When will the brown book of the Railways and Harbours be laid on the Table?

I hope to do so to-day.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Col.-Cdt. COLLINS seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

The Rev. Mr. FICK objected.

I move—

It gives me pleasure to introduce this motion this afternoon. In passing, I want to draw attention to the fact that the petition has been signed by 60,000 people, and not by only 54,900 as stated in the motion. The petition was laid upon the Table in February last, but nothing was done; that is why I raise the matter again. It is not my intention to tell the Government what to do, the more so after the prominence given to this question on the Government’s programme. The petition has its origin at a congress in Bloemfontein in July last to discuss the question of unemployment. This matter has been a subject of many congresses, a great deal has been written about it, but very little except patchwork has been done to solve the problem. The number of signatures show how seriously it is regarded by the public. It is calculated that there are about 160,000 poor whites, men, women and children, who will not get on their feet again unless they are helped. There are parts of the country where people are threatened by starvation, and there is much misery in the cities. We should regard this as an abnormal state of affairs and not say indifferently that we shall always have the poor with us. It is extraordinary that 11 per cent of our white population are paupers. According to the normal percentage for other countries we ought not to have more than 3 per cent. poor people in South Africa. It does not do to say that this is only an aftermath of the great war, because this has been going on for the last 22 years, as hon. members will admit when they read the interim report of the Unemployment Commission of 1921. This is not a mere passing phase, and no sane person will say that laziness is the cause of it. An expert stated some time ago that 40 per cent, of the poor whites are mentally defective, but that is not based on scientific investigation. It is true we shall always have poor people, but we have to combat this enormous amount of poverty. Most of those people are the children of our old pioneers. What would South Africa have meant as a white man’s country if it had not been for those pioneers? We should not forget that South Africa has to rely on them and on their children for its future development. The petition requests that the two interim reports of the Unemployment Commission should be carried out. These reports suggest that the people be helped and that there should be more relief works. A sum of £100,000 more has already been placed on the Estimates by the Government for that purpose. Relief works, however, are only patchwork and they do not do away with the evil. More settlements should be established. The cause of the failure of the settlements of the past has been that without discrimination every man was given a portion of land to cultivate. Therefore the Commission suggests that there should be a probation settlement where the people should be taught how to farm scientifically. We hope that a Bill in that direction will shortly be introduced. The probation settlement idea is an excellent one. Inspectors ought to be appointed to teach the people how to farm, how to co-operate, and how to dispose, of their products. That will help towards putting the settlements on a better basis. Another kind of settlement prayed for in the petition is one where people will be compelled to work on the lines suggested by the Unemployment Commission. It is not a popular topic, and that matter has had our attention for the last twelve years. The late Government went so far as to draft a Bill concerning the matter, but together with so many other very useful documents it reposes peacefully in the pigeon-holes. The leaders of the different parties have agreed not to make party capital out of the matter, and the synods of all the churches have confirmed this. It is not likely that any section of the public will raise any objection, and the new Government consequently need not fear anything. There are not so very many people who will have to be sent to these probation settlements. Modern civilization requires that punishment should be of a constructive nature. The Transvaal Liquor Law is making numerous criminals out of honest people who have to go to the towns and try and earn something, a large number of them from the southern provinces. In Johannesburg there is a company with a capital of 2 1/2 million pounds who in their own interest are furthering the interests of the liquor trade. The man who makes the money is behind the scenes, while the poor fellow who sells the liquor for him has to go to prison for six months. When once he has been in the liquor trade, it is hard for him to get out of it. Such people ought to be sent to a probation settlement, where they will have to work. The Government ought not to be afraid to introduce-such a measure. Such a scheme will be a good one for all first offenders, not only liquor dealers. The Commission also advocates the fostering of our industries when work will be found for a large number of people. In the ranks of the poor are found people who possess a little technical knowledge and power of application. Many of our sons who are talented in that direction and do not like farming, have found their way into our industrial life. The production of raw materials ought to be encouraged; but that is not enough; as they should be manufactured into articles, and this requires a body of workers. We ought to encourage foreign capital to start industries here for the manufacture of our raw materials. For instance, we could have a diamond-cutting industry. Some people oppose industrial expansion because that generally brings labour difficulties in its wake. But surely the two are not inseparable? In other countries contentment prevails amongst the labourers on account of the co-operation between employers and employees. The workers get a part of the profit and participate in the management of the industry. Discontent increases in South Africa, however, because there is not enough work. If people are given work, discontent and poverty will disappear. The report of the Unemployment Commission also recommends that there should be a board for white labour to advise the Government in the same manner as the Railway Board, the Native Board and the Board of Agriculture. I am glad to learn that the Government undertook the scheme even before this petition was introduced. This board can serve as a bridge between the Government and the churches and other private bodies. I know the Government cannot do everything on account of lack of funds. Individual initiative should be encouraged by subsidies from the Government and not by spasmodic doles. The Van Riebeek Settlement Society is a private movement which works in this direction, and similar enterprises ought to be encouraged by the State. But it is of vital importance that we should start with the children. There are still 12,000 children in the Union who are totally neglected. It is not a provincial matter, because the technical schools are under the administration of the Union Government. The children have to be taught to work, and that it is an honour to work. The children must not be taught to cast longing eyes towards the towns. More agricultural education is required for the rural children and they ought to be taught to look upon agriculture as their life-work. We should not give up hope. The Rev. W. Thompson has already taken up the lyre for the great future of South Africa. He wrote:

