. Moreover, I can from my own experience in the Transvaal, refer to the poll tax which was reduced from £2 10s. to £1 10s. as a result of the increased grants by the Union Government, and the poor man with an income of less than £100 a year pays no poll tax. As for customs duties the poor man is the chief person who has been assisted. The ordinary citizen has got repealed of tax on various articles such as, e.g., cotton and woollen goods, thread, tea, etc. The Opposition say that customs duties should be reduced in the interests of the poor class but experience has taught us that abolition—as in the case of tea is only in the interests of poor wholesale merchant—who gets the benefit from it. We have again heard from the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon that the balance of the surplus should have been left in the pockets of the taxpayer. We understand that the hon. member for Springs wants relief for the mines and that relief is also asked for the super taxpayer and that the wholesale merchant should also receive consideration. We must also expect if the S.A. party had come into power that the surplus would have been used for that purpose. Now we can enquire where the surplus comes from; in the first place we find that the diamond revenue has exceeded the estimate by £800,000. To whom should that have been returned? Should my hon. friend there (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) receive it because it came partially out of his pockets? What about the income from the State diggings which was about £600,000? Take also the income tax which exceeded the estimate by £445,000; what better proof is there of the prosperity and general welfare of the country than the fact that this source of income has produced so much more, and this notwithstanding the higher rebates for children, rebates to farmers for permanent improvements and the general reduction of 20 per cent. To whom now must the amount over the estimate be returned? The poor man pays no income tax, the middle class man has been appreciably met. Then the customs duties also have considerably exceeded the estimate but the large importation of motor cars was chiefly responsible for that. To whom should that have been returned? I am glad of the Minister’s warning to the people about the buying of motor cars by people who cannot afford it. We hear as it is that a man who does not own much but buys a motor need not make a will because his motor car is his heir. According to the official returns 18,000 motor cars complete were imported and 7,000 in parts. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think that an improvement should be made in this respect and I also want to know if the Government is doing its duty towards the firms of those who have factories in South Africa for the building of motors. I understand that the Government is not doing its duty because all the Government motor cars are not bought from the firms who do their duty towards the country and give work to South Africans. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) laughs but he wants us to import English motor cars or American ones with the Union Jack on them. He is a direct importer himself. The argument which I cannot understand is the one by the hon. member for Yeoville that we ought now to repeal the taxes so that when we again have hard times we should be able to levy new taxes to get money. Experience taught us during the S.A.P. Government that it is not possible in difficult times to make the budget balance by increasing taxation. I think the Minister is quite right in going carefully to work. He is not taking more money from the pockets of the public than is necessary, but if there is a surplus he uses it to build up a kind of reserve. While the Nationalist sun is shining he is providing for the difficult days that may come. We know also that the Minister of Railways is building up a reserve and the Minister of Finance is doing it in the same way by paying off debt which is not absolutely required by law, and further capital expenditure is being undertaken without using loan funds for the purpose. One of the most satisfactory announcements was that we did not require last year to borrow money overseas and had raised enough in South Africa. We heard nothing about it from the Opposition, we always heard that capital would go out of the country, and that we would get no capital. Now that the position is such that we have adequate capital to provide for our needs. This year the position will be still more satisfactory and with the exception of a very small amount possibly we shall be able to cover our capital expenditure without borrowing. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on that. Just one or two points in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. He criticizes the new appointments by the Government but I would ask him not to speak so generally but to say which of the appointments is wrong. The Government has done its duty and only made the appointments in the interest of the country. What is the use of saying that seven hundred or eight hundred, or a thousand people have been appointed if the hon. member is not prepared to say which of the appointments is wrong. Our country is developing fast and we require the best brains which means that the Government must now and then go outside the public service in appointing people. Then the hon. member disapproves of the state diggings, or rather, the salaries paid there. When one thinks of the tremendous amounts involved the salary of the manager is not so terribly high.

What qualifications has he?

What special qualifications are necessary? What qualifications has the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer)? He has worked himself in and up. We should possibly have liked to have the hon. member for Kimberley but he would not have taken it at the small salary of £3,500. The hon. member also commented on the amount for irrigation. He is apparently not satisfied with the Government’s decision to only commence the big schemes after careful investigation.

I did not say so.

I am glad the hon. member approves, but then I do not know what his argument is because he says that during the election we spoke about the money we were going to spend. We are however not acting as the South African party did in the past. They commenced schemes without first collecting proper data and so they were failures. Our Government first has proper enquiry made and gets the advice of the Irrigation Commission to then commence the work properly. Then the hon. member says that the settlers throughout the country should be assisted. We know how many mistakes of the previous Government have already had to be rectified by the Minister of Lands. He has already had to write off much money and I believe that there are still cases in connection with which the Government will have to write off to correct the faults of the previous Government. Then just one or two more points not exactly financial. The first is about the importation of natives from outside the boundaries of the Union. I know that in the past we passed a resolution that we did not approve of natives from beyond the borders of the Union coming freely into the Union, and at the time the resolution was right. But the Government appreciates to-day that the position regarding labour, especially among the farmers, is critical. We in the Northern Transvaal where thousands and hundreds of thousands of natives used to be employed cannot to-day get sufficient labour. The existing conditions have altered, the natives are working for themselves to-day on new methods and no longer work for farmers. They can themselves provide for their family needs and the natives who still go out usually go to the mines because the mines pay more than the farmers can, with the result that the farmers—and they are primarily dependent on the native labour there—cannot get assistance. I do not want to plead for the mines but we know that they are also in trouble. They have not sufficient labour; they contribute much to the public revenue. We know particularly that our Labour friends always said in the past that all the white men would be replaced by natives but that could easily be avoided; a provision can be made that the same proportion which exists to-day between Europeans and natives shall be maintained. I think that at present there is one European to nine natives and as long as that proportion is maintained we shall not give less, but more work to Europeans. If more natives are employed the mines will produce more than at present. I am however in the first place pleading for the farmers. We would like to keep the farmers on the land but then the Government must do its duty and make it possible. Just a word about the Auditor-General. The Public Accounts Committee will not meet again before the present Auditor-General’s term of service has expired and I just want to say a few words of hearty appreciation of the work of the Auditor-General, not only in this House but in that of the public. I know that when the appointment was announced there was considerable criticism. It looked quite justifiable because Mr. Roos came from quite a different department but his strongest critics had later to admit that no better appointment could have been made. I just want to say a few words of appreciation of his services.

I was to a certain extent amused by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) because he has spoken in a very frivolous way about the increased expenditure and the taxation of the country. My hon. friend forgets that the chief reason why they are sitting there is that they promised the electors to reduce taxation. You said: “Vote for us then there will be a reduction of taxation.”

And is there no reduction?

We shall see. The hon. member tries to indicate the difference between the position under the South African party, and under their administration. Inter alia he mentioned the money taken out of loan funds as an example. The hon. member knows very well what happened at that time. Certain monies which came from mining leases were placed by the Government of its own motion to the capital account instead of the revenue account. Then the country got into trouble in 1924 and my hon. friend also knows quite well that Mr. Burton then proposed to use the funds that came from mining leases for revenue purposes and not to let them go into the capital account. The hon. member himself voted for it. The question was whether we wanted to tax the people more or whether we should take the revenue from mining leases. One of the two had to be done.

Because the country was governed so badly.

After a full debate the whole House agreed at the time not to put the money to the capital account but to the revenue account. The whole speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg doubtless echoes what he said on his last election platform. My hon. friend asked about the surpluses and asked what our complaints were against the surpluses. The Government does not automatically get surpluses, they are not easily picked up but come from the pockets of the people. We warned the Minister from time to time to make careful estimates and if he showed any weakness then it was in his bad estimates. Only by accurate estimates can taxation be reduced. Our complaint is that the surpluses which from time to time went into the treasury ought to have stopped in the pockets of the people. The hon. member for Pietersburg says that it was the sound administration which caused the prosperity. When we read history we see that it was not the Government which exercised much influence on the prosperity of a country but the people itself. In spite of the annoyance which the Government caused with its Wages Boards and other meddling, prosperity has reigned in our country. The hon. member further comes and talks about interest which justifies increased expenditure. The hon. member promised his electors that there would be a reduction of expenditure if they voted for his party.

No.

You said: “Put us in the saddle and then there will be a reduction of the public debt.” Those are all unfulfilled promises. The hon. member should not now come here and try to justify an increase. If I went through the speech of the hon. member I could contradict him on every point but owing to the time limit I am not able to do so.

You have unlimited time.

Yes, but there are many other members who want to talk and the budget debate only lasts five days. I just want to say that the speech made by the hon. member is for the most part merely a re-chauffé of his election speeches. It is not my intention this afternoon to discuss the general finances of the country but I want to confine myself specially to the farming industry of the country, and how farming is affected by the administration of our economic system. It is a fact that however sound the financial position of the country may be there is always room for fair criticism. I hope chiefly to criticize constructively; it is easy to criticize destructively, but I wish to make suggestions which will be useful to the Government in its attempts to assist agriculture. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that we have now come to a stage in our expenditure when the people have the right of asking whether our expenditure is not too high.

That they can always ask.

Yes, and I ask it now. Large expenditure lays the foundation for high taxation. The Minister will agree that we cannot expect a reduction of taxation if we do not reduce expenditure and even in times of prosperity like the present that we must reduce taxation. In the budget before us we do not see any signs of economy. I am glad that the Minister warned the people to practise thrift in their private lives but his advice would have more value if he had followed it in public life. The Minister will admit that the white population is on the whole too heavily taxed. It is the white population that have to bear the brunt of the taxation when the setback comes. It is the small group of land owners, industrialists and business men which have to help the country out of trouble when bad times come. Our taxation for general purposes now amounts to £21,500,000. Then we must not forget that taxation is raised by the provincial and divisional councils and by the municipalities. They are all subordinate responsible bodies who render good services in the administration of the country and the taxation raised by them amounts to about £6,000,000 a year. The result is that the people pay taxation amounting to about £27,000,000 a year. That is the point to be borne in mind when discussing the country’s finances. Let me see how Australia with its Federal and state expenditure is at present in the position of having to face the future with anxiety and care, and when we hear how the Prime Minister talks worriedly about the future, it ought to he a warning to South Africa. I want to ask the Minister the question: Is South Africa as sound economically as we think it is? I am convinced that South Africa can only be economically sound when its primary industries, namely, farming and mining are in a sound position. Our whole economic life is based on these two: our farming and our industries. In 1927 the Minister uttered a warning that the revenue from the farming industry was less than former years by £8,000,000. I doubt whether the agricultural industry, especially the export of produce has much increased since the Minister uttered that warning two years ago. I think that our present advance is largely due to mining and especially our diamonds. When I consider the condition of the farming industry I think anxiously about the large production costs in farming; I speak here from personal knowledge when I say the higher our production costs are the more difficult it is for us to compete in the world markets. When we look at the prices of our implements and compare them with pre-war prices then in some cases there is an astonishing increase of as much as 100 per cent. On the other hand the price of our produce has dropped in many respects to what it was before the war. Take grain farming. Before the war a threshing machine cost about £400 but the price to-day is £800. Self-binders which are indispensable to the grain farmers cost £38 before the war but the price is to-day between £60 and £70. Grain bags, ploughs and other implements and machinery have also risen in price. What is true of the grain farmers applies to the fruit farmers and all branches of agriculture. Here I want again to emphasize that the world market is the actual market of the farmer and that there they have no protection. When the farmer takes his produce to the world market and has to go over a high tariff wall to compete with the local producer—and also with other foreign producers—he is in a difficult position and therefore I regret the step which the Government have taken in connection with the Act passed in 1925, to remove the preferences which had existed for many years, and also the entering into of the German treaty. By those two steps the Government in my opinion administered a heavy blow to the preference which the wine, fruit and tobacco farmers will feel, not only in England but also in other parts of the British Commonwealth. The producers of dried fruit get a considerable preference in New Zealand and in Australia there is a preference on our wine, but I think that the action of the Government and the alteration it has made will not assist our farmers in competing abroad. The markets inside the British Commonwealth are the only ones sympathetic towards our farmers and where we can expect benefits. The other countries are mostly surrounded by high tariff walls. Then I also think that South Africa more than other countries within the British Commonwealth needs preference. I am convinced that our agriculture demands the full attention of the Government. I should like especially to call the Minister’s attention to the poor time our grain farmers have had during the past few years. Not only did the price of wheat not pay at all but the price of forage and barley was small. We have a surplus of forage but unfortunately this year there was not a paying market for export and a wheat market has been killed by big importation.

