When I rose on Thursday night in connection with these proposals, to say something on the motion and the amendment, I tried to express my opinion clearly and briefly on the serious negligence which has been committed, and as far as I know is still committed by the Government in connection with the war. I pointed out that we were spending and would continue to spend millions and still more millions to continue the military part of the war, and to bring it to an end, but that it had apparently been forgotten to do the most important thing of all, namely, to see to it that it will be possible to earn the millions and millions which have to be earned extra. I pointed out that while the troops were engaged, as is being stated, in opening up the North to us, nothing was being done on the part of the Government to realise that object. I repeat that England, for instance, has already entered into trading agreements, inter alia, with the Congo, and so far as I know America also has entered into similar agreements. In other words, the chances are already being taken away from us now which we ought to get, and for which we, as they are always saying, are fighting. I ended that preliminary introduction with the question: “Where are we?” According to the official figures which I gave on a previous occasion, the imports which we get from the North, the northern countries with the exclusion of South-West, which practically belongs to us for business purposes, make up the trivial amount of £1,500,000 per annum out of a total of £100,000,000 which we import. So far as the figures are available, I found out that our trade with the Congo does not yet come up to 1 per cent. of the foreign trade of that territory, and my question is what the Government is going to do to attain our object. I am not speaking here as a person who has no practical knowledge of those things. On the contrary, one undertaking in which I am concerned, has tried to open up a market in Southern Rhodesia for a product which we supply. We had difficulty in succeeding in it, but on the very day that our product was being delivered for the first time in Rhodesia, a proclamation was issued in Rhodesia and here prohibiting us from exporting those products there. Fortunately the Minister of Commerce and Industries stood by us, and we can now by means of a permit, get authority to export there. Then a few words more in regard to another undertaking: After we had tried for two years with laboratory tests to establish a new industry, an industry which exists in other countries, but which has never yet existed in this, and which uses solely South Africa raw materials, I say that after we had struggled along for two years we succeeded in producing that article, and the businessmen say that it is better than the imported one. What are our chances now? The consumption of that product in South Africa runs into an amount of £75,000 a year, but if we have an opportunity of exporting it to the North and to certain countries overseas, where we know that there is a demand, then we can increase the production to £500,000 a year. We are therefore at the moment just awaiting our opportunity to see what the Government is going to do, and whether those opportunities can be made use of by us. If we do our duty, then we shall have to go on at once, and we should already have made a start to establish a big organisation which will make it possible for South Africa also to get a grip in the northern territories which England and America are now exploting by their agents. That will mean an extension of our organisation, it will mean an increase of harbours, and it will also mean that that struggle which is going on at present about a dry dock for Cape Town will soon be automatically decided. It will have to come. Thanks to the commonsense and practical views of the former Government, I am especially mentioning in this connection the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), the Cape Town harbour is being developed. It will be a first-class harbour, probably the best in the Southern Hemisphere, and a dry dock will be necessary for that development which I expect if we make use of the chances that we have. I know hon. members opposite are not very thankful to the hon. member for Gezina for what he has done for South Africa, but he has undoubtedly in this matter worked for the future of South Africa, and as a matter of fact his experience was that he could not hope for gratitude, because ingratitude is the habit of the world, and that applies also to the hon. member for Gezina. It is not necessary for us to consider new things for a thorough organisation. We have already had practical experience. We have the Electricity Commission which is doing outstanding work; we have Iscor, which is splendidly organised, and I think that we ought, on those lines, to bring to realisation these matters which I have suggested and about which I feel very strongly. We have various farmers’ organisations which are already established in our country, and in connection with them there will have to be co-ordination between the farming industry of our country and that of northern countries, because if there is no co-ordination we shall get into difficulties, and if it is done on the right lines we shall not have the difficulties any longer in connection with overproduction which we did have. My time will be too short to develop those ideas any further now. I only want to say this, in this connection, that I have a serious charge against the Government, and it is that while our troops are fighting and doing their duty there—the duties which the Government imposed on them—the Government here is engaged in neglecting its duty. Those troops are sacrificing their blood for the opening up of the northern countries, and we find here that the Government is leaving them in the lurch and not doing its duty in following up what they are doing there. I would like to bring this to the notice of the Government, and I shall remember to hammer on it until the matter has been rectified, and until the scheme penetrates to those military forces in the North. We cannot leave our people up there in the lurch. That is briefly what I wanted to say about that side of the position of our country. Now I come to the amendment of the Opposition. The Afrikaner Party can, of course, not vote for the motion of the Minister, because it means getting more money for the war. Now take the amendment of the Opposition. We in this corner are using a double-barrel gun, and we are holding the gun straight. So far as the amendment is concerned, it strikes me as being a democratic amendment, an amendment which one would almost not have expected from the members of the official Opposition. It is not an amendment which contains the new order, about which we have heard from that Opposition, nor does it contain the Chauvinistic poison which we have so often noticed of late in the speeches of those hon. members, and especially in their actions. There is nothing of the new order in it. So far as the new order is concerned, we know that a small red Bible was distributed. I do not know whether members of the Opposition have become acquainted with it. I advise them to do so, not because it is particularly clever—on the contrary, this document of the hon. member for Gezina is not worthy of his great intellect. It is below his intellectual standard, and below the great capacity which he undoubtedly possesses. What I would like to point out is that this new order of the hon. member for Gezina shows that he is no longer a politician but a reformer, and I would like to know very much how it is possible for the Hertzog people in the Opposition to follow his lead. I cannot see bow he wants to introduce these ideas into practice in order to create a new order in South Africa. The great mistake which the hon. member for Gezina and his followers make is that they want to reconcile two irreconcilable elements with each other, namely, Nazism and a Christian philosophy. Those are two things which cannot be reconciled with each other, and I want to prepare those hon. members beforehand for a terrible disappointment.

What do you suggest?

I must say that that hon. member ought not to put that question to me. He is a Hertzog man, and he knows our principles. He has fought with us year after year for those principles; they are still our principles, and they are the right principles. We will faithfully abide by those Hertzog principles and they also will remain loyal to those principles when they want to catch votes.

You have now lost your bearings.

I am always on the same course and I have always yet been on the right one, but I fear that that hon. member who took that line with me for six years, is now on wrong lines. So far as the first point of the amendment is concerned, that has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg). He has already said that it is a Hertzog amendment and that it does not contain the principle of the new order. Nor do we find the Chauvinistic bitterness in it. It is a clear statement of our position towards the war—the attitude of Gen. Hertzog—and the Opposition have not dared to depart from that attitude. The second point in that amendment is that fuller provision should be made for social services. That is also a good principle, but that also is not in the new order. If the principle of the new order on that point were incorporated in the amendment, then it would read: “The right of every person to demand work from the State and not to be given by way of charity and as a concession.” That is the attitude which is taken up in the new order, but in this amendment those hon. members do not bring up the principle of the new order, they bring up the Hertzog principle. They know that the people do not want the principle of the new order; that is why they are afraid of that principle in practice, and they introduce the Hertzog principle in practice. They know that in reality and at heart the people are Calvinistic, and they will never be able to tolerate that so-called Christian Nazism and still less be able to accept it. The next point in the amendment is that the permanent sources of prosperity, especially the farming industry and secondary industries should be developed and strengthened on a sound basis. If that were the new order, what then would have been stated in the amendment on this point—that so far as the farmers are concerned their industry would have to be worked up and developed, and they will continue to retain their land subject to the effective use of it! If the farmer is zealous, then he can continue to own his land, but if he is not a zealous farmer then he will not continue to be the owner of his land.

*Mr. BRITS [inaudible].

Is my hon. friend here going to be the judge as to the zeal of Piet and Klaas at their work, or the reverse? Will he be the judge to say how long a farmer is to remain the owner of his land? That is what the new order lays before us.

What right have you got to say that? Do you know that Gen. Hertzog concurred in the new order?

My hon. friend has not got one single proof which he can produce to support his statement. What I follow and what we on this side are following is the road that we always knew, and that is the tried road which Gen. Hertzog taught us. I must tell you that there are some hon. members in the ranks of the official Opposition who preach a doctrine which we never knew, and they were probably never real followers of General Hertzog. They preach a doctrine which coincides with the new order, the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I understand that the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) who advocated that here, was previously a preacher of the gospel of love. But here he is now preaching the gospel of hatred. In the pulpit it is the doctrine of love, on the political platform the doctrine of hatred. We are still standing by that gospel of love; we still stand by the Hertzog principles. Allow me also to say something in connection with the Leader of the Opposition. I have asked myself a few times: How in the name of peace is it possible that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has on this occasion introduced something on behalf of the Opposition which is purely a Hertzog policy? But I think that I have found the explanation in the speech which the Leader of the Opposition made here last Friday. I clearly heard him say here that he was in touch with the Ossewa-Brandwag and I have got the idea that it was the Ossewa-Brandwag which had forced him to the point of allowing this amendment, containing the Hertzog policy, to be introduced. I will give you my reason. The Leader of the Opposition told us that on the 29th October, 1940, he had entered into an agreement with the Ossewa-Brandwag. He read out that agreement to us, and it amounts to this, that they will be friends and will not poach on each other’s preserves, but that they will help each other a little. That happened when the Leader of the Opposition was not yet a leader. He was Dr. Malan, and he entered into the agreement as such—at most as assistant-leader did he enter into it. Hardly had he become leader in consequence of the terrible occurrence in November, 1940, when the sjambok order of the Ossewa-Brandwag was inaugurated in December, 1940. He was only a really effective leader for one month, when the sjambok order came about, and in connection with that the assurance was given to him that if he only walked on correct lines he would not be driven with the sjambok. In his capacity as Leader of the Opposition he would be watched, and his caucus also would be watched. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has now actually become; that is what has actually happened to his leadership; he is being dominated by an outside body. It is the greatest humiliation that a leader of a political party has ever yet undergone. Can anyone blame me for throwing my mind back now to my leader, Gen. Hertzog? It is probably for that reason that the Leader of the Opposition in his latest speech, last Friday, intentionally distorted, to my regret, our policy as the Afrikaner Party. He referred to us in this corner, and he said: You (the Afrikaner Party) have no right to call yourselves the Afrikaner Party, because you are out to protect the rights of the English-speaking people. That was the meaning of his words, although the Leader of the Opposition knew that it was untrue.

The hon. member must withdraw that. He cannot say that another hon. member was knowingly telling an untruth.

I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker. Let me say what I intended. I mean that the Leader of the Opposition stated here that we were not entitled to the name of Afrikaner Party, because we were only protecting the interests of the English-speaking people, and he knows that that is not so.

Quote what he said, and do not distort it.

I have what he said by me here, and I will quote it to the hon. member. The Leader of the Opposition said—

That is precisely what I said.

Read on—

The Leader of the Opposition says further—

The Leader of the Opposition made the statement to the House that we were out to protect the rights of the English section, while the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking people should be protected, and that therefore we have no right to call ourselves the Afrikaner Party. I repeat that that is unworthy of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). He should not make that unfounded statement. He used to be a Hertzog man although he wandered away for six and a half years, and he knows what the principles of Gen. Hertzog are. In this House the principles of the Afrikaner Party were announced with the greatest clarity by several hon. members, and also by me, and as I said, I am sorry that this sort of thing should now have to occur here, and I am even more sorry that the Leader of the Opposition lends himself to that kind of thing. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) is in his place, and in reference to what he said I want to draw attention to the fact of how clear it is what is going on in the heart of those hon. members. They allow themselves to be led by their Chauvinistic bitterness against us in this corner. Their real feelings are that they do not want to have those Hertzog members who are still with them, but they want the support of their followers, and that is the reason that Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga were kicked out. The hon. member for Harrismith is the enfant terrible of the Opposition. He let the cat out of the bag. He said that his side were glad that they were rid of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy).

And I mean it.

The hon. member says that he means it, and he therefore confirms my statement. He called us a lot of empty shells. I only want to tell the hon. member that he will be astonished at the tens of thousands of chickens which are coming out of those empty shells in South Africa.

Then you have hatched them quickly.

No, they were always there, but the hon. member wanted to misuse them for his political purposes. I come to this conclusion, that hon. members of the official Opposition in their amendment, did not dare to allow the different tendencies in their party to express themselves. We have heard this session and learned from their deeds outside of this House, what is really going on in their hearts, but when they bring forward something practical, then they have to follow the policy of Gen. Hertzog. This amendment is a compliment which they are making to the principles of Gen. Hertzog, although they made themselves guilty of that great crime which happened last November.

What right have you got to use the name of Gen. Hertzog?

If the hon. member puts me that question then it means that he has in recent times been quite out of touch with what has been going on in political affairs. He knows nothing of the scandal which took place as against Gen. Hertzog, and he knows nothing of the people in his own party who committed that misdeed. But those hon. members are now trying to cover up the matter. Let me tell them this, that we on this side will not rest before justice is done in this matter.

You will not be there much longer.

That may be, but this is not the only place where we can get into touch with the people. I will, however, tell the hon. member this, that if we want to come back they will not be able to stop it, but if they want to come back, we can stop it and prevent them from getting back. The people will regain their calm, and come to the right appreciation of the position. It will not be possible always to whip up the people into Chauvinistic bitterness. A day will come when the people will come to themselves, and when that day arrives then there will once more be unity and honesty of principle and an honourable aim, and it will not be attained by a so-called party unity which is patched up with all kinds of devices, but it will be a real national union, such as the one for which Gen. Hertzog—I mention his name again—our great leader, strove.

I hope I may be allowed to come back to business. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) mentioned the question of co-operation between the various States in order to destroy the red locust in its breeding grounds in Central Africa. I may tell the hon. member that various conferences have been held. One was held in Pretoria in 1934, one in Cairo in 1936, one in London in 1936, and one in Brussels in 1938. The scheme visualised at these conferences was that an organisation would be formed under the control of the Imperial Institute of Entomology in London. Well, it was also moved that the different States would pay according to their means and under this agreement that was sought the Union would have to pay £1,466 towards capital expenses, and £15 per annum towards maintenance expenses of this organisation. So far the Union has decided not to enter into that agreement. In the first place we consider that we would not get a sufficent quid pro quo. In the second place the Union considered that England so many thousands of miles away was not the proper place from which this organisation should be run, indeed we thought that the Union with its knowledge of locust destruction had by far the greater claim to be the centre of this organisation if such organisation should take place. Then it seemed to us that the expenditure would be indefinite. It would probably become a permanent expenditure, and the chances were that the expenditure instead of becoming less might easily become much more. Also we argued that the Union killed its own locusts. We have never sought assistance to kill the brown locust, which as hon. members know has its breeding ground in the Union, and if the Union had not killed its brown locust it would probably have gone over our borders and have been a nuisance to our neighbours. We have never allowed that to take place. Last year the present Cabinet again considered the matter and it considered that apart from any other principle there might be in the case, apart from any special use there might be, this was not the time to go in for that organisation and that is where the matter stands at present. It might be argued that as we are incurring expenses in connection with rinderpest up in the North we should do the same in regard to the red locust. I do not think it is necessary for me to draw a parallel between the two cases. I need only mention that rinderpest after all is very much more dangerous. If the red locust does come here, we find that we can still combat it. The hon. member has also asked about a certain yellow powder, with which experiments were made in Zululand. It was found that this powder was not effective, but there was a German powder and also one manufactured in England, that gave better promise. We found that during the war we could not get the powder from Germany, and the English article was being used very largely in the manufacture of explosives, and so we could not get any large quantities. Iscor is experimenting with a view to getting an effective powder in sufficiently large quantities. So far we have found that we have been fairly successful in combating the red locust in the hopper stage. Our campaign is still very effective with a new bait that we are using; it is not dangerous to animals, and we have had such success with it that my department is not worrying very much about the powder. No doubt if we get sufficient powder we shall probably make an experiment to spray these locusts by means of an aeroplane. Various members have asked me whether I could tell them anything about rinderpest, and I thought perhaps the House would like me to give them a short statement which I have prepared: Field campaign. The first phase of the campaign consisted in the immunisation by triple vaccine of a belt of cattle in Northern Rhodesia and Northern Nyasaland immediately south of the Tanganyika border, and extending between Lakes Tanganyika and Nyasa. This work was completed by the staffs of the two territories concerned in the beginning of February, 1940. Approximately 60,000 cattle were vaccinated. The second phase of the campaign involved the vaccination by triple vaccine of the cattle in Southern Tanganyika, i.e., the area immediately north of the inter-territorial boundaries with Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and, to a small extent, Portuguese East Africa, and including the districts of Mbeya, Rungwe, Songea and Ufipa. This work was carried out during March, April, May and June last year, and approximately 250,000 cattle were inoculated with vaccine on three occasions. The third phase of the operations involved the immunisation of cattle in the Njombe, Iringa and Dodoma districts of Tanganyika with an active virus giving cattle the disease in a mild form. This part of the scheme was commenced towards the end of June and was carried up right to the Central Railway, where it was completed towards the end of September. This phase also included the active immunisation by virus of cattle in certain game-cattle contact areas, including the Saisi Valley south of Lake Rukwa, on the border of Northern Rhodesia, and to the east of the Songea district. The number of cattle involved in these operations was about 500,000. Production of vaccine from infected cattle at the Field Laboratory, Mbosi: This laboratory was started by the Tanganyika Government during December, 1939, and during January and early February, 1940, produced the vaccine required for the 60,000 cattle in the vaccinated belt in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The laboratory was reorganised and considerably strengthened with the arrival of staff and equipment from Onderstepoort during February. Production of vaccine was commenced and the production represented nearly 11,000,000 cubic centimetres or 12.1 tons net vaccine. More than 3,500 cattle were slaughtered for vaccine during this period. These figures clearly emphasise that the assistance rendered by the Union in connection with the production of vaccine at this field laboratory was of the utmost importance and that this assistance greatly facilitated the carrying out of the campaign. The work was carried out so successfully that it was possible to close down the laboratory by the end of July, and the South African unit, consisting of two veterinarians (one of whom was Mr. Mitchell, who was in charge of the laboratory), one laboratory assistant and one stock inspector, returned to the Union. Research work in the field: Experimental work on various aspects of practical rinderpest control was carried out at Mbosi field laboratory, and results were obtained which were of very great value in the latter stage of the campaign, particularly in connection with the use of live modified virus (goat virus) for active immunisation of cattle against rinderpest. However, owing to the fact that the research work at Mbosi was carried out in an area where rinderpest had been demonstrated to be enzootic, it was felt by the Union experts and others that the results might not be completely applicable to areas where the disease had been previously non-existent, and where the cattle were in consequence highly susceptible. Arrangements were therefore made for the carrying out of further research work in the northern part of Northern Rhodesia (in an area adjoining the southern Tanganyika border). These experiments, which were naturally of the greatest importance to the Union, were undertaken with highly susceptible cattle from Northern Rhodesia. Mr. Mitchell, who was in charge of the field laboratory at Mbosi, was responsible for the carrying out of these experiments, and was assisted by the veterinary staff of Northern Rhodesia. Very valuable results were obtained, among which the following may be mentioned: (a) Innoculation by the cattle spleen vaccine produces a good immunity which lasts for approximately one year. This means that the immunity produced by the immunisation campaign in Tanganyika will protect the cattle for approximately one year. (b) The development of immunity appears to be more rapid in highly susceptible than less susceptible animals. (b) The most satisfactory method of immunisation appears to be the use of formalised vaccine, followed seven days later by modified goat virus. This method is safe and more effective, because the resulting immunity is permanent. (d) A campaign to prevent the introduction of the disease or to control it among susceptible cattle can now be instituted with every confidence of success. Present position: The rinderpest campaign in Tanganyika has brought to light a number of points in regard to rinderpest control and eradication which will be of very great value in the future prevention of the spread of the disease, and the research work has indicated safe and effective methods of producing a permanent immunity in cattle. The present position in Southern Tanganyika is that all cattle up to the Iringa escarpment, some 400 miles from the inter-territorial border, have been immunised against rinderpest, and all centres of smouldering infection have been located and have been effectively dealt with by inoculation of vaccine or virus or of both, and by quarantine measures. It is also understood that adequate steps are being taken by the Tanganyika veterinary staff to re-inoculate the cattle, thus obviating the danger that they might lose their immunity. The same applies to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The latest reports received indicate that there have recently been no fresh outbreaks south of the railway line, and, moreover, no mortality in game was detected during recent months in southeastern Tanganyika. It would therefore appear that the measures taken during the campaign have been highly successful in suppressing rinderpest throughout the area south of the line. Moreover, the immunity conferred during the campaign will be consolidated during the course of this year. As regards the possible danger of the spread of rinderpest from Tanganyika to the east of Lake Nyasa through Portuguese East Africa, it may be stated that this matter will be discussed at a meeting to be arranged shortly at a suitable centre, possibly Salisbury, between the veterinary representatives of the territories concerned. Any other measure which might be necessary to ensure the safety of the southern states will also be considered at that meeting. To summarise: The Union has contributed £27,500 to the rinderpest campaign in the north. There is every reason to be satisfied with the manner in which the campaign has been conducted, and there can be no doubt that the work done has been very successful. The interests of the stock owners of the Union have been adequately safeguarded, and the country can be well satisfied that the money spent by the Union on the campaign has been money well spent. I do not want to be much longer, because there has been very little criticism of my Department so far. The only criticism was in regard to the wool agreement by the hon. members for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). Well, sir, it was very poor criticism, and feel that I must almost apologise to the House for wasting time in answering it. To start with, the hon. members were guilty of some untruths, they were also guilty of half-truths, and the hon. member for Kuruman twisted things. For instance, he said that I made the statement that the position of the farmers was so rose-coloured that they could pay off their bonds.

You did say so.

I never said anything of the sort. [Interruptions.] Just a minute, sir. The hon. member for Cradock was speaking about the terrible position in which the farmers were, and I interjected the question, “Is that why they are paying off their bonds?” which is quite a different proposition. I wish I could say the position of the farmers is rose-coloured. The hon. member for Cradock says that Mr. Havenga in 1938 made the statement that if the price did not improve in 1939, the Government would have to do something.

You said that.

The hon. member did not say I said so, but that Mr. Havenga said so, and, what is more, he said that would have meant a 25 per cent. subsidy, which would have been a much better proposition than the one from the Imperial Government. Well, sir, Mr. Havenga never said a word about it, but Mr. Havenga said I had no right to make the promise. I understand that before I came in the hon. member challenged me to prove that this agreement gives a guarantee of 10¾d. I understand that is what he challenged me to prove.

There is no such agreement.

Well, sir, for once the hon. member and I agree. I never said there was an agreement of 10¾d.

If you agree with him I think he is wrong.