Yes, bright are our skies, and great our possibilities. And bright do the stars of hope glitter in the dark night of misery, but these stars have but one message to us, and that message is: “Alles sal reg kom” (everything will come right), but “South Africa first.”

Dr. STALS seconded.

Agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER stated that the petition [No. 310—1924] was on the Table.

I move that the petition be referred to the Government for consideration and report.

I second the motion. This is one of the greatest problems of South Africa. It is a question which not only concerns the poor; it affects the whole white civilization of this country. It confronts us with the question whether we, the descendants of the staunch old pioneers, will maintain their civilization and hand it over to our children. We, as representatives of the people, have a great responsibility in this connection. It may be asked whether there is poverty only in South Africa and whether other countries do not suffer from the same thing. There are poor people everywhere, but the circumstances in South Africa are unique. In Europe poverty has proved a great breeding place for Socialism and Bolshevism. If grievances arise there it is simply an economic matter. In this country, however, there is a small number of whites against the natives, a few civilized ‘people against uncivilized hordes, and for that reason it is so important that not a single white person should be allowed to go under. It should be our earnest endeavour to keep this matter out of the political arena. If this is impossible, we must still tackle the problem, even if it has to be done on party lines. This problem also affects the coloured people, in fact, it affects the whole nation and the existence and happiness of all. The state of affairs in this country is a disgrace, and we are responsible for it ourselves. Since 1903 the question has been raised by various commissions and congresses, but it grows from bad to worse. We have no reliable statistics in this regard. I hope that the new Department of Labour will do its utmost to solve the matter, and I have much faith in the personnel of that department. There are thousands of unemployed, and these people are in a painful state of mind. It should not have been necessary to place £200,000 on the Estimates for poor relief. After the problem of unemployment, the next most important one is the scarcity of houses. There is a terrible state of affairs in this connection, and it adversely affects the morality of the people. Another sad phase of this problem is the large number of people on the alluvial diggings, where a civilized mode of living is well nigh impossible. The people suffer from famine, as is shown by the school statistics. There are many children who do not benefit properly by the instruction given in the schools on account of lack of food. There are several thousand children of our white population of one and a half millions who have to be kept by the State. That is a disgraceful state of affairs. Another phase of this problem is the depopulation of the country districts. Such things ought not to be in such a wealthy country as South Africa. In 1905 a Commission under Mr. J. A. C. Graaff reported that there were 3,000 paupers in the Cape Colony. In 1906 the Cape Parliament appointed a Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. F. S. Malan. In 1908 a Commission was appointed in the Transvaal. Another Commission was appointed by the Union Government in 1916, and Mr. H. C. Van Heerden, President of the Senate, said that the state of affairs was very serious, and he estimated the number of poor whites at 160,000. Then followed the second interim report of the Unemployment Commission of 1921, in which the number of poor whites was stated to be 121,000. This shows that from 1916 to 1921 the number of poor whites increased from 106,000 to 120,000—an increase of 14,000 during five of our most prosperous years. At present the number is estimated at 150,000 to 160,000. Another important factor is the migration of the country people to the towns. A comparison of the census returns of 1911 and 1921 leave a very painful impression in this respect. The normal increase of the rural population, which should have been 20 per cent., was only 9 per cent. The increase of the urban population, on the other hand, was 55 per cent, instead of the normal 20 per cent. The following are the percentage increases for our larger towns during the last 10 years: Pretoria 20, Pietermaritzburg 22, Johannesburg 25, Port Elizabeth 27, Cape Town 31, Bloemfontein 31, East London 37, Durban 55. From this it is apparent that the population of the towns has increased, whilst that in the country has decreased. In 10 years’ time no less than 70,000 people migrated from the country to the towns. That is a great menace to the future of our white population. In 94 rural magisterial districts in the Union the white population decreased by 34,870, and in 35 others there was also a decrease. The following were the percentage decreases during the last 10 years in a number of districts: Aberdeen 38, Aliwal North 25, Britstown 27, Fort Beaufort 27, Hopetown 34, Oudtshoorn 18, Victoria East 26, Willowmore 28. The coloured people disappeared with the whites from these districts. In the same districts there was an influx of natives; for instance, the white population of Middelburg has decreased by 474, whereas the native population increased by 1,270; in Colesberg there was a decrease of 180 in the number of Europeans and an increase of 666 natives. The white population of the Free State has increased by 6,300 and the coloured population by 7,000, whilst the native population has been increased by 78,465. There was an enormous increase of the native population in the towns. In Durban it increased by 94 per cent, and in Cape Town by 196 per cent. Unemployment has increased enormously. In 1921 there were 15,777 applications for work at the Labour Bureau and in 1923 the number had increased to 33,729. According to the Secretary of the Department of Mines and Industries, only 8,000 of the 16,000 boys annually leaving our schools find employment. From February to March last the number of workers on the relief works with their families averaged 25,000. It is noteworthy that the workers in our industries have decreased since 1920-1921. Despite the growing poverty and unemployment, there is a decrease in wages, and there is also a decrease in the number of workers on the mines. What is the cause of all this? Is it reasonable to assume that this is a normal process of development? Is this an inevitable legacy? No, it is a legacy, but it is not inevitable. There are things beyond the power of any Government, such as drought and locusts, but there are other things which could have been prevented by the Government. I would like to read to the House a paragraph from the report of the Commission of 1908 and also from a speech of Mr. Van Heerden at the Congress at Cradock, concerning the neglect of the education of our children. I suppose more children were sent to school after that, but there is still a large number who are neglected. Our system of education is not adapted to the future career and the personality of the child. A large number of children leave school after having passed standard VI, unprepared for life’s struggle. A great loophole in our system is that the curricula for elementary and vocational education are not properly co-ordinated. Our industrial education is under the control of not less than ten authorities. Another cause of poverty is that the rural population did not get adequate protection and sympathy. Plagues, drought and fluctuations of the market caused great losses. The railway rates were too high for the farmers, and they were not protected against foreign competition. The work of the church for the poor whites did not receive proper recognition. The Helpmekaar also did a great deal for education. But there ought to be a radical re-organization of our whole educational system if the problem is to be solved satisfactorily. There ought to be a proper classification of the work, too. There is no greater problem than this, because the existence of the European civilization in this country hinges on it. Posterity will condemn us as we condemn our ancestors, because they let so many opportunities slip without making good use of them. We have had enough Commission reports and resolutions of congresses, and it is time we made a start to carry them out.