Are you advocating more protection?

I will indicate my remedies later. The Minister knows that the price of wheat has risen during the last few weeks but unfortunately our farmers have not got the benefit of it because most of the wheat was already sold. I understand that the rise was due to the fact that the harvest prospects in Canada are poor. The harvest time will be in a few weeks over there. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the section of economics and markets cannot give more attention to the harvest prospects in other countries. It is no use if the section only principally attends to markets. If the wheat farmers had known a few weeks ago about the prospects in Canada then they would have had greater benefit from the rise in price. The chance is now however lost. Our farmers want a closer connection between the agricultural department and the agricultural population especially in the matter of markets and science. I do not know how things are in other parts of South Africa but in the districts of Caledon, Bredasdorp, and Swellendam which possibly produce the most grain in the Union there is not proper touch between the farmers and the experts. There is no experimental farm, there is no analysis of ground and we get little advice in connection with the use of fertilizers to increase production. I assure the Government that the south-western districts are eminently suited for grain, fruit, and sheep farming but there is a great lack of scientific knowledge. I hope that the visit of the scientists to our country will encourage the agricultural department to spread more scientific knowledge among the farming population and to bring them into closer touch with science.

And in that way increase the budget.

We already have a large number of capable scientific men in the service. There is a sufficient staff at the Agricultural College, Stellenbosch-Elsenburg, but the question is whether it is adequate and is as large as they themselves would like, to get in touch with the farmers. Agriculture is an unlimited science and the farmers must he taught what is best for them. A large part of the farming population have acquired knowledge naturally. They have learnt by experience but they do not get proper association with scientific men. I think development in this direction is very necessary. I said that there were two primary industries, namely, farming and mining. The mines unfortunately are a retrogressing industry. In the passage of time—I hope that it will not be for many years—the mining industry in South Africa will disappear. As long as the mines exist it is our duty to scientifically improve our agriculture and to push it as much as possible. The mines at present constitute the chief market for our farming products, the surplus production to a large extent goes there. The other day when the hon. members for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), and Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) said a few words on behalf of the mines an hon. member referred disparagingly to it, that I want to tell the hon. member that they and other hon. members have the right of speaking about them, and the mines are of great importance to agriculture. When we talk of the interests of the mines we talk of the interests of agriculture; the healthier the mines the better the price the farmer gets for his produce. When our mines disappear and we are entirely dependent on farming in South Africa our position will be still more difficult. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) has spoken inter alia about the development of our industries. Our farming population is prepared to give protection to our secondary industries but the idea is gradually growing amongst the population that the Parliament is commencing to give greater protection and attention to secondary industries than to primary.

How do you prove that?

I say the idea is gaining ground. Our industries are based on protection and the protection for the establishment of an industry of that kind must usually be a good one. If they get the necessary capital there still remains the need for collecting Scientific knowledge. That is one of the points for our agriculture department. We do not get enough help in scientific matters. I have shown the Minister that in the districts I am acquainted with that there is not proper contact between the scientific experts and the farmers. We require the science because the large farms are becoming smaller through being continually sub-divided. In that way there is more intensive working and cultivating of the ground required and the smaller the farm the more scientific knowledge is required. It is not a matter of a few years, but the farms are gradually becoming smaller and the need of scientific knowledge is growing. The hon. member is also pointing out that we are establishing industries, but at the same time the Government is establishing Wages Boards which lay down non-economic wages which must he paid in our factories and increase the cost of production. If we do not wish to prevent the development of our industries it is necessary for us to increase the cost of production.

In what industry has the cost of production been increased by the decisions of the Wages Board?

I am talking in general about our industries. The Minister knows that most of the Wage Board decisions are not put into force because the courts have intervened.

But what industries do you refer to?

I am talking of industries generally like canneries, clothing factories and other factories whose products the farmers buy. The reduction of taxation is one of the things which reduces the farmers’ costs of production. I am glad that the Minister listened to-day to the desire on both sides of the House that the farmer shall have the right to deduct from his income tax return, the expenses of permanent improvements on the farms such as dams, wire fencing. That is the way our farmers should be assisted instead of always talking party politics.

There was great disappointment on this side of the House at the fact that after hearing so much talk from the opposite side during the election we, contrary to expectations, have heard nothing of importance which is worth replying to. Behind me there is the strong current of capable sharpshooters who are ready, and I fear that they find there is nothing to shoot. I have listened attentively to the criticism of the first two Opposition speakers and I must honestly say that I have only found one point which can be regarded as fair criticism and which will be regarded by the public as fair and just, and that is that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) found fault with the Government for having decided not to stop but to carry out an undertaking of the S.A.P. Government, namely, the electrification of the Sea Point line. I have never yet seen the Opposition criticize its own policy in that way. We know that when the present Government came into office plans were already far advanced and contracts were already concluded. The public had to learn by bitter experience what the results of the undertakings of the previous Government were. I have listened attentively to the previous speaker when he held himself out as the champion of the farming population. I may possibly tell him that in this respect he has been preaching to the converted. This Government has shown more sympathy for the farming population than any previous Government, and has done everything to help the farmers forward. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) pointed out firstly that the farmers’ costs of production must be reduced. We who have anything to do with farming know that the production cost is high, that the cost of the land is in many cases far too high. But what does the hon. member suggest? He says that he is criticizing constructively. The hon. member said that the cost of farming instruments was too high. Does he not know that one of the first things that the present Government did was to scrap the import duties on farm implements? All that could be done by the Government has been done, the high price of farming implements is certainly not due to the protection policy of the Government. Then the hon. member pleaded for the development of foreign markets and immediately afterwards—in the same, breath—he attacked the German treaty. I had thought that after the experience gained in the election the hon. member would drop that attack. The hon. member said “the result of the German treaty will be that we shall lose preference in the empire market” and then he said “the only market in which the farmers to-day received sympathy is in England and in the empire.”

“Received preference”,I said.

“Sympathy” is the word you used.

I said “consideration and sympathy.”

The hon. member perhaps used many other words besides “sympathy.”. This is just what we regret most, that the only market where the South African farmer gets sympathy is the English market. We want him to have sympathy in the English market but also in the other markets of the world. We are not averse to England hut would like to gain more sympathy, and the more sympathy we can get for our farmers the better. However, as the result of the preference policy South Africa has been brought to the pass that we have lost all sympathy in the other markets, and therefore the present Government has taken steps again to acquire a place in the other markets of the world. I cannot understand how the hon. member can speak in one breath of more markets and against the German treaty. He further agrees with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in making an attack on the Government in connection with the increase in our expenditure. The hon. member for Yeoville felt terribly uneasy about the annual increase of nearly a million pounds. As if this is something in the history of South Africa that has never happened before. I just want to remind hon. members a little of the past. In the estimates of 1918-1919 the increase in expenditure was about £1,500,000 and in the year afterwards £3,216,000 and in 1920-҆21 £4,305,000. We know that in those days there were exceptional circumstances, but yet cannot understand the fuss by hon. members opposite. The increase in expenditure means nothing as long as the revenue rises pari passu. We know that any business if it extends needs more expenditure and it is healthy as long as the income keeps pace with it. Hon. members opposite just cannot grasp that the business of the state has expanded in a healthy manner during the last five years. It was an expansion in more than one respect and of great importance to the country and people. Take in the Department of Labour the expenditure which has succeeded in greatly reducing unemployment.

Succeeded?

I can say that the unemployment question according to the latest figures has decreased to 3.1 per cent. which is almost half less than that of any other dominion in the British empire. The business of the country has expanded and consequently the expenditure is more. The hon. member for Yeoville complained that more public servants are being appointed but I ask him how you are going to extend business if more public servants are not appointed. He must not offer general criticism but ought to put his finger on the place where the servants are redundant. I can also point out to him activities which this Government performed and the previous Government neglected. It is true that the previous Government at last economized when it saw that the immense increase in expenditure could not continue. Then there was economy of £200,000 in one year and of £480,000 in another, but this economy took place in an injudicious manner Do the Opposition now suggest, e.g., that the salaries of public servants and of railway servants should be reduced? With their economy they went so far as to injure essential state services and to handicap the provinces so severely that education suffered in consequence. Do they not understand that we are spending annually a million pounds more than they in the interests of education in the provinces? In this respect we prevent any retrogression. Then there is £1,000,000 more a year for pensions for old people and this amount will increase still more. Do the Opposition suggest that we must decrease the monthly allowance of £2 10s.? The hon. member for Yeoville said that we must do something that will make South Africa economically stronger. We tried to establish such things as the iron and steel industry. Did the Opposition support us in that? We started diamond cutting. Did they encourage ns in that? We laid down a policy of protection of industries. Did they give any assistance? We tried to develop the wealth of the country for the benefit of the whole people and in that too we have been most strongly opposed although the S.A. party now ask that the money shall be used for other purposes. We as a Government have tried to make our country strong and powerful economically and with considerable success, and that although we have had great resistance from the Opposition. We have succeeded in improving the markets for our farmers at home and abroad, and at home the market has been increased by the industries which we have established. When we came into power there were only 370 apprentices but in 1928 the figure stood at over 8,000. In that way a future has been assured to thousands of our sons. We appreciate the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) pleading for the farmers, because the more help we can get the better. I would however like to point out that the Government has exerted all its powers to help all branches of agriculture, and the hon. member cannot mention one section of the farming population that has not received help. It is strange that the hon. member speaks for the grain farmers and then attacks the protection policy—as if this Government has ever done a single thing in connection with its protection policy under which the primary producers have suffered. Last year we had the case of phosphates being dumped here and then the Minister said that he considered it in the interests of the farming population to protect the South African phosphate factories against failure, and so to put a dumping duty on those phosphates which on account of the freight war came into the country very cheaply. The farmers however came and said that they wanted to get the advantage of the cheap phosphates and then the Minister agreed to their wish and the Government immediately took up the attitude that the interests of the farmers and of the primary producers must have the preference when they came into conflict with the interests of the secondary producers. This also is the policy which we are going to follow in the future. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Caledon can have the courage to criticize as if the Government in the past had done anything which gave the secondary producers an advantage over the farmers. I have listened eagerly for any constructive policy which will help us in the government of the country but the only thing which hon. members opposite have suggested which the Government has not yet done is the reduction of the railway rate on coal. Now because the Minister of Railways said he saw no chance of doing this an attack is being made, and it is said that we are opposed to the mines. I had thought that sort of argument had been demolished because the results of the mining industry have shown during the last few years that it is fallacious. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) will agree that the mines have not much reason to be dissatisfied. Perhaps the Minister of Mines and Industries did keep him waiting a little long outside his office, but the policy of the Government was only calculated to allow the people to obtain their just share of the mineral wealth of the land and the mines have not been treated unfairly. They have gone through a period of prosperity during the last five years and broken one record after another. I cannot see the unfair treatment which they are supposed to have had. They complain of the Mozambique agreement but would they have liked to be without it? I who represent a farming constituency can say that the natives are necessary for the mines and we have no great objection to the importation of more natives from Mozambique where it is necessary and the natives are available. Therefore we consider it just that the Government has obtained as many labourers as possible for the mines. But a point has been made here of the right of the mines to cheaper freight for coal. The Minister of Railways said that if we wanted to do this there were two possibilities, either we must reduce wages on the railways, which after all are not too high―does any member opposite want this?—or otherwise we must raise the rate on agricultural produce. I wonder whether the hon. member for Caledon, who in the same breath pleads for the farmers and on the other hand wants a lower rate for coal, would have us raise the rate on agricultural produce? Let the hon. member get up and tell us how to reduce the rate without paying lower wages or raising the rate for the farmers. Hon. members opposite say that they do not want to suggest anything because we make it a question of confidence. If they don’t want to suggest anything to the Government let them do it to the public; the public will then be able to judge. Except for pleading for economy and the reduction of yearly taxation there was just one other point where hon. members said that we must not incur expenditure. That is the expenditure for a few plenipotentiaries which the Government wants to send to America and a few places in Europe. This is really the only attack which has been made against this side. It looks as if the whole attack of the Opposition has been concentrated on this point, especially when we look at the articles in the S.A.P. papers of the last few days. It is said that this is a waste of money of the first water, as if the few thousand pounds which are spent on that make such a great difference to the estimates. Let me remind my hon. friends of the S.A. party that we are not the first country in the British empire to send plenipotentiaries to other countries. Hon. members know that Canada has representatives in Washington and Paris and has sent a man to Tokyo in Japan. Probably hon. members will say that Canada is a much bigger country than ours, and I agree, but then take Ireland, e.g., Ireland has already decided to appoint plenipotentiaries to four places, viz., Paris, Berlin, Washington and another place on the Continent. Why then should South Africa take an inferior position? The argument of the Opposition is what good does it do if we send a man abroad? What authority has he, and what authority has South Africa abroad? South Africa can speak only with the authority of the British fleet behind it. What does a plenipotentiary count who has not a fleet behind him?