Here is my statement over the air—

The arrangement will continue for the period of the war, and one full year thereafter. It was agreed that the schedule would be open to reconsideration if the price to Australia and New Zealand should be altered. As is the case of Australia and New Zealand, any nett profit on the resale of wool for use outside the United Kingdom, calculated over the whole period of purchase, will be shared equally between the United Kingdom and the Union Government. The whole of this benefit will be passed on to our producers. The Government accepted this generous offer, and did so in the firm conviction that it was the soundest way in which to deal with our wool clip. I never said that there was a guarantee of 10¾d. Then the hon. member asked me to explain what I had done to ensure that our producers would get the benefit of the scoured value of their clip. Well, sir, I did that, and I did more. After we had agreed to the average price that Australia got …

There you are, that’s it.

I am talking of the year before last, not this year. After we had agreed with Great Britain to operate on our markets on the basis of the average price at which Australia sold her wool to Great Britain, which was 10.75d., after we had agreed that our wool, in the grease, would be bought at the same price, the British wool control said to me, “Yes, but the clean yield of Australian wool is much higher than your yield. I don’t know whether the hon. member for Cradock denies that.

That is not the question at all. You don’t understand what I said.

It seems that nobody understands the hon. member, as I hope to prove.

I said that our wool was being undervalued to from 1% to 2%.

I know the hon. member said that, but does he deny that the scoured yield of Australian wool is higher than ours?

That has nothing to do with the case.

We agreed with the British Government that they should buy from us at the same price that wool in the grease from Australia fetched.

Tenpence threefarthings.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. This is the year before last I am dealing with. The British Government pointed out that the yield from our wool was lower than the Australian yield. In other words, they would pay us less for our wool than 10¾d. I stood pat on that, and made it abundantly plain to the British High Commissioner that we would not enter into any agreement if we got a farthing less than Australia did, and in the end the British Government agreed to it, and the price we get is according to the schedule which we drew up here in South Africa, giving us an average price of 10¾d. The British Government agreed to that, and in that way we got a higher price as compared with the Australian average of 10¾d. in the grease. Well now, sir, the British Government offered to purchase our wool not at 10¾d. but at prices according to the schedule we drew up for the 1939-’40 clip, which, as I say, gave us a higher price than that which we would have got in any other way. I never said there was a guarantee of 10.75d. and I am not saying so now; there is no such guarantee, but what we have is this, that the wool control must buy our wool at the price laid down in the schedules which our experts are satisfied will give us at least 10¾d. and probably more.

Will it be less than 10¾d?

I need not go into that, there are many people who get much more. Here is what somebody says about the hon. member for Cradock, and if the hon. member will listen he may learn something—

I want to say, in conclusion, that I have been through the country, and I have had reports from all over the country, and from nowhere have I heard complaints from the wool fanners about this agreement. The only complaint I have ever heard was from that side of the House, from the politicians here. The wool farmer, I am sure, is satisfied with his prices, and as far as I am concerned, I am satisfied to abide by his decision.

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to discuss the internal policy of the Government and the way this Government treats the internees. Rather let me say that I should like to say a few words about the tyranny practised on internees and the ill-treatment of internees, and the object of what I am going to say is that we urge this Government to have an impartial investigation made into the way in which strangers within our gates have been interned here, and also the way in which our own South African citizens are being treated. Nobody can have any objection to enemy subjects being interned in times of war, so long as it is necessary to do so for the safety of the State, and so long as the internees are given decent and humane treatment. So far as our own Union citizens are concerned the attitude I adopt is that the Government can only intern its own citizens if they prove to be a danger to the State, and then only after they have had a proper trial—and by a proper trial I mean that they must be charged and given the opportunity of defending themselves, answering evidence brought against them, and so on. But that is not what is being done now. I want to say that I am convinced that a large proportion of these enemy subjects who are interned here are in no way dangerous to the State, and the policy of interning them is only involving us in a lot of expense and trouble, and is causing enmity and hatred against South Africa. What is taking place is nothing but an act of vindictiveness. But my main objection in this instance is the treatment meted out to those people. So far as our own Union citizens are concerned it has been proved time and again that numerous peaceful citizens, as a result of malicious persecution, and anonymous accusations, have been interned. I know what has happened in my own case since the outbreak of war. Detectives have been put on my trail to watch me, all as a result of anonymous reports which had been received in regard to my connections with the so-called Union Bond, of which I know nothing at all. This matter was raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in this House on a pervious occasion. For months and months I could not go anywhere without the police knowing where I was. I was never left in peace. I continuously had to be reported on, and all as the result of an anonymous complaint having been made against me. It was alleged that I was supporting some kind of a secret movement which was out to cause a rebellion. Stories of that kind can only emanate from the brain of people who must have had close contact with Annanias and Safira. There are people in the interment camps to-day who are kept there on the most unfounded charges. I am conversant with the case of the two brothers Arndt, which has been repeatedly dealt with in this House. The one brother died recently and humanly speaking his death was hastened by the treatment he received in the camp and by the shock it must have been to him when he, a peaceful citizen who had never done anything wrong, was interned.

Where is the evidence to prove that?

We know that it is so. I knew him well personally, I know what the condition of his health was and I know what happened. I am further thinking of a man like Robert Gerhardt, a man who had been a teacher in the Free State for years and years, and who retired at the age of 60. He had done absolutely nothing, he had given no cause for being put into the camp. To-day he is 63 years of age and he is in a camp without any proper charge ever having been made against him. He is kept there on suspicion. There is a young Afrikaner, P. J. Malan, of Bloemfontein. The only sin he had committed was that he was an organiser of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and he happened to have been found guilty of having in his possession a revolver without a licence; he was punished for that and his fine was paid, but immediately after that he was put into the camp. There was no other charge against him, and so there are quite a number of people in the camp who have not committed any offence whatsoever. I shall come back to that on some future occasion. There are Union citizens in the camp who are no danger whatever to the State. There are people there who have been interned as a result of vindictiveness. The Government refuses to show mercy and let those people out. What is strange is that there are people in the country, prominent people, who have said much worse things on public platforms than some of the people in the camps have ever said, but the Government did not have the courage to arrest those prominent people, but it apprehends innocent people who have nobody to stand up for them. But now I want to say a few words about the treatment meted out to those people. Let me mention a few points. Take for instance religious activities, and in this connection I want to particularly mention Ganspan where Afrikaner Union citizens are locked up. The predikant of the congregation in which the camp is situated has made application to be allowed to do religious work among the people there and to visit them. The director refused to give them that permission. On previous occasions he had been allowed to visit the camp on several occasions, having been granted special permission to do so, but afterwards when a new superintendent was appointed he was refused permission by the director to go there. Our own fellow citizens are in that camp and the Minister refuses them the privilege of being attented to by the predikant so far as religion is concerned. The inhumanity of not even allowing the predikant to visit these people is shocking. Even the English people, when the Boers were being treated at their very worst in the prisoner of war camps, still allowed a predikant to attend to the prisoners of war. The position of the people in the internment camp is that they have been subjected to a condition of humiliation and contempt. In addition there is a lack of diversion and spiritual relaxation. The result is that those people are being spiritually broken; they are losing their spiritual balance, and as a matter of fact, as a result, there have already been a number of attempts at suicide. People have died from heart disease, so we have been told, and their position was aggravated by what they had to go through. Take Leeuwkop before a change was made there. There was accommodation there for no more than 350 people but 600 people were congregated there, a large number of them in tents. I understand that it is in conflict with international practice to accommodate such people in tents. Those tents used to get soaking wet during the rainy season. People from Northern Africa were taken there people wearing shorts with open neck shirts, not suitably clad for this climate. They did not have sufficient blankets and they had to spend the winter months there. Allow me to mention a few other cases. The information which I am giving to the House is first-hand information. On the 6th October last year a prohibition was placed on papers and wireless sets which remained in force until the 6th January, 1941, and this also applied to visitors. What is the reason for steps of that kind being taken? The reason was that a number of the internees had escaped. The Government does not guard these people properly. They are given the chance to escape, and the innocent people remaining behind, the obedient people, are then punished because the others have escaped. There was a case which happened the day after the 6th October, when a woman arrived there after having travelled 700 miles to come and visit her husband. She was refused admittance. I ask again, what inhumanity is this? People were kept there for months on end without contact with the outside world, without being in touch with their families, and even in cases of serious illness no contact could be made. I mention the date, the 7th October last year, the day after this order was issued. Early in the morning a number of soldiers with knobkerries, rifles and bayonets came to search the camp, and they remained there until 3 o’clock in the afternoon. The people had to stand outside. The last time they had had any food was at 5 o’clock the evening before, and they had to stand there sometimes in the rain until 3 o’clock in the afternoon before they could get any more food. What is the Government’s object in treating those people like animals? On the 26th October a number of German prisoners were taken to another camp, and, like convicts, they were handcuffed in pairs. They had been allowed by Gen. Beyer to erect a monument in their camp. It was a magnificent monument, erected by themselves, and it was sacred to them in the circumstances of their life. On the 20th October soldiers came in and smashed up the monument with hammers, simply in order to hurt the feelings of the people, because there were no other reasons whatsoever for their doing so. I want to mention a few other instances. There are a number of Italians in the internment camp at Koffiefontein. A few of them escaped, among them Dr. Mario Mazzacuratti, the famous racing motorist. His case is sub judice, and I do not want to say anything more about it. The circumstances under which those people escaped will also be dealt with later, but I do not want to talk about them now. I am not at liberty to say anything about them. But Mario was sentenced to four weeks’ solitary confinement in a corrugated iron cell. That cell was 4ft. wide and 10ft. long. Whatever a man may have done, it is inhuman to treat him like that. He was scarcely able to move in that cell. Mario’s attorney brought his position to the Government’s notice; he stated that the cell was made of corrugated iron, the floor was cement and there was a wooden ceiling, but beyond that there was no wood protection against the heat and the cold. Koffiefontein is well known for its heat, and that man had to endure those conditions for four weeks. I ask again what kind of mentality is it which treats those people as though they were animals? Students at Ganspan were first of all allowed to write their examinations. One of them wrote half of his examination, and was then prevented from going on with it. The result is that he has lost a full year of his university training. Why are these people allowed to write half of their examination? Why are they prevented from writing the whole of it? A number of farmers at Paarl decided to send grapes to the internees as a gift. They were not allowed to do so. They were not even allowed to send grapes to those people as a present. Are those people criminals? Have they been condemned to imprisonment because of some crime they have committed? No, they are citizens of this country who have not had a proper trial and who are in those camps as a result of malicious persecution. I want to read out a statement here dealing with the departure from Leeuwkop of a number of internees, and their arrival at Ganspan, and the way they were treated there. I want to read it in the words of the man making the statement, and I want to add that similar information was also received from other sources. This statement reads as follows:

They had to go the whole day without food. And he goes on—

Then he goes on to deal with Ganspan—

Then he touches on an incident when one of the internees was fired at. This took place on the 18th of November, 1940, at 8 o’clock in the evening, and he writes as follows about it—

Then he describes the following treatment meted out to those people—

I have read out what this man states, and the information is similar to that which we have been getting from more than one source about the treatment of the people in the internment camps where our own Union citizens are interned. In contrast to this I now want to read to the House what treatment the internees and prisoners of war are getting in the German internment camps. There is a report in the London Daily Telegraph of the 30th December, 1940, made by two Swiss doctors, namely, by Drs. Marcel Junod and Marti, who went and visited the German internment camps and hospitals for prisoners of war in Belgium, France and Germany, and their report, inter alia, contains this—

In regard to the hospitals these two doctors say that the treatment is excellent, and what they report about Borde (Brussels) may serve as an example to us—

That is the impartial report of the Red Cross Society made by two Swiss doctors and it was published by the “Daily Telegraph” telling us what is happening in this inhuman and tyrannical Germany which is described as a cruel and barbarous country, and our own Government, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior allow this inhuman treatment of our own fellow citizens to continue. Take this question of papers being supplied. Why are they opposed to people being allowed to read newspapers? What is going to happen if those people should read the papers? If you do not want them to have Nationalist papers give them your own papers, but let them have the news.

They are afraid of the truth.

Does a traitor know the truth?

That hon. member is the very last one who should speak about a traitor. These are people who in most cases have been interned as the result of the grossest distortions and lies, as has already been proved, and we know that some of these people have very quietly been released by the Government. The treatment of those people is inhuman, and if what I have placed before this House is true, it proves a reckless indifference in regard to human life and freedom, it proves a scandalous cruelty and gruesome disregard of human sentiments on the part of the Government. The Government has certain obligations to the people and this goes to prove that it has scandalously disregarded its duty to the people.

And if what you have stated is not true?

If the Government denies that it is so and if it states that these declarations are untrue, let me make an investigation into what is going on in the internment camps—but if it does have an investigation it must not appoint a few people in the service of the Government to do the work. Let impartial people make the enquiry and if the Government is not prepared to do so I suggest it should allow a number of members from this side of the House together with a number of members from the other side to visit the camps. If the Government will not allow an impartial enquiry, give us the right then, as I have said, to make an investigation and to question those people. If the Government is afraid of an impartial enquiry let members of this House go there and do the work. If the Government is not afraid, and if it states that the declarations which I have read out to the House are untrue, I tell the Government that it should come forward and tell the country that it is not afraid, and that it will allow members of the Opposition to go there and make an investigation, so that the world may know the truth. But it appears that the Government is not willing to let the light of day shine on the inhuman conditions under which those people are suffering. If the Government is not prepared to have an investigation made by impartial people— there are responsible people on this side of the House—let them go there, and if the Government is not prepared to allow that, then it stands condemned, because it will be an admission on the part of the Government that it is afraid of having an investigation made. If the Government refuses to have an investigation made the people are entitled to blame the Government, and then the Government must expect that the time will come when they will be called to account for this kind of cruel treatment, not merely so far as strangers within our gates are concerned, but also with regard to the cruel treatment of our own citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I would like at the commencement to reply to a few of the remarks which have been made in this debate in connection with military medical services by my friend the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth). He has expressed regret that men over 50, who are being placed by virtue of their age in category “C”—men who may have been in their trade for a great number of years— are not given an opportunity to leave the Union and to proceed North. One sympathises both with him and with the enthusiastic recruit who is anxious, as they nearly all are, to proceed beyond the borders of the Union in order to render service. Unfortunately the medical authorities have learned, from bitter experience, that the men over 50 react badly to the tropical environment. If they should be unfortunate enough to contrast any of the tropical diseases, they present medical problems which are more serious than those in the case of the young men similarly infected. Another point which my hon. friend raised was that a recruit should first present himself before a classification officer who should then direct him to the medical officer for an examination, his point being I take it, that different types of service require different grades of medical examination. In the latter assumption he is perfectly correct; for example, the medical examination to which the prospective air pilot is subject is so thorough and specialised as to be carried out by medical officers with especial training for that purpose. But are not the duties which my hon. friend visualises for his classification officer carried out today by the recruiting officer? As he knows, the recruiting officer in his routine questioning, ascertains from the prospective recruit his particular civil calling and the unit with which he desires to become associated. He then directs the recruit to the medical officer. The result of the medical examination will frequently determine whether or not such a recruit can be enlisted for the particular unit which he desires. It often happens that his classification necessitates his joining some other unit where perhaps the duties are not so strenuous. Whilst on the question of classification, permit me, Mr. Speaker, to say a word or two about the enormous work which is taking place in connection with re-classification. In the early days of the war there were only two groups distinguished. Those who were fit and those who were unfit. Since then, as the result of orders which have been issued, careful re-classification of all those who were in the “fit” class has been taking place. The fit group has been sub-divided into various sub-groups, thus we find:

This process of re-classification which is proceeding actively in all camps and commands, has been productive of valuable units. It will interest hon. members to know that during the months of November, December and January, the number of re-classifications amounted to 839, 3,909 and 1,608 respectively. This re-classification is necessary because it has been found in practice that some men have so improved in their physical well-being that they are able to be graded up, whilst others have broken down under training or through some other cause have had to be graded down. Simultaneously with the reclassification there is proceeding in all camps and commands the careful examination or boarding of individuals. It must be appreciated that in the initial days of the war with enthusiasm at its pitch a number of men were accepted for service who have since been found to be unfit. Others have broken down during their service. Thus no less than 1,874 such boards took place during the month of January and as many as 884 details have been boarded out of the Army. Here it should be emphasised that the work is being carried out by men who have had special training in this job, and doubtful cases are referred to a Board made up of several medical officers. I now desire to deal with a second point which my hon. friend raised:

In answer to that I cannot do better than repeat what I have said in this House on a previous occasion in connection with a similar remark, namely:

I take it that my hon. friend meant that because some of the medical officers are young and perhaps somewhat inexperienced they therefore encourage as he says “potential lead-swingers.” I must point out here that every soldier who reports sick must necessarily be approached sympathetically and be subjected to thorough questioning and examination. We dare not, because of the knowledge that some men report sick unnecessarily therefore discourage others from doing so. This might well lead to missing a serious case requiring urgent medical treatment. He expresses also the suggestion that doctors would be better for a certain amount of ordinary army training. Had he consulted me before making that statement, I would have informed him that this is in fact a routine which has been adopted by the Military Medical Directorate ever since the war broke out. The Director-General of Medical Services, in co-operation with representatives of the South African Medical Association, has been calling up batches of doctors and before taking them on for active service has sent them in batches to Sonderwater where there is a special S.A.M.C. training depot. Here these men have spent up to a month at a time and put through regular army training. The spectacle of these gentlemen, just out of their consulting rooms, being marched round the parade ground, under the usual commands of the sergeant-major, dressed in khaki uniform which approximates closest to that of prisoners, would no doubt have been appreciated by members of this House if they could have witnessed it. I venture to suggest that the training which my colleagues get in this so-called Chain Gang has probably been more intensive than that received by my Parliamentary colleagues in their courses at Voortrekkerhoogte. I would like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to these young colleagues of mine. It has been positively amazing to me on my rounds to find how these young men, some of them only just out of the medical school, have settled down to the new appointments and the responsibilities which go with them. It is frequently levelled against members of my profession that we may be good doctors, but are very poor administrators. Let me tell this House that a visit to the various smaller sick bays and hospitals will prove this to be quite unfounded. By begging, borrowing and praying, these young men turn empty rooms which are allocated for their use within a week or two into a well-equipped, properly administered small hospital. I maintain that their enthusiasm for their work is one of the outstanding features of this great service. The health and welfare of our military forces and the services which have been established for their safeguard still continue to be the subject of much comment and concern; Press articles and letters to the Press, speeches by hon. members of the House and by the members of the public outside it, continue to deal with the wide range of military medical and allied subjects. It is therefore not inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, to place before the House these facts which I have given, and a few further remarks dealing with this same subject. It is gratifying to be able to state that this great service has now overcome its initial difficulties and solved its inital problems, which focused so much attention on it in the early days of the war. To-day it is a highly organised service, and one which is expertly administered and justly appreciated by the Department of Defence. Its personnel is drawn from the flower of our medical and nursing professions. In addition to the responsibility originally entrusted to it, it has been complimented by being asked to make provision for the care of Imperial sick and wounded. This has naturally placed an additional strain on the organisation; it means the erection of large military hospitals in the Union to accommodate such casualties; in fact, it means hospitals in the Union on a scale never before contemplated in South Africa. This will call for more personnel, both from members of the medical profession and nursing profession. Hon. members may have noticed the broadcast appeal made by the matron-in-chief of the South African Military Nursing Services for more nurses, trained and untrained. Her appeal has been followed by the Red Cross and the St. John’s organisations for ladies, who will accept service and subject themselves to the necessary training in order that they might assist the trained nurses in these hospitals to be established. The Medical Directorate is considering seriously the ways and means whereby the necessary medical personnel will be obtained. This country, which has been entrusted with this great humanitarian effort, will no doubt, as a result of a joint co-operative effort by the medical services, voluntary organisations and the public, rise to the occasion. I was privileged to be attached to a certain command when the first ship bearing Imperial casualties landed in this country. Hon. members would have been gratified to have seen the perfect organisation—removal of sick from the ship, the sorting of casualties, the fleet of ambulances, the perfectly equipped hospital train, the various hospitals, military and ordinary, ready to receive them—the whole movement worked like clockwork. Nor must it be assumed that the civil needs of the population are being neglected because of the great number of medical men who have joined the services. As a result of a healthy spirit of co-operation which exists among members of the medical profession, those who are unable to go for some reason or another are shouldering willingly the responsibilities of those who have to be away. Tn that way one of the major problems is solved. Again, in a big centre like Johannesburg, as a result of an arrangement introduced by the Director-General of Medical Services, practitioners on the teaching staff of the University and who are also on the honorary visiting staff of the hospital have been invited to give their services to the Military Directorate in a part-time capacity. Thus the military block of the Johannesburg General Hospital is being served by a team of specialists who are members of the staff of the Johannesburg General Hospital. This arrangement has two beneficial effects—

1. 1. It places at the disposal of the Medical Directorate almost in an honorary capacity the services of a group of experts.
2. 2. It does not deprive the civil community of the services of these men.

So much then for our military medical services. I now turn to the amendment moved in this debate by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). Summarised, the criticism to which he subjects the Government falls under three heads—

1. 1. That the Government has abused the past.
2. 2. That it is prejudicing the present.
3. 3. That it is mortgaging the future.