We have no objection to the second part of the motion referring the matter to the Government for consideration. We recognize the importance of this poor white question as much as, probably more than, any other section in South Africa. We are thoroughly aware of its importance, in fact I look upon it as being the second most important problem in this country. But we do not quite agree with all the proposals of this meeting which is referred to by the hon. and the Rev. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Fick). We do not quite agree with the appointment of a board to carry out these suggestions. We think it is a matter the Government should deal with themselves. We do not quite agree with all the proposals of this meeting which drew up the petition nor altogether with the interim report of the Unemployment Commission. As I have said, we know the importance of this matter, and it seems to be strange indeed in a country like this, where we are certainly fairly rich in resources, that we should have this vast amount of unemployment and this system of the poor whites. We have been discussing it for many years, we have been discussing it ever since I entered the House about 22 years ago; it was discussed last session; the various churches have tackled the problem, but is there a single meeting which has thought of anything practical? It all comes to this: they say put it on the shoulders of the Government. Has any practical remedy been brought forward except what the Government has done? It was discussed during the last election, and of course naturally the Government got the blame. That was quite natural; it is part of the business. The Dutch-Reformed Church has made a great effort to tackle this question quite sincerely and with an earnest desire to find a remedy. They started with the Kakamas Colony. This has been a success, but only to a certain extent. Quite recently the late Minister of the Interior had to remove 70 heads of families from Kakamas in order to keep them from starving. The Government spent some £40,000 on the De Laager’s Drift Colony, but that has not been a success. In fact no really complete remedy has yet been found for unemployment, and the late Government was blamed for having failed to find such a solution. This is a fitting opportunity to ask the new Government what it intends to do, not only for the poor whites, but in regard to unemployment, for the two questions hangs together. The biggest proportion of the unemployed are, or were, poor whites. The Minister of the Interior has written a pamphlet on this subject, in which he remarks: “There is not, as so many imagine, a sovereign remedy by which the problem can be solved in a single year or a single generation. The poor whites must work and must be able to compete as unskilled labourers with the kaffir and to do more and better work at the same rate.”

Was that before the Pact?