In order to bully them.

Hon. members opposite always talk with so much disapproval about German militarism, but now they say here that a representative can speak only with authority if he has a great fleet behind him. I would ask hon. members if it would not then be better for small countries such as Holland and Denmark to take away their foreign representatives? The position of South Africa in the world, after all, is not so small as hon. members opposite would like to make out. There are some members opposite who suffer very much from an inferiority complex. The “Cape Times” and the whole opposition press make a great fuss about this and ask why we want to show off with a foreign representative. We have obtained the recognition of South Africa as an independent people, and therefore we must assume our responsibility towards the foreign world. There is such a thing as the honour of a country which must be upheld. Our country’s honour and status are worth something, and who is going to measure it by means of a few thousand pounds? Take the sacrifices of the South African people during the second war of independence. It can be counted in thousands and thousands not only in property, but also in blood, but none in South Africa will say that those sacrifices were in vain. South Africa has a place in the world of which we need not be ashamed. But the appointment is also of material advantage to our country. We need people who can give a lead and who can represent South Africa’s point of view abroad. Perhaps South Africa is not so big considering its white population, but for this purpose the native population must also be included. South Africa has an extensive trade, and holds a position of strategic importance in the world, and our relation towards the rest of Africa to which we are now bound makes it of the greatest importance that we should be properly represented in Europe, so that if a question of that kind arises a man can get up who can represent the views of South Africa. So much has been said of the League of Nations, arbitration, disarmament, etc., but when we come forward with a foreign representation which does not depend upon the display of a fleet, then it is said by hon. members opposite: you are only wanting to show off a little. No, the fact is that the people see that it again has a Government in power which does not suffer from an inferiority complex. The real fact is that the Opposition, or, at any rate, the papers, together with a few leaders, have tried to bluff the people of South Africa again about section 137, as they tried to do for years. They thought that if they just made a declaration about our rights that they would satisfy a group of noisy Nationalists in South Africa, and that they need not be in the least bit concerned about the matter any further. But when we get a thing on paper we claim also that it shall be carried out in practice. So we insist that section 137 shall be carried out, and so, too, we want the high status which our people have acquired to be recognized in practice, and that the nation shall take its right place in the array of nations. We claim that what is properly due to the nation shall be given to it. It is required by every person who has any feeling that South Africa should take its place amongst the nations. It was to be expected that the Opposition should make an attack, and I thank them. The tortoise has again put out its head, and in this way we can put an end to it quickly if that has not yet been done. These are the points of attack, and I do not think the Government need draw back from them. The Government has been busy, as the Prime Minister expressed it the other day in putting South Africa on the road of South Africa, to make us genuinely South African in our conduct. I know that there are still a number of things not as they might be. As it appears that the Opposition has nothing to attack the Government about, I shall just draw the attention of the House to a few things. I must honestly say that there are still many things which in my opinion do not suit the character of the South African people. Take, e.g., the opening of Parliament as we saw it a week ago. I thought there were still so many little things which do not reflect the life of the people and do not suit it. Some people may be offended if I say that with most Afrikanders it tickles their risible faculties rather than anything else. That marionette show does not produce a dignified impression on them. That is due to the fact that it has come from outside and has not sprung from the constitutional development of our country. Some people have said to me that I should say to the Government that everything will come right if once we appoint a South African as Governor-General. There are some members who probably think that I will plead terribly hard for a South African Governor-General. I must honestly say that it leaves me fairly cold who is Governor-General, for the simple reason that I find the whole governor-generalship such a strange thing that I do not care much who fills the position. It is such an entirely strange thing which I cannot fit into the social life of South Africa. Many members will not agree with me when I say that I am still always convinced that we shall only be happy when we have a man at the head of affairs who has been put there and chosen by the people themselves, when South Africa has its own President. It may be considered high treason by some people, but I was astonished to hear the other day that the person who was the first to express the idea that it will be possible for us some day to have a United South Africa, a republic within the British Empire, was none else than Cecil Rhodes himself. Hon. members will probably also have seen that even in Australia voices are heard and the question is discussed whether it is not possible to develop into a republic and still maintain the British Commonwealth of Nations. There remain a few things which are not of great general interest but yet are of importance to the people. I just want to draw the attention of the Government to the development of wireless telephony. Wireless telephony, telegraphy and broadcasting at present are developing tremendously and they have become matters of national and international importance. I am here speaking on behalf of a large section of the people both in the towns and in the country. I am Convinced that a sound broadcasting system is of enormous importance to the farmers. It will enable them to know every day what the market prices are, and will have a great educational value. But then it is necessary that the right programme should be broadcast. Then the farmers will long less for the towns, because what the towns offer they will be able to enjoy on their farms. It will be of enormous value to the children of the farmers and of economic value to the country districts. At present, however, a wireless apparatus does not mean much to the people. I would like to ask the Government just to remain in touch a little with what is taking place. The Government bears a certain measure of responsibility. It collects licences for the broadcasting service, and I learn that it has this year collected £27,000, of which it retains something over £2,000, and pays out the rest to the company which is entrusted with the broadcasting. There are a number of rumours current about the company, and I would ask if the Government is aware of the state of affairs, whether the Government is sure that it is in every respect a sound company and that the licence which is issued is being observed. Is there no danger that the company will suddenly cease to exist? There are rumours current and people are confirmed in their uneasiness by advertisements in the newspapers in which broadcasting apparatuses are offered at remarkably low prices. Apparatuses which formerly cost £30 or £40 have now suddenly dropped to £15 and £20. More than one has asked what is the reason. Is the company possibly not in a position to carry on? Will the company be in a position to pay back the licence fees if they suddenly decide to close down? I would like to hear if the Government is constantly in touch with the company. I would also like to draw attention to the unsatisfactory broadcasting programmes. I know well enough that it is difficult to maintain the balance. A section of the people want only jazz and another section only highbrow programmes. This company, however, at the moment hardly carries out its duty. The reason why licences were granted to this company was because it possessed all the theatres, bioscopes and places of amusement, and could in a cheap way provide very good programmes. According to my experience, however, we get more of the jazz kind than any other. If one thinks it over we could have expected it. The company cannot desire to supply them with so much amusement in their homes that they will remain away from the theatres and bioscopes. The consequence is that the listeners-in are satisfied in a way but do not get what they are entitled to. Will the Government not consider the appointment of a commission to go into the matter from a national point of view, and to enquire if it is not possible to do what was done in England two years ago? There, too, at first it was in the hands of a private company, but now it is a State concern. The Government will undoubtedly render the public a great service if it is found possible to create a good national broadcasting service, which is of value not only to the people in the towns, but also to a large section of the farming population. Some people may think that this is not of enough importance to raise in a big debate, but for the future it is of the greatest importance. While I am on this I would like to ask what the Government intends doing with regard to wireless telephony. Of course the Government is not in favour of monopolies and trusts. Wireless telegraphy is already in the hands of a monopoly, but it won’t be long before South Africa will be in wireless telephonic communication with the outside world. I was agreeably surprised to see that the English Government, although it also did what South Africa did in connection with the Beam system, yet retained wireless telephony entirely in its own hands. I trust that our Government will also keep its eyes open and will see that wireless telephony does not get into the hands of a monopoly. Regarding ordinary telephony I am very thankful for what the Government has done. The farming population knows what the Government has done in that respect, and this alone contradicts the statement of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that the Government has not done enough for the farmers. I would, however, urge that if possible still more money should be made available for this purpose. There are many farmers who have for years been waiting for farm telephones, and I hope that they, too, will soon get them. I have just mentioned these few points because the Opposition does not make any criticism which is worth the least reply. I feel very sorry for hon. members who are still to follow me. They, too, will have to try and deal with other matters. I heartily congratulate the Minister. He has restored confidence in the finances of South Africa, and I have not the least doubt that after another five years the people will have such great faith in the financial control of our country that they will again put this Government in power.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the very unsatisfactory position with regard to agriculture that, instead of being regarded as a question of first importance, it seems to come at the tail end, as far as the Government is concerned. We have to realize that the whole of the wealth of the country depends entirely on the land. You either have to obtain it in crops, or you have to grow wool, or produce meat, and send it overseas, or you have to dig wealth out of the bowels of the earth. Pride of place used to be given by the old Romans to agriculture. Instead of that being the case to-day, we find there are people on the land who are being weaned away to the towns, and I think it is a disastrous state of affairs when the land is being depleted of its best people. They are being taken away, and you are not going to get them back again. Men who have the love of the land inborn in the marrow of their bones. We have to consider the reason why they are leaving the land. It is very largely on account of adverse conditions. They have to fight against the elements, and I think it is the bounden duty of the Government to take every step possible to retain these people where they should be. I think we are neglecting our duty if we do not encourage these men to stay on the land. It is the duty of the Government to foster agriculture in every possible way, so that the farming community can make good. A short time ago, when one section of the country had been smitten by one of the most grievous droughts we have ever had, and men were sitting in sackcloth and ashes, one of the Ministers delivered an address of over an hour without one word of encouragement or advice or assistance. That is wrong. We have a duty to carry out, and that duty devolves upon the Government of the day. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is absent. Unfortunately, circumstances have arisen which prevent, him from attending the sittings of the House for the next day or two. We, as agriculturists, are very dependent on the Rand mines. I want the members here to realize that the ore on the mines is low-grade stuff, and the mine owners cannot pick and choose. There are highly trained scientific men in the laboratories of the Rand mines to-day constantly at work, and it is an index that they are on a very thin edge of profit and loss in their working. Once you close down these mines by reason of these mines being unpayable, they will never open up again. Do not think that you can open them up because of a rise in the price of gold or for other reasons. If they are closed down they will be closed down for ever. Now, in connection with the mines, they should have every facility insofar as getting the labour they require. I want to point out the difference in the type of service of the Portuguese boys compared with the boys of the Transkei. It is only dire necessity that drives the latter to work. In Portuguese territory they stay at home to keep their families alive in times of drought. When they have a good season they act differently to the natives in the Transkei. They go to work in the mines. This is quite a material point, and one that should be kept in view. Now I wish to touch upon irrigation. This portfolio has been tossed about from one Minister to another like a rag doll. This is unfair to the Minister, unfair to the irrigator, and certainly unfair to South Africa. It is only men who have sweated through the business of cultivating land to bring it to its present good state of cultivation, who know what that labour means. I was reading in one of the papers that at Sundays River land was bought for £640 by the land bank recently which was sold a short time ago for £1,600. I am convinced that the Government should take over the big storage dams. What these men require is to be educated to the beneficial use of water. There is nothing that ruins land more than applying water when it is unnecessary. They should be permitted to get water at a fixed price. If the men were educated in the use of water, and they had to pay for it, they would be more economical in its use. I think they should get every assistance from a scientific point of view, as they have conditions against which they find it hard to fight. There is just on one million of money spent on one portion of land in the Fish River valley. The Government should take a long view of it, and see that the men have every opportunity of making good on that land. There are some other matters I wanted to speak about, but I will bring them up at a later date.