With regard to the past, Opposition critics blame the Government for the decision which it took in September, 1939, for entering the war, and for the sums of money which have since been spent in the execution of the war. This point need not be debated by me any further except to state this: We all abhor war—there is no one on this side of the House who would not much rather have seen the millions being spent on the production of agencies of destruction, devoted to measures for the amelioration of the people of this country. Unfortunately there comes a time in the life of all nations, as well as in the lives of individuals, when threatened by catastrophe, they are called upon to make a great sacrifice in order to avert it. In the opinion of this House, this country was thus threatened in September, 1939, and by a free vote it took its decisions to make that sacrifice. On several occasions since then it has reaffirmed that decision. Fortunately, so far there has not occurred the destruction of human life on the same scale as during the early year or so of the last war. Let us, therefore, not lament the millions of pounds which have been spent but rather rejoice that we need not mourn the millions of lives which might by now have already been destroyed. So much then for the first indictment. What of the present? What of the criticism which maintains that the Government is making this enormous war effort at the expense of normal peacetime social and other State service? That this effort, in fact, is prejudicing and hampering such services. Other speakers, sir, who have taken part in this debate have shown the fallacy of this argument in respect of various State activities; thus the hon. the Minister of Labour has disputed and disproved the allegations that the war effort is curtailing our invalidity grants. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) has shown the fallacy of this argument with regard to unemployment. Other members have dealt with the effect of the war effort in connection with trade and industry. The farming friends on this side of the House have disproved the Opposition claims with regard to the curtailment of the agricultural industry. I propose, sir, with your permission, to show that this argument breaks down also in respect of our social services—the Department of Public Health, the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Education. Let me say at once that there is the closest co-operation between the Military Medical Services and the Public Health Department. The Department of Public Health is, however, continuing as it has done in pre-war days, with its normal activities, aiming at the health and well-being of the people of the country. Let me now give a few examples to demonstrate this point: The question of nutrition has been raised in this House. Hon. members will remember that sums of money were voted on previous votes for a nutritional survey. In due course that reported. As a result of this report, the Minister last year was able to get the Bill passed by this House empowering him to form a National Nutrition Council. I am in a position to speak with some authority as I am a member of that council. One of the first duties this council performed was to establish a war emergency committee. That committee has in recent months been actively engaged in investigating the nutritional value of South African products. Turning to another point. The department is aware that there will be an increased incidence of tuberculosis after the war. With that object in view it is cooperating closely with the military medical authorities so that any new military hospitals which are being built may be taken over for civil needs. But, quite independent of that, the Department of Public Health is at present busy constructing 100 additional beds for admission of tuberculous patients at Nelspoort. At Durban, the King George V. Hospital is also being enlarged. The department is continuing to receive Treasury grants for national health education, which by some people may be regarded as a peace-time effort, but in effect this committee is making a big contribution towards the education of our military forces in connection with important public health measures. Nor must we forget the recent announcement by the Acting Minister of Education, that the Witwatersrand University has now completed arrangements to admit non-Europeans to a full medical course. The implication of such a progressive move cannot be over-emphasised. In the course of time these men will go back to their areas where they will be meeting the very urgent need of their people in the native eserves and territories. In fact, it can be stated definitely, that not a single one of the peace-time public health activities has been neglected because of the war. On the contrary, the Department of Public Health is very shrewdly watching every step which the military medical authorities are making, and is taking full advantage of both the institution, personnel and activities of that department, all of which will, I am sure, be turned later to the welfare of the country as a whole. One should emphasise also the fact that the rural nursing services — that excellent service which was started before the war — has received the serious attention of the Department, and in spite of the war is being expanded. Before leaving this aspect of my remarks, may I refer also to another very important matter which has in recent months figured prominently in the Press. I am referring to the outbreak of yellow fever in certain parts of Northern Africa. The enlarged air services operating between the Union and Northern Africa, traversing as they frequently do those infected areas, has placed a special responsibility on the military medical authorities in co-operation with the Department of Public Health to safeguard this country against possible infection with this disease. The story of this effort, the experimental work which is being carried out, and which has now resulted in the establishment of four sanitary aerodromes in the Union would in itself be sufficent to occupy this House with more time than I dare take up. I merely must confine myself by issuing the assurance to this House that an organisation has been perfected which will adequately safeguard any danger from such sources. So that whilst our military effort may be overshadowing the normal public health activities these are nevertheless continuing enthusiastically and actively. What has been said about activities of the Department of Public Health can be said also of the activities which are proceeding in the Department of Social Welfare. Thus, in connection with the maintenance grants under the Children’s Act, which for the year ending March, 1941, amounted to £375,000, minor improvements have been effected. Places of safety and detention have been improved. The free milk and butter scheme is in the process of being transferred to the Department of Social Welfare. During the current year two new settlements have been established: For semifits, big enough to accommodate 31 people. Another for unfits, which has involved the building of 30 houses, and which will accommodate as many as 200. The old settlement scheme which consisted of 80 houses in the process of tumbling down, has been rebuilt and the number extended to 150. Nor must we forget that during the current year the Department of Social Welfare has been occupying itself with the new responsibilities which accrued to it as the result of the transfer of poor relief from the Provinces. Two additional officers have been appointed whose duties consist of the inspection of various organisations dealing with poor relief. The whole scheme now has as its principle aim—rehabilitation. Finally, mention must be made of the youth brigade which has recently been established. This will serve a double purpose. It will serve the purpose intended by the Department of Defence, but as important if not more important than that, it will serve as a social welfare measure in that it is catering for the youth who leaves school and who by being incorporated in this unit, is getting suitable training and being prevented from straying into avenues of delinquency. From what has already been said, it will be seen, therefore, that in spite of the great effort which is being made in connection with the military medical services, civil needs are not neglected, nor is there any interference with the normal public health and social welfare activities of the State. I would go further and say that these activities are being materially assisted by the war effort. In other words, the monies which are being spent on defence are in effect serving a triple purpose. Firstly, it has mobilised, trained and equipped a great army of which we are all proud, to fight in this war in order to obtain ultimate victory. Secondly, it is making a contribution towards many of our current problems. Let me point out also that the lads who compose our army are in many cases drawn from areas and circumstances where they might quite well have swelled the ranks of unemployment. They have since joining been placed in ideal circumstances. Good food, excellent training, good comradeship and a good cause have worked wonders for these lads. In my official capacity, in touring the various camps and commands I have seen and spoken to these lads, and I can speak with personal knowledge of the benefit which they have derived. They have not only benefited materially, but also morally and spiritually. Sectional interest, political leanings and personal animosities are all forgotten in the camps, nor must we forget the effect on these lads from the contact with fellow soldiers in our northern neighbours. These lads, whilst in the Union, are living under ideal conditions—camps which have been constructed according to recognised sanitary and health plans. Efforts are being made to avoid periods of inactivity which might lead to lowering of standards. The men are encouraged to reap the greatest benefit from their leisure. Provision is made for education, entertainment, fitness, recreation; in other words, for physical and mental health. Realising that the war will not last for ever, the wise men are taking advantage of the opportunities which are offered to fit themselves for the return to civil life. Again, by virtue of the perfect dental services which have been established, men who normally could never have received dental treatment are to-day dentally fit. This has a very important bearing on the future health of our citizens. The money which is being spent in the erection of new hospitals is not money wasted. When the war is over the hospitals, by being erected in places where the civil needs are greatest, will make a mighty contribution towards the solution of our civil medical needs. Our medical men who have left private practices to join the army are like other sections of the population seeing a new mode of life and acquiring a new outlook on life. The other day an hon. member of the House asked what will happen to these practitioners when the war is over. My answer is they will probably want to continue working for the State. In other words, we are now probably without knowing it, laying the ground plan for a great “State medical service.” The hundreds of young women who are being given nursing training will be a great asset to this country. We shall look to them when the war is over to supply the urgent rural nursing service about which so much has been said. I turn now to the third indictment, which is a double one: The Government is charged not only for mortgaging the future, but also that it is completely unmindful of post-war problems. With regard to the first part of this allegation, I venture to suggest that if posterity could have been consulted and had had the issues involved fairly placed before it, I have no doubt that it would not have had us act otherwise. Turning now to postwar problems, let me assure hon. members opposite that every responsible individual appreciates that grave economic and social problems will confront all nations at the close of the war. There will be the problems of demobilisation and the reabsorption of those serving into avenues of employment so that the world’s productive powers can again be turned to peaceful ends. There will be the problem of the rehabilitation of those who through injury or disability have been rendered unfit to return to their former peacetime occupations. Finally, as this is a people’s war, there will be a demand from the people for a “people’s peace.” It will have to be a peace dictated by the rights of ordinary men and women, the people will demand a peace which will guarantee as a minimum the human basic needs. These are: Freedom—the freedom of President Roosevelt—“freedom from want, freedom from insecurity, freedom from fear.” Opportunity: In the words of Mr. Churchill, “to establish a state of society wherein the advantages and privileges which hitherto have been enjoyed by a few will be far more widely assured to the men and youth of the nation as a whole”; or, in the words of Mr. H. Morrison, “a society which freely expects the maintenance of a reasonable standard of health, comfort, security and education for everyone.” Work, as defined by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech on Social Reform: “Work for all at a decent wage.” And, finally, the elimination of “Anxiety and Fear.” The latter may entail the working out of a programme of social security which will include security from unemployment; the compensation for industrial disabilities and injury; health insurance and old age pensions. But, sir, I claim that this Government, and those who support it, have not been unmindful of these problems. They have already instituted important measures towards their solution. The financial measures of the War Emergency Regulations, the careful control and fixation of prices, the constant watch over the cost of living, the committee over which the hon. the Minister without Portfolio is presiding, are examples of such measures. Given statesmanship, wisdom and vision, the dangerous and difficult period of transition should be negotiated successfully. This should further be materially assisted by the new spirit which is discernible. From the turmoil and chaos of this war, with its attendant sufferings and sacrifices, there is emerging a reorientation of human values. There is a spirit of great kindliness abroad; new mental and psychological states are noticeable; there is coming into being a new appreciation of life and the simple basic things that make life worth living. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that for our part on this side of the House we have but one wish, that the hon. the Prime Minister, whose leadership we have followed and are following in winning the war, shall also lead us in winning the peace.

I am sorry the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) is not in his seat, and that the hon. the Minister for Lands is also absent. I should like to reply to allegations made here across the floor of the House in regard to myself personally, namely that I should have approached them and asked for an appointment as chaplain, and that I should have said that if I could get such a post I would join the Government side. That was the insinuation made by the hon. member for Rosettenville, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that he has imagined it, and that it is devoid of all truth: I further want to challenge the hon. member to repeat outside the House what he has said in this House; then we can settle the question as to who speaks the truth and who not, in court. I challenge the hon. member to say outside what he said here. He challenged me to prove that I had not done so, and I want to quote from Hansard what I said when the Members of Parliament Prevention of Disabilities Bill was before the House, and when we discussed the question of double salaries for members of Parliament. The hon. member for Rosettenville is now one of the members with a double salary. He is one of those who hides behind the blood of the Afrikaansspeaking people who for the sake of their bread and butter had to go and risk their lives up North. He hides behind their blood and draws a double salary. That is his position. They are not allowed to go beyond the Limpopo but they draw a double salary, while Afrikaners who did not want to go and take part in the war, but who were driven by starvation to go, have to give their blood in order to defend the country. The hon. member, however, stays at home and wears a red tab and gets a double salary. I have here before me Hansard of the 26th February, 1940, and this is wat I said—

I did not offer myself, nor did I offer myself as a chaplain, but I further said—

Then on the 28th February in column 2,493, I said this—

I said so over and over in the House. I mentioned Gen. Brink as my witness. In those days I held the view that we must defend our country, and I only put the demand to the Prime Minister that he should tell us where our boundaries are. I am prepared to defend our country, but I am not prepared to go and fight at the Equator, or up in Kenya, or in the Mediterranean Sea. I again challenge the hon. member to repeat outside what he said here. If he does so we shall have it out in court. I am also sorry the Minister of Lands is not here. He said against me outside this House that I was alleged to have said that he had tried to bribe me with the offer of a chaplainship of £70 per month. That is how it is reported in Hansard, at least it gave that impression. I want to say this, however, that I was in the Minister of Lands’ office not in connection with the chaplainship, but in connection with another business transaction. He then said to me: “What are you doing in that mess of a party; why don’t you resign? It is time you should choose. Why cannot you also be a chaplain like the Rev. Miles-Cadman?” What is the suggestion underlying that? I do not wish to say that the Minister wanted to bribe me. I should like to withdraw that, and to say that I did not mean that, but what is the suggestion? “Resign from that mess of a party; what are you looking for there? You will never sée your seat again, you might just as well become a chaplain.” What I am stating here took place in the presence of witnesses. I then said: “You won’t get a span of oxen strong enough to drag me away from Gen. Hertzog.” Surely it is perfectly clear that if I had been prepared they would have received me with open arms? No, I would have been ashamed of doing anything like that, and I think hon. members over there should be ashamed, if they are still capable of being ashamed, of making such a slanderous charge against a fellow-member of Parliament. The hon. member for Rosettenville is in his seat now. He hides behind the blood of his fellow Afrikaners. He stays safely at home with a red tab and a double salary. The hon. member said that he was so proud of the soldiers in uniform. I am very sorry, but I am unable to share his view. The soldiers in uniform in many instances have behaved so badly that we are ashamed. There are continuous reports in the papers about people having been assaulted in the streets, in cafes, in bars, everywhere, by soldiers in uniform. Now I should like to get back to the hon. member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock). He with a lot of display stated that they had solved the poor white trouble. It may be that for the time being there are fewer poor whites because, forced by circumstances, thousands of them have joined the army. And is that a solution of the problem? I anticipate the time when the war will be over, and when those thousands of people will return from the North. What will be the position in South Africa then? What state of misery and poverty and sorrow are we going to get then? Hon. members opposite are so war drunk at the moment, that they do not realise what the position is. The charge was made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) that the Government is now interfering with the pensions of widows and of old people in order to pay for the war debts. That is a fact. Ten shillings is taken off in one case, £1 off another, and the old people have to contribute in that way towards war purposes.

That is not true.

We have had proof of that here, and letters have been read from people who have had 10s. or £1 taken off their money. Where is that money going? What is the object? It is being used for the war, and against that we get the coloured woman who gets £7 10s. per month because her husband is a lorry driver in the employ of the Department of Defence. I am sorry for the hon. member for Pretoria Central if he really thinks that that is a solution of the poor white problem. He has not the slightest conception of what is going on in our country, and of what the condition of our people on the platteland is, he is a townsman. What does he know about the poverty of our people? And who is the poor white, if I may put the question in that way? What has one’s income to be for one to be regarded as a poor white? Is not a person earning 4s. or 5s. per day a poor white? We take up the attitude that the man who is unable to keep his family, who is compelled to live below the bread line with his family, is a poor white. Apparently hon. members opposite take up the attitude that if a man earns 4s. or 4s. 6d., if he is employed on irrigation works or on the roads, he is not a poor white. I again ask who is a poor white? Does one find them among the Jews? Does one get them among the English-speaking people? No, it is the Afrikaners, Afrikaans-speaking people, who have cleaned up this country and have made it habitable and have sacrificed everything for their country, and who in days gone by were ruined by Great Britain. They are the poor whites to-day, and they are compelled to live below the breadline while others live on the fat of the land. That is the tragic part of the position in South Africa, that those who have developed the country and have made it habitable have to work on the roads, while the foreigners who come into this country can live on the fat of the land. What is the cause of all this poverty? It is the capitalistic system of government which we have to-day. I do not want to blame hon. members opposite. We have had governments here since the year dot. The Nationalist Party came into power, and they had good men in the Government of the day. There are even some good men sitting opposite. There is no lack of brain there, but they are suffering from a system of eternal burdens which prevent them from solving the country’s problems. “What is it going to cost?” is the question which is always being put. Money is the country’s idol. It is your master. You are its servant, whereas it should be the other way round. Money should be one’s servant, and should do one’s bidding. The present Minister of Finance and previous Ministers of Finance always asked: “What is it going to cost?” when one comes to them with propositions and with problems. Then there is no money. Let me say in passing that one of our main objects should be the education of the youth of our country—we should equip them for life. But what is the position to-day? Under our educational system, poor whites are being created in their thousands. They are allowed to leave school at standard VI or standard VIII. They are useless for anything in the world, and they have too little knowledge to enable them to make a living. Give them technical training, give them trade schools, whatever it may cost. If one reads the Blue Books of the Secretary for Education, especially for the past few years, one finds emphasis being continually laid on the necessity for the establishment of trade schools. Only recently Mr. Kreft, the Secretary of Education for the Transvaal, emphasised the fact that there were too few vocational schools in the Transvaal, and that applies to the whole country. Give our youth the necessary knowledge, and only in that way can the question of unemployment and poor whiteism in the course of time be solved. The rich man is able to pay, he can send his child to the university, but the poor man is not in a position to do so. The very poor man receives free medical services, but the middle-class man, the man with a small salary, and a small income has to pay high medical fees. I should also like to remove a misunderstanding which has arisen on the question of free hospital services—it has been alleged that I had stated that I wanted free hospital services for my child. No, I wanted to pay, but I pointed to the terrible exploitation taking place. I pointed out that one had to pay through one’s neck for the health of one’s family, and I showed that the middleman was unable to pay; especially if one had to go to a specialist, it was impossible to pay the fees asked. When health conditions and poor whites and other similar problems are at issue, then the Minister of Finance exclaims: “But how much will it cost”? but when it is a question of war and an Empire war like the present one at that, then they know where to get the money, and they get it only too easily, and in huge amounts. The capitalistic system is doomed, and that is the reason why the Minister of Finance, in spite of his brilliant brain, will not be able to solve our problems. With him the question is always “What will it cost?” Another reason why we have such a large number of poor whites to-day is to be found in the starvation wages which are paid to our people. I remember the present Minister of the Interior once made a suggestion for the introduction of a minimum wage of 10s. per day—on that occasion his own party left him in the lurch. It is high time that the wages of unskilled workers be revised, so that they and their families will be able to exist. The Government itself is the greatest offender. The Government which should see to it that the people are healthy and properly fed pays the people who have to work for them starvation wages. I do not particularly blame this Government, but all the Ministers and all the Governments of the country. It is this old, wornout party system of ours which is responsible for the misery, sorrow and suffering of our people. If the Prime Minister had had the choice of forming a Cabinet from the people he would not have had to scratch about in the way he has had to do to form his present Cabinet. He would have chosen the best brains, but under the party system he had to take the material at his disposal. And what material! And then we get to the position of the farmer. It is no use our talking about it any longer. The farmer is not lazy. He works hard and he produces. But what does he get for those products? The people who make all the profits are the middleman and the parasite, the people who are responsible for the distribution. The farmer does not get sufficient for his products, but the middleman gets away with his profits. I am sorry that when I spoke about the Minister of Lands he was not present in this House. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like for his information to repeat what I have already said. It is stated in the Hansard Report that I said that the Minister of Lands wanted to bribe me with an appointment as chaplain. I may have expressed myself badly, but what I said was not that he wanted to bribe me. I shall repeat again what I said. I said that I was at his office and that he said to me: “What are you doing in that mess of a party, you will never get your seat again? General Hertzog will never see his seat again, and it is time that you should choose and come to a decision. You can be a chaplain in the same way as the Rev. Miles-Cadman.” I say that that was a suggestion. Call it bribery. I do not say that the Minister intended this as bribery, but the suggestion was that if I left my party I would be able to get back.

On a point of personal explanation. During my absence last week the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) made a statement in this House that the Minister of Lands had offered him a chaplaincy, that he had offered him £70 per month if he would come over to the Government Party, but that he had refused and that he had said: “I am a poor man, but I do not allow myself to be bribed.” The hon. member has now again made a statement, and it would appear that he wants to withdraw that assertion. But let me say at once that even in the statement which he has now made there is not a word of truth.

You will naturally deny it.

When I returned to this House after he had made that statement which he is trying to run away from now, the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) came to me and told me that the hon. member for Potgietersrust had made such a statement, and I wrote him a note and said that I heard he had stated that I had offered him £70 per month. I said: “Tell me when, and what for?” His answer was to shake his head, and I had to wait for the Hansard report. In that statement of his he clearly said that I wanted to bribe him, and that he as a poor man had refused to allow himself to be bribed.

What was your suggestion?

That statement of the hon. member is devoid of all truth. Let me say here that I have never discussed the question of chaplaincy with him. He had that discussion with the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha). He wanted the hon. member for Frankfort to appoint him as a chaplain, but the hon. member told him that he was not able to do so unless he was prepared to do so without pay. The hon. member for Potgietersrust replied that he was a poor man and he was unable to do so without pay. He came to my office and he wanted me to give him a farm in Potgietersrust.

That you should lease me a farm.

No, you wanted me to appoint you as supervisor, and my answer to the hon. member was that I would not give him the farm. He thereupon urged that I should give him the farm so that he could act as supervisor, because, he added: “I have no chance of getting in again. This miserable Malan Party has sent Maritz there and a great many of the Nationalists have associated themselves with him. I shall therefore have to find some other way of making a living, and you must therefore give me that farm.” My answer to him was that I refused to give him the farm for two reasons. First of all because he was a Member of Parliament getting a salary of £700 a year, and secondly that there were thousands of people, in Potgietersrust as well, and I was not going over their heads to give him a farm. It is untrue that I ever offered him a chaplaincy, and that I said he should come over to my party. What happened there is what I have stated, and what the hon. member has stated here is nothing but a slanderous lie.

The hon. Minister must withdraw that.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister must also apologise for the expression he used.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I say that the hon. member’s statement in regard to our interview is entirely untrue.