The late Government did try to tackle this question and did its best. We recognize the importance of this matter and the necessity of dealing with it just as much as anyone else recognizes the necessity. As far back as November or December, 1920, the Cabinet appointed a committee composed of leading members of the Civil Service, and associated with them was a representative of the Railway Department. The chairman of that committee was the then Minister of Lands. The committee took over the control of all the money voted by Parliament for unemployment, and allocated the amounts to be paid to local authorities. That committee continued to work until we went out of office, and I have no doubt the present Government is still using it—the Government would be very foolish if it did not. When I came into office unemployed men were employed on the Lydenburg construction, the railway department receiving a subsidy. We said it is not necessary to subsidise the railway department, and we put the men on piece work at which they were able to earn a fair wage. In that we only followed the recommendations of several Commissions who have gone into this matter. We employed about 1,500 men on construction work and their average wages were about 7s. 11d. a day. Under this system the State got what it paid for, and the men retained their self respect, and our engineers spoke in high terms of the conduct of the majority of these workers. As a result of that policy we have created a body of men who can compete with any navvies in the world in railway construction. Other men were employed on irrigation works such as Hartebeestpoort. We also went in largely for afforestation, and if there is one thing for which there is plenty of scope in South Africa it is tree planting, as at present we import at least 90 per cent, of our timber requirements. When the late Government left office close upon 1,000 men were employed on afforestation. When the men first went on tree planting work they were paid 6s. 4d. a day, but after three months they were placed on piece work and so could earn more, and I understand their average pay was about 8s. 1d. a day. So keen were some of these men that at one place in the low country there was a demand for lanterns so that the men could work at night, and some of them also wanted to work on Sundays. There is unlimited scope for afforestation work, and I expect that there will grow up a race of foresters in South Africa as in parts of Germany. Government also paid out unemployment subsidies to various local authorities, divisional and municipal councils, but this was by far the most unsatisfactory experiment. Some of the local authorities did not exercise proper control over the men on their relief works, and we did not get anything like the same results as we did on piece work. Nothing has struck me more than how impossible it is for the Government alone to find work for everybody. For instance, there are clerks and others of that class who cannot handle a pick and shovel. You will never solve the unemployment problem until you have a return of prosperity, when there will be an increased demand for them. Further, I do not see how you can solve the question until you get a large proportion of the poor whites back on to the land. It should be the duty of every landowner to employ a certain number of these people. If each landowner employed one family all the poor whites would be absorbed. When a man on afforestation work proved his fitness and expressed a wish to go back to the land he was, if possible, placed with a farmer to work on the share system. Some farmers, however, did not have housing accommodation, so the Land Bank was prepared to advance money for the erection of cottages. But those facilities were only taken advantage of in a couple of cases. I think I have shown that the late Government was alive to the position and tried every means within reason to deal with unemployment. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) reminds me that we made an allowance for a certain period to the farmers who took these men. We did our best to get them back to the land. In my opinion that is the only remedy. Until we can get these men settled on the land I think the position will be very difficult. I mention this to show our sympathy with the poor whites, and to see whether we cannot elicit from the Government some statement as to what they intend to do.

I listened with the greatest interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Rev. Mr. Fick), the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is perfectly right in saying that during his long Parliamentary experience we have had these discussions very frequently. I remember when I was a young member of this House I raised the question and thought I was opening a new subject, but old members of the Cape Parliament told me that they had had such speeches ad nauseam. We have had discussions, commissions, and reports, but comparatively very little has been done. The hon. member has been referring to what the late Government did in regard to railway construction work, afforestation, and so on. I am grateful to the hon. member for having made it plain, as we have asserted over and over again, that this difficulty is not due to the alleged fact that the white man will not work. Hon. members will remember that when some of us stated some time ago that the white man was quite willing to work and would make a good worker, we were laughed to scorn. Our opponents said the white man in this country would not work and would not do manual labour. That is not the case. The late Government have had opportunities of proving that, given the ordinary inducements the white man gets in any other country, he is just as efficient here as anywhere else. The late Government proved that in their railway construction and afforestation work. They have provided an outlet. They have done more. They have shown that not only in work carried on by private enterprise but in Government works, provided they are properly organized, the European can do just as good work as he can anywhere else. The difficulty in this matter no doubt is—the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) may think that success is measured by the cost of the work. No, it is measured by both the cost of the work and by the wages made by the men. The success of any piece of work of this kind is dependent upon the degree of interest and organizing capacity put into it by the man who is superintending it. The hon. member has also said that in certain cases railway work has been most costly. But the reason such railway works were not a success was because that organizing ability was not put in. Where we differ very considerably from the late Government is in this: While they regarded the employment of white labour as a temporary expedient, it is the fixed determination of this Government to see that all the avenues of employment shall be open to the white workers as a permanent thing.

Railway construction.