In the first place I want to express my appreciation of the concise speech of the previous speaker. Then I wish to draw-attention to the fact that by means of the last election the people have again expressed their confidence in the present Government. The people have not only faith in the ability and zeal of the Government with regard to the future, but they have once more given their confidence to the Nationalist Government because of what it has done during the last five years for the development of the country and for the promotion of the interests of the whole nation. Now I feel in a certain degree concerned, not because I am afraid that the ability and zeal of the Government will fail, but because I am a little anxious that while there is still so much work to be done, the people will not sufficiently appreciate the difficulties connected with its performance, so that they shall not be disappointed in the great expectations they have of the Government. I would however express the hope that the Government will show the same perseverance and devotion as in the past. I do not want to go fully into the foreign appointments since the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) has already done this, but I want to express my surprise at the flank attack of the Opposition—through the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan)—on this particularly important point in the development of our external relations None of us expected that the Opposition would approve of these appointments because, since the announcement by the Prime Minister and the Nationalist party of its point of view towards the constitutional question, they have consistently attacked that point of view but we did not expect an indirect attack. The attack is made, not on the desirability, the right which we have to it, or the precedent which we shall be creating, but because the Government has decided to spend £25,000 on the appointment of representatives overseas. I am honestly convinced that the opposition of the South African party is aimed, not at the expense, but at the principle of such appointments.

The criticism is not of the right, but of the expense.

I am convinced that the objection is against the application of the principle of our international independence. This is perfectly fair to us, because ever since the self-determination of the dominions came to the fore, the South African party has consistently fought it. Immediately after Locarno, where the right was given to the dominions to reject certain agreements of Britain with foreign countries, the South African party, through its leader (Gen. Smuts), has contested the position. When this principle was applied and extended, and when the Prime Minister explained his attitude, viz., that he and the Nationalist party were in favour of an international declaration of the status of South Africa, the hon. the leader of the Opposition, after the Prime Minister’s Stellenbosch speech, uttered a warning against the danger which might exist for the British empire from such an international declaration. In the “Cape Times” of 18th August, 1926, his words are reported as follows—

These were the words of the hon. leader of the Opposition, and he and the hon. member for Yeoville, in Durban, acknowledged the freedom of South Africa within the British empire, but opposed our international independence. Now when the hon. member for Yeoville objects to the expenditure on foreign appointments and does not attack the principle, I have the right to say that this is a flank attack on the principle. I want to congratulate the Government and express my thanks to it for exercising its incontestable right—not only by giving effect to the declaration of the Imperial Conference, but also by securing our interests, so that we can feel that the dignity of South Africa is being maintained in a worthy manner by the Nationalist Government. Now, however, I want to blame the Government on another point, to wit, the Minister of Finance with regard to his loan estimates. I have carefully gone into how the public money is being spent between the towns and the country. I have no party political object in this, although the Government receives more support from the country than from the towns. As a taxpayer, however, I want to protest against the manner in which loan funds are excessively spent in the towns. I have found how much has been spent during a period of some years in the large towns—Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Kimberley, Bloemfontein, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg and Durban. Under the interior vote, in these nine towns, as much as £124,350 has been spent, and nothing in the country; irrigation in the towns £20,000, in the country nothing; justice in the towns £97,000, in the country £75,850; lands, in the towns, £97,350, and in the country nothing; police, in the towns, £176,000. and in the country £39,000; posts and telegraphs, in the towns £417,000, and in the country £79,000, etc. There is an exception as the prisons vote is £10,900 in the towns, and £28,250 in the country, but this is not exactly a compliment. Then there is one vote, general, under which the towns receive £386,500, and the country £443,473. In the case of bridges, however, the country has an advantage, since £116,905 has been spent there, as against nothing in the towns. It all comes down to this—that out of the £1,927,000 for public works £1,384,000 has been spent in the nine towns mentioned, as against only £543,000 in the rest of the Union. It amounts to-this—that three-fourths of the whole vote ensured to the benefit of the towns, and only one-fourth to the benefit of the rest of the Union. The position is a little more favourable when we take the estimates for this year, because of a total of £628,000 an amount of £348,000 has been allotted to the towns, and £280,000 to the rest of the Union. The white population in 1928 was 1,778,000, and there were in the nine big towns of the Union 536,000 people, and in the rest of the Union 1,242,000. That is to say that about less than one-third of the white population is found in the big towns, but for that one-third about three-quarters of all capital votes for public works are spent. I do not think that this is reasonable, and I appeal to the Minister of Finance to treat the countryside a little bit more favourably in future. Often in the past when we asked for small works we received the reply that we must wait. I want to mention only one case. For five years I asked for assistance in one of the towns in my constituency. Now that town has been cut out of my constituency, but, to my joy, I now see provision is made for that town in the estimates. However, we had to wait five years for that. I want to emphasize that the countryside taken generally to-day is, in my opinion, showing more development and progress than the big towns. I do not know whether hon. members will agree with me, but that is my impression in my constituency. The countryside is to-day exerting itself to the utmost to afford the development which is necessary. Now I want to say a few words about the railway budget. It is not necessary for me to repeat what was said about it in March last. I just want to say again that, regarding the railway system, I have come to the conclusion that the system we have to-day is national in the best sense of the word, and that we have a system which is calculated and successfully calculated to be a link between the consumer and the producer. The Railway Administration does its utmost to take the produce of the producer from his house or factory and to deliver it at the door of the consumer, and is succeeding in doing so. This is the ideal at which the administration is aiming, and is gradually putting into effect more and more. But a further advantage of the present railway administration is that we have a national railway system in which the door is open for every South African of all capacities, not only to obtain a living, but also to reach the highest posts in the service. I want to express my great appreciation of this new application of the national character of the system. We are also grateful to the Minister for his outstanding financial control. With the exception of one year, he has succeeded each year in ending with a considerable surplus, and this is due to the sound application of national principles and of the national economy which has been practised. Yet we find that this sound national economic principle strangely aggrieves our friends opposite. I do not know who is responsible for the preparation of their party programme in December, but it is, after all—may I assume—the expression of the party views, and I see in it two clauses in which the policy of the Opposition is expressed fairly ambiguously, I must say. Clause 6 of the party programme on railway policy says—

What this actually means it is difficult to say. I doubt if the author could make it clear—

These are sentences which satisfy no one. No one can explain the meaning of those promises. But, regarding the last portion, I must say I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it, because we have had South African party attack after attack in this House made on the civilized labour policy of the Government. We are agreed on the policy, and I want to go a little further and see labour conditions improved. If the Opposition, however, maintain that they are against every policy which is calculated to lower civilization in South Africa, then I say I am glad at this conversion of the Opposition. I join those who are sympathetic towards the staff, but what fruit the sympathy of the Opposition will bear is nicely suppressed in the programme. We cannot forget the attitude of the leaders of the Opposition on railway matters—Mr. Jagger and the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). It is not necessary to go into it, but, as a rule, they have done everything but adopt the tone of the manifesto. I would like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point what conditions he regards as lowering civilization in South Africa. Does he think that civilized labour on the railways must be treated with more sympathy? If so, I am with him.

When business was suspended, I put the question, what the South African party means in its manifesto of December, 1928, which makes insinuations that the position in the railway service is calculated to lower the standard of civilization in South Africa. In my opinion this is a particularly serious charge against our Railway Administration. I think that on the part of the Administration no secret has been made of the conditions prevailing in the railway service, because the position regarding civilized labour has been set forth clearly in the bulletin which the Opposition has attacked so much. If there is a different state of affairs about the staff, which the House does not know, and if the insinuations in the manifesto are justifiable, then the Minister ought to take the House into his confidence. If this is not the case, then the responsibility rests on the South African party to make a proper statement or to acknowledge that there is no ground for these insinuations. This is not the only charge against the Railway Administration, and it is a pity that we have not yet heard the chief speaker of the Opposition on railway matters, so that we could see what line that party is going to take at the beginning of the new session. From the South African party programme of action it appears that party is seriously dissatisfied with our railway system, but it is an omnibus statement which is very vague. About the dissatisfaction there may be a difference of opinion. And the manifesto proceeds—

This is an omnibus statement which is difficult to follow. There is nothing tangible in it. With regard to the dissatisfaction with the system, I can point out that the policy of the Minister in the first place is calculated to develop the countryside and to promote agricultural and industrial production. In this respect the demands of the constitution are being satisfied, but this does not suit the Opposition. Under the Nationalist Government the Railway Administration arranged its rates in the first place to assist the agricultural population, and a few days ago the Minister of Railways put a pertinent question to the hon. member for Sea Point in connection with the criticism of the rates, but he did not reply. The Minister asked whether the agricultural rates were too low, and whether the South African party would like them to be raised in favour of the mines. Before a responsible South African party speaker answers this, I cannot go into it any further. It is also insinuated that the requirements of the constitution are not being complied with, but everyone can see that statement does not mean much. Now I want to ask a few questions of the little handful of Saps, in the House, and I hope that they will reply. In what respect have the provisions of the constitution been violated or ignored? Is the use of civilized labour on the railways in conflict with the provisions of the constitution? Is the payment of the extra money for civilized labour, which is reckoned per capita, and not on an economic basis, in conflict with the South Africa Act? Secondly, I would like to know if they are against the increased contribution from revenue to the Renewals Fund? The representatives of the Labour party did, indeed, in the past raise objection to this, but we heard no objection from the South African party members, and I would now like to know whether they regard these contributions as in conflict with the South Africa Act. I would like to know whether they think that the provision for reduction of interest-bearing capital is in conflict with it. Is it possibly also in conflict with it that the farmers get cheaper rates than the mines?

Mr. Frankel says so.

I shall be glad if those members opposite who think the same will say so in the House, so that the public can know. Then with regard to this, it is said that the railways are not run on business lines. There are a few respects in which comparison can be made between the results of the former and the present Government. In the first place there is the great question of employment of white labour. It is stated that this is not economic. Then there is the neglect of the Pension Fund, which has now again been made solvent. Further, the present Government lays itself out as much as possible to buy its requirements here while the South African party Government bought considerably more abroad. When such statements are made, then the public is entitled to get a direct reply from the Opposition. There are a few more things that I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, namely, the condition of the lower paid labourers. I know that the Minister has tried from time to time for better Conditions, but as there are still noticeable differences between the pay for the same class of labour in different parts of the country, in some parts of which 8s., and in others as much as 10s. is paid, I want to ask the Minister to try to get as much uniformity as possible. Then I would also like to have an extension for the facilities for the development of young labourers. In Cape Town there is nine, in Natal eight, and in the Transvaal sixteen, centres where these facilities are supplied. And in the Free State, 1929, there were no such facilities. This small number of centres is not in the interests of civilization, and better provision ought to be made for the young people. I should also like to say something about the railway capital. The Minister on Friday showed signs of anxiety about the burden resting on the taxpayer. He even emphasized that there was a railway debt of £155,000,000 on which interest had to be paid, and that means a yearly interest of £5,400,000. He further referred to the intentional attempt of the Administration to reduce the interest-bearing capital in a roundabout way—by a large contribution to the Renewal Fund, and by preventing smaller amounts going to the capital expenditure. To me it is a proof that our railway administration have themselves realized the heavy burden of interest resting on the taxpayers, and it becomes more and more a question of importance when we are faced by competition. I want to suggest that serious consideration should be given of making larger contributions to the reduction of the interest-bearing capital by means of the establishment of a sinking fund. This matter is important, because in the near future we shall not only have to face internal, but foreign, competition, because the northern territories are being connected up direct with the sea. In conclusion, I want to congratulate the Minister of Railways and Harbours on his surplus, in spite of the extra contributions, and to express the belief that in the future there will be no reason for anxiety as long as he and the Minister of Finance guard the financial matters of the country.