There are serious matters that I would like to bring forward, and I would like to have the opportunity of saying a few words about them. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not in his place, because I have a few words that I want to address to him. I hope, however, that his colleagues will report them to him. An attempt has been made here by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) to prove that there is no unemployment in the country, or at any rate that unemployment has become less since the war broke out. I cannot blame him. He takes the statistics of the Government, and he has put them before this House, and he tries, in that way, to prove his case. To that extent, of course, he is right. But I can give him the assurance that unemployment in my constituency and in the adjoining constituencies is much greater to-day than what it was before the war. I can also tell him why the statistics are different, and why they do not reflect the same position. The people who are unemployed have to go to the magistrate’s office or the post office, and when they ask for work there, their names are recorded and they are told that they can go and fight. That takes place in those areas, and I assume that it is taking place throughout the whole country, with the result that the people are afraid of going there. The result of that is that unemployment is not reported, and that is why the statistics do not reflect what the position of the country is. That is the reason why I question the statistics. They are not right. There are thousands of people walking about the country who are unemployed, and who do not report it simply because they are told that they must go and fight; that is the only work that is held out to them. So far as the Labour Party is concerned, I can of course understand why they take up the attitude that they are taking up to-day. They are in the very lap of the capitalists, in the bosom of the greatest capitalistic government that we have ever had in this country, and they cut a very pathetic figure in their present situation, so pathetic that one feels sorry for them. They are obliged to-day to take up the attitude that they are taking up, and the compensation which they are supposed to be getting is the two Bills which the Minister has promised, and which are not even before the House yet. For them they were prepared to sacrifice their principles. Seeing that that is the state of affairs, we are to-day compelled even more than before to stand up for the rights of the workers and for the poorer section of the population. The workers in our country are for the most part people of our own blood, and bone of our bone, and it is our duty to represent the interests of those people. So far as unemployment is concerned, the Leader of the Labour Party will admit that the matters which have been raised by me in connection with unemployment have been so serious and that unemployment has existed to such an extent that he was compelled to admit that certain anti-soil erosion works had to go on. There were hundreds of people who had no food, people who had families dependent on them, and ultimately the Minister was obliged to enable those people to go and work on the erosion works again, to allow the Government schemes to be again continued in my constituency. Now I come to another matter. It is a matter which lies close to my heart, and about which I feel very much aggrieved, and that is the treatment of social services by the Government. Hon. members will remember that it was said in this House even by the Minister of Labour that they were going on with the social services. It was proved to the Government that the social services were being curtailed, but they would not believe it. They will not believe that less is being paid to the people; the Minister would not agree that many of the old people had to be satisfied with less to-day. I want, however, to go still further and to prove here that the matter is far more scandalous still than what has been indicated in that respect. There was a scheme in our country to give a certain amount of food to poor children at school, to underfed children, to wit, milk and cheese. The wine farmers and raisin farmers went so far as even to supply raisins themselves. I think that it was a scandal that such a thing should be left to the farmers themselves, that they had to find the money to give those poor little children a handful of raisins. The organisations of the farmers had to find thousands of pounds to enable the Dried Fruit Boards to supply these children with raisins. I do not know whether the Government on the other side understand what the position of those poor children is. Do they know that in every village there are hundreds of children whose parents do not earn enough to be able to supply them with proper food? Hundreds of these children go to school in the winter, and when we see them in the streets we cannot help noticing how poorly they are clothed and how hungry they look. They live on coffee and bread, and on bread and coffee. The position was such that the community went out of its way to establish soup kitchens to provide a little food for the children. It is our duty to see to it that those poor children should get enough food to eat. It is our duty to provide for them so that they can be fed decently and suitably, and can become decent citizens of the country. We are obliged to do this because apparently we cannot see to it that their parents should earn a proper wage in order to be able to do it themselves. It is because they are paid too little for their work that they happen to be in that state. But even if the parents of those children are not willing to work, then it is still our duty to see to it that the children get enough food in order that they can have a decent education. In my constituency there are soup kitchens at all the primary schools, and the responsible people were very thankful when in the circumstances the state went so far as to make provision for a piece of cheese. The children get that food during the quarter, and when after the vacation they go back to school, we can see that they are once more underfed. Now the Minister over there says—he is responsible for poor relief and for the provision being made for those chilren and he gets up here and says that the children are being better looked after than before. I received this letter this morning, from which it clearly appears that what the Minister told us here is not the truth. It is a letter which was written by the manager of the State-subsidised Milk and Butter Scheme—

It is not only the aged people who are suffering: it is not only the people who are unemployed and who are referred by you to the war if they ask for work, but you actually go the length of depriving these little ones of food which they need. There is money for the war, but to provide food for hungry little children, for that little piece of cheese, there is no money. I am really ashamed of the attitude of the Government. I am ashamed that the Government should go the length of saying that it has not the money to make provision for a scheme of this kind to give those small children a little piece of cheese. Then the Government in addition, asks us to be satisfied with these estimates, when they are not even able to provide those people with the cheese that they need in order to feed these little children better. My heart aches about this matter. I know what the position is in our villages, and what the position of our children is. I know how those people live and the circumstances that they are in, and seeing that those conditions prevail there, it actually looks as if the Government were indifferent. They are busy conducting a war and spending money. A coloured man’s wife gets £7 10s. a month allowance on the countryside, but the little white children are grudged this little piece of cheese. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is in his place. We are told by him that things are going so well with the farmers, and that they are paying off their mortgage bonds, that the Land Bank cannot even invest its money any longer. I just want to give this House a few figures. Returns have been given to us by the office for the recovery of state advances. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to study that return a little, and then he will see that the conditions of the farmers is steadily retrogressing. The recoveries that were made by the department in 1938 are as follows. I want to give a few figures: In 1938-’39 they got back from the farmers in capital £916,982. In 1939-’40 they got £835,593. The amount is less, and in the following year it was still less.

Yes, but the return for the next year was only for nine months.

If you add a quarter to it then you will find that it is still less than the other. In interest and house-rent an amount of £657,932 was collected in 1938-’39; in 1939-’40, £690,000 was collected. In 1940. £516,000. If we add the quarter to that then it is nevertheless less than the other years. That is a clear proof that the farmers are not able to pay back in the way they used to pay back before the war. They are gradually going backwards. I would like further to quote these figures out of that return to the Minister. He will find that on the 31st December, 1940, the amount of arrear interest was £1,053,736. That is more than 3½ per cent. on the total amount or the interest for one year. To that we still have to add that interest was capitalised to the extent of £237,455. People do not capitalise interest if the interest can be paid. I say that this arrear interest is 3½ per cent. on the amount of £27,000,000. which means that there is more than a year’s interest in arrear. It does not look as if the farmers were going ahead! I would ask the Minister of Finance to go about the countryside a little, to associate with the farmers and then he will really find out what the position is, and then he will not talk so glibly of flourishing farmers, when he realises what the actual position is. We can find the same position in all the different branches of farming. Take the fruit farmers, the wine farmers and the raisin farmers. The future is dark for them. We were obliged to reduce the price of distilling wine by 12s. a leaguer this year. There is no future for raisins and sultanas. We cannot get any export market. Great Britain is not able to take our raisins, because she gets her raisins from elsewhere, and we are left in the position we are in. When we speak of raisins then we are dealing with a product of which there is a surplus of 75%. We were always able to export the surplus, but this year there is no future for us. If the State does not intervene and buy the reasins, and make some arrangement in co-operation with the farmers’ organisations, then I do not know what will happen to the farmers. A great many raisins are made in my constituency, but the farmers can also turn them into sweet wine. There are, however, parts in the North where they only make sultanas, and that is a product of which there is a surplus of 75% to 80%. Their harvest is already bad owing to the rains, and what is going to become of the people if they are unable to sell their produce? When we come to the grain farmers, the fruit farmers, and the wine farmers …

The hon. member will have an opportunity of debating all that on the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom).

I only want to use it here as an argument why a scheme should be introduced to save the farming industry.

Yes, but the hon. member cannot anticipate the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal.

But I want to argue on the amendment which we have introduced.

If hon. members think that they can discuss the farming industry on the amendment which has been moved, then I shall be obliged to rule that part of the amendment out of order. There will be sufficient opportunity of debating all those things in connection with the motion which is already on the Order Paper.

I am prepared to bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I only want to say this, that we feel that if something is not done we shall not be able to go on as things are now. Accordingly, I feel that I am justified in voting against this Bill, and for the amendment which we have moved, because the Government is so busily engaged in carrying on the war that it has no time for any industry except for those that are needed for the war. It does not worry itself about unemployment; it does not worry itself about social services, and it therefore cannot want us to vote this money before it undertakes to make provision for those services.

Whenever I hear the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) hold forth in this House my mind goes back to the attitude he took up on a particular occasion in August, 1938. And I am particularly reminded of that when I hear the hon. member speak, and when I see the attitude he has taken up during the past eighteen months. On that day in August, 1938, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), as leader of the then comparatively small Opposition Party, was pressing the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) for a declaration of the Government’s war policy, pressing for a declaration that the Government would in any case follow a policy of neutrality. When the hon. member for Piquetberg sat down the House expected Gen. Hertzog to rise. He did not. The hon. member for Potgietersrust did and he made a speech which even from my lips hon. members opposite would have called Imperialistic. All that was needed at the end of that speech was for the hon. member to have drawn a Union Jack out of his pocket and to have waved it about. And when the hon. member had made that speech, the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) dismissed him with these words—

That, I think, was the political epitaph of the hon. member for Potgietersrust. If I thought it worth while I could give lengthy extracts from the speech of the hon. member, but you might think it irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, and the House might think it a waste of time, and I do not propose therefore to devote any further time to the hon. member. I am sorry the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is not in his place this afternoon.

He was here this afternoon when you were out.

It is not my fault; I have been trying to get in earlier, but if the hon. member is in the House he might perhaps be sent for. The hon. member since he has assumed the financial leadership of the Opposition has developed a very tender conscience, particularly in matters financial. Every time he gets up to speak he brings forward a new financial misdeed, real or alleged, real or imaginary, on the part of the present Government. I think it would be a kindness to the hon. member if me when, and what for?” His answer was to which he has already brought out this session.

Haw-haws!

Forgive me if my pronunciation of Afrikaans is faulty.

We do not mind a bit.

Let me deal with the latest “googa” which the hon. member has already brought out. The latest misdeed which my hon. friend has alleged against the Government is this: he said that the Government had added a new sin to the already long calendar of misdeeds of which it has been guilty, by introducing a Part Appropriation Act before it has laid on the Table of the House the Estimates of Expenditure for the forthcoming year. He referred with horror at the thought that any Minister of Finance should do that. Yet he was forced himself to admit that what he alleges is a practice of long standing in this House has had many exceptions. The truth is it does not matter tuppence whether a Bill of this sort is introduced before or after those Estimates are laid on the Table, for the very excellent reason that the Bill itself contains the following safeguard:

In other words, when the Government comes to the House and gets partial supply in anticipation of the Estimates which are to be laid before the House, in accordance with time-honoured practice following the financial practice of the British House of Parliament, we say “Yes, you may have it on condition that you do not expand or enlarge any of such services, or start any new services. If you want to start them, you must get authority in your new Estimates.” Therefore, I say that although my hon. friend has been endeavouring to make our flesh creep, there is nothing in it. It does not matter. It has been pure accident in the past if the Appropriation Part Bill is introduced before the Estimates are laid on the Table, and in any case it does seem somewhat curious for my hon. friend to hold up his hands in horror because these Estimates have not been laid on the Table when on a historic occasion—which cannot be mentioned too often—they allowed £14,000,000 of military expenditure to go by without a single word of discussion.

Yes, but not without a division.

It has been mentioned by my hon. friend, the member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock), and I mention it again. It is absurd, sir, they cannot blow hot and cold, they cannot say they are anxious to discuss every last figure of this military expenditure, and when the chance is offered them deliberately refuse to take it. They cannot come along now and complain that the Estimates are not laid on the Table.

Is there no rule against repetition in this House?

If there is such a rule, no doubt Mr. Speaker will enforce it. If the hon. member thinks I am out of order, he can rise in his place and point it out. However, I don’t want to twist the dagger in the wound in regard to that £14,000,000 any longer. After slating the Government for its alleged financial misdeeds, the hon. gentleman came along with his portentous amendment. We are not to get supply in this country, the business of the Government of this country is not to go on, the civil servants, for whom the hon. member showed so much solicitude, are not to get their salaries, unless the Government agrees to the programme of the Opposition. In other words, unless the Government gets out and allows the Opposition to run the business of the country.

Don’t you think it would be better?

I now have to deal with some of the points of that amendment, and the first deals with war expenditure. Once more my hon. friend returns to the charge; he says, in paragraph 1 of his far-reaching amendment, that this country is not to spend any money on war purposes except within the limits of the Defence Act of the Union. Well, sir, that raises for the “’nth” time in this House the whole question of this country’s war policy; we have been debating that war policy for the last eighteen months on every possible occasion, we have had three formal motions dealing with the subject, we had a vote of no confidence in which it was discussed only a fortnight ago, and the hon. member is just going through the same weary round again. Now to support that, what did he say? He suggests again that the present Prime Minister misled this House and misled the country in September, 1939, that he got this House to adopt his war policy by misrepresentation, namely, that soldiers would not be sent outside South Africa. Well, we have fought that issue out again. It was made perfectly plain that what the Prime Minister promised South Africa was that her soldiers would not be sent out of Africa, and South African soldiers have not been sent outside. Now my hon. friend asks us, after the war has been in progress eighteen months, to adopt a new war policy. I want to ask him a question: Does he now say we must recall every South African soldier in Kenya, that we must call off our invasion of Abyssinia, dismiss our troops now in Southern Somaliland? Does he say that?

[Inaudible.]

I am asking this question of the hon. member who moved this amendment, does he say that or not? It is a perfectly plain question to which I should get a plain answer. I cannot get an answer, the Opposition who moved this amendment will not tell me what the amendment means, they either don’t know this, or the amendment is couched deliberately in such a vague way that it can be interpreted any way you like, like the Delphic oracle.

Surely you know what our policy is.

I am a very simple man, and this is a simple question, to which I would like an answer. If I cannot get an answer

[Inaudible.]

Will the hon. gentleman not interpose his bulk and his voice, and allow me to deal with the hon. member for George. He reminds me of the big boy protecting a little boy at school. Surely the hon. member for George is not so battered that he cannot stand up for himself. This amendment was moved by him officially on behalf of the Opposition, and if he must have a big brother to defend him, I am sorry.

What are you sorry about.

I am sorry that I cannot get from the hon. member for George a definite statement as to what his amendment does or does not mean. I will tell you why. I always have believed, and I still believe, that in his heart the hon. member for George knows that you cannot defend the Union inside the Union. What would happen to the Greeks to-day if they had stopped inside the borders of Greece in order to defend their country? They are defending Greece from the hills of Albania, and we are defending South Africa, sir, on the sun-scorched plains of Northern Kenya and the deserts of Southern Somaliland, and the hon. gentleman knows it. And I will say this, that if some turn of the wheel of fortune suddenly placed him in the seat of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, he would not try and recall a single soldier from Northern Africa.

Try it.

Let me deal with another of the hon. gentleman’s statements. A fortnight ago he horrified this House by accusing the Minister of Finance of the most cold-blooded financial crime of which any Minister could be accused. My own blood ran cold when I heard it. He said the Minister is cutting down 10s. a month here and 5s. a month there from the pensions of our old age pensioners, in order to finance his war expenditure. If there is one thing that I have fought for in this House, as the hon. gentleman knows, long before he ever came back to it, it is the rights of old-age pensioners. I was one of those who helped very materially in pressing the Government to increase the rate from £2 10s. to £3 10s. If there was a word of truth in this statement that we are financing a £60,000,000 a year war through a miserable 5s or 10s. taken from old age pensioners, I would be the first to stand side by side with the hon. member for George in denouncing it, because it would be iniquitous; to cut down our oldest and poorest people’s small pittance would be a crime about which I would use even stronger language in denunciation than he has used. But what happens? The minute that charge was made, unsupported by any evidence or any instances of any sort, a charge was made in the vaguest and most general fashion, the Minister of Finance stood up and denied it in toto. Then a week or ten days later my hon. friend returned to the charge and produced some letters. Now observe the technique of the hon. member. He makes a vague general charge to old age pensions, unsupported by any evidence whatever, and based on no instances that he brought to our notice. After that, though there must be tens of thousands of old age pensions in South Africa, some half-dozen, I give him credit for half a dozen, write him letters that they have been badly treated. Then, and only then, does he produce these letters and says “There you are, I told you so.” Now I ask him, when he received those letters, did he go to the Commissioner of Pensions, who is one of the kindliest of officials, and ask him what was behind it? Is he so steeped in party prejudice to think that we are financing a war out of 5s. taken here and there from old age pensions? I thought the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) was preposterous when he wandered into the realms of finance, but surely the hon. member for George shows less sense of proportion when he bases a charge on these letters. I would like to have an investigation, because if there is an injustice I will go with the hon. member over this question, but do not let him tell me that the Government is so hard up for a few odd pounds that it has to scrape them out of the pockets of old age pensioners. If this Government even went to that extent, I would not be one of its supporters. Surely the hon. gentleman must modify his technique, and not make charges unsupported, and then ex post facto produce the evidence. Then the hon. gentleman deals with the cost of living in relation to civil servants. Now, if there is any point on which the Government has shown itself to be tender and solicitous it is this question of the cost of Jiving to civil servants. It has almost been in advance of their demand in granting this increase. How does the hon. member support his case? He produces a draft resolution which somebody, some time, somewhere will place before a body which has not yet come into existence. Somebody is going to move a resolution before some congress which may or may not assemble some time in the future. That is my friend’s evidence. Where are we getting to in this House? The other day we listened to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) criticising …

The hon. member should not refer to a previous debate.

Very well, sir, I leave that out, and say that we listened to the hon. member for Illovo. The hon. member for George goes one better. He wants to build up a case not only on evidence that has gone half way through, but on evidence that has not even come into existence, and on facts which exist in the dim and distant future. My hon. friend must be a student of Professor Einstein and go on the relative theory, there may be evidence some time in the future, but he refers to it as if it had already been given. He concluded by endeavouring to come to the rescue of his unhappy chief, the hon. member for Piquetberg, in relation to that gentleman’s excursion into financial criticism. You will remember, sir, how unhappy the hon. member for Piquetberg was, and that in his reply to the no confidence motion, although he covered every other point which had been made on these benches, he preserved a masterly and eloquent silence in his reply to the criticisms of the Government on this point. My hon. friend feels that he must rush to the rescue, he must rescue his leader from the plight in which he finds himself, he reminded me, sir, of a non-swimmer going out to rescue a drowning man. Usually they both get drowned, and in this case I am afraid they have both undergone financial drowning. But let us get back to what the hon. member for Piquetberg said.

The hon. member cannot refer to what took place in a previous debate.

My hon. friend was allowed to do it, sir. He explained at considerable length what the hon. member meant and went through the whole argument. May I not reply to that? I am only replying to what he said.

The hon. member is entitled to reply to the hon. member for George, but not to reply to what was said in a previous debate. The hon. member may proceed.

I can only reply to what the hon. gentleman said in this debate by saying what he did say. Now what did he say? He referred to that famous classical statement of the hon. member for Piquetberg in moving his no confidence motion, to this effect, that whereas the Government had raised the taxation of the income tax payer by 71%, it had raised the taxation of the mines by only 2%. The hon. gentleman endeavoured, his chief having been completely silent on the point, endeavoured to come to his rescue and explain what he did mean. He would have done him a greater service if he had left the matter alone. It is very seldom that the hon. member for Piquetberg does put his foot in it as badly as he did in this debate, and he preferred to leave the matter alone in his reply. The hon. member for George would have been wise to have followed his example, because the facts speak for themselves. The facts are that whereas we get less than £2,000,000 extra from income tax, we get £12,000,000 extra from the mines. We placed originally 9% extra tax on the profits of the mines, and then increased that from 9% to 11%. At the same time we took away from the income taxpayer the 30% rebate that he was getting, and added later a 20% surtax on that income tax. I have finished for the time being with the hon. member for George. I don’t see the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in his place, and I don’t know if he is in the House, but in any case I must refer briefly to the speech which he made in seconding the amendment. The hon. member has been presenting himself to the House for the last six or nine months as Herr Schoeman, as the particular prophet and apostle of Nazi philosophy in this country. He emerges in this debate as Comrade Schoeman, as the gentleman who is endeavouring to steal the political clothing of the Labour Party. In solemn tones he warned the Minister of Labour of the iniquitous course that he had been pursuing, or had not been pursuing, I don’t know which, at Rustenburg in regard to the tobacco workers, and I would like now, sir, to tell the House something about that particular dispute. After the strike was over, Johanna van Niekerk, the organiser of the Tobacco Workers’ Union, was arrested, and her husband was put into internment. I don’t know why she singled me out, but she came to me in great distress because her husband had been interned, and from her and her husband, after I had succeeded in representing his case to the authorities and he was released, I heard the story of what had happened in Rustenburg. I am sorry the hon. member for Fordsburg is not here, because I would like to tell him that story. There were two main organisations, the United Tobacco Company, which does recognise the existence of the Tobacco Workers’ Union, and the other is a large co-operative society consisting of the tobacco farmers, which consistently has refused to recognise the existence of the Tobacco Workers’ Union. This organisation consists of comparatively well-to-do farmers, 95 per cent. of whom are strong Nationalists, and make no secret as to where their sympathies lie in the present war. If the hon. member for Fordsburg had been present, I would have asked him this question: How does he square his alleged solicitude for the lot of the workers at Rustenburg, and his attack on the Minister of Labour, with his present party alignment? That cooperative society at Rustenburg, sir, which supports the Opposition and which is predominantly Nationalist in its political sympathies, refuses even to admit the existence of this union of tobacco workers, and my hon. friend the Minister of Labour bears me out in that. I go further, it was through their instrumentality or on their representation

How do you know?

I know, I have perused the evidence. I have been right through the case. The truth was this, that this man had done nothing but drive his wife round in the car which belonged to the union, and his internment was only a means of getting at Johanna van Niekerk. As I say, the political forces represented by my hon. friends opposite, so far from espousing the cause of the women workers, fought them tooth and nail, and I cannot accept as coming from the mouth of the hon. member for Fordsburg, any alleged solicitude for these tobacco workers. They fought them then and they would fight them again. You would not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to speak the words that were in my mind about the hon. member for Fordsburg, but quite frankly, if he has labour sympathies, he will not be able to express them from those benches. If he wants to be a labour man, let him join the Labour Party, or let him sit on the crossbenches. His attempt to steal the political clothing of labour will fail so long as he remains in his present political environment. I, have only a few minutes to go, and I want to get on, if I may, to something constructive. In a few weeks’ time the Minister of Finance will be presenting his budget to this country, and this debate has in past years been used by some members to indicate in advance their ideas on the fiscal matters which will come before the House on the budget speech. The trouble about a budget speech is that once it has been delivered nothing on earth, not even the eloquence of the member for George, can alter one jot or tittle. It does not happen once in ten years, that any item of the incidence of taxation is altered once the budget has been delivered by the Minister. Therefore I want to return to a point I made in my budget speech last year in regard to income tax. Last year the Minister adopted the easy expedient of simply putting a surcharge on income tax. He removed the 30 per cent. rebate and added 20 per cent., but did not alter the actual incidence of the tax itself. Now I pointed out at the time that income tax in this country is not paid by the poorer classes, and scarcely at all by the middle classes in this country. The ordinary salaried man, if he is married and has two children, and pays £50 in insurance premium, is only liable for income tax when his income passes the £650 mark. Now there is no country in the Empire, and I am probably right in saying no country in the world, which has an income tax system where the income tax presses so lightly on the generality of the population as that does. We are now living in times of war, and I am referring to ordinary times. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) said he thought our policy towards the war was to shift everything off on to posterity. I do not think he was speaking for the party, and certainly not for me, because I believe we have to bear our share of the burden of the war while it is on, and only relegate a certain share to posterity. The Minsiter has adopted the principle of one to two, one-third now and two-thirds by loan. Has not the time come for the Minister to consider whether the war burden should not be placed more evenly on the population of South Africa than it is at the present time? I repeat, the ordinary man does not pay, I mean the man with a wife and two children does not pay until his income reaches £650, and if he has three children he does not pay a penny until his income reaches £750. We give a primary abatement to the married man of £400, and we give him £100 for each child up to the age of 21. Let me tell you what they are doing to-day in England, in sorely-battered but gallant England. I would just like to tell the House what the English taxpayer has to pay. Incomes below £120 are exempted altogether. The primary abatement for the married man is £170 of unearned income, and £204 if his income is earned. The abatement for children up to sixteen years only is £50, and the abatement for the ordinary married man is only £200 as opposed to our £400, and for children the abatement is £50 as opposed to our £100. Then we come to the tax. Our tax starts at 1/- in the £, and goes up by thousandths of 1/- to 2/-. In England the taxpayer, when he pays at all pays at the rate of 7/6 in the £, I am talking about your ordinary man, the clerk and the working man. What I suggest is that in war time we should distribute the burden of taxation far more evenly among the people. In that respect I find myself in agreement with one clause of the hon. member’s amendment, although I believe I do not interpret it in the same way as he does. Let me tell my friend what they are doing in Australia. Australia is a country which in normal times has a comparatively low income tax. The burden of income tax, though not as light as in this country, is comparatively low.