My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours said they were going to try to do the whole of their works, not merely the earth works, with civilized labour. When, by the courtesy of the Railway Department, I went down to the Frere Relief Works two years ago in response to some representations that I should investigate conditions for myself, there were numbers of complaints of low wages made by the men. The moral of the whole business is this: that this recourse to white labour on railways or anywhere else has been looked upon as a temporary expedient to tide over a difficult time, or in response to some particularly urgent pressure of the moment. So long as this is the attitude you will find those in charge of such work refuse to look upon it as something into which they should put the whole of their interest and organizing ability. Under these circumstances, whatever degree of success the man in charge achieves, he will not gain kudos with his chiefs or a recommendation for promotion. So long as you look upon it as a temporary expedient until such time as you can come back to your convenient kafirs, you will get nothing satisfactory done. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), in calling attention to the figures that he quoted to the House, said quite rightly that these things must be due to some cause. Our objection, what we have said during the elections, and what we say to-day, is that it is high time that instead of dealing merely with the symptoms in spasms or owing to some report, or particular acuteness of the problem at the moment, we should realize that European civilization in this country is threatening to wither at its roots unless we deal effectively with the causes. We shall stand or fall by the degree to which we shall be able to deal with this matter on a permanent basis. That we hold. Hon. members opposite think that in the short space of five weeks we should be able to give in specific detail what we propose to do.

How many times have you spoken on this question?

Why could you not give it to us in broad details?

I am defining my position in the debate on the Estimates.

But the Prime Minister tabled a motion on this question.

He tabled a motion that this subject demanded the earnest attention of the Government. We are to-day giving it the constant and earnest attention which the late Government was not giving it. This Government is giving it its constant and earnest attention, and intends to do so. One of the first things done by this Government was to create a Department of Labour. On the Opposition side they attribute very little importance to that. We, on the other hand, want to create the machinery which will keep the constant and earnest attention of the Government on these matters and will co-ordinate all the activities of the different departments so that we can see what can be done by alterations of the law and other provisions to induce people to rely less on cheap labour and more on civilized labour, so that the general prosperity of the country can be increased. What is the position to-day? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has spoken of your Unemployment Committee. Well, that committee had not met for something like twelve months before the hon. member went out of office. I called that Unemployment Committee together and one of the things which struck one at once was how extraordinarily little the Government alone can do, how exiguous are the areas of employment the Government can directly command. Surely the next thing to do is for the Government to investigate what alterations we want in the law to see how we can bring a gradual pressure to bear round the perimeter—.

What pressure?

I am not going to be jeered into making any premature announcement of particular measures, but what we do say and what we have already said is that we have recognized that this danger to South Africa is not going to be averted by temporary expedients and by giving occasional employment here and there to a few men on railway work or afforestation. I shall be in co-operation with my hon. friend the Minister of Lands and we shall do all we can to encourage the settlement of men on the land. But it is not only by settlement on the land that we are going to solve this question. I want to point out very seriously to the House and the country that if we are going to maintain our civilized life in South Africa, it is not only in agricultural employment, but in every phase of industrial employment that we must take steps to find work for these men. I have noticed that the people interested in industrial employment say you must have these people on the land; the people interested in agriculture, on the other hand, say that you must find room for them in your industries. Well, we must find room for them in both, in agriculture and in industry. It has been a rule that industrial workers have been recruited from the workers on more primary productive activities. I suppose, according to the contrary view, the race of carpenters originated with a baby being born with a carpenter’s adze in his hands. I never heard of it, and it must have come from a simpler occupation. There is a cheap labour policy, not the ordinary tendency which we all share to get what we can at the cheapest possible rate, but the tradition which has grown up in this country that the law in some special measure should contribute to it that the employers should get their labour at the cheapest possible rate. I am not going to deny that a long-standing habit of mind which we are all subject to in this country is not going to be eradicated by a few strokes of the pen or by a few Acts of Parliament. There are other directions in which we can hasten up, and we want all sections of the population to realize that this is a national matter, and I am sure many hon. members over there are just as desirous as we are to see the white population expanding rather than wither. But in the way they take, or in their political views, they may differ from us or our views. The Labour Department is being organized to keep the Government continually in touch with the way people are living and with tendencies—with industrial and labour prospects which may be taking place and occurring from time to time. We believe that had this Labour Department been in existence, with a responsible Minister whose duty it was to point out to the Government the effect of any particular policy which was pursued, some of the things the late Government have done would not have been done, or at all events would have had opposition from the Labour Minister in that Government. I do not want to enter into controversial topics, but even two years ago a Labour Minister would have had a good deal to say about what the effect of changes which were proposed would have been on the employment and welfare of the bulk of the working population. We also think that by co-ordination and having one department whose particular function will be, whether the question is one dealing with railways, lands, irrigation or with the hon. Minister of Finance in matters of taxation and so on, to see that no measure is taken which interferes with the central policy of the Government; to put a stop to this disease from which our civilization is suffering in this country, there will be a more effective focussing on this matter than has been the policy of this country. I want to say in accepting the motion of the hon. member that the Government must not be taken as undertaking to accept all the proposals contained therein. We have had a very large number of commissions, and my mind goes back to the Indigency Commission of 1907-1908; and the Mining Industries Commission in the same year which also had in it something of the truth; we have had the reports of Select Committees of this hon. House and the report of the Unemployment Committee. All of these reports have had something in them of that nature that the Government of the day has been staggered at the cost of carrying out all the recommendations, and of these causing too much political trouble. It is not lack of information or lack of intention that we have. We are, quite clearly recognizing what it is, and what the feelings and sentiments of the country are, which are responsible for our occupying these benches. We know very well that any measures which, after due consideration, we feel it necessary to put into effect and after due information we shall co-ordinate—we know we shall be relying on the majority of the people of this country in an earnest endeavour to put the country again on its legs and doing away with this poor white problem. In accepting this motion we accept it literally as it is stated. The Government is going to consider that, and consider that among other matters. One portion of these suggestions which in a measure we propose to adopt is a sort of advisory board or council which will keep the Department of Labour in touch with interests outside—something which in its initial stage will be something in the nature of an advisory council, and we shall discuss and consider whether it shall be put on a statutory basis. The hon. member has a lot of questions with regard to doles and these subsidies to provincial councils and municipalities. No, at the present time they are discussing really two matters, and we should not be discussing the first if it were not for the second. The first is this additional growth of the poor white problem, which we always had with us in this country, and which we look upon as they look upon the poor whites in the southern states of America—a perennial problem. At the same time you have the whole situation tremendously accentuated in town or country by natural causes, such as drought and locusts. These two things forced us to deal with matters in a way which are not sound in general; but we will hold out some inducement to the municipalities that if they will train these men in certain work which will be more or less a regular field of employment to them, we will be more liberal to them than if these men are taken on merely on relief works. The keynote of our policy is in all these things. To impress upon the country and those concerned such as in railway building and other activities that this is not an emergency measure only, that it is not meant for the moment only and that we are then going to go back to our old kafir ways. They are going to be permanent so far as we can possibly make them. They are going to be permanent we hope with the cooperation of private employers outside, and we intend to enter as many fields of activities as Europeans can possibly enter.