It has been of great interest to me to hear the Opposition benches pleading so hard and strong for assistance to and support of the mining industry. It therefore becomes all the more peculiar that one of our hon. members, coming from the Reef, should plead for further taxation of the mines. I want to put this position to the House and the Government that during the past five years we have not done a single thing to change the position that existed when the Smuts Government was in power; the mining industry to-day enjoys exactly the same position and privileges that it did under the South African party Government, and therefore it becomes all the more extraordinary that while the Government is making no attempt and no effort towards making the mines pay a bit more, we have some of our friends pleading for the Government to give some more assistance to the mines. I want to say, on behalf of the whole of the Transvaal, that when the South African party, under the premiership of Gen. Smuts, took away the power of the Transvaal Provincial Council to tax the profits of the gold mines, they thereby placed a tax on the head of every adult in that province and said that every white man there should pay a head tax. The Transvaal Provincial Council, which was then violently opposed to the existing Government, had the right, in its legislation, to tax, not the gold output, but only the profits on gold. If the gold mines had no profits naturally there could be no taxation. That tax was very small indeed, so small that it yielded just over £100,000 per annum, and when you consider the huge output of the gold mines you will see that is very small. When the previous Government took that right away from the Transvaal, in order to get further taxation, the Transvaal had to adopt a poll tax. I want to ask the Government, the Minister of Finance and every member of the National party, particularly of the Transvaal, if they are prepared to allow the iniquity placed on us by the South African party in 1922-’23, to continue, because if you are prepared to do so, do not go back to the Transvaal and say you are against the poll tax. It was forced upon the Provincial Council of the Transvaal because the South African party Government took away the right to tax the profits on gold. I will ask whether you will, as soon as you possibly can, give justice to the people of the Transvaal and undo what the Smuts Government did in 1922-’23? Will you allow us to get back to the position we were in before, and to put a small tax on the profits of gold? If you will allow us to do so you will take off one of the hardest and most iniquitous taxes on the people of the Transvaal. Let me ask my hon. friends on the National benches whether they realize that there are so many people living in the Transvaal, who are sons of this country and who are living in poverty? They have honour and pride, and desire to rise higher in the world; they have a desire to improve their position, and they are faced with this head tax. Many are getting only 6s. a day, and not 10s., and the only way they can escape this tax is by pleading poverty, and that they are practically in the position of beggars. You would do a greater service by abolishing that head tax of 30s. for a married man than listening to the Opposition. From 1924 up to the present day the Government has not interfered with the mines, which are perfectly well satisfied with the present Government, and it is all the more extraordinary that we have had from the South African party, led by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), an appeal to grant further relief. It is not a case of that. I hope the Government will restore the rights which were taken away by the Smuts Government in the Transvaal. When we have the provincial elections in the Transvaal I want to be able to say to the people of that province that there shall be no more poll tax in the Transvaal, and that the Government has made it possible to abolish the poll tax. We are going to take, it from the gold mines, but we are not going to take it by closing down the mines, or by depriving men of their jobs, but we shall ask for the privilege we had before the Smuts Government took it away, that the Transvaal have the power to tax the gold mines to the extent of 5 per cent. on profits. The difficulty was that when the new Government came into power they had to feel their feet. They very soon found their feet on a very firm foundation, so firm that they took their time to decide as to whether they would revert to the policy that existed before the Smuts Government took it away. I believe it will not be many days or many months before that position will come about. When you consider the position in the Transvaal today you find that as far as the Government’s tariff policy is concerned, the various extra duties placed upon imports, the people are in favour of those duties. Even the people who supported the members of the Opposition are very pleased with the taxes upon the various imports. In the Transvaal to-day you have got a bigger percentage of industries than you had up till 1924. The making of ready-made clothing, the making of hats, ties, and many other things, has shown that this Government has been on the right track. Yet during the past five years the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and many other prominent members of the Opposition have attacked the Government with regard to their policy of protection, although the very people who were opposed to it have come round and said, “Do not disturb it now; we are all doing very well, and we are employing more people.” The small shopkeepers have said the same thing. It takes a number of years to change a country’s policy from a semi-free trade policy to one of protection, and from one of imagining that everything depends upon the gold mines. I do not care if there is not a penny of profit made out of a gold mine, but I will oppose any gold mine being shut down. [Laughter]. I was waiting for the laughter, so that I could force home the point. Do my hon. friends on the opposite benches realize that the gold mines in the Transvaal are not owned by the gold mining companies, that they are run under licence, that every mine is divided into so many claims, that for every claim a certain amount of money is paid to the Government, and that if they stop paying those claim licences the Government can come in and run them? Do they realize that ever since I went to the Transvaal, twenty-eight years ago, there has been a continual shout that the mines cannot pay this and cannot pay that, and that if you do this, or if you do that, the mines will close down. I have never known a mine to close down yet until it was absolutely clearly proven that it was not payable. When my hon. friends plead for the mining companies, they are pleading for something that the people they are pleading for would prefer them to leave alone. The mines are satisfied with this Government, because they are in the same position that they were in 1924. For that reason I ask the Government to consider the feasibility, the righteousness and the fairness of getting the Transvaal back to the position it was in prior to 1924. Then you will never again hear of a poll tax in the Transvaal. I think that is a fair thing to put up to the Government, and I hope the Government will give due consideration to it, and if they do it there is no doubt whatever that the position will give every satisfaction to the people of the Transvaal. Another petition I have to make is in connection with the question of a minimum wage. I have found that throughout the length and breadth of this country there has been a complaint against the Government that it sets a bad example in regard to the minimum wage. I do not want to say that under a South African party Government we would get a better condition of affairs. I am quite satisfied we would not.

Electioneering.

I am not going to election for the next five years. When I put forward this plea I am doing it because I think it is a fair appeal to make. In the Transvaal we have got to the position of affairs that we have men working in the Government service at 6s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. per day. We have got men working in municipal employ, the City Council, at 12s. 6d. per day. We have them working in the mines for 20s. a day. We have these people living together. Do you expect the Afrikaans-speaking man working for the Government at 6s. 6d. a day?

More than that.

Yes, I agree with you, but with the Smuts Government it was less. Under that Government the people would be sent back to the veld and their position would be worse than it is to-day. We have living in the same street these people working in the Government service at 6s. 6d. to 9s. 6d. a day, in the city council 12s. 6d. a day, and in the mines 13s. 6d. to 20s. a day. You have the position of these people living together, and do you expect the people working for a lesser sum to be satisfied? Do you think the children of these people will be satisfied? I ask the Government to take into very serious consideration the question of a minimum wage. I am not going to say that 12s. 6d. a day should be a minimum for a white man, or shall I say a “civilized man.” No white man should work in the Government service under a less wage than 10s. a day. I think you will agree with me that this is fair and reasonable. What does it amount to? Does it amount to this, that we are going to increase the cost of the Government service? Does it mean your civil service will be run at a greater cost? No, it does not. You have the case of the production of sugar in Natal, as compared with the cost of sugar in Australia. The cheapest labour was formerly in the United States in the old slave days. The cheapest labour has always down the ages been the hardest and dearest labour of the lot. When I put it to the Government in that way I am sure they can understand and appreciate that position. I want to put this position to the Minister of Finance. Whilst we in the Labour party entirely agree with protection――

A small Labour party.

The Labour party is not what we see it here. It represents the feelings of the deeper thought of the working people of this country. I say this because the Labour party up to two years ago unfortunately built itself up under a personal head and that head unfortunately let it down. Of course I am not complaining; I am only speaking to the country. There are only three members of the Labour party and five members of the Creswell party in the House to-day. The South African party have ten more seats than they are entitled to. At the next general election, the Labour party will be ten more and the South African party will be represented by 20 less members in the House. I will tell the Minister of Finance we have supported the question of the developing of industries and although some of us might have preferred subsidising of industries, the policy of the Minister of Finance on taxation is one of which I heartily support, but we say this we recognise that the bulk of your surplus comes from your customs duties. You show that in your returns as well as in your various statements and speeches. I would not ask you to remit a single tax. There are many internal taxes that could be reduced. For instance, some small shopkeepers are compelled to take out as many as six licences, and the Minister might well consider giving them some relief. I notice that the Minister proposes to increase the duty on imported condensed milk by 5 per cent. It will not be possible for the small shopkeeper to pass that 5 per cent. on to his customer.

These licences are provincial revenue.

The licences are controlled under the Licences Act, and the Minister is still in a position to give relief. It is unfortunate that my friend, the Minister of Labour, is not present, for I want to bring an important matter to his notice. The Labour bureaux not only in Johannesburg, but throughout the country have certain defects. They were established under a previous Minister of Labour, and I agree that they do a certain amount of good, but there have been complaints and I do not know whether the officials thought that there was to be a change of Government. I have received the following letter—

Under the present system a man may get work for three days, three weeks or three months, and then he has to return to the Labour Bureau, line up and re-register. I am sure if the Minister of Labour were present, he would tell us he is in favour of a minimum wage of 10s. a day. The unemployed are anxious for work, and they feel the hardship of being given a few days’ employment and then being thrown into the streets. It is a vicious circle which begins to drive the iron into a man’s soul. If the job to which a man is sent is finished, the man should be side-tracked into another job. I am very glad indeed to hear that the Minister is going to set up a commission to inquire into miners’ phthisis, for if there is one thing which has tried the loyalty of the Government’s supporters, it is this question of miners’ phthisis. During the general election when we went to address various meetings, the absorbing topic was, “What is Government going to do about miners’ phthisis?” The Government should appoint a commission which would be fair in every sense of the word. It is no use having a commission consisting of members who will take their seats upon it with a view to getting something better for themselves later on. I would rather have men who have nothing to gain from their report, apart from the benefit it may do to the workers. The Minister should be careful of not making political appointments to the commission. I do not care if there is not a single Labour man on the commission, but I do hope that it will play the game to the workers. Does the Government realize that many men have come in from the healthy veld, have gone down into the mines, and have there been faced with the fear of miners’ phthisis? The one engrossing thought of the miner is, how long can he carry on without contracting phthisis, and how soon can he leave the mine when he has phthisis. He hopes that, at any rate, he will be able to quit underground work so as to be able to enjoy some years life with his family. Does the Government realize that these people have this fear? They have the fear that the Miners’ Phthisis Board is not altogether sympathetic towards them. They feel that too many of their Companions who worked 6,000 or 7,000 feet below the surface with them are dying from it quickly. They do not like the idea that so and so was ordered out of the mine, and twelve months later he is dead. What is worse, they do not like the idea that some men who die have worked 15 or 20 years in the mine and it is medically certified that they have died from heart failure or some other disease. It is right the Government should realize that, and it is right that members of the Nationalist party should know that and should realize that the bulk of these men who complain so bitterly are people who vote for and support the Nationalist party. Therefore these people deserve and are entitled to consideration equally with any other men working in these mines. I want the Government and the Nationalist party to realize that these men are bitterly disappointed with the present position. They are anxious for something better, and they know perfectly well that they must get it from the present Government, because they have no hope of getting it from the Opposition. In years gone by they had from the present Opposition something more forcible than they have had from the Nationalist party.

The Opposition started miners’ phthisis.