They also have a State income tax.

Yes, I forgot that, but I am going to deal with the Federal income tax. Speaking on his war budget on the 2nd May, 1940, Mr. Spender, the Minister of Finance in Australia, said this—

I think that might describe our own policy in this country in ordinary times of peace—

Then he went on to say what he was going to do. At present the exemption in Australia is £250 for a single taxpayer and £400 for a married man with two children. A married man with two children does not pay under £400. In this country it is £600, but we are dealing with the Australian pound, which is only four-fifths of our pound, so even in Australia, whose war expenditure is three times ours, they find that they have to explore the lower field of taxation in regard to their income tax. I suggest that in this country the people as a whole will be willing to bear their share of the war burden. They will not ask in the future that it be left solely as a burden on the mines, and solely on the richer income tax payers. I have not given the figures for Canada, but I am told that in Canada the war expenditure is terrific. In addition to the ordinary income tax there is an extra 5 per cent. on all income for war purposes. The taxation in Canada is much heavier, it goes much deeper into all classes of the population than in Australia even. In this country the ordinary taxpayer has not begun to realise that there is a war at all, and if this country is committed to see the war through, as it is, and we have to find the extra money, then I am sure the country as a whole will support the Minister in making a wider demand on all classes of the population who can pay. I am not speaking of the poorer section, but I am speaking of the other section who should be called upon to bring their share into the war chest of this country.

I wish to confine myself mainly to the mealie industry. The mealie industry in the Union is one of our largest industries, and there are round about 70,000 mealie producers in the country. The country as a whole depends on the mealie industry, not only for food for the people but also for the feeding of the cattle. In other words, the mealie today is the Land Bank of the Union of South Africa. It is so important that its importance does not require to be stressed any further. We have the rise in the costs of production to-day due to war conditions. We have the increased price of artificial fertiliser, bags, petrol, paraffin, requisites, implements, and increased costs of labour, etc. Furthermore, the Government of the day has deprived the farmers of their facilities and their right to carry their own native labour in their own lorries— a right which they have always had so far. That exemption of the farmer has been cancelled. But what do we find that the Government is doing for the mines? The mines can get imported labour. They get 110,000 natives from Mozambique territory and 20,000 from Rhodesia, but they do not trouble their heads about the farmer. Yes, the mealie farmers in South Africa in particular to-day have been handed over to the mercy of the British Empire, and my question to the Minister of Agriculture—or should I rather say to the Minister of Agriculture’s spoliation, is this—I do not see him in the House to-day, but this is my question to him: “What is your policy in relation to the mealie farmer, and what will be the price for the new season’s mealies, which is ahead of us?” The 700,000 people of the platteland are the people who have not yet bowed down to the great money powers. It is the platteland which is national, and that is why they have to be oppressed and why they have to be forced to surrender to the khaki spirit, or shall I say to that evil spirit? The Argentine mealie farmer is getting 11s. 6d. per bag for his mealies. Why? He is linked to the gold dollar, and we, who are linked to sterling, on account of our having to help to see the British war through, are getting 12s. 3d. per quarter, which amounts to 5s. 1¼d. per bag, We are simply making a present to England, who uses our mealies for the manufacture of glucose for her bottle babies. No fewer than 80 per cent. of the English babies are bottle babies, and that is why we have the position that when they grow up they are still so attached to the bottle. But the Minister of Agriculture to-day hides behind the Marketing Board; he takes refuge behind the Mealie Control Board, and then there is a third Board which he takes refuge behind, the National Board. That is the Board about which we heard the other day that one member of the Board buys from another one. He takes refuge behind those Boards. Let me point out that the Minister of Agriculture recently in a speech borrowed from the Secretary of Agriculture, and with a few pounds of borrowed soya beans from Mr. Wilfred Marais, rushed to the radio to announce a new order. “Now, he said, the troubles of the mealie farmers have been solved. Plant soya beans.” Let me tell the Minister of Agriculture this. We have planted soya beans, but we have gone further, and we have also on a large scale planted Black-eyed Susan, Victory and England’s Last Hope. All the Minister has to do is to see to it that we are able to export—let him borrow ships, just as he borrowed the speech and a few soya beans. He must do all this in order to justify his “lie and rot” story, but I only hope that he will not come and tell us that we should produce macaroni for the Italian prisoners of war. No, he will once again give preference to Rhodesia, just as he gave them preference in regard to the mealie meal required for the troops in the North. The Union of South Africa was not considered at all. Rhodesia was approached, and consequently was given the chance to supply mealie meal. I notice the Minister of Lands here. I want to address a word of sincere thanks to him. On behalf of the Afrikaansspeaking people in the country, I want to thank the Minister of Lands sincerely for not having refused a burial place to Gen. Manie Maritz. Of course, he will not be too anxious to listen to this, but the people will listen to it. The Minister is in the position of being the oracle of no man’s land. He does not represent anyone in this House, but he comes here and poses as an aspirant elder of the church. He is not fighting for religion. So far as the Union troops are concerned, they have lowered the prestige of the women of South Africa by putting them into khaki clothes. Do you know what the officers say of these girls who have to drive their motors? They are officers’ remounts.

It is disgraceful to say such a thing.

It is the truth; it is a fact.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I have never yet been ashamed of the truth.

You cannot point to a single instance.

I want to ask the Minister who travels through the country in woman’s company whether he approves of what the Prime Minister’s wife said on the 1st December, namely, that she was pleased there had been a Jameson Raid, as she would have otherwise remained in Cape Town and mourned.

Give us the name of an officer who said that.

It has been said by officers. I invite the Minister of Lands to come to my constituency. Let him come there and tell us that we are “handsuppers” and “cowards.” I want to assure him that if ever he has left a meeting with his tail between his legs, that is how he will leave Bethal. Insults are hurled at us here. The Minister of Native Affairs comes and tells us that we are “hands-uppers.” He surrendered to an Englishwoman. The Prime Minister’s daughters

The hon. member must not become personal.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. One sometimes boils over a bit. Now I should like to say a few words in regard to what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) said here. He pleaded for more tolerance. But when an invalid like Mr. J. S. de Wet is assaulted by khaki troops, and if five people are arrested after having been assaulted by khaki troops, he should understand our feelings. We notice that hon. members opposite are also speaking of a new order, but if we look at those things we say that their new order is not there to create order, but to create disorder, and then they come and plead for tolerance. The hon. member for Vereeniging poses in this House as a champion of industrial development. But what is the position? When the Reddingsdaad was founded, hon. members opposite voted £5,000,000 for industrial development in order to smother the Reddingsdaad. When the mealie farmers pleaded for the establishment of a factory to distil alcohol, and to produce by-products from mealies, their scheme was condemned by the hon. member for Vereeniging without his giving any actual facts. But now factories are being set up for the production of tinned food, for khakis. And for the manufacture of khaki drill, and also for the production of khaki paper for the Empire. Everything is for the war and the war only. Afrikanerdom in the past has been too prone to make concessions and to be tolerant. And that is the reason why the Afrikaner is no longer master of his own homestead and master of his own farm—he has become a servant on his own land. But there is an antidote for all these things, and the only salvation for the future is the new order, to do away with democracy under British Imperialism, and then to get a South African Christian White Socialistic Republic here. Such a republic will not tolerate any parasites, but all will work for all, and each for all. Finally, I want to say a few words in connection with the war position. We have heard so much about Hitler, and to me it is clear that Hitler must be a great Christian. He has taught the whole of the English people to pray, and in the streets of Cape Town he has also taught the coloured people of South Africa to pray.

I am taking part in this discussion because it seems to me that the Opposition does not understand the true industrial position of South Africa. They are objecting to the spending of money by the Defence Department on our factories caused by war conditions. I can assure them that the money spent will be of the greatest future benefit to South Africa. The hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost) said that the money spent now on our industries was wasted and would be of no benefit after the war as the British Government would reap all the benefit of trade to the North of Rhodesia and the Congo. This statement is wrong and very misleading, and only makes a bad impression because arrangements are being made by the Union Government to obtain these markets. The Prime Minister opening the Agricultural Show in Johannesburg last year said—

He also said—

Now let us see what the Minister of Finance said. He said—

And this is what the Minister of Commerce and Industries said—

All that goes to show that our Government is not sitting still and allowing things to take their course in the ordinary way, and just waiting for these markets to come to South Africa. Hon. members will remember that a lot of harm was done to the Union when the Nationalist Party was in power. To protect a few farmers a lot of our trade was lost with Rhodesia by a high protective tariff being put on Rhodesian cattle and tobacco imported into the Union. The result has been that Rhodesia is building her own industries and is not importing so much from us. That is what the Opposition has done for us. I would now suggest for our Government’s consideration that they should sponsor a Conference as soon as possible of African Territories to discuss mutual trade in manufactured products and raw materials. I hold that the Union’s future export markets lie in the Northern Territories. We should concentrate on those by sending a few intelligent industrialists to Africa’s Northern Provinces with the object of facilitating trade between the Union and Northern Territories. If that is done I predict a great future for the Union’s industries and it would probably lead to South Africa being the base supply for all industrial requirements for the whole of Africa. I would just like to say that it seems to me a great pity that the Opposition do not have a better understanding of the position of our industries in South Africa. They do not wish the Government to spend money on the building up of our industry.

You know that that is not so.

I hope that instead of there being so much racialistic discussion, the Opposition would concentrate more on the industrial future of South Africa and would try to listen when Ministers and others who know something about these matters speak on industrial questions in this House.

When I studied the Part Appropriation I noticed that there was not a penny for housing purposes on the Estimates, and that being so I want to say a few words on the housing problem. In 1924 Parliament passed an Act which was amended in 1934, which had as its object the clearing of the slums and the removal from such areas of old houses. The Municipal Councils, of course, immediately availed themselves of the powers given to them as they were anxious to have the slums removed, but unfortunately they put the wagon in front of the oxen, because they did not first of all wait to get the necessary funds for housing purposes; they immediately started on the breaking down of old houses, with the result that there are many people who have no homes to-day. In the neighbourhood of Johannesburg three small townships have been established under the Government’s sub-economic Housing Scheme, namely, the Jan Hofmeyr Township, the Maurice Freeman Township and the Glenelk Township. I know the Jan Hofmeyr Township houses well, because that township is in my constituency. They are very neat houses costing between £350 and £450, but the rooms are so small that one could not swing a decent sized cat round in them without hitting all the walls. In any case, however, those houses are very neatly built and they are under strict supervision. The people pay 10/- per week for houses with one bedroom, 12/6 for houses with two bedrooms and 15/- per week for houses with three bedrooms. As I have said, three small townships have been put up under the sub-economic scheme, but that is quite inadequate. The result is that in many cases two or three families have to live in one small house, they live there crowded together, and under very unhygienic conditions. It is a well known fact that there is more likelihood of one poor man helping another poor man than of a rich man helping a poor man. These poor people are all crowded together in those small houses. Those who were left behind made their way into old buildings which had been condemned, and which should have been pulled down but have not yet been pulled down by the City Council, with the result that one often has an Asiatic or a coloured person living cheek by jowl with a white person. This is most injurious and undesirable so far as those people are concerned. Unfortunately the City Council is not doing anything more because there is no money. They are now using all the money they have in order to build houses for coloured people and natives. It is most degrading for a white man to know that a coloured person is living in a house which cost £650 to build, while the white man’s house only costs £350 or £450. In the constituency of Johannesburg West houses like that are being built. It is a good thing that those people should be looked after, and it is a good thing that houses should also be built for coloured people, but those houses are a great deal more comfortable and cost a lot more money than the houses of the whites. We are also grateful for those other houses, but none the less I feel that the Government should instruct the City Council that they should spend so many thousands of pounds on white housing, and so much money on native and coloured housing. The money spent on coloured people and natives to-day is out of all proportion. Then I want to say a few words about technical training in Johannesburg and other places, where such training falls under the Government scheme. When the scheme was introduced I thought it was going to be a very good thing if young fellows could be trained, and I sent a great many of those young fellows to those schools, but now we find that after the training has gone on for two years, if the young fellow is not prepared to sign the Africa oath he is no longer allowed to stay there and he has to get out. In many instances the parents are not prepared to let the young fellow sign on, and he simply has to get out then. I have written to the Railways to ask them to take on young fellows like that, but they will only take on young men who have passed a five years’ course. This training scheme of the Government’s is a good one, but they should give those young men a full five years’ course. If they did that I would say that the Government had done something really useful for the country, but to-day it is impossible for those men who have had only half a training to find work. Just one other matter. When I was still a very young child we were often told: “Look out, the Chinese will catch you.” That was what we were told if we had done anything wrong. That was in the days when the Chinese were imported to work on the mines. We now hear that Italians are to come to the Union to work here. The Chinese murdered a lot of people in our country and we had a lot of trouble while they were here. Are we to expect the same sort of thing from the Italians? They are going to be humiliated because they will have to do that work, they are prisoners, they feel that they have been vanquished, and they will be suffering from a sense of resentment. Is there not a likelihood of their rebelling against us? But that is not the worst of it, because one can always provide for sufficient guards to prevent that sort of thing. My question is why our own people cannot be given that work. Many of our people are unemployed. It is all very well for the Minister of Labour to come and tell us that there is work for everyone who wants to work, but if the Minister of Labour would go to the Labour Office in Johannesburg he would find a very different condition of affairs. I go there almost every day with men who are looking for work. They cannot find it. The first thing they are asked is whether they have signed the oath; if they have not done so they cannot get work. We do not all think alike. Some of us are opposed to the war policy; others again are in favour of it, but surely we should give everyone the right to make a living. Do not let the oath always stand in the way. Our Government is spending millions of money to kill people instead of providing work for the thousands of people who are unemployed to-day and who are hungry.

I represent many mealie farmers, and I have received instructions from the mealie farmers to bring certain matters to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I want to bring a serious subject to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture. I represent about 5,000 mealie farmers. The Minister has explained to us his policy in connection with the sale of mealies, and because it is a new thing, I would like to go fully into it. The Minister asked us as a co-operattive society to concur in his policy on the sale of mealies. We gave him an answer on the point. Now I want to deal with the matter and to explain to the House the position which the mealie industry in our country is in. In the first place the Minister made an appeal to us as co-operative societies to sell our mealies at 10s. 9d. at the grain elevator and 12s. in bags. We immediately had a meeting as co-operative societies, and dealt with the matter, and telegraphed to the Minister the terms of our decision. Our resolution was that the Government should guarantee us 8s. 6d. a bag plus 5 per cent. handling expenses and the Land Bank interest. We went fully into the matter and found that we could not agree with the policy of the Minister. We realised quite well that the Minister has a difficult task and we would like in consequence to assist him in that connection. In the first place, there are co-operative society mealies which have been sold but not delivered, and the quantity still amounts to 500,000 bags. Then there are co-operative society mealies which have not yet been sold, 750,000 bags, a total of 1,250,000 bags. In the elevators there are still 1,000,000 bags. The trade and the millers have 500,000 bags. That amounts to 2,750,000 bags. The official railway figures show that between 27th April and 29th June, 1940, 1,018,021 bags were exported, and from the 1st July, 1940, to the 18th January, 1941, 1,885,448 bags were exported, a total of 2,903,469 bags. Then there are mealies which still have to be exported, but in connection with which permits have already been issued by the control boards, 428,846 bags. We then sent a telegram to the Minister and made the matter clear to him. If the Government will not agree to this resolution of ours, then it means of course that our mealie farmers will once more be in the same difficulty they were in last year. The Mealie Control Board is used to bring down the price of mealies. Then we still have the national board now which has to fix prices under the emergency regulations. We now come to the difficult point. We always urged the Government to sell our mealies through one channel, and in that way to have full control over our mealies. Consequently the late Government, the then Minister of Agriculture, fortunately introduced a Bill which we call the Marketing Act. In the Act provision is made that if a body, an organisation, a co-operative society, submits a scheme to that Mealie Control Board, then they are entitled to go to the Minister with that policy, and the Minister is entitled to put it into effect or not. But now we come to the point that if the Government does not agree with our policy or our point of view, then we shall again be in the same position we were in two years ago. Two years ago we had to suffer a tremendous loss. We believed that the Government of the day was morally obliged to make good the deficit for us, but we also want to look at the matter from the other side: What induced the Government of the day to take the stepes that were then teken? I always like to be reasonable, and I want to say that the Government at that time was in a difficult position, that when we were saddled with the large quantity of mealies a deputation came to the Minister from 27 districts and said to him: “You are exporting mealies and our stock are dying of hunger; stop it.” At the same time there was a war coming, and we know that the Imperial Government at that time asked the Union Government to sell all its surplus mealies to it. The Government was in a difficult position. On the other hand, we were saddled with a terrible quantity of mealies. We obtained permits to export and the prices overseas were reasonably favourable to us, but then the Government prevented us. Then the war blew over once more and rain came, and the farmers, whose stock were commencing to die, no longer needed any mealies. We were then stuck with the mealies. We must always try to be reasonable. The Government of the day did not just take that step casually. It had to deal with the actual internal difficulties, and consequently took those steps. Then the overseas market dropped, and we had to export our mealies. That was accompanied by great loss. We then considered that the Government was morally responsible for the act. It was not done. Then the Minister of Agriculture of this Government, after we had gone to him in a deputation, appointed a commission to enquire into the whole matter. I have read the report, and because the report which he received reads that the co-operative societies who could pay their debts should not be assisted by the Government, the Minister decided on that course. I think that that was not quite reasonable because why should the co-operative society which can pay suffer in consequence of the step that the Government took? We, as directors of co-operative societies, considered the report carefully, and it was then decided that the co-operative societies could stand the losses and should bear them. But the Minister must not forget that in order to pay the debt it was necessary for us to be able to sell the mealies which are now in the market at decent prices. If the Minister goes to-day and carries out the policy which he has announced, then we are going to suffer just as great a loss again, and although we already have to pay the loss on the previous harvest, we shall now have to bear this loss as well. I do not think that it is quite fair, and I wonder whether the Minister will not take the matter into review and try to meet us so that we are not ruined. Another difficulty with which the Minister now has to battle is that the National Board is acting under the Emergency Regulations. You first of all have to deal with the Mealie Board, then with the Marketing Board, and now also with the National Board. The National Board was established to see to it that the price of food was not forced up too high. But is it fair now that the mealie farmers should have to pay for it? Agriculture is a part of this country, the farmers have set themselves the task of farming, and they are working to-day in order to provide food and clothing for the rest of the population. It is not fair to make the farmer provide to-day for the rest of the population. That, however, is what it amounts to. If that is going to be the policy, then the Government will be able to come later on and say to the cattle farmers: “We are now going to sell your cattle against this or the other price, you must see to it that the public have meat to eat.” That, then, was going to be applied to all sections of the agricultural industry. What are we heading for? I do not think that it is reasonable to hold the mealie farmers responsible to-day for providing the food of the population. The Government is in this dilemma. It must see that the prices of food are not run up. But on the other hand, it must also be remembered that our mealies cannot be produced under 12/6 a bag. The production cost is high, and 12/6 is not too much for a bag of mealies. Now it is said that mealie meal costs 14/-, 15/- and 16/- a bag to-day. I do not deny it, but that surely is no argument to force the mealie farmers to put the matter right. It is the middleman who is exploiting the position to force the price up, and the mealie farmer ought not to be punished on that account, that is not fair. We now make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, with all respect: Abandon party politics immediately. I have no arrieres pensees in pleading with the Minister. The mealie industry is at stake. We as co-operative societies with 5,000 members have gone thoroughly into the matter, and we find that we cannot sell mealies for a lower price, because then the mealie farmers would be totally ruined. The Minister cannot allow that to happen. I am convinced of the fact that if the Minister puts the matter clearly before his colleagues, that is the members of the Cabinet, that they will agree with him if he accepts our policy. We do not ask for a ridiculous price. We are bearing in mind the position the Government is in, and we want to come to the help of the Government as far as we can, but that surely cannot be done at the expense of the mealie farmers alone. Why should we assist in playing into the hands of the persons who are to-day making the big profits in the country? I regard the matter as very serious. Last year when the Minister of Justice held a meeting in my district, I put the matter before him, and my question to him at the meeting was: “If this mealie question is dis cussed in the Cabinet, will you give your attention to it, and assist in preventing the farmers from being saddled with the burden”? His answer was “Yes.” Whether he stood alone I do not know, but I believe that if the Minister of Agriculture submits this matter properly to the Cabinet and gives the reasons, then they will agree with the policy of not allowing the mealie farmers to be ruined. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take this matter up very seriously and will not allow the mealie farmers to go under.

We ought really to be honoured by the amount of flattering attention paid to the Labour Party of late by hon. members of the Opposition. I am a little bit puzzled why so suddenly those members should descend from the Olympian heights of an almost imminent nationalist socialist republic to deal with what they consider to be a few scattered remnants of an effete socialism, but perhaps it is that they protest too much, perhaps it is that at long last the members of the Opposition are beginning to realise that they can never possibly hope to become the Government of this country by the mere beating of the racialist drum, and the continued propaganda of the Labour Party in this House has managed to drum into their racial-ridden brains that the growing industrial population of this country are not likely to be continually fed upon racial pabulam, but inevitably they will want to know something about wages and hours and conditions of work, and how they are going to bring their families up in a decent way. I feel flattered, anyway, when at long last the Labour Party has managed to touch the sympathies of hon. members on the other side. I am inclined to feel that the United Party are getting paid back just a little of their own coin, because the United Party produced the hon. member for Forsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). I do not think the United Party can be very proud that they produced the hon. member for Fordsburg, for the particular purpose in this House when he was a supporter of their Government, of answering the criticism made by the Labour Party. Now when he has gone into opposition, he is pursuing precisely the same course as a member of the new party, I can’t remember from day to day precisely what its name is. I want to quote to the House for a moment or two, what the hon. member said two short years ago, when he was a member of the United Party and supporting the Government. He actually seconded an amendment by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) to a motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) in this House. One will notice the similarity in a certain way of the two speeches. The hon. member for Brakpan moved the omission of all the words after “House” and to substitute—this is rather rich, being seconded by the hon. member for Fordsburg—and to substitute—

Two years ago the hon. member for Fordsburg was prepared to second a resolution expressing appreciation of the Government’s active efforts to assist the workers of the country, and particularly the small wage earner by—

1. (a) Encouraging industrial expansion, and so increasing avenues of employment;
2. (b) making full use …

And this, Mr. Speaker, must be read in the light of his attack on the Minister of Labour the other evening—

That was on the 26th May, 1939. We have not even got to May, 1941, yet, so it is less than two years since the hon. member for Fordsburg was expressing appreciation of the Government for pursuing the precise policy which is being pursued to-day. Then the hon. member went a little further and took upon himself to read something of a lecture to the House which, if I remember correctly, was aimed particularly at the Labour member of those days. He said—

He was trying to tell the House the other day that it was something like 4/3. Then he goes on—

The hon. member’s arithmetic then was a different proposition to his arithmetic in February, 1941. The hon. member went on to say that in addition to that the labourer got certain privileges. He had not then the privilege of belonging to the Ossewa-Brandwag or the new nationalist socialist party, but according to the hon. member for Fordsburg he had certain other privileges. He said also everyone of us would like to see the white labourer getting a reasonable and liveable wage, and here I think, sir, is the prize piece of the whole speech, in view of the present attitude of the hon. member. He said—

I wonder which particular cheek he had his tongue in when he looked at the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) or the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) when he expressed the view that we should advocate that the white labourer must be brought up to a reasonable and liveable wage, and must advocate it with some sense of responsibility.