The keynote of the policy is a platitude. I have listened to the hon. Minister (Col. Creswell) constantly discussing this question, and now he comes at this hour and gives us a keynote which is a mere platitude. Nothing has been brought forward, we are merely considering certain measures. Here we have the Minister’s trend of mind running through it all, “those who exploit cheap labour.” Does the Government in its policy intend to spread European labour all over the country? Do they intend to displace native labour from the farms? In that connection might I ask him if he considers farmers exploiters of cheap labour? I hope he will now descend from the cloud in which he has always been talking and come down to earth, and discuss this matter on its economic merits. There is one thing about it, it can never be discussed apart from the native question. You can never get to grips with the poor whites unless you also consider the native question. Prof. Lehfeldt has stressed that point in the Unemployment Commission Report. He stated: “Measures undertaken to solve the poor white problem inevitably raise questions as to the general policy of this country, and no policy that does not take into account the natives, who constitute three-quarters of the population, is even intelligible. In trying to put the large destitute class of whites on their feet and prevent the children now growing up from falling into the same condition as their parents are in, do we expect them to live with the aid of native servants? Do we expect to segregate the white and coloured people, so that the poorer white classes will have the same chance as in Canada or Australia? Do we expect the poor whites to live side by side with the natives, and compete with them in the labour market? And how can we hope to carry out a policy unless we can make up our minds on this question?” The policy of the hon. the Minister is unintelligible because he never comes down to earth. However, he is now beginning to become a little more circumspect in the statements he makes to this House. I want to talk a little common sense to the hon. the Minister because, you know, a little simple common sense is very useful at times. The wealth of this country is produced from three sources only, farms, mines and factories. Our railway transport system does not create wealth. Your merchants, your civil servants, your defence fore do not create wealth. It is only the three sources which I have named. He proposes to deal with the poor white problem by extending the spheres of employment on the railway by substituting unskilled white labour for unskilled native labour. By doing that you are not producing any more wealth and, these men instead of being used in the creation of wealth either on farms or in the industries of the country, are taking wealth out of the pockets of those producing it. The whole system of this country is top heavy. There is only one real solution to this question, one aid to it, and it is one which I have advocated before in this House—the complete expansion of industrial activities of the country. Economics must take their ordinary course. You will never solve the question by putting a white man in the place of a native.

Does he intend to place a native in the place of a white man to do skilled labour?

Prof. Lehfeldt says the annual income of this country is £127,000,000 a year, and that comes from the three sources I have mentioned, and you do not increase that by putting whites to do the unskilled work of natives. The problem surely is to increase the wealth of the country; there will be all the more to go round. I put these remarks to him so that he might think of them instead of thinking of the distribution of wealth before it is created. He is like Socialists who are always interested in the distribution of wealth.

Why not bring in more Chinese?

That is a foolish remark. We are not advocating cheap labour; please do not think that. This is the position: What are you going to do with natives; where are you going to put them? Are you going to call up some sunken Lemuria from the Atlantic Ocean and put them there? This is merely playing with the question and refusing to face the realities. From an agricultural production point of view we are producing less wealth per acre than any other country in the world, from a manufacturing point of view we are producing less wealth per head than any other nation. We only produce half per head of the factory employees of the amount produced in Canada.