My hon. friend is missing the point. While these men feel their position bitterly, they realize that they have more hope from the present Government, because their methods are not so forcible as the methods of the Opposition when they were in power. They remember the machine guns. Can I emphasize it more? I do not think I need to. I am sure the hon. member has a clearer intellect than he seems to show at the present moment. In connection with the appointment of that commission, I want to impress upon the Minister to be very careful. Do not consider Labour people or Nationalists, even, but consider the people who are going to play the game by these men who work on the Reef. There is another difficulty that has arisen, one that the Minister has not indicated in his speech, and one that the House does not seem to have gone very deeply into, and that is the question of the hook worm which is devastating the lives of quite a number of miners on the Reef. It is not a matter of statistics or of what you hear about in the ordinary way, but many of us, peculiarly associated with the Reef, coming into contact with these people, know this question is a very serious one indeed, and that there are many men suffering from the disease and many men who are feeling the effects of it. The Government appointed a commission which recommended to the Government that hook worm should be made an occupational disease. I would not advocate that at present, but I do advocate that we should make still further enquiries, and if necessary, establish in connection with medical research a special enquiry by a scientist to go into the question, because I believe it can be cured and so far as it affects miners on the Reef it is in that stage where, if properly handled, it can be controlled. If the Government would subsidize a professor specially for this purpose, I believe it would do a great service. You have only to see the position of these people suffering from hook worm to realize what it means. It is one of those diseases with which a strong healthy man working underground suddenly begins to fade away. He does not know why he is fading away, and why he cannot do what he used to do. He cannot understand why his good red blood is departing from him. It is because this parasite is sucking the blood out of his constitution, and he reaches the stage where he is not fit to do his work and to look after his family. A man who has reached that state will tell you he would rather be dead.

The Government should see that everything is done to try and eradicate this disease among miners on the Reef. A matter which has been made a topic of great interest in the newspapers, especially in Cape Town, is the question of housing. I heard the most eloquent appeal the other day from the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), who told this House that he had gone round to District VI one Saturday night, and had seen the most awful sights. Ten years ago a deputation went to the Johannesburg Town Council, and I remember one of these stalwarts there—he is still a stalwart—(Mr. Hancock) asked me to take a walk through District VI of Cape Town to see what light could be thrown on the housing question. I never saw a more degraded, despicable, and immoral state of affairs than there. It seems extraordinary that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) should tell us that two weeks before he had gone with a policeman to see that district. I am sorry he did not go ten years ago.

He was too young to go then.

If he had been brought up in the slums he would not have had to go there at all. Many of us who come from big cities overseas know of these conditions. When we consider the question of slums and realize to-day that the position as far as Cape Town is concerned has become so serious, we have to go into this, and I want the Government to go into it. Take for example cities like New York and Chicago and the position of local bodies in those big centres in America, and consider the position in Cape Town, Johannesburg and other big centres of the Union where the position is similar but to a lesser degree. I understand that you have forty-two town councillors in Cape Town. Some go into the council for social aggrandizement, so that they can take their wives to the city hall and be received by the Mayor, the Prime Minister and the Governor-General, that is, to receive social advantages. Then you have the other man who goes on the council, who has other interests. These men serve the interests of a slum landlord and of the gentleman about whom my hon. friend spoke the other day who lets buildings and makes £100 per month from them. It makes no difference whether such men are white or coloured. Then you have another man who comes into the council and suddenly finds he is working in a certain direction and supports certain interests and gives support to the slum landlord. Then we come to the fourth and last—the who wholeheartedly goes out to see things for himself. When the annual elections come round and he is straightforwardly out to secure reform he is squeezed out for the social aggrandizement man and the man who definitely supports certain interests.

[Inaudible.]

I do not believe that the city of East London has sent a reformer out of their council. With regard to national housing, I would put to the Government that there is only one way in which you can give a fair and square deal, and that is by setting up a national housing board, the bulk of their money to be secured for the purpose of still further housing. To hand £600,000 to the city council of Cape Town is not the best way to deal with it. The best way is that the people who require consideration are those who are never truly represented in any local body. Some years ago some town councillors very kindly took me to a place near Maitland where the council were building houses for white and coloured people. They did a good deal in that direction; but they have done nothing since.

What about Athlone?

I agree that is a little bit. But if you go to the side of the mountain and look along Cape Town and see the acres of ground towards the flats you do not need to look further than Observatory to see the green grass—as far as you can see. It would be a more healthy place for the people than District Six; they would get Gods good air and would have better surroundings. Then the National Housing Board should see to it that the various big towns house these poor people who are not, able to house themselves. The Government has given large sums to local bodies; I understand that in Bloemfontein the bulk went to men who could quite well build their own houses through building societies, and the same thing happened in Bloemfontein and Pretoria, but not in Johannesburg. Do you know why it did not happen there? It was because we had a chairman of the finance committee at that time who was a prominent estate agent, and although he was told by the town council to apply for, I think it was a quarter of a million pounds, he neglected to put in an application, and Johannesburg did not get money for housing because it was not asked for. It was not the fault of the Labour party or the National party. Knowing what our position has been, that in the past with regard to housing schemes, money has been lent at a low rate of interest to people who could have well afforded to get their money at a higher rate through building societies and such like, I say that the Government should appoint a national housing board. The Government should see to it that the influences that have interfered with city councils and local authorities, and prevented them from doing their duty in this respect, should be properly coped with, and the Government should take up a position that will secure for the poorest child in this country that modicum of fresh air that Nature intended it to have. I wish to refer to the question of unemployment. By adopting a national housing scheme, the Government could increase employment. And they could go further than that, though I don’t say it they can do it in the next few months. It would be a very easy thing for the Government to absorb every unemployed man in the country by adopting a national road policy, and by saying “we will make a national trunk road from Cape Town, through Kimberley, to Johannesburg; another from Port-Elizabeth, through Bloemfontein, to Johannesburg; another one from Durban, and then one from Johannesburg to Pretoria northwards towards the Rhodesian border. Build cement roads which will last 100 years.

What is it going to cost?

I will tell you what it will cost. It will be the greatest thing that the Government has done because you would not have an unemployed man in the country. The matter of cost is simple, because all that is necessary is to do what has been done by some municipalities, and that is to impose a very small property tax. I want the Government not to mistake me. I am not concerned with the land tax, because if you put it on the land, it would mean compelling the owners to sell and you would not get the tax. But a property tax would be collected. Make it one-farthing in the pound per year throughout the country, and you would raise enough money to employ every unemployed man and nobody would feel the tax, and your cement roads would last for 100 years. There are heaps of methods whereby progress could be made, and by which satisfaction, comfort and happiness could be given to the people. I want to tell the Government that they have the whole-hearted support of the Labour party in their desire to solve economic problems.

All three of you?

You don’t know the three of us. I will say this without boasting. It used to be said that one Englishman is worth three Frenchmen, and I say that three Labour men are worth the whole of the South African party, because we have got the people’s cause in our hands. The people shall rule. The people must rule. The people have got a great deal more hope of ruling under a National party Government than under a South African party Government, because no people could ever forgive a party that did what the English protested against the Germans doing. The Germans dropped bombs on non-combatants in the English towns. The Germans did that to Englishmen, but we had the South African party Government doing that to South Africans. Do you think the South African people would ever have such a party to rule them again? Do you think the people would ever have such a man as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to rule them again? Never. The South African people are good judges. Natives and coloured people who voted for the Opposition did not know what they were doing. I hope that before I give up public life we won’t have a native voting direct any more in support of white parties. Do not tell us about the number of people that voted for the South African party in the last election as compared with the other parties. Well I ask the Government, in all seriousness, to give consideration, particularly to the Minister of Finance, to allow the Transvaal province to tax the gold mines. The mines would just accept the position, and the Labour party in the Transvaal could hold up their heads and say they had at last a Government which is a Government for the people.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to a subject which will possibly not interest everybody but which ought to have the serious attention of the House, namely, the system of defence on the countryside. I want to discuss the two sections of the defence for the countryside, namely, the commando and the compulsory squadron. The training of the commando consists of two parts, the Wapenskou and the defence rifle association. The commandoes consist of about 150,000 men. Then we have training squadrons of about 4,000 men and their training consists of a four days’ camp. Just let us look at the training of the various sections of the Defence Force. The training of the commando is in the first place the wapenskou. Any one of us who has once attended such a wapenskou will be convinced that there is absolutely no discipline. The chief feature of a wapenskou is not the military training but the picnic to which the wife and children also go, to see how much pleasure they can get out of it, instead of acquiring military knowledge. As £16,000 is spent on them and it meets no military purpose I think it is time for the Minister to enquire if the money cannot be spent in a better way so that more will be attained from a military point of view and that is the training of the youth, to which I will come. Now we come to another system of training, namely, the defence rifle associations. The officers have no power, and discipline is also lacking very often during the operations. Yet we spend almost £100,000 on the commandoes and the military effect of the shoots is practically nil. I again ask whether the time has not come whether the money cannot be better spent from a military point of view than is now the case. Then we come to another section, namely, the compulsory training squadrons. They consist of young men from twenty-five years. In the first place I want to criticise the age limit, because unfortunately that is usually the time when the young men marry and from my experience it is very difficult to get such a man to leave home. Then the training only lasts four days. What does the training of the youth consist of? Firstly, out of a camp for four days. In many cases it is less than the time it takes a man to go from his home to the camp and back. That in itself is not a mistake but it is very wrong that the man gets no allowance for travelling expenses. To a great extent the men are poor. If they do not walk or have no good friend who gives them a lift they have usually to submit to the mercy of the court. That in the first place is not encouraging to the boy, it does not give him a good impression of defence matters and breaks his spirit, but on the other side the boys are generally keen on attending these camps. What do they find there? Firstly, they have to come in their own clothing and take part in the exercises, next he must bring his own food and thirdly he must make his own arrangements for getting back after the camp, without getting back any allowance. I say it is deplorable when one sees a young man often standing in torn clothes possibly alongside of a rich youth. He has to learn that people are equal in military matters, that there is no distinction between educated or uneducated or rich or poor. But in our organizations the rich boys stand next to the poor, one possibly in good, and the other in torn clothes. Is that an encouragement to the poor ones? Is it an inducement to be proud of doing one’s duty as a citizen of the country? The object ought to be to lead the development of the character also along right lines. What can we expect in this respect from four days’ training, what of the military value and of the effect on the character of it? Disappointed with the organization, instead of being proud of the sacrifices he has made he returns home. When I find fault with the system of training I must also say how economy can be produced. I do not wish the Minister and the House to think that I am pleading for the general abolition of the commando system. I know that people from tradition attach much value to rifle associations, but I am just as certain of it that the parents if they were told that less was to be done in the interests of the children in connection with rifle associations and wapenskous they would be prepared to give them up. If we point out to them that we want to cultivate the right spirit among the children and that the Government consequently wants to economise in this direction they will agree to it. I just want to make one other proposal. I do not know whether it is right but I mention it just because it occurs to me and I think it a way of economizing more. I should think we could put the two Departments, Defence and Justice under one Minister and that we could avoid much duplication by joining similar branches in the two departments. I think that by adding a small sum the administrations can easily coalesce and in that way save a large amount. When I talk about these things I want the House to clearly understand that I am not looking at it from a military point of view. We have a certain object and reason in training these burgers. In the first place we want them to be ready and prepared in time of war but apart from that would it be wrong to regard a soldier as one who can shoot well. To make a real soldier of a burger it is necessary to make him an efficient shot, but also to develop his character, to awake ideals in him, national pride, the feeling that he has a duty to the country and that he must be subordinate to authority and superiors. If we want to develop those qualities the period of four days is entirely inadequate; if we want to make the man come at his own cost we get difficulties, and if he is not enabled to feel proud, and as a soldier to stand on an equal footing with others, if we cannot make him feel that he wears a uniform that he can be proud of we shall not attain the object. We must also develop the character and therefore I would earnestly ask the department and the Minister to consider the system of the countryside. Unfortunately conditions at present are such that the parents have not had the facilities of the education which their children get and often a boy of from sixteen to seventeen knows more than his parents who have not had any advantage of education. The result is that the young people often get free from the parents and do not have the discipline which is desirable. I say that nothing would be better for a boy than a military organization where he would learn the necessary discipline and where he can be trained as a soldier of whom we may all be proud.