I think, sir, that is one of the most priceless gems of wisdom which has ever fallen unwittingly from the lips of any member of this House, and it is rather a dangerous thing for a member supporting the Government to ever suggest openly that such and such a thing is the duty of an Opposition, because the hon. member has fallen precisely into the same mistake that he, on this particular occasion, accused the hon. member for Piquetberg of falling into. And I think it is worthy of repetition. “But to do so in a way which shows no sense of responsibility is a thing which only an Opposition can do and for these reasons I second the amendment of the hon. member for Brakpan.” So much so for the hon. member for Fordsburg and his criticism, but I want to say before I leave him that while I welcome the sudden incursion of the hon. member and his party into the realms of South African economics I would at the same time wish that they had made a slightly more potent study of economics before they rushed into a question like this. I would have wished that the hon. member for Fordsburg—who has still so far not seen fit to deny that he prayed fervently in the interest of South Africa for a Nazi victory— I would still hope that the hon. member would see it is incumbent upon him to study the Nazi system from the point of view of economics, and he would see then if he did so that the Nazi system so far from having any relation to Socialism is really capitalism in its highest and most brutalised form. Nazi is a development of capitalism. I would also like to draw the attention of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) to this. The hon. member appears to be the shadow Minister of Finance in the Shadow Cabinet of the other side, and I would like to draw his attention to these facts.

He would only remain a shadow.

Yes, but however much he may be a shadow we may as well draw his attention to the facts as they are, and I would suggest to the hon. member and his colleague from Fordsburg that they pay some attention to the economic structure of Nazism—and if they did so they would realise that Nazi economics are the result and the outcome of capitalism. They would find that Nazism was brought into being by the great industrialists and by the mining magnates of the Ruhr, and that Nazism came into being at the behest of the armament industry, and that it has followed the line of anything that is encouraged and fostered by the armament industry, and that it has landed the world into war. These are facts which can be substantiated by any fair-minded individual who takes the trouble to find out that Hitler was supported by Herr Thyssen and his colleagues. These are facts—that Hitler was supported by all the large landed gentry of East Prussia, and that in so far as Nazism is concerned it is only a further development of the capitalistic system. It is perfectly clear, as a study of the system will show, that National Socialism is a development of capitalism in its most brutal form, and I think that is borne out by hon. members opposite themselves. It amazes and amuses me to hear hon. members opposite who are landowners —who are almost feudal barons in South Africa, who possess 15,000, 20,000 and even 30,000 morgen farms, run, and profitably run, under a system of almost feudal serfdom—I refer to the employment of natives on these farms—it amuses and it amazes me, and it makes me shudder at the hypocrisy, to hear members who have these huge tracts of country in South Africa, who are almost feudal barons in the middle age sense of the term, and who are capable of supporting a Masters and Servants Act which would take us back to the middle ages, sitting up here and mouthing that they are in favour of socialism, of any kind or form. Those are a few points I would suggest. I am sorry the hon. member for Fordsburg is not here, but he is like those others—he fights and runs away, hoping that some day he may live to fight another day. I do not think it will be so in the case of the hon. member for Fordsburg, unless he manages to shake his economic ideas into a little more sanity than is the case to-day. At any rate, he is making some attempt to grapple with economic problems, however poorly his efforts so far appear to have been. Perhaps he is sincere, and perhaps the hon. member for George is also sincere in his endeavours to solve the crushing problem of poverty which still afflicts South Africa to-day. I hope the hon. members will listen to what I say—or rather don’t let them listen—let them go and enquire for themselves—let them go and study economics—let them leave out racialism for a few months, and let them get down to facts and figures and conclusions, and see what the problems are which they are talking such a lot about, and if they do so then I am satisfied that they will come back sadder and wiser, and more serious and more earnest statesmen than they are to-day. After all we hear so continuously from these gentlemen about the future of Afrikanerddom, we hear them tell us that they stand for the Volk, for the union of the Volk, and yet it is a fact that after 30 odd years of government by the people who continuously talk like these people, the number of poor whites has gone up in South Africa from 30,000 in 1910 to almost half a million in 1941. And the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) sat for many years in the seat of the mighty, for many years he was a member of a powerful Government; the hon. member for George, too, for many years was a by no means undistinguished member of a powerful Government party. And the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) was a member of a very powerful Government party.

And what about Pirow?

Yes, the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), who is now dropping new orders like a fellow drops hot bricks

And iron crosses.

All these individuals were members of that powerful party when it was in power, and it is funny that only when they got into Opposition did they suddenly see the light, and did they see what should be done, and that the hon. member for Fordsburg, after having in May, 1939, expressed his appreciation of the Government’s efforts in dealing with these problems, does not suddenly come to see that somewhere at the back there is something wrong. He has suddenly found out that somewhere at a time it shall be decided —somewhere in the future—a great panacea to eliminate poverty from South Africa will be announced, and that panacea is national socialism, a national socialistic republic where Afrikanerdom will be able to lord it over every racial group and every other colour in South Africa. We have been taunted that we have forsaken our socialism.

Not taunted, but you have done it—you have never had it.

Now that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has made an interjection, I can say that I have never been able to reconcile the hon. member’s high falutin’ speeches with the policy of the party of which he continues to be a member. That is something I still want to hear about from the hon. member. I have never heard him get up and talk about Afrikanerdom here—I still have to hear the hon. member say that he is an adherent of the hon. member for Gezina’s new order—I still have to hear him indulge in the bitter diatribes which his fellow-members so often indulge in. But although I have never heard him indulge in these things, I have never heard him repudiate them, and I cannot see how a broad-minded man such as he claims to be can remain a member of a party which has a policy of principles such as that party has. It is all right being a member of a party like that—it is all right telling the House that you are a reasonable individual—but when you are a member of a party which has these tendencies, some explanation is undoubtedly due to the House.

You do not have to explain your treason—why should I explain anything I do?

Treason is a very nasty word. I do not suppose the hon. member means treason in the treasonable term. I am quite satisfied, if any explanation was necessary, that explanation of our attitude was very adequately made by the hon. member for Durban North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), the other evening, when he said that at the moment we had only one policy and only one idea, and that was to win the war.

You have always had only one idea.

No amount of special pleading or wishful thinking is likely to detract us from the one idea or from our policy of supporting any Government which stands for the policy of winning the war, and we are determined on that just as much in the interest of members opposite as in our own interest. And that is the unfortunate part. If we can only win this war and then hand our friends opposite over to the Nazi Government, it would be something, but unfortunately not one of them would like to have that experience. But if hon. members over there had about three weeks of Nazi Government, they would change their minds, and change them very radically—or have them changed for them. The mere fact that they are here at all, the mere fact that they can come into this House and utilise the freedom and the liberty which democracy gives them to preach the complete subordination of democracy, to foreign ideals and ideas, shows up what lies at the back of their new-fangled party. And I believe it is not so much a political party, because a political party must have a political philosophy as its foundation, as it is a collection of individuals all of whom are potential fuehrers of the Union of South Africa. Now I want to talk a bit of socialism to the Minister of Finance for a moment. I tried to talk a little bit of tentative socialism to the Minister on Friday.

I thought it was a funeral oration. You are now going to talk to the grave.

Well, it is better than talking to canaries—political canaries, you know—people who are one colour to-day and another to-morrow, and who change with the wind and the tone of the note. I was rather disappointed at the reception I had in addressing a tentative bit of socialism to the Minister the other day, and I am quite satisfied that what I have to say to-night will fall, so far as he is concerned, on deaf ears or on stony ground, but still, it has to be said. We have embarked on a war policy in the Union, we have embarked on a policy of lending assistance to the British Commonwealth of Nations which is going to land us eventually into an expenditure which very few of us can with any reasonable accuracy forecast. The Minister of Finance himself, I am satisfied, is not in a position to forecast exactly how much it is going to cost the Union.

Very far from it.

But what, of course, he can forecast is how the Union will raise this money, and it is on this question of how the Union is going to pay for this war that I want to say a few words. The Minister at one time used to be considered the leader of liberal thought in South Africa. What precisely liberal thought is, I have never been able to follow. It has always seemed the kind of thought which fell down on one side of the hedge the one moment, and on the other side the next moment. I think that that is a very good description of the position after listening to the Minister’s reception of my socialism the other day, and I am satisfied that in carrying out his policy of finance he is going to follow the old policy which has always been part and parcel of South Africa’s history. In other words, although we are told that the old system must go, although our leaders admit that democracy itself is to blame for a certain amount of what is happening to-day, although our leaders are prepared to go even further and say that it is the conservatism which was such a feature of the policy of democratic countries which has landed us where we are to-day, although all these things are true, we are not going to alter these things. That is going to be the end of it, although we were promised that never again would such things occur as are occurring to-day, that never again were we going to have a war like this one— in spite of all these things, the Minister of Finance, who is in control of that part of our activities which has chiefly landed us into this mess, is still prepared to carry on in the good old way. In other words, he is still prepared to follow the good old capitalistic way, and if this war has to be paid for— I, of course, have my doubts of that, because they are spending in such a way to-day in most countries that it baffles me to know how it can ever be paid—but whatever portion of the war is going to be paid for, so far as South Africa is concerned particularly, it is going to be paid for in good round interest, and while some people are going to lose their lives in this war, and their livelihood, and while some people are going to make many great sacrifices, the people who have money to lend are certainly not going to be found among those who are going to make the sacrifices.

Now you are talking sense.

The Minister of Finance has not given us any hint to the contrary, and has not told us that the financing of the war is not going to be carried on on the good old system, and that loans are not going to be raised. It has been said that posterity has never done anything for us, so posterity will have to bear these loans and pay for them. I know that. But we owe a duty to posterity, just as we owe a duty to ourselves, and I am satisfied that if we are going to finance this war as we have done the last war, if war expenditure has to be produced by the same system as it was in the last war, then we have lost the peace before we start. Because there can be no reconstruction, there can be no reconstruction after this war, if at the very beginning of that reconstruction the countries of the world are saddled with this colossal burden of debt, with its accompanying colossal burden of interest. The Minister knows perfectly well that there were many well-meaning people who wanted to reconstruct the world at the close of the last war, and in Great Britain they even instituted a Ministry of Reconstruction, but the world could not be reconstructed because of the appalling burden of debt and the appalling burden of interest, and the impossibility of reconstructing the devastated areas under this appalling burden which caused subsequent depressions and continuous depressions which came about in quick succession from 1918 onwards until almost the outbreak of this war. I know, of course, when you suggest to the Minister as has been suggested by my two colleagues, that South Africa should embark upon a policy of instituting a State Bank in this country, we are immediately met with a smile. I know that to suggest a State Bank in the Union immediately brings you face to face with the greatest and the most entrenched institution that exists in the country, the banking industry, and I know that the banking industry would rather lose the war to Germany than lose their banking industry to the Union of South Africa.

Don’t stab him in the back, you are sitting behind him.

My friend’s colleagues also fall under the control of the banking industry. Look what happened on Friday when we suggested a Municipal Bank. Did not the representatives of Sasbank, and of other banks, vote even against a Municipal Bank? There is no use sniggering about that. Afrikaans capitalism does not differ from any other capitalism. There is only one international thing, and that is capitalism, and chief of all forms of capitalism is banking. Banking is the foundation of your capitalism. It is one of the world’s three great confidence tricks. The banking system as we know it is what in reality is sapping all the life blood out of every nation. I do not know what our national debt is—it is something in the neighbourhood of £260,000,000.

Over £300,000,000.

Our municipalities owe about £150,000,000. There are the farm mortgages in the region of £150,000,000 on all of which interest has to be paid, and I notice that last year on mortgages alone interest in the Union of South Africa averaged 5%. Then there is the mass of overdrafts in the banks, bills discounted, private loans, and I think, as I said before, that I am putting it at a low level when I say that out of every £ produced by brain or hand, 10/- goes in interest to someone who has never lifted a finger in earning it. I am prepared to allow any economist to deny it. And what is true of South Africa is true of nearly every country in the world, with the exception of Russia.

Of course not.

And how can we possibly hope to develop into any sane new order of society so long as we allow this blood sucking in the nature of interest to go on?

Quite right, quite right.

Very funny.

Yes, my hon. friend over there with his 30,000 morgen who is now a so called Socialist … and then the hon. member over there (Dr. Bremer) who draws his £1,000 a year from being a director of a particularly big insurance company and who conducts his private medical practice and gets another £700 a year as a member of Parliament, and then throws it into our teeth that we draw two salaries. Capitalism is represented to a very considerable extent on the benches on the other side. But it will not make any difference to your new National Socialist regime if your capital is Afrikaans capital or British capital or anything else, or Japanese or Dutch or Chinese, or whatever it may be; the one is just as bad as the other. But let me tell my friends over there that the large Afrikaans-speaking population in the industrial area is rapidly beginning to realise that there is no distinction between any kind of capital. They realise that in Afrikaans-speaking factories they are just as much exploited as in English-speaking factories. They know that they do not get their money if they want to build a house at one half per cent. less under the one system than under the other. And that is why the Nationalists are beginning to think that it is time to drag the herring of socialism across the floor. I am coming back to the Minister of Finance. I want to suggest with all due seriousness to the Minister that he should be a bold Statesman if he really believes as he has said on several occasions, in the principles which he stands for, and in the new order which he has preached … One of the troubles with Liberal leaders is their power of eloquence.

And Socialism.

They get carried away with their own exuberance …

Are you talking about yourself?

They make a lot of statements which are liable to delude people who are prepared to be deluded.

Hear, hear!

And they produce nothing except a lot of words about Social Progress. I am not referring to the Minister now, but the Minister has from time to time told us what is his idea of a new world. His idea seems to be a long way ahead. It seems to be a new world in which he is not prepared to take part in the building up. When the time comes for him to stand by the principles of that new world, he is not prepared to help. In the meantime he thinks that the new world can be put off from day to day. Now let me come back to the banking system. The evil of the banking system is that it is mainly in the hands of private enterprise. The iniquity lies in the fact that although the banking system must exist on the credit of the country, on the assets of this country, on the labour both the actual and potential labour of the people, and on the productivity of the land, although the whole existence of this banking system depends on all these things which are the priceless possession of the people of the country, and of the Government of the country, both the people and the Government allow the banking system to make profits and very large profits at that, based on the security of something which does not belong to the banks at all. And the time has now arrived, particularly in war time, when year after year we are going to be met with mounting burdens of expenditure—the time has surely arrived when the Minister of Finance and the Government itself should turn their minds to some new methods of financing the war, when they should turn their minds to some investigation as to whether the banking system in South Africa is in the best interest of the people of South Africa, or whether the banking system in South Africa is only in the best interest of the shareholders of the banking institutions. I am quite satisfied that if they make an independent enquiry into these questions they will find that the banking system is run purely in the interest of the people who are shareholders in the banking institutions, and to the actual detriment of the people of the country. We all know that when a time of depression comes the banks themselves can make or mar an industry and can make a depression. We know that when it is necessary for the banks to extend credit, that is the time the banks choose to restrict credit. We know that the banks can make enormous profits by raising or lowering the value of the £. We know that they make tremendous profits by a rise or a drop in the cost of living, and we know that the same methods are pursued by the Minister of Finance in financing his war expenditure, because the war is to be financed at a tremendous profit by the banks. I know that the war is going to see an enormous burden of debt hanging round the necks of the people like a halter and making it impossible, short of some kind of complete revolution, for any new order to be really instituted, or any attempt at a new order. I want to suggest, in conclusion—because we are going to return to this subject again and again on these benches—I want to suggest that the time has arrived when the Minister ought to give serious consideration to instituting a State bank in South Africa. He may reply by telling us we have a Reserve Bank, but the Reserve Bank of the country bears no resemblance to a State bank. It is a bank which pays its shareholders a profit. It acts mainly as a bankers’ bank for the other banks in this country, and it is a bank which is not used in any other way but the capitalist method of approach by the Government of the country. I admit it has potentialities. It can be used by the Government in a way in which the credit of South Africa could be utilised Of course I know the Minister is orthodox. If I were to suggest to him that we should take a leaf out of the Australian book in the last war and float a considerable sum of our expenditure by the issues of our own bank notes against our own credit.” the Minister would probably turn round and say “inflation.” If he continually floats 10, 20 and 30 million loans in order to give the savings which accrue from profits made out of the war an opportunity for profitable investment that is more or less what the Minister’s policy will eventually result in. Profit is being made out of the war. There are people already waxing rich out of profitable contracts. There is in certain parts of the country a prosperity which we have never seen for many years. As a result there is more money saved, and as there is more money saved, naturally there must be for these savings opportunities for investment. To start them we have people making money out of the war, something which should never have been allowed in the first instance. The making of this money is against moral decency, and the Minister is coming along with his system and providing for them an opportunity to invest this money that they have made out of the war in loans raised for the purposes of the war. [Time limit.]

It is really amusing to see how busy the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) has been for the last few days continuously struggling to purify and clear himself of the political defilement which he has undergone since he sat with the representatives of the bankers and the protagonists of the Chamber of Mines by the fleshpots of Egypt. If I had to give a description of the hon. member I would say that he is a true representative of what one can call a political chamelion. A few years ago he landed here as a member of the Labour Party. Not long afterwards he resigned from the Labour Party because the Labour Party was not sufficiently communistic, in his view. He then created the Socialist Party of South Africa. It did not take too long before the same hon. member changed his colours again, and rejoined the Labour Party. He was suddenly quite at one once more with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), the present Minister of Labour. Then we realised that he, for the umpteenth time, was once more putting on a new garment, and now he sits on the other side and voted the other day for a motion of 100 per cent. support of the capitalistic Government, not only so far as the war policy is concerned, but also in regard to their home policy. He supports this Government to the extent of 100 per cent. and is hand and glove with the capitalists. I see the hon. member is leaving the Chamber, he is taking to flight. But the Minister of Labour is still in his place, although his courageous lieutenant has run away, and I now want to say a few words to the Minister of Labour. I hope that someone will interpret to him what I am saying, because otherwise he will not understand it. The other day when he was speaking, and when he was enlarging on the wonderful work which they were supposed to be doing now on behalf of the poor wage earners, I asked him to give me one single instance where in consequence of his action the low-paid wage earners in the Government service had got a brass farthing increase. He waved his hands and said that there were in fact numbers of such cases. Then I repeated my question at a later stage of his speech, and said: “Give me one single specific case.” Then he considered it wise to leave my question unanswered again. Now I want to put him the direct question again, and he can make use of a later opportunity to give the information to the House. I want to know from him what workers in the Government service, unskilled workers—whether they are on the roads or on the railways or wherever it may be—as a result of his action have got an increase in the poor wages that they draw. You will remember that when the Minister sat on this side of the House, and when there was a debate in connection with the low paid workers, he waved his hands in a melodramatic way and said: “This Government will go down in history as the ‘five bob a day Government.’” That was his reproach to the colleagues who are sitting with him in this Government. He told them that they were the “five bob a day Government,” and he put up a very strong plea for the low-paid wage earners and said that the average wage worked out at 5/- a day. I have already time and again drawn the attention of this House to that class of worker for whom the Minister of Labour has alleged that he has so much love, and I am thinking especially of the semi-fit. Now I will give chapter and verse so that the Minister cannot say that I was not clear. I want to mention the Towoomba experimental station in my constituency. There semi-fit Europeans are employed, and they get the magnificent wage: Married men 5/6 per day and unmarried men 4/- per day, with nothing in addition, no other facilities, no house allowance or anything else. It does not matter at all whether the family of the poor man consists of ten or twelve, his wage is 5/6 a day. Recently I once more made representations to the Department of Labour, which has control over that experimental station, and I pleaded for an increase in the wages of the people. This is the answer which I received—

And now notice—

This letter was dated 29th October, 1940. The answer gave me hope. As the matter was being referred to the Department of Labour again, I though that with this Minister at the head, a Minister who in such resounding language had raised his voice from time to time in this House, to put up a plea for these same low-paid men we should effect something. I really cherished the hope that now finally the poor people would be helped out of the deplorable position they were in, because the hon. member for Benoni was now the head of the department, and because the promise was given that the matter would be referred again to the Department of Labour. But what was my disappointment when subsequently on the 16th January I received the following answer from the Department of Agriculture. It was to the effect that the Department of Agriculture, which had referred the matter to the Minister of Labour, and after the Minister of Labour, with all the love which he had always protested for the poor people, had considered the matter and viewed it from all sides, I received this disappointing answer—

That was the answer which I received from the Minister who called out in this House: “This Government will go down in history as the five bob a day Government.” These poor people can just go under with that small wage. Now I want to know from the Minister what he has done to increase the wage of 5s., whether he has increased it by a single farthing since he became Minister of Labour. He is to-day in receipt of a princely salary as Minister of Labour, but he has not moved a finger on behalf of these poor people in connection with whom, when it suited him, he has always expressed himself with demonstrations of love. He has always spoken a great deal about them, but I ask him what he has done to improve the parlous position in which those people were living. I hope that it is not only the labouring classes in South Africa who will realise what the position is, but I still continue to hope that the Minister, notwithstanding all that has happened, will make efforts to put the low-paid men in the Government service in a better position. I want to assume that he is really sympathetic with these people, and then we may expect it of him that he will do something for the low-paid men. I am very sorry that the Prime Minister, who was back in his place a little while ago, has now left the Chamber. In consequence of the amendment which has been moved here, the Prime Minister must have known that this debate would not only deal with matters concerning the Minister of Finance,, but that it would also more particularly deal with the war policy of the Government, and one would have expected him to be in the House, and to give his attention to the debates, that he would be more frequently at his post. He is not in his place now, but I hope that the Minister of Finance will bring to the notice of the Prime Minister the matter which I now want to touch upon, so that the Prime Minister can reply on it at some subsequent opportunity. I said the other day that this tidal wave of acts of violence which we are passing through in South Africa to-day is for the most part due to the action or lack of action on the part of the Prime Minister. The attitude which he took up in this House in connection with the midday pause in Cape Town, the reply which he gave the other day to the debate in connection with the riots in Johannesburg, all this was nothing else than a direct encouragement of his soldiers just to continue with this campaign of violence, of which they had up to the present made themselves guilty. One might practically say that we have already seen direct results of that which practically amount to encouragement by the Prime Minister. We have seen how irregularities have again taken place on the trains, we know how that to-day in the Cape Town Court a sailor was found guilty of common assault on a young student on the train, we have read of the case where a sick man was attacked in a disgraceful way at the office of the secretary of the reform movement in the Miners’ Union.