Why?

There are four reasons: (1) lack of skill, (2) lack of necessary machinery, (3) lack of experience, (4) lack of sufficient encouragement to create sufficient industries in this country. It is the same when you come to the mines. If our gold mines were in Australia they would not be worked, and it is only because we have cheap native labour that we are able to produce wealth from our gold mines. We would have been better off if we had had an exclusively white population, but as things are, our productive capacities are extremely low, and surely the problem is to increase the production of wealth, not to grumble about its distribution. If the Government will only get down to the real issue, and endeavour to increase our productive capacity, they will begin to tackle the poor white problem, and until they have some clear ideas on that question I do not see any solution in sight of the unemployment problem.

I would like to call attention to a few misstatements which might have created a wrong impression. I am sorry to see that during a discussion of this important matter there are so few members on the Opposition benches.

Where are your Ministers?

Yes, they are not here for the moment. This is a very serious matter, and if we want to build up a great nation in South Africa we ought to make a start to remove this cancer which threatens our existence. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has followed the discussion closely. The hon. member has always been greatly interested in this problem, especially when he was a member of the Cabinet of Dr. Jameson when he took such a large interest in the work done by the Dutch Reformed Church. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that the church did not do enough. The church did not only start the settlement at Kakamas, but there is also George and the settlement at Goedemoed. The church is not in a position to do everything. Kakamas was only an experiment, and the church is fully conscious of the mistakes that have been made there. The Government can profit by those mistakes and avoid them in the establishment of future settlements. It was alleged that the Government had to take away 70 families from Kakamas because they were a failure. That is not so. Only 21 families went away from Kakamas. A few lost their plots through debts. The others were people who came from outside and who could not be driven away by the church; and then there were also the sons of plotholders who had grown up and married, and for whom there was no room on the settlement. One of the great defects of the system is that provision was never made for proper agricultural and vocational training, because not all the children of settlers can continue their agricultural activities at the same place. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says that if every farmer takes a poor white on his farm, the whole problem will disappear, but in most parts of the Karroo and the South-West there is hardly a farmer who has not a poor white on his farm. There are hardly any native shepherds left. The farms are becoming smaller, and if no irrigation schemes are developed it stands to reason that these farms cannot carry his sons and “bywoners” as well. That is one of the causes of the great movement to the towns. Giving these people work in the afforestation schemes and in railway construction, which the late Government tried as a solution, is only patchwork. The experiment has been useful, however, in proving that the poor whites want to work and are capable of hard work, because many of them overwork themselves under the system of piece work. The system whereby a man has to work to a whistle is not calculated to imbue him with an independent spirit. The ultimate object should be to make a man self-dependent.

The Minister intends to solve the problem in that way.

No, he only utilizes them as temporary measures on account of the urgency of the matter. The actions of the late Government regarding this question were incomprehensible. People were brought from the Transvaal and the North-West and stationed in the rainy parts along the Langebergen. Why was that done? There are also afforestation schemes in the Transvaal. The people are taken from their surroundings and they get discouraged under their new circumstances. The objection of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) against the report of the Commission is because of the board which has to advise the Government. There is scope for much good work by such a board. If it does not now exist anyone will try to influence the Minister and there is sure to be a lack of continuity of policy. The proposals can all be submitted to the board, who will consider and investigate them and make recommendations to the Minister. The children do not progress satisfactorily because there is lack of proper guidance, very often in the homes. The church can do a great deal in this regard The parents ought to be instructed by means of lectures as suggested by Professor Cassimir. That will serve as a guidance for the parents in the education of their children.

One cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition altogether. When we had the Government introducing their amendment of legislation we had hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House getting up and telling the Government to go slow. For party purposes they got up to make as much party capital as they can out of this: that the Government is not bringing forward the whole of their policy. No one in this country expected that this session we are going to deal with the whole of the Government’s programme, but merely deal with the unfinished work of last session.

What about the Attorneys’ Bill.

Now the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) asked whether it was the intention of the Government to spread the white labour policy to the farming community. The hon. member knows well that unless the farming community do go in for more efficient labour they cannot hold their own with the farmers oversea. If the hon. member relies on this fact why does he not use his efforts to try to educate his farmer friends up to the fact that they want a more highly skilled and efficient labour, instead of his stirring up friction and trying to drive a wedge in between hon. members on this side of the House? Every bit of the work is done by white labour overseas and then we want protection against these goods in this country. They will find it hard work on the other side of the House to try to split the Pact and to drive this Government from its place. The hon. member went on to say that we must get to grips with the native question, but they have been in power for years and what have they on the other side of the House done?

They have “realized” it.

They have allowed it to develop!