I would like to add my regret to that already expressed by other speakers, that the subject of irrigation has not been considered of sufficient importance to engage the whole time and attention of an individual Minister, for irrigation, together with native affairs, form the twin children of one Minister. I hope when the Minister takes his early morning bath, that it will serve him as a daily reminder of the need of irrigation. I congratulate the Minister on having under his command a department that fulfils the ideals of both sides of the House, namely, a South African department staffed with South African men, other things being equal. Almost wholly from top to bottom the department is staffed by men born, bred and trained in South Africa. As an irrigation department it can compare with any department of a like nature anywhere in the world, and I speak with a somewhat intimate knowledge, as I have experience of departments of irrigation in other countries. In our irrigation department the question of the inferiority complex does not enter at all, but there is one disturbing factor; that is in every annual report of the Director of Irrigation attention is drawn to the continual loss of men from the department to other administrations and municipalities. When we lose men in this way to South African bodies, we still have them in the country, but their loss is complete when South America, Tanganyika, Kenya and other countries, not only rob our department, but South Africa, of some of its most efficient engineers. The reason appears to be that the Irrigation Department does not offer prospects equal to those furnished by outside bodies. As long as you have a young qualified engineer having to start on a salary of £22 10s. a month, the demand for engineers will considerably exceed the supply. The head of the faculty of civil engineering at the Cape Town University stated that the universities had requests for ten more men than they had been able to supply. I put forward, as the reason, the inadequate salaries offered by the department. The career of a bricklayer offers better prospects than that of the engineer, when you offer the engineer a smaller salary than that earned by the tradesman whose work he supervises. I hope that the Minister’s relations with this department will be, if not exactly long, mutually happy and conducive to the prosperity of South Africa. We had the assurance of the Minister of Finance that no new irrigation schemes will be entered into until they have received a thorough investigation by the Irrigation Commission. I think the House is entitled to expect something more than the mere assurance that these schemes will be investigated. I think the House should have the assurance that the results of investigations by the Irrigation Commission will be laid before the House. No irrigation scheme should be entered into until the House has been informed whether the Irrigation Commission approves or does not approve of it. Now, on page 16 of the loan estimates, the Minister of Labour has taken a plunge into the rather troubled waters of irrigation to the tune of £176,000. I am very glad to see that, because I can imagine no better channel through which relief should flow than the channel of irrigation, but I want the House, particularly the Government side, to realize it is just as much the desire of this side as it is of that, that these people for whom this relief is required should not only be assisted by relief measures, but that they should also be rehabilitated. I use that word deliberately, because we all realize that many of these poor people are not only bankrupt financially, but they are bankrupt in initiative, and, what is far worse, they are in danger of becoming bankrupt in self-respect, and if irrigation and the settlement of these people on the land can rehabilitate them, particularly in regard to self-respect, the money will have been well spent. I ask the Minister to give the House his assurance that these particular schemes referred to in the relief vote—Buchuberg, Oukloof and Kalkspruit—are the best schemes available to relieve the necessities of these people whom we so easily refer to as “poor whites.” On referring to the report of the Irrigation Commission ending March, last year, I find that of these three schemes one has not been visited, another I can find no reference to at all, and the third scheme is very clearly not recommended by the Commission, although the Commission viewed it with a view to affording relief work. If further information is available, I would like it laid on the Table for the information of the House, because the function of the Irrigation Commission is largely to recommend or not to recommend the various schemes brought to the Minister for approval. I want that assurance both for the sake of the people and for the sake of irrigation, because I know from experience that if the schemes turn out failures, irrigation will be blamed and some poor devil of an engineer who dams up Oukloof will, in his turn, be damned by the critics, and more than likely the hon. Minister himself may come in for some damning too, possibly a not altogether new experience. If I make reference to existing irrigation schemes, I hope members opposite will not retort that the present Government is called upon to nurse the babies conceived by the South African party. If that retort is made, I will suggest it is better to have babies, even irrigation babies, than to be barren. Not only is the present Government called upon to nurse these babies, but I consider they are called upon to nourish them as well, and the Government will find practically without exception the existing schemes are well worth nourishing and nursing. I would suggest to the Minister also that he should be quite sure he is well off with the old loves before he completely surrenders himself to the charms of the new ones. I would further submit that the Minister of Irrigation should consider the advisability of placing upon some of the existing irrigation schemes some of the men it is desired to assist with regard to settlement on the new schemes in order that they may gain practical experience of actual irrigation. The point is frequently made by technical officers in their reports that it is not only necessary to prepare the land for the irrigator, but it is equally necessary to prepare the irrigator for the land. We have also to get away in this country from a good deal of rather loose talk on irrigation matters. I think it is time we stopped saying or thinking that irrigation is an easy or safe road to the salvation of this country, the sort of talk about making the desert blossom like a rose garden. We, with experience, know that South Africa, from an irrigation point of view, is a remarkably poor country. If the direct return we receive from irrigation schemes is not what we anticipate, we should consider the value of the indirect return. I would like to give a single instance of a scheme I was connected with which now has 563,000 fruit trees where, a few years ago, there was nothing but prickly pear. Thus at only 3d. per tree you have a value of over £70,000 coming to the country in indirect returns from a completed irrigation scheme. That brings me to the question of nationally subsidizing irrigation works. I think this House sooner or later will have to face the fact that irrigation will have to be subsidized, and I would ask the House to consider what is the difference in effect between subsidizing a scheme before it is built or making these continual “write-offs,” as they are called, on existing schemes. When you consider that in Italy and Spain, both countries where irrigation has much more favourable natural facilities than here, they recognize and adopt the principle of subsidizing irrigation schemes from 35 to 50 per cent. of the total cost, I think we in South Africa should also consider that matter. I am aware the question is a pretty big one for the country to be asked to swallow at first sight. I mention it so that it may re ceive consideration and be somewhat predigested before the House and the country are asked to swallow the principle. I do trust the Minister will realize that in what I say I am only actuated by the sincere desire to assist him, if through assisting him I can assist the cause of irrigation in South Africa, than which no cause can possibly be nearer my heart. What is wanted is simply a steady policy of progress. We do not want intermittent periods of violent expansion followed by equally violent restriction.

I listened attentively to the speeches in the House, especially those of hon. members opposite, and as I am a new member, I want to confine myself to one point. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) enlarged on the fact that the Government is annually increasing the expenditure of the country, and he complained that hon. members on this side of the House, because they represent voters who do not contribute their rightful share to the taxation. At the same time the hon. member asked for a reduction of the burdens on the mines. The Opposition press has in the past often preached the gospel that the people whom we represent, namely, the white labourers in the towns and the farming population of the countryside, do not contribute their just share of the taxes, but as far as I know, this is the first time a responsible leader of the Opposition announces that theory in public. I shall therefore be very glad if hon. members opposite who represent country constituencies will say whether they agree that the white workmen in the towns and the farmers do not bear their just share of taxation, and whether in consequence we are to conclude that it is the policy of the Opposition, if it should possibly get into office again, to increase taxation on the white labourers and the farmers. I should like to know if this is the fixed policy of the Opposition, and I put this question especially to hon. members opposite who represent our farmers and agricultural districts.

They no longer represent the farmers.

I was glad to learn from the Minister of Finance that it is the Government’s intention to spend money on irrigation work after an investigation has been made. From that I infer that the Nationalist party is going, to create a fixed irrigation policy, and that things will not go on as in the past in building a scheme here or there without having a fixed irrigation plan. When we look at the way in which irrigation works were established in the past it is clear that our country never had an irrigation policy. The cost of the various irrigation schemes calculated per morgen works out in the case of Hartebeestpoort Dam at £80 a morgen, in another case at £50 a morgen, and in yet another case at £17 a morgen. From that it is at once clear that those dams have been built without a fixed policy, because otherwise dams would not have been built during one period showing so much difference in the cost per morgen. I sincerely hope that the Government will carry out what has been suggested by the Minister of Finance, that before spending large sums on irrigation we shall first create a fixed policy, in other words, that we shall start an irrigation survey in South Africa. It may take ten or fifteen years, but let us make the survey and see how much ground we can irrigate and which schemes are the most economic. Let us then carry out our plans systematically, by first building the best paying schemes, and when they are completed, the more expensive and less paying schemes. I further hope that as a result of such a survey it will appear that the existing pessimism about irrigation is unfounded and that there is a chance in South Africa of building irrigation works on a large scale for the reason that they all wish, and have all repeatedly expressed the wish to have a large and strong white population in South Africa, and particularly a large and strong agricultural population. What is the position in so far as agriculture is concerned? Year after year the farmers, especially those with small capital, are ruined not in consequence of their own acts and neglect, but owing to the small and irregular rainfall which we have in South Africa and which is against the small farmer with a small capital. In other words the small farmer with small capital can only exist, if humanly speaking, he can be assured of a good average harvest every year, and he can only be certain of that if he farms in a favourable area, or if he can be established on ground which has a certain and fixed water supply for irrigation purposes. At the moment there is a commission going about enquiring into the poor white question. We assume that there are more than one—possibly many—questions, but we will all agree that people on the countryside become poor whites because of the fact that farmers with small capital cannot battle with successive periods of drought. We shall find that a large percentage of the farmers have been ruined owing to the droughts. We are thankful for what has already been done towards solving the poor white question, that the Government has given work to the people, and that work has been found for the poor people under that industrial policy. But we shall have to go further than that to tackle the cause of the poor white question. One of the causes without doubt is that farmers with small capital cannot succeed in a large part of our country. If, therefore, we want a large and strong agricultural population, I am personally convinced that we shall have to irrigate on a large scale. This goes further than the mere solution of the poor white question, in other words in maintaining the position of the white man politically. If we want to create a position in which the white man of South Africa will be able to maintain himself economically as against the natives it is absolutely necessary for the continuance of the white race that our land should be able to carry a larger farming population than it does at present. How can we bring that about? Can our country, apart from irrigation works, carry more people than at present? Personally I do not think so. The only solution, or rather the chief one, to make a larger white population possible is to strengthen the chances of existence of farmers with small capital on the land. In my opinion one of the most effective ways is building irrigation works on a large scale, but I appreciate that we cannot do so without first making proper enquiries about the size and extent of such proposed irrigation works as well as the cost. Just one point more in connection with this. I do not think there was a proper enquiry in the Northern Transvaal, and yet millions of pounds have already been spent in irrigation works in South Africa. Possibly after an irrigation survey of our country we should find that it would be much better to begin with large irrigation works in the Transvaal rivers which have a permanent supply of water for nine out of the twelve months. But in those parts there has never yet been an enquiry into the most effective and successful schemes of irrigation possible. Perhaps we shall find parts where thousands, and tens of thousands of people can he settled on irrigable land. The present Government will render another great benefit to the country if it also settles this big question as successfully as other big questions This will be a great step in advance, and strengthen the farmers on the lands, and the white race generally. I hope the Minister of Finance will make the necessary funds available to make a careful irrigation survey so that in future irrigation can be done on a fixed basis and not in the loose way it was done in the past.