Speak a little about the other cases also.

Hon. members who refer to other cases know that they have everything at their disposal, the police and the whole of the detective service of the Government. When they speak of other cases, then let them give specific cases which can then also be brought before the court. Here, however, is a very serious charge that I want specially to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. I will read it out, because if what is stated here is correct then it reveals an extremely dangerous state of affairs in South Africa, and I say again that the Prime Minister must, in the first instance, be held responsible for the dangerous position. I read here—

These things are not imaginary. Perhaps you have seen the pictures which were taken in Johannesburg of the different kinds of weapons which were found with the wild, rough attacking mass of soldiers in Johannesburg when they attacked the Voortrekker building and “Die Vaderland.” What is stated here is supported by the photos which were taken in Johannesburg. I proceed—

Who wrote that?

That is not the question; the question is whether it is true. It can very easily be determined. I am inclined to believe that it is true, and if it is true then it is a terrible state of affairs. The photos which were taken in Johannesburg appear to show that what has been said here is true.

Why do you not say what the people in the Voortrekker building were armed with?

Does the hon. member then wish the civil population must just continue to be downtrodden and abused and destroyed? That reveals an extremely dangerous state of affairs. I hope that the Prime Minister will immediately intervene if that kind of thing is going on. I can give him the assurance that if he allows these things, if he allows the soldiers to go to Johannesburg and Pretoria and those places in their thousands during week-ends and at other times on leave, and the Prime Minister practically adopts an encouraging attitude towards all those things, then we shall be creating a dangerous state of affairs. That is what the Prime Minister is doing. Notwithstanding his apparent protest against lack of discipline which was exhibited during the riots in Johannesburg, he practically encourages them to continue their misconduct, and to take their revenge, which they are keen on to-day, against the Afrikaansspeaking people. I do not know whether he realises what state of affairs he is engaged in heading for in South Africa. One does not like using threats because one is practically in a powerless position and cannot threaten. But the Prime Minister is well aware of what has happened in Ireland. He went there himself during the last Great War and he knows what happened there when the same British jingoistic and imperialistic feelings which are to-day engaged in humiliating the Afrikaner in South Africa to the depths, when the same jingoism and imperialism humiliated Irish people to the very depths. The Irish people unfortunately were in the same position as we are, namely, that they were powerless against armed violence. There also they went through the intentional and wilful oppression of national liberty and individual liberty, but eventually the people rose in opposition in a way which, I hope, will never take place in South Africa. But I say again that the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance, if they allow these crimes and misdeeds, are heading for a state of affairs which will ultimately allow the position which arose in Ireland to happen here. Because just as little as the Irish people permitted it in the long run, just so little will the Afrikaner people tolerate it. No people with a grain of self respect will allow itself to be continually humiliated in the way we have been humiliated up to the present. I therefore ask in all seriousness that the Government before they allow that state of affairs to arise, will put an end to malpractices and misdeeds in South Africa.

I am very pleased the Minister of Labour is here. He says that everyone who wants work can get work. When the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) was speaking about pensions the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) made a great point of asking why the Government should take anything off the small pensions which people were receiving in order to get money for war purposes. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the people who were able to make a living on the erosion works, the semifit people, were notified that the Government was going to continue with the erosion work which was in progress. They were to be completed but no fresh works were to be started, with the result that thousands of the semi-fit labourers who are employed on erosion works are unemployed to-day. But there is another matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Labour, and that is that last year he came to this House with an Apprenticeship Bill. We were all pleased that the Minister of Labour wanted to put apprenticeship on a sound basis. Many recommendations were put forward from this side of the House. The Bill thereupon disappeared, and not another word have we heard about the Minister of Labour coming along this year with a new Bill in regard to apprentices. We on this side of the House are deeply concerned at this neglect because we have large numbers of young men on the platteland who have passed Standard VIII or who have passed their matric, and they do not know where they can get any further training. Here in Cape Town alone we consider that every year between 2,500 and 3,000 young fellows pass their matric. The great majority of those young fellows, particularly those who come from the platteland, have no facilities, no opportunity of finding work. As a matter of fact there are only just a few lines of employment open to them, and those lines of employment are only open if their parents have money to pay for their training, so that they can avail themselves of further training. Only a very small percentage of young fellows from the platteland eventually find their way into the industries of our country. Why should that be? It is due to the fact that no provision is made to-day for the young fellow from the platteland to enable him to become an apprentice. I have looked into the whole position and I find for instance that they are taken into various trades if they are 15 or 16 years of age and if they have passed standard 6 or standard 7. Surely the Minister of Labour must realise that the parents on the platteland are not prepared to send their sons at that age to the large towns to be taken up into industries there, because there are no facilities for the accommodation of these young men. No provision of any kind has been made for them. No housing plan for apprentices has as yet been put into force. We have received a report submitted by the Commission which enquired into industries in small towns and rural areas, and that report also shows what the position is. That report comes to the conclusion that industries on the platteland will not develop and the great majority of the young fellows will have to go to the towns to be taken into industry there. Now, I want to read to the Minister what the findings of that Commission are. This is what it says—

That is your own report, and I read further—

The Commission here refers to the difficulties with which the young fellow from the platteland has to contend when he wants to be taken up in industry. As I have already said, the young man must have passed standard 7 or 8 and he must be 15 or 16 years of age. With conditions as they are today platteland parents are not prepared to send their children to the towns where the industries are, and where they can get their training. Those young fellows are at an age where the parents prefer to keep them at home, and consequently Afrikaner parents are compelled to let their children continue their education, to take their high school leaving or matriculation examination, with the eventual object of having them trained as teachers or as professional men. But the great majority of our children on the platteland who at that age take their school higher or junior certificate or senior certificate, or matriculation certifcate, cannot find employment. In the principal town in my constituency, Upington, we have a Juvenile Affairs Board. They do not know where to turn, and they do not know what they can do with those young children. There is only one way out; they have to be trained under the war scheme—they have to take a technical training, and if they refuse to take the oath there is no work for them. Consequently those children do not know how to make their living. I want to put this question to the Minister: If he cannot do it this session let him do so next session, but we want him to give attention to this question of apprenticeship—it is highly necessary. In England the period of apprenticeship has, under present conditions, been reduced from four or five years to three years. Why cannot the hon. the Minister do the same thing here. Let him reduce the period of apprenticeship, and furthermore, seeing that the law to-day demands that every young man shall be trained under an instructor, and that he shall work under a trained man, the law should be so amended that one man, if he trains apprentices, shall be allowed to have more than one under his supervision, There is another serious condition of affairs. Thousands of young people leave our trade schools every year, and I have repeatedly brought the matter in connection with those young people to the notice of the Minister of Finance. The parents send their children to the trade school. Only this evening we again heard from the report of the Commission that even that training, the best training they can get in the country, is not acknowledged by the Minister of Labour or by his Apprenticeship legislation. It is so serious a matter that I again wish to impress upon the Minister that he must go into this matter and he must so draft his Bill that the young fellows who have received their training in our trade schools and who have successfully gone through the three years course will have two years of that course recognised so that they will only have to serve either one or two years as apprentices. In the furniture industry we know that the young fellows in our trade school receive the very best training; the same thing applies to other trades, but to-day those trade schools are regarded practically as white elephants, and I know that the principal of each of those trade schools, when the end of the course arrives, has to circularise people and has to do all he can to get these youngsters placed in the industries, and many of them cannot be placed because the law does not recognise the training they have had. Another matter also affecting the young fellow from the platteland is this, not only has the young man to be 15 or 16 years of age, and not only must he have passed Standard VI or Standard VII but when he comes here as an apprentice, for the first six months he gets a wage—and I have taken the average—of 15/- per week. For the last six months of the five years he gets an average wage of 65/-. Now I ask the hon. the Minister of Labour whether he thinks that the parent who generally speaking is a poor man and whose son comes from the platteland—the man who has already had to contend with a great many difficulties—is able to let his son take his apprenticeship under those conditions? He cannot come out on 15/- per week and he cannot afford to stay in that industry. I think the Minister of Labour should also give his attention to that aspect of the matter, with a view to seeing that the whole scheme is properly coordinated. The whole scheme of employment, the whole question of admission, of the recognition of the work and of the wages they have to get, should be looked into and coordinated, so that the young fellow from the platteland may be treated on the same basis as the youngster living in an industrial town. Then there is another question. When we say that the mines only pay an extra taxation of £855,000 the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) say that that is not true. The hon. member knows that it was the policy of Mr. Havenga that when gold went up in price and exceeded 150/- per ounce, everything over 150/- would go to the State. But when this Government came into power that policy was changed. They said that the mines could take that additional amount. If gold went up to 168/- the mines would also be allowed to keep that additional 18/-. When the mines got this money, the papers supported by hon. members opposite said: “Happy days are here again” because the mines, as a result of this concession granted them by the Minister of Fiance, were placed in the position of making higher profits. They made large profits, and in consequence the mines paid a larger amount by way of income tax, but not by way of extra tax. It was the ordinary tax in respect of which they had to pay more. If our farmers get 30/- for a bag of mealies and £10 for a leaguer of wine, they will also pay more by way of income tax, but we cannot call that extra income tax. The Minister of Finance furthermore was so kind to the mines that he did not only allow them this extra gold premium, but he said that in view of the additional development work they would be allowed £3,000,000 in respect of additional working costs. Now I ask the hon. member for Kensington whether there is any profession or industry or trade in the country in respect of which the Government has come along and has made extra provision for higher working costs? On this side where we represent the farmers and where we know how working costs so far as the farmers are concerned have gone up, so much so that we are unable to-day to make the profits which we used to make before the war, we find that these increased working costs are not taken into account. But here we have an industry which is being nursed by the Government and then the hon. member for Kensington comes along and wants to tell us that they are paying an enormous amount in extra tax. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not here. He now denies having said that the price of wool would on an average be 10.75d. per lb. He read out to us what he had sated over the wireless. I have studied that report and I find that the Minister has not made an official statement in this House in regard to that matter. On every occasion when an agreement is entered into with another country, the details of that agreement are laid on the Table of the House. But that has never happened so far as the wool agreement is concerned. We find in Hansard, volume 37, column 2020, that there was a dialogue between the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). That dialogue at the time concerned the question of an open market, and it was argued that we should rather maintain the open market, to which the Minister of Agriculture retorted that it was impossible for us to do so. The dialogue was as follows—

But there is nothing wrong with that. I said so all along.

The Minister was so scared of his open market. He showed that the fixed price would be 10.75d., and he added that we could not have an open market. We had to sell all the wool to England, because if there was an open market and some of the farmers got more, where would he be then? When we heard the Minister of Agriculture’s statement to-day we were all surprised at his telling this House that he had never spoken of an average price of 10.75d. Hon. members opposite went around their constituencies and told the farmers that they had reason to be pleased with the wool agreement, because the year before they got an average of 8.6d., and they would now get 10.75d. The memory of the Minister of Agriculture is on the short side so far as this matter is concerned. Then there is another matter I want to mention, and I am sorry the Minister of Defence is not here. A year ago there were a certain number of cadets at the training college who were to be trained as officers. After those cadets had been there for some time, they found that the training was only in English, and not in both languages, as it should be, so one of them went along and said: “Look here, I want my discharge, because you are breaking the contract.” They asked him in what respect they were breaking it, and he replied that they were breaking the contract by training them in one language only, namely, in English, while his contract said they were to be trained in both languages of the country. They refused to listen to this young cadet, but eventually they found out that there were seven others as well who held the same view. A little while afterwards the training was again given in both languages. If hon. members opposite are so proud of the young Afrikaners who are going to fight for South Africa, then I want to ask them whether those young men are fighting only for the English-speaking people? Are the feelings and the views of the Afrikaans-speaking people not properly respected there? What do we find to-day? If a soldier goes to the front and he is given a chain to wear round his neck on which is stated which church he belongs to, he finds that he belongs to the Dutch Reformed Church; it is not stated on the little disc “N.G. Kerk,” but the words “Dutch Reformed Church” appear on it. Now, where is this equal treatment for both languages? In actual fact, the position is this—if we ring up headquarters at the Castle here to get into touch with the authorities on behalf of one of our constituents, it is impossible for us to get attended to in our own language, but everything is in English. And it even goes so far that if we insist on being attended to in Afrikaans, they go and fetch somebody who can speak to us in broken Afrikaans, and it is not only there that that is the position, but that is what happens right throughout the army. There are people fighting in the army, and who write and tell us that practically everything is in English. If those are lies, then those people are telling us lies in their letters. There are practically only two places where Afrikaans is upheld in the Defence Force. The one is Voortrekkerhoogte, and the other Impala House. The rest of the army is English throughout, and I ask where this equal treatment comes in. The Minister of Finance is Afrikaans-speaking, can he not see to it that this condition of affairs is improved? In any case, his dealings with his departmental heads and the sub-heads in his department are all in English. That is the reason why there must always be translators, because there are unilingual departmental heads for whom things have to be translated. The offices of the translators who have to translate into Afrikaans are full of translation work which has to be done on behalf of officials who should be bilingual. That is what we still find in the year 1941. The Minister of Finance can go through all the departments and look at the files of the heads of departments, and he will find that more than 80 per cent. will be in English and not in Afrikaans. Certain matters are brought into the department in Afrikaans, but eventually they get to the heads of the departments, and then they are dealt with in English, and that is what the Afrikaner has to put up with in 1941, thirty-one years after the establishment of Union. There is one other matter which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is a matter affecting my constituency. Last year and the year before a serious disaster was caused by floods in some parts of the districts of Kenhardt, Prieska and Kakamas. Great damage was done, and most of the people who suffered damages are settlers of the Kakamas Settlement. I want to ask the Minister of Finance to extend a helping hand when he is asked to come to the aid of those people. The settlers at Kakamas are not in a position to come and ask for assistance in the same way as independent people would be able to do, because all of them are simply settlers. I can say that the labour colony at Kakamas is doing everything in its power to help those people; the Minister should realise that if that labour colony had not been there to stand by and help the people, they would have been a burden on the State. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands will be approached and asked to help the people, and I do hope they will give active assistance to those unfortunate people. Furrows have been washed away which constituted the main source of livelihood so far as those people were concerned, and it will take months before the water will again run in those furrows. Thirty-five of the erven are completely under water, and everything has been washed away. I hope the Minister of Finance will, when he is asked for help, extend a helping hand, and I hope he will not insist on his pound of flesh. We have the Relief Act of 1932, Act No. 22, but so far as I am able to see I do not know whether that Act can be applied to those unfortunate people at Kakamas, and it is for that reason that I am bringing this matter to the Minister’s notice.

I feel that it is necessary that I should bring certain matters which have been said inside and outside of this House to the notice of the House and the people outside. First of all the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) this afternoon in an interjection remarked that Gen. Hertzog supports the new order of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). I wish to avail myself of this opportunity emphatically to deny this statement. I am not talking about things I have heard but of things which Gen. Hertzog has said in my own presence, and also in the presence of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy); the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen), and the hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan). Gen. Hertzog said about this new order that he agreed with certain aspects of the new order, but that is a totally different matter.

What aspects does he not agree with?

It is something entirely different from saying that he supports the new order. I do not know whether I cannot say that even the Minister of Finance, who is perhaps one of the most democratic members of this House, does not support certain aspects of the new order. I am quite convinced that he does not support the new order at all. But we can leave it at that. I wish to draw the attention of the House to what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) said at a meeting in Cape Town the other night, as reported in “Die Burger” of the 14th inst. He used these words, inter alia—

I think the people outside would very much like to know which of these privileges the people will have to surrender. I think the public outside who are inclined to support this new order will certainly not support that new order any further if they realise which those certain privileges are which they will have to surrender. Now, let us see for a moment what these few privileges may perhaps be. The first I think is that privilege which affects the people as a whole, namely, the franchise. Will the Afrikaner people outside be prepared to surrender that privilege? I am convinced that they will not do so. Then there are certain other privileges. There is the freedom which a citizen has to go and work where he pleases. Is that a freedom, a privilege which has to be curtailed? Will the public be forced to go and work where they are told to go and work? I certainly do not think that the public will support anything like that. I cannot imagine what other freedom there is to which the hon. member for Fordsburg referred, but I think that this House and the people can expect of them and also from the hon. member for Gezina, and also from the other members who support the new order, that they will tell us what those privileges are which they expect us to surrender. Hon. members opposite talk so glibly about a free Republic. I do not know whether a free republic will be possible under that new order. I imagine that it would be quite impossible; the two things are in conflict with each other. How can one have a free Republic under the new order of the hon. member for Gezina? It is an impossibility. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), speaking on the same occasion at that meeting, said—

I think that we should very much like to know what the form and system of the so-called free Republic is going to be. It is no use simply to tell us that they want a free Republic and then on the other hand to tell us that certain privileges and rights will be taken away.

Are you in favour of a Republic?

I am certainly in favour of a Republic, but of a democratic Republic which the people of South Africa as a whole will be prepared to give their support to. I feel that there is a great difference between the so-called re-United Party and us, the Afrikaner Party on this side of the House. The re-United Party is anxious first to have a Republic and then unity. We believe that we should first of all have unity and then the Republic, because without unity a Republic is impossible.

That is when the moon turns to green cheese.

And we can never have unity if we do not have co-operation between the English-speaking Afrikaners and the Afrikaans-speaking section. I want to go a little further in regard to this new order, and I want to emphasise again that those hon. members who support this new order should tell the people very clearly what they have in mind with that new order, especially what privileges, what liberties will have to be surrendered under that new order. The people are being told that we shall obtain this new order when Germany wins the war. So far as I am concerned I am convinced that England has already lost this war, but that does not mean that Germany is going to achieve such a victory that she will be able to force the British Empire or us to do everything she wants us to do. I think that anyone who studies this question of a new order for a while will realise that such a new order can only be achieved by means of a disaster to the State or by a revolution. Assuming Germany were to win this war and England were to be defeated, I still doubt whether Germany would concern herself about South Africa. Germany would be satisfied so to arrange affairs in Europe as might suit her, and we in South Africa will still have the present Prime Minister in power with his large army behind him, and I wonder whether that army would agree to the introduction of this new order in South Africa. We must take account of these things. If we want to introduce the new order we shall first of all have to defeat that army of the Prime Minister’s, and I do not see the slightset chance of our beingable to do so without other means. Consequently it is perfectly evident that this new order cannot be introduced without a political disaster or a revolution. And if the people of the country realise that the new order will involve bloodshed they will certainly not support it any further. I just want to say a few words on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and I want in a few words to explain why we on this side heartily support that amendment. As the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost) has said, the amendment contains pure Hertzogism, it contains the principles which Gen. Hertzog has always stood for. It is a strange phenomenon to me that when the Malan Party comes along with an amendment of this kind they always select the Hertzog principles, but when they talk among themselves they preach Malanism. They know, however, that they cannot come before the public with their Malanism, because the public outside in the country stand by Hertzogism, although there are many of them who do not clearly realise it.

I should have liked to have heard from the hon. member who has just sat down whether he is going to vote for our amendment. I believe he is. The Minister of Finance a few days ago was very inquisitive to know what the attitude of this side of the House was in regard to the future, and he put certain questions to the Leader of the Opposition and he was given his answer; it is not quite clear to me, however, what views the side, to which the hon. the Minister belongs, holds in regard to the immediate future of South Africa. For that reason I want to ask the Minister of Finance to give me his attention for a moment, and I want to say this to him: We have satisfied your curiosity; we hope you will not mind satisfying our curiosity now. The people of South Africa who notice how millions and millions are being voted by this House for the continuation of the war are entitled to know what we are fighting for, because they are the people who through poverty and suffering will have to pay for the war. It really makes one sick to listen over the wireless to the people who are now telling the country what the Government is fighting for. I listened in on a few occasions but it was really a waste of time. Even the Minister of Finance failed to satisfy me with his talks because he was fighting the air and he indulged in a lot of vague statements. The men, women and children of South Africa are entitled to know what we are fighting for. They will have to pay just as they had to pay £40,000,000 for the last war. To-day they are again asking why millions of money have to be spent on this war. That is the question to which the Minister and those with him have so far failed to reply. It is no use hon. members over there telling us that they are fighting for democracy because they are not in earnest about it. When the Prime Minister gets up and says that he is fighting for democracy we know he is saying something which he does not believe himself, because we remember only too well that the Prime Minister a few years ago addressed the students of the Cape Town University and told them that democracy was out of fashion, that it was antiquated. I had another look at the speech he made on that occasion. It was in 1934 when he spoke, when he made that so-called “epoch making speech” for the benefit of the students of Cape Town. I want to remind the House of a few of the sentences appearing in that speech. The Prime Minister tells us day in and day out that he is fighting for democracy, but what did he say in 1934? Here it is—

He went on and said this—

In a time of crisis.

The Prime Minister described democracy as ineffective. He went further and said this—

It sounds so hypocritical and false to be told by the Prime Minister now that we are fighting for democracy in South Africa, for the maintenance of that same democracy which he stigmatised as being out of fashion and worn out. The Minister of Finance also stands at the microphone and tells us that they are fighting for democracy, but we believe him just as little as we believe the Prime Minister when he tells us those things. The Minister is accustomed to making vague statements. His answer to the question “What are we fighting for?” was entirely unsatisfactory. The other day one of the most important British Ministers stated that Great Britain was fighting for a new world for everybody. I have a book here which was published recently under the title of “Greater South Africa” and it contains speeches by the Prime Minister, selected speeches. On the introductory page we find this: “Greater South Africa plans for a better world.” We are suddenly now to get a better world, and in the Press we are continually reading the statement that the fight is being waged now for a new condition of affairs—as the English morning paper in Cape Town the other day under a banner headline stated “A new Britain after the war.” We are getting all sorts of vague statements and the people cannot be content with them. I am anxious therefore that the Minister should go into a little more detail and tell us what we are actually fighting for in South Africa. Somebody asked to-day, I think it was the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell)—he put the question to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), what we were going to do if we got into power; whether we were going to recall our troops from Kenya, if we should get into power to-morrow? The hon. member knows as well as anyone else in this House what the policy of this side of the House is—he knows that ours is a policy of neutrality.