They introduced legislation which tended to increase native and decrease white labour, and now they ask the present Government to do in a few weeks what they have not done in fifteen years. The hon. member has never raised his voice about the 100,000 natives imported into this country from foreign territory. Have these any more claim to South Africa than our white population? Again, the hon. member attempted to create prejudice against this Government, because you cannot create prejudice against the Government in the minds of native people without creating prejudice against the white man.

When did you discover that?

I challenge the hon. member to prove that I have ever incited the natives against the Government. Frequently loose statements have been made which cannot be substantiated, and had they been made outside the House I know what I should have done. Unless this native question is tackled, there will be no room for us or the generations that come after us. Produce has to be taken from a farm and handled by a certain number of men or it would not have the value it has. The men engaged in distributing it are as much engaged in the production as other men. Where I join issue with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) is this: he says there is only one solution—economic expansion: increased production—but supposing by a stroke of the pen it is possible to double the production of South Africa to-morrow, but no more white men would be employed, or no more wages paid, would South Africa be any better off? Certainly not. To-day our farming population is crying out because there are no markets for the goods they are producing, because the policy of the Government of which the hon. member opposite has been so loyal a supporter, has been to decrease the purchasing power of the people to such an extent that they have killed the South African market. They have sent goods overseas while we are impoverished. What we need is not increased production but increased consumption. What we want is more purchasing power, and as a result of that increased consuming power. Let me take the four points he has raised: (1) Lack of skill. That brings us to the very question to which the hon. member seems to be opposed, the building up of a body of highly-skilled and efficient men who are working in the industries of this country. There is no such thing as unskilled work, there is a certain amount of skill necessary in all work. If I were to take some of the most brilliant and intellectual members sitting in this House, put them outside with a pick and shovel, I could get a navy who would make rings round them.

But you would not have him in a skilled trade union?

I would have every man in one trade union, lawyers and all, and let them sink or swim together. However, I hope the hon. member is going to give us some assistance in getting skilled men. His second point is lack of machinery. That is due to some extent to the fact that we have a cheap labour policy. If you can get human labour cheap it has a tendency to make manufacturers employ cheap labour in the running of their industries instead of employing up-to-date machinery. His third point is lack of experience. They can get that experience the same as the heads of any industrial undertaking by bringing experts from other countries, men who would provide the education and also the necessary experience. Let us make a start. It has been our grievance against the late Government that they never made a start, but they have done their utmost to annihilate the white population in favour of this cheap labour of theirs. If we are going to do anything in South Africa we shall have to go in for a sound policy for protection for our industries. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said that if our mines were in Australia they would not be worked. Allow me to differ. I have worked on the gold mines for a number of years and owing to this large army of cheap labour there is a great deal of waste of effort. Hundreds of natives waste their time on the mines; they should be eliminated, and a considerable number of tasks which are now performed by hand labour could be carried out more cheaply by machinery. If our mines had been in Australia they would be worked by white men, and in that case the white population on the Rand would be twenty times larger than it is to-day. We shall have to separate white and native labour or else commit suicide. Unless you can give the natives an opportunity of developing in their own territory and have their own Parliament the future of the white race in South Africa is absolutely hopeless, and we are bound to go under. I am prepared to work with any party in connection with questions affecting the natives, but I am not prepared to use the native question merely from the point of party politics. The latter step would be fatal, and if the question is not tackled properly, future generations will curse our memory.

We have had a really very interesting discussion and I do not think the time of the House has been wasted. This is a matter of very great importance. I am exceedingly pleased to see the Prime Minister in his place, and the House and the country will be anxious to know what his views are on this question. During the election it was charged against the late Government that it was responsible for the condition of the poor whites and the locust visitations. We have heard times without number the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Labour, as well as of Defence, denouncing the late Government for its want of action in these matters. No doubt a gentleman so fair-minded as the Minister of Labour would not have denounced the action of the late Government had he not thought out a policy for himself which he was desirous of launching. But the moment the House discusses this very important question my hon. friend appears almost in sack cloth and ashes.

Really.

Oh yes, because he now says it is unfair to ask him, after only six weeks of office, to bring forward any great scheme on any other line excepting those adopted by the late Government.

One was permanent and the other was temporary.

I believe that one of the best methods to pick out the most efficient of the poor whites and to put them in a better position than they can ever occupy as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Then I would like to hear the voice of the Prime Minister on this question. He has encouraged the feeling among the mass of the unemployed that he has a solution of the problem without having to wait another 12 months. Under these circumstances and in fairness to the Prime Minister, I would suggest the adjournment of the debate so that the House and the country can have an opportunity of learning the plans he has matured in connection with this very important question for the last 10 years. In the leisure he had as Leader of the Opposition I have no doubt that he has formulated a scheme. I move the adjournment of the debate with the request that a special day be given for the discussion of this very important question.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, to be resumed on Friday.

Will it be given preference?

We want to do something and not merely talk.