I rise with all due maidenly modesty to register a plea for a little sympathy from the Government towards the wool growers of South Africa. It is all very well for the Ministers to say that the country is in a flourishing condition, but I warn them that there is a distinct feeling of alarm amongst the sheep farmers, for they feel that a determined attack is being made by the artificial silk producers against the wool trade. This view, however, is not supported by the scientists and experts with whom I have been in contact with for some considerable time now. They say there is no danger to medium fine wool, and that it has nothing to fear from artificial silk. When I say medium fine wools I mean anything above 64’s quality. A staple of at least 2½ inches with a fine length of staple in the fibre, not too greasy, with a kindly handle and free of kemp and all coloured fibres. The present drop in price is not due to artificial silk. I mention this to reassure the farmers, because there is a distinct feeling of uneasiness, and I fear that the wool growers might play into the hands of the speculators by panic selling. I think, before the end of the year, that the wool will show a tendency to rise in price rather than recede further. I refer to fine wool. I am afraid that the position of strong wool is not so good. For the benefit of members opposite who do not represent sheep farmers, I should state that my remarks about the absence of Kemp does not refer to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who is not in his seat to-night. To give an idea of what wool means to South Africa, I must quote the exports and imports of the country for 1928. In round figures, omitting all fractions of millions, our exports were £93,000,000, our imports £75,000,000, leaving a trade balance of £18,000,000 in our favour. The total export of gold, diamonds, coal, etc., amounted to £57,000,000, leaving only £36,000,000 for all our exports including agriculture, and of this £36,000,000 nearly £17,000,000 represented wool, that is getting on to 50 per cent. From this it will be seen that as the lives of the mines become shorter, and their production less, our prosperity in the future will depend more and more upon our greatest agricultural asset, wool. The welfare of which, therefore, is of the utmost possible importance to the country. The farmers are being constantly alarmed by reports regarding artificial wool. I wish to say, respecting the claim of artificial wool, that the reports are largely exaggerated, and as each re-assurance has been forthcoming, a sigh of relief has gone up from the wool growers of this country. But the time may come when that re-assurance may not be available and I only hope, for the sake of the Government opposite, that it will not occur during election time. A few weeks ago a new artificial wool was heralded with a fanfare of trumpets in the press, and we wool farmers had sleepless nights. But I can definitely state that there is no danger from this particular fibre, as I am led to believe that it was merely jute sack torn up and chemically treated. Further, the stock brokers informed me that although an attempt was made to raise the capital of hundreds of thousands of pounds to float the concern, only some £20,000 was subscribed. At the same time there has been a further rumour of a new synthetic wool, and this appears to be more dangerous, for it is claimed that it can be blended with real wool. But even if this rumour is authentic it will not effect the fine wools at present. But the hunt is up and the search for artificial fibres goes on, and no one can say what some internal chemist may not think of in his bath to-morrow morning. Wool has strong “talking points,” especially fine wool, and there is nothing that can take its place at present, but there are grave potential dangers ahead if we sit still and think that wool can continue to sell itself as it has done in the past. The “Buy more wool” campaigners, who rely upon the great qualities of wool, to sell itself, have a sound argument in many respects, hut there is also a weakness in what they say. They maintain that if the public really was made to realize the qualities of wool that it would continue to sell itself. To quote some of these qualities. Wool is unique as regards elasticity. It will stretch, when wet, to 70 per cent. of its length, and if the stretching force is released it will return to its original size. Therefore if woollen clothes are properly folded and allowed a period of rest, they will regain their appearance and shape in due course. And I would suggest therefore to hon. members who attend the evening sessions, and have to sleep in their clothes, that if they will but wear wool they will look as spick and span as ever to-morrow morning. Its strength is phenomenal. A fibre of wool 1/5000 of an inch thick when stretched to 70 per cent. took nearly an ounce of weight to break it. The tensile strength of wool is 17 tons to the square inch, compared to metals of equal thickness, copper (annealed), is 18 tons, whilst gold is just the same as wool and aluminium only 12 tons. Fineness and lightness is essential to good modern clothing—one ounce of wool will reach 100 miles. It will keep in the heat, and will therefore keep out the cold. It holds moisture which prevents the wearer catching a chill due to rapid evaporation causing a sudden drop in body temperature. The conductivity of wool compared with other fabrics is as follows: Cotton, 0.56; silk, 0.44; wool, 0.37. On putting on an undergarment the fabric should absorb the moisture from the body and generate its own heat, or else the wearer has a clammy feeling. Wool, if wetted, will generate heat, and one pound of perfectly dry wool if wetted, will raise a pound of water a quarter way to boiling point. In the past wool has sold itself, due to the above qualities and also due to the fact that it has no competitors but coarse or strong wool are being effected by artificial silk. The world in general, and women in particular, demand light clothing, and you can’t make a light fabric out of a coarse wool, and therefore the “buy more wool” campaign is useless unless you can deliver the goods. We have an ideal climate for growing the best qualities of fine wools, that is from above 64’s upwards and we should exploit this great asset to the full. A few years ago I well remember a sheep expert telling me that we should follow the lead of the Australian growers who say: “We don’t care what the buyers want, we are going to grow the wool that fills the bales. Strong wool gives the greatest bulk. The buyers can take it or leave it.” I think that with the advance of synthetic silk there will be a tendency to leave it. There is no doubt however that the result of this advice is the cause of some of us growing “barb wire” to-day. It is no use to sit still because of the great qualities of wool and say further that because the world uses 12 per cent. more wool to-day than it did before the war whilst the population of the world has only gone up by 7 per cent. therefore there will never be an over-production of wool. It is not a question of over-production, but to sell what we produce. To-day there is no over-production of ostrich feathers yet there is no sale for them. The number of sheep in the world in 1900 was 675 million, in 1911 it had gone down to 640 million, in 1925 it was still further down to 572 million, whilst in 1926 there was a slight increase to 603 million. This clearly shows that the peak was reached 29 years ago. In South Africa in 1904 there were 16 million sheep, in 1911 30 million and in 1929 40 millions in round figures, so though South Africa has more than doubled her total number of sheep since 1904 the total of the world has fallen by 72 million and this shows the importance of the wool industry to us. This would lead one to suppose therefore that there is far less wool in the world to-day than there was 29 years ago, but the ratio is not the same, for as I said the peak of the number of sheep was in 1900, which had fallen by 72 million in 1926, we find that in 1927 the greatest total weight of wool was produced that the world had ever seen. This was due to the larger quantities of wool that the grower succeeded in packing on the sheep, but we all know there is a danger line which if crossed will adversely effect the constitution of the animal and I have been unable to find out what percentage of the sheep in the world have reached this maximum carrying capacity. Therefore what amount of wool lost due to the decrease in sheep is made up by the extra bulk carried by them today. As an example let me quote Australia. Here we find that the growers have increased their yield from 5 to 8 lbs. per sheep in the last 36 years, while South Africa has put on 21bs per sheep in the last ten years. We know Australia produces from 24 per cent. to 27 per cent. of the world’s total wool. Yet with one-sixth of the world’s total sheep she produced no less than one-third of the world’s total output of wool. So until the sheep of the world are carrying their maximum quantity we cannot state definitely that there will be a decline in the output of wool in the same ratio to the decline in the number of sheep even should they continue to decrease in numbers. I mention this as the optimists say (and by optimists I mean those who think that no action is necessary, for wool will continue to sell itself) that wool has nothing to fear from artificial fibres because, due to closer settlement sheep are continually being pushed more and more off the land. For the sake of argument let us ignore artificial wool entirely and suppose synthetic wool will never be produced, which is a bold prophesy to make, let us take the position of artificial silk. It was first thought of in 1730 but it was not until 100 years later that it was again considered and it was not until a further half century has elapsed that it was being produced in commercial quantities. In 1891 we find the production was 27,000 lbs. whilst in 1921 the output had risen to 67,000,000 lbs., in 30 years. Five years later it had gone up still further to 223,000,000 and in the following year to no less than 305,000,000 lbs. The optimists say that action on the part of the wool growers is unnecessary as the warmth and durability of wool will always make it popular, but women prefer lightness and cheapness to strength and durability. Therefore I appeal to the capitalists on the other side of the House—and it is extraordinary how during the last five years their number has grown—and I also appeal to the Doctors of Divinity, law, medicine, philosophy, science and what not on the Government benches opposite who represent agricultural constituencies, to use their influence with the beautiful ladies one sees them surrounded by in the lobby of the House at tea-time—their charming wives and sisters—to adjure artificial silk stockings as something uitlanderish and therefore jingoistic and to wear true South African wool instead.

You have no hope, they prefer silk.

Oh I know it will be a ticklish business to get the ladies to wear wool next the skin but if they do then not only will their politics but their appeal as well as their apparel be tinged with true South African nationalism. What makes me particularly apprehensive regarding the future is that the raw material and the finished article of artificial silk are both in the hands of a few gigantic organisations. 80 per cent. of the total output is in the hands of not more than two companies in each of the main countries of production and only ten companies in all control the world’s entire output, whilst the wool growers are more or less divided and competing against each other. Here we are up against thoroughly organised, scientifically controlled and efficient combines, with the tremendous advantage that they can decide upon a policy or come to a decision overnight so to speak. The capital invested in artificial silk companies is as follows: £33,000,000, United States; £30,500,000, Great Britain; and £13,500,000 Italy, a total of no less than £77,000,000 for these three countries alone, not a small sum even to our Government which is always thinking in millions, apart from the money invested in artificial silk enterprises in such countries such as France, Belgium, Germany, etc. Imagine this enormous capital in the hands of scientifically trained business men selling a cheap and efficient and popular article whose raw material is in no way dependent on seasonal production and one that does not vary in price, quality or quantity from year to year. They make their own material and spin it; if fashions change, they can change with them. The total output of artificial silk is 305½ million lbs.—whilst that of wool is 3,061 million lbs. But this is grease wool and therefore it has to be reduced by more than half to arrive at the total of clean scoured wool. Then again when artificial silk reaches saturation point and new outlets have to be found what will be the first to be attacked? I suggest the wool trade, and so I feel we must watch the future. While there is nothing to touch wool for warmth, the present tendency with central heating is for a flimsy garment and a fur coat. I have said that South Africa has 40,000,000 sheep. For argument sake let us take a sheep at 25s. and grazing ground on the average at £3 per morgen with 2 morgen to the sheep and we find that about £290,000,000 represents the capital invested in the sheep industry in South Africa. Speaking for my own constituency where wheat-land varies from £10 to £25 per morgen wheat growing alone cannot bring up the interest on the capital unless it is combined with wool growing. It is not an exaggeration to say that one-third of the farming of this country has wool product-foundation and bring it crashing down who can tell what it will tear down with it, so it is the duty of the Government to keep at least two moves ahead of our rivals. If the Minister of Finance would only give us 2d. on every bale of wool we produce out of his Alexandra Bay Jewellery department or if the farmers could be persuaded to subscribe 2d. a bale, we could raise nearly £7,000 per annum which could be utilized for research and propaganda work. If our Government could co-operate with the Government of other wool producing countries, on the same basis, a fund of £72,000 per annum could be raised for purposes of research and propaganda. We are told there is no danger to fine wool but there is a distinct threat to the strong wool. Eight years ago we were told there was no danger to strong wool. Eight years hence how do we know that fine wool will not be threatened in the same way as the strong wool to-day. No, wool sold itself when it had no competitors but now we have a relentless and scientifically trained competition as its foundation. If you disturb that competitor. If we are to compete against science without science, it is like sending men armed with bows and arrows against machine guns. If you are up against machine guns you must go one better and borrow a tank. Let this be our maxim. Let us have confidence in our wool. Artificial silk can’t hurt our fine wool at present so don’t let us talk about it too much as we are merely advertising it for them, but let us set to work silently and scientifically to defend ourselves. There is no need to fear our competitors but for heavens sake don’t let us treat them with contempt. We don’t treat our friends opposite with contempt but we certainly don’t fear them. Do not let us rush into foolish and ill-considered schemes in panic, but find out what is required to assure our safety in the future, and research work is the finger post that points the way. This research work will have to be one of two kinds, here in the country of production, and overseas in the country of manufacture. I started this as a maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, let me finish on the note of a maiden’s prayer to the Ministers of the Crown opposite to force their Government to show a little sympathy to the wool growers of South Africa.

On the motion of Mr. le Roux, debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.