Are you going to bring back the troops?

Well, we have not yet sunk so low as to put behind our names in a hotel register “Loyal Dutch.” Our policy is one of neutrality and as soon as we get into power we shall put that polity of neutrality into force.

Talk about being vague, what is your attitude now?

I should, first of all, like to know from the Minister whether it is our object to restore Abyssinia to the position in which it was before? I hope the Minister of Finance will treat this as a straightforward question and that he will not try to hide the true position. He put certain questions to the Leader of the Opposition and he was given a clear answer. When the Minister replies to the debate, we should like him to be a little bit more definite, and we should like him to tell us on this occasion whether we are fighting to restore Abyssinia to its previous position. If not, what kind of an Abyssinia are we to get? Are we to fight for Haile Selassie returning with all his polygamy? Surely not. Are we to fight for an Abyssinia where slavery will again exist as it did under Haile Selassie? The Prime Minister will remember that when Italy conquered that black State, in the same way as other white countries have conquered black States in Africa, Italy immediately prohibited slavery in Abessinia. Slavery is to-day prohibited in Abyssinia. I am anxious for the Minister to tell us whether we have to spend all those millions now to restore an Abyssinia together with the slavery which existed under Haile Selassie. Failing that he should tell us how he wants to restore an Abyssinia under Haile Selassie without slavery? Italy has prevented it. When the Italians came there, Haile Selassie’s mixed marriages were immediately/Stopped. Seeing that we are now spending all this money to restore Haile Selassie to the throne, I want to know whether we are fighting so that we may again allow those mixed marriages in Abyssinia. Those millions of money will have to be paid out for out of the poverty and sufferings of our people and we ask whether we are spending that money for the restoration of a black Government in Abyssinia with all its mixed marriages and slavery. Another request which I want to put to the Minister is that he should tell us whether we are fighting for immigration into this country, in regard to which there is a rumour being circulated. I do not, as a rule, bother my head about rumours, but one keeps one’s ear to the ground and hears all these things; one hears that there is some idea about our going in for a policy of immigration from Great Britain such as we have never had before. An Englishman said the other day: “You talk about a few millions — ten million immigrants will be nothing.” Are we fighting for immigration on a large scale? Is that the prospect, that after having spent all this money we are to be overrun with people from elsewhere (uitlanders), whom we know nothing about. The Minister of Finance is also Acting Minister of the Interior now. Let us see what he and his colleagues are doing about this question of immigration in the Census Returns—if one looks at those things one can only conclude that South Africa is pursuing a dangerous course. A census is to be taken very shortly and what is the Minister doing now? We had a census in 1936 and I put a question to the Minister a little while back to this effect: “How many people have been brought before the courts and punished because they had wrongly filled in their census forms, by stating, for instance, that they were Christians instead of Jews?” What was his answer. In the whole of South Africa not a single case had been brought before the courts and nobody had been found guilty of having completed a form incorrectly by saying that he was a Christian while he was a Jew. What is the Minister doing now with a view to the future? In order to protect his friends, people are no longer asked whether they are Jews. The hon. the Minister knows only too well that there is a strong feeling that there are more Jews in South Africa than people imagine, on account of the fact that in the 1936 Census, as we contend, many many Jews described themselves as non-Jews and the Minister had told us that nobody has been prosecuted and that nobody has been punished for having been guilty of incorrect statements in the census returns. I again ask the Minister to mention one single instance to us of a prosecution having taken place.

Do you contend that Jews say that they are Christians?

What I say is that the Afrikaners with the exception of the hon. member over there are not such a poor lot as to put “loyal Dutch” behind their names when they stay at a hotel. Now I want to say this to the Minister: In May, 1941, another Census will be taken. I asked the Minister some time ago to devise such a clear form that nobody would be able to evade it; everybody would have to say exactly who he was. I put the question in this way: whether the Minister will put the questions in such a way that every person will be compelled to say what his religion is. I put it in those words because there is no other way of saying what one is. And what was the Minister’s answer? Hon. members will recollect that we asked in 1936 what a man’s religion was, but in 1941 that question is not being asked again. What was the Minister’s reason for leaving it out? “It will cost too much.” Imagine! One single question in addition to the other 20 or 25 questions which have to be answered on the form will “cost too much.” No, the Minister and his Government want to give people a chance to come and live here in South Africa without our knowing how many Jews there are here. That is the reason why that question was left out of the Census Form of 1941; and the Minister actually added that he would promise to put that question in again in the Census Form of 1946. In 1936 he put that question, in 1941 he leaves it out “because it costs too much.” But in 1946 he will put it in again. He puts off the evil day. As a matter of fact he knows that he will no longer be there in 1946 and will not be able to put the question. Do hon. members know what the Census Form asks for now? It is so easy for the Jews to evade it. The Minister does not ask them what their religion is—but he is going to ask them again in 1946. There are only three headings now under which one can more or less find out what a person is. The individual has to say what his race is, whether he is a white man, an Asiatic or a coloured person. When filling in one of those three he does not say whether he is a Jew or not. Consequently under “Race” the Jew evades the question. He need not say that he is a Jew; and then one is asked what one’s present nationality is; South African, British, French, etc. The Jew fills in “British.” Even if it is wrong it makes no difference, because the Minister does not prosecute anyone. Consequently the completed form is not going to tell one anything. Nor can one catch them under the heading of “Place of Birth.” That is the final question. The province or country where the person is born has to be stated, but hon. members will know that many of those people go to other countries and in the meantime assume a different nationality. If a man says that he comes from Poland it does not definitely prove that he is a Jew. He has been in other countries in the meantime. There is no proof whatsoever. Consequently the 1941 form is not going to help one at all in finding out how many Jews there are in South Africa. They need not say what their religion is. If the Jews in South Africa did not already owe the Minister a debt of gratitude, they owe him a very great one now, seeing that in 1941 they are given a chance which they have not had before, or in any case which they did not have in 1936, viz. they do not have to say whether they are Jews or not. In 1936 and before that they did not have that chance, and now we shall not know how many Jews there are in this country. I think the Jews should pass a vote of thanks to the Minister. Now I want to come back to the bigger problem. The Minister asked us what we were standing for, and the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) gave a clear answer. Our order is the order of the Republic. The Minister has been given the detailed information, and he knows it now. I want to ask the Minister to tell us whether the Government’s policy is that of a “greater South Africa,” as this book which is issued by the Truth Legion containing Gen. Smuts’ speeches wants us to believe. Does their order of a “greater South Africa” stand there against our order of a republic? The sooner we know where the Government stands the better, because the people will then know what they are fighting for. We stand for a policy of neutrality, and that policy goes hand in hand with our order of a republic. Tell us whether the order which you are fighting for is an order of a “greater South Africa.” We take it that it is so. If we read the Prime Minister’s speeches, this fact runs through those speeches like a golden thread. I believe it was in 1929 when he laid down that policy at Ermelo, and now, since the outbreak of the war, it has become clearer than ever that he is working for a “greater Africa.” I must take it from this book, too, that that is the Prime Minister’s policy, and the title “greater Africa” shows it. That policy runs through all his main speeches. I now want to ask the Minister of Finance whether a “greater Africa” is the policy of his party Is that your policy?—that is the question I want to put to the Minister. I should like to read a sentence appearing in the 1929 speech made by the Prime Minister at Ermelo in connection with my request to the Minister to tell us what his policy is. I want to remind the House of the speech of the 17th January, 1929, when the Prime Minister said—

The Prime Minister added two things: that policy was the cardinal point of his policy, and he further said that when he came into power he would make it his object to bring about a condition of brotherhood and cooperation between the British States in Africa. Since the outbreak of war, and since he has become Prime Minister, every one of his actions and every word spoken by him have been in that direction, have had that object in view. For that reason we say that our order is the order of a republic, and that is why we ask the Minister of Finance whether he and his party stand for a “greater Africa.” The people want to know what they are fighting for. I should like to point out that if the Minister says that that is their policy—and I do not think he can say anything else—I want to point out what that implies. Which are the territories which it is proposed to incorporate in the “greater Africa”? Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda? I do not know whether they also want to incorporate Uganda, but, judging by the speech made by the Prime Minister, I must take it that this “greater Africa” will extend from Cape Town to the borders of Abyssinia. Has the Minister ever thought what it will mean? It will mean two and a half million whites (in round figures) as against 20,000,000 natives.

But you have just told us that 10,000,000 immigrants are going to be imported.

It will first of all mean the perpetuation of British rule in South Africa, the perpetuation of the Union Jack and of “God Save the King.” It will make South Africa, as has been said already, a white spot on the tail of a large black dog. I am speaking as an Afrikaans-speaking person; I am speaking about the implication of such an expansion. South Africa will be a small spot on the big black spot. We shall he a British Dominion with 2,500,000 whites as against 20,000,000 natives, a pitch-black British Dominion of Africa. It cannot be anything else if one puts those 2,500,000 whites against 20,000,000 natives. It is an onslaught on the continued existence of a white South Africa, and it is an attack also on the existence of the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa—it is Ichabod to the future of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. There was a time when some hon. members opposite also spoke about South Africa first. Afterwards they began to say “South Africa last.” Now they say “South Africa nowhere.” According to the Ermelo speeches of the Prime Minister, the day will come when the name of South Africa will disappear from our vocabulary. Such a policy will spell the end of South Africa as a white country, and the end of the ideal of a republic. The Afrikaans-speaking people and the English-speaking people, too, who want to see South Africa separated from the British Empire may as well go and bury their ideal then. If that day comes, if the Prime Minister gets his way, it is the end of that ideal. It will further mean that the Afrikaans-speaking people may just as well bury their language, because how will a small white spot be able to maintain their language if even to-day one cannot in practice get one’s language rights upheld. In addition to that, we have even now a number of Quislings among our Afrikaansspeaking people in South Africa, and in such a larger British Dominion we shall have more Afrikaner Quislings than ever before. For that reason we are entitled to ask the Minister: “Tell us clearly, is that your party’s policy or not? You know what our policy is, what is your policy? We also know what is the policy of the colonies which you now want to incorporate.” A few years ago there was a Hilton Young Commission which made certain investigations, and they published the opinion of the Governor of Kenya, who said that so far as those areas were concerned the interests of the natives were paramount over the interests of the whites. And that is still the case to-day, so far as I know; that is still the policy of those parts under the British Government. One now has the right to ask, if that greater Africa has to come into being, and that piece of country has to be attached—so far as square miles are concerned—we shall be only one-third of the total, and the territory up to Abyssinia will constitute two-thirds; we shall be a small white spot here—what will the consequences be to South Africa? I put that question because the Prime Minister made certain promises. The first promise he made was that if he came into power he would carry out that policy, and he would strive for co-operation between the various States which would form that “greater Africa.” He made a further promise, namely, that if that ideal of his were to triumph it would be the solution of our problems here in South Africa, or at any rate the solution of those problems would be very easy. He solves the problem for the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population and the language of that Afrikaans-speaking section. He solves the problem by having the Afrikaans-speaking section together with its language swallowed up. I in turn say that our white men, white women and children in South Africa, especially the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, have sacrificed their all in order to secure this country for a white Christian civilisation and they are the people who have the right to put the question to those who are in power to-day, whether that is still their policy—whether the policy pronounced by the Prime Minister in that speech is still their policy, and if it is their policy we have the right to ask members like the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) who supports the Prime Minister, whether they also support that policy of a “greater South Africa.” Every day they give their vote in favour of the Prime Minister in this House, they promote this principle and this ideal which he stands for. I do not want to go into that point any further except to say that members opposite are defying us and provoking us here all day long. They say that we stand for a policy which does not accord with the true interests of South Africa. We on our side have the right to say that the people must choose between ourselves and them, between our policy and their policy; let us help each other to put that choice clearly before the people. If we do so, it will be easy for the people to make their choice. We say that we stand for the order of a Republic, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) has made clear what that Republic will be like. If hon. members want any further information as to what that Republic will be like, I take it the Leader of the Opposition will be prepared to give the information, and if a book like this is published setting forth the Prime Minister’s ideal of a “greater Africa”—and I take it it was done with the consent of the Prime Minister—in which it is stated that that side of the House stands for a greater expansion of Africa, then we have the right to ask hon. members to help us and to say “Place the position clearly before the people,” and if the people have had the position placed clearly before them then they can choose between the ideal of a “Greater Africa,” the ideal which hon. members opposite stand for and the order of a Republic which we stand for. That ideal of a “Greater Africa” can then be chosen by those khakis, Hanskhakis, and English-speaking Jingoes, and Afrikaner Quislings opposite—hon. members can carry on with it, but we say that South Africa is large enough for us. If we can also get South-West with its 30,000 white inhabitants— who belong to us—and with its quarter of a million natives, then South Africa is large enough for us.

You have long since given up South-West.

The hon. the Minister of Lands does not know what our policy is. We say that South Africa for which Afrikaners and English-speaking, too, have made great sacrifices, is big enough for us. Hon. members over there can keep the British States in the North with their kaffir dominations for themselves. South Africa has been paid for quite dearly enough by our sacrifices. South Africa is quite beautiful and good enough for us. If hon. members over there want to go North let them go and settle in Northern Rhodesia or in Kenya, and let them see how the natives there run the shops, how they run the trains —let hon. members go and live there under native domination—they can assist there in carrying out the British policy of native domination. They can keep those countries for themselves. If the fight has to start between us on that point, between our order of a Republic and that ideal of a Greater Africa, then we are willing to join issue with hon. members opposite.

I feel it my duty first of all this evening to refer to a most unfortunate speech made here this afternoon. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. C. J. van den Berg) by way of insinuation made a most scandalous, a most gross and most disgraceful allegation against the women of South Africa, who are doing their duty in the women’s army—and among them there are probably women from the Bethal constituency. It was an insinuation which we could only expect from a man like the hon. member for Bethal, an insinuation which was characteristic of that hon. member. That insinuation caused the strongest resentment in this House. I am going to use a stronger word. It caused a feeling of loathing and that applies not only to members on this side of the House. I think it also applies to members on the other side who heard that speech. It was the most unworthy speech I have ever had to listen to in all the years I have been in this House. Such a speech coming from such a member does not cast any dishonour on the people whom it was directed against. Their honour stands too high for it to be polluted by a person like the hon. member for Bethal. It is only the hon. member for Bethal to whose dishonour it redounds. This debate has lasted a long time. It has ranged over a great variety of subjects. It is not customary for me as Minister of Finance to answer all the points which have been raised here. Where more important matters have been touched upon and where they are not of a financial nature they have been mostly replied to by my colleagues. There is, however, one important matter which was touched upon this afternoon and which has not yet been dealt with. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) referred to the matter of internment camps. It is a matter which is now under the control of the Minister of Justice, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Winburg did not find it possible to inform the Minister of Justice of his intention to raise this question. May I just say this: I think it is desirable that when members, especially responsible members of the Opposition, wish to deal with certain general matters, and in connection with those matters wish to go into specific details, that they should notify the Minister concerned.

I thought that you would reply as acting Minister of the Interior.

Yes, I accept that statement, but it is the Minister of Justice who looks after this matter. He was absent for a considerable portion of the time during which the hon. member was speaking. He will deal with the matter and on a later occasion he will give the necessary information to the House. My duty really is to deal with the financial matters which have been raised during this debate. I only want to divert from financial affairs insofar as it is necessary to do so, so that I may say a few words about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and about the arguments adduced in order to support that amendment. The hon. member for George started off by raising two general financial objections to the introduction of this Bill. His first objection was that I had not made a speech on the financial position of the country when I introduced this. As is customary I introduced this Bill in a purely formal manner. His second objection was that the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1941-’42 have not yet been placed on the table. It is perfectly clear to me that the hon. member for George really does not understand what the character of this Bill actually is. This Bill is intended only to authorise the Government to carry on for the first part of the next financial year on the basis already approved of by this House, but no new services can be introduced.

He said so.

Why then does he want the new Estimates of Expenditure? The expenditure which is being authorised here has to take place on the basis of the old Estimates which have already been approved of by this House. It is only an extension of the position which has already received the approval of the House. For that reason there is, of course, no necessity for a fresh Estimate of Expenditure which has not yet been dealt with to be submitted to this House before this Bill can be considered. We only ask for the power, the temporary power, to carry on for a further period on the basis already approved of by Parliament. And that is the reason why it is not necessary for me to make a speech at this stage on the general financial position. I have already done so so far as this financial year is concerned; I have done it more than once and I did so only two weeks ago. I shall do it again in the course of the next four weeks in regard to the general financial position of next year, and that being so it certainly was not necessary for me to make such a general financial speech. If my hon. friend will study this Bill a bit more closely he will see that there is no force in those two objections of his. Before coming to the amendment of the hon. member for George I wish first of all to refer to a few matters of financial interest touched upon by other hon. members in the course of the debate.

†I think I should first perhaps say a word about a matter raised by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) this evening which was also raised by other members who are the same way of thinking as he is. The hon. member for Umbilo embarked upon the task of educating me as to the virtues of State banking. He has commenced my education. I am not sure that I am a very good pupil and I am very doubtful as to whether even such an excellent teacher as the hon. member for Umbilo will prevail upon me to embark upon so revolutionary an expedient as what he advocates in the middel of a war. But as I understood from the hon. member for Umbilo that he intends to continue the process of educating me, and intends to continue making speeches on this subject, I do want when next he addresses the House, and me, on the question of State banking, that he should give me a little enlightenment. It is all very well to talk of the weakness of the present system, and to say that a State bank is the solution of the present problems, but we do want to know how the State bank is going to operate. This State bank is going to be charged with the task of finding the very large sums of money necessary for the carrying on of the war. Now I want the hon. member for Umbilo when he next educates me on this subject to tell me how this money is going to be found. Is this State bank which he has in mind in South Africa going to do what the State bank introduced by the Labour Government in New Zealand has done, namely, to continue to raise money on payment of interest? If so, we shall be just where we are at present. Or is the State bank going to raise money without the payment of interest? In other words, in this time of unprecedented expenditure, are we going to set our printing press to work, is the country to be flooded with printed money, and are we, as a result, to face the position inevitably following that, of lowering the standard of living of the people of the country? I am ready to sit at the hon. member’s feet and listen to him, but I want the hon. member to tell me how the State bank is going to raise this money which we want for the financing of the war, will it be done on an interest paying basis, or without the payment of interest, and if without the payment of interest, will the hon. member tell me how that money is to be found?

I shall do that.

I have no doubt, but I am waiting to receive further instruction from the hon. member. Now the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has raised the important question of third party risk insurance legislation. I replied recently to a question which she put in that connection, and she told me that my reply was vague and embarrassing. Well, my reply was this, that it was not possible for legislation to be introduced this session, but that I hoped it might be possible for legislation to be introduced next session. The hon. member for Jeppe apparently wants me to say that the House will pass such legislation next session. I am not prepared to make such a statement, and I think the hon. member for Jeppe has been in this House long enough to know that no Minister will take the risk of making such a categorical statement. I fully realise the importance of such legislation, and I regret that it was not possible to introduce such legislation this session because there was other legislation which the Government regarded as of more urgency to proceed with, but I hope we shall be able to deal with this question next year.

†*Now I want to come to a matter of importance which was touched upon by several matters, to wit, the question of the Italian prisoners of war. As hon. members know the Union has agreed to receive 20,000 of those prisoners of war in Africa. Questions have also been put to me in regard to the financial arrangements resulting from this agreement. Let me repeat what I have said before, that the costs of maintenance of these prisoners of war will be borne directly by the British Government. It will therefore not be necessary for this House to vote any money for that maintenance. If it should, however, be decided to employ some of those prisoners of war on productive works, it will involve expenditure which will have to be met from funds voted by Parliament, such as for instance for national roads or for the construction of railways. I wish to give an assurance, however, that such steps will only be taken if the financial and general interests of the country are served thereby. So far it has not yet been decided to proceed with such a scheme. I repeat that such a decision will only be taken if it appears to be in the finincial and general interests of the country. That will be the test—and that will be the only test. Then I want to say a few words on the housing question. Several hon. members have intimated that the Government is economising on housing. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. C. C. E. Badenhorst) says that there is not a penny in this Bill to provide for housing. She probably looked at the wrong Bill. In this Bill there is no special provision for any services, simply because the existing services approved of for this year will continue for the year before us. It follows therefore that as we provided in the previous Estimates for housing for the current finincial year we are approving of that same provision in this Bill for the new year. Naturally, on the Estimates for the new year special provision will have to be made. I think we can safely take it that the provision for housing will not be less than the amount which, actually with the assistance of the Municipality, was spent during the past year. A great deal has been said about economy measures which are being taken. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) gave the House to understand that we were economising on the scheme for the supply of butter and cheese. He is quite wrong. The amount on the Estimates for the current year which is coming to a close is exactly the same as the amount on the Estimates for the previous year, and the whole of that amount is being expended this year. There has been no question of economising on that scheme. A great deal has also been said about soil erosion works. Several members have stated that no works for the combating or erosion are being started. May I say again explicitly that no erosion works which had been started have been stopped by the Department of Labour. What actually is the position is that on approved new schemes work is only being started in certain circumstances. It is quite wrong to say, as was said here this afternoon, that such works are never started. They are definitely started when there is a sufficient number of unemployed, who are semi-fit persons, in those districts to keep the gangs going. Where unemployment does exist new approved of schemes are being proceeded with.

But not under “C.”

My hon. friend will find when the Main Estimates are submitted that a considerable amount is being provided for this service. As I still want to say a good deal more I now move—

Mr. FRIEND seconded.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 19th February.

I should like to make a personal statement to the House. I understand that the Minister of Finance spoke about me in my absence. The statement which I want to make has nothing to do with what the Minister of Finance said, because I do not know what he said. It is therefore not the outcome of what he said, it is not due to what he said, that this statement is being made. There is probably a misunderstanding in regard to something I said in my speech and I have been approached by members who were not present in the House when I made those remarks. I should like to make it clear that I personally did not say anything about the young girls and women who are members of the army, or of the Women Auxiliary Forces. I only repeated what was said to me, namely, the slandering of our young girls and women by some officers, while I tried to make it clear that I did not associate myself with such slander. I clearly stated that it lowered the prestige of our daughters. But in view of the misunderstanding which apparently prevails in this respect I only want to say that I am sorry that such a wrong interpretation is being placed on what I said. If, cut of what I said, it can be deduced that I made an insinuation, I wish to express my regret and to withdraw it, because I am the last man in the world to want an injustice done to our women.