I should like to avail myself of the permission to speak for half an hour. We have been in the war for two and a half years now, and I think it is desirable that we should start today where we started when war was declared —we should carefully study our position today, and see what the future holds for us. The first thing we on this side and the public outside feel is that when we went into the war, it was held up to us that this was going to be a technical war. We now find ourselves in the third year of war, and the Estimates before us provide for an increased expenditure of 35 per cent. If I, as a practical farmer, find that my expenditure has gone up by 35 per cent. in one year, I must see to it that I get some benefit from it, and if I do not benefit I must reduce my expenditure, instead of allowing it to increase. I am going to give a summary of the benefits we have had from being in this war, and I am going to ask whether those benefits justify our spending 35 per cent. more in one year? Last year we spent £28,000,000 on this vote, and this year it is £40,000,000, which, in other words, means that we are spending £12,000,000 more on these Estimates of Expenditure than we did last year. In this respect we feel we should be taken more into the Government’s confidence. We are providing here on these Estimates for £40,000,000, and yet we find that the Government has not taken us into its confidence whatsoever. If we look at this vote we find that we are not given any details in regard to the items which this money is to be spent on. The whole sum is simply chucked in front of us, we are told it is for defence, and we are not given any details at all. We on this side feel that there may be certain things which the Government cannot make public, but surely there are certain things which the Government can make public, and which it can inform us about, and tell us how much is being spent on those particular items, but before coming to that I want to say this: We knew when we started the war that we would have to spend a lot of money. There was no military equipment in South Africa. We had to secure such equipment, but I thought that the time would have come by now for this military equipment to have been extended and secured to such an extent that we would have had to spend less money at this stage. None the less we are spending more money now, although we would have expected most of our requirements to have been secured in the first and second years of the war. But the account has gone on increasing and our expenditure on military requirements has gone up—are we getting any value for what we are spending? What I want to know is this: the footnote to this note speaks of subsidies. When subsidies were paid to the farmers we know that the farmers were abused and were told that those subsidies were charitable contributions they were getting from the Government. I had never imagined that England would have to get any charity from us, but I am finding now that we have to make such contributions to England, and I should like to know from the Minister of Defence what is the meaning of this subsidy to Imperial Airways. He would not be giving away any secrets if he gave us that information. All he has to do is to tell us how much money is being spent on those subsidies. Surely that is not giving any information to the enemy, and it is no more than right than he should take this Parliament into his confidence. There is nothing to indicate here how much money is being spent on a single item. We do not get that information. We are in this Parliament to act and look after the interests of South Africa and the people, but if we are to be treated in the way the Government is now treating us, if we are simply to be told that the Government is spending £40,000,000 on the defence without any details being supplied, how does the Government expect us to have any confidence in it? The Government should remember that confidence creates confidence. If the Government does not take us and the country into its confidence it cannot expect us and the country to have any confidence in it. If the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence do not take the whole of Parliament into their confidence then surely the right thing to do would be to appoint a committee of responsible men and take them into their confidence and explain their plans to them. Today, however, we have this position, that even in Committee the Government is not taking us into its confidence. If the Government does not take me into its confidence it must not expect me to have any confidence in it. What struck me here yesterday was that the Prime Minister stated that Great Britain was not ready for the war. It makes me think back and reminds me of the fact that France was also in the same position. I can only say this, that if I am not ready to meet the enemy then it is foolish and twice foolish on my part to declare war. And it is as a result of things like that that we find that we have to increase our defence estimates from year to year. Where did we start? Take a summary of the money that was spent, not only here in South Africa, but all over the world. Look at the contributions we have made to the Allies, and if we study those things we stand flabbergasted at the tremendous expenditure. And look at what the Allies have done—if we study what they have done we are flabbergasted at the way things have gone with them. They have had one defeat after the other. The first knockout blow they got was in the Skaggerak. Where was the British Navy to which we have been paying a subsidy for so many years? We had thought that the British Navy would settle with the enemy that day and would knock him out. But instead of that the very opposite happened. We have heard about j Greece, and in regard to Greece the Minister of Defence was a prophet. He has been a prophet before but his prophecies have not come true. When Greece was attacked and when the Allies got to Greece the Prime Minister said that the battlefield of this war would be in the Balkan States. Where are they today? How far are they away from the Balkan States? Instead of their fighting in Greece they have been driven back to Africa. The Prime Minister’s predictions have not come true. We also had the Minister of Native Affairs doing his best to stir up the South African people and get them to take a greater part in the war. He came back from France and he told us that the Maginot Line was unbreakable. His predictions, too, have not come true, and they collapsed completely, but what did we hear yesterday? We were told that the battlefield would probably, or very possibly, be our own South Africa. But the Prime Minister also predicted that the day would come when America would come into the war and, he said, “then the Allies would put the enemy in its place.” What has become of all those predictions and prophesies? We have been continually reading in the papers the last few weeks that they have been dunkirking from one place to the other.

The hon. member must not repeat.

I am only trying to give a summary to show why so much money is being spent, and I want to go on to prove that it is useless going on spending so much money. It is my duty to the people, and it is my duty to the committee, to point out that it is unnecessary to go on wasting money and to go on with this supposed defence of South Africa by our taking part in a war of aggression. Surely it is my duty to do so. Now, what has happened to America? May I be allowed to make a suggestion? There is a certain amount of discipline in the Allied army and I have the greatest respect for it. We are paying for discipline, but we now find that when people fail in their command, instead of their being brought before a court martial they are promoted. In this connection I want to draw attention to a few facts. It is because those people are given promotion that we have to pay for things here. I said in my previous speech that as we are fighting up North there should be only one commanding officer for the South African troops, and that he must not be an Englishman but one of our own Afrikaners. We Afrikaners are not getting what we are entitled to in this war. I am thinking of the battle where the Afrikaners stood up and fought until they had fired their last bullet, when they had no lines of communication. And when I think of those things the tears come into my eyes. That day I felt it was my blood and my flesh which had stood up there, and they had no bullets, no ammunition. We are spending £40,000,000 here, and surely we are spending that money to ensure that those people who are up at the front will have ammunition to fight, so that they do not stand there to be shot down without being able to defend themselves. Who was the commanding officer there? It was Wavell. He allowed the South Africans to be made the victims there. One finds one grave after the other grave of Afrikaners there in the desert, and where is Wavell now? He was promoted instead of being brought before a court martial. All this business reminds me of what happened in German East. There we also had instances of officers who allowed men to storm and attack places, and if a number of people were shot down unnecessarily those officers were given medals—instead of being brought before a court martial, they were promoted. We are prepared to defend our country but it must be done in the right way, and not in this cliquish manner, by means of lords, sirs, and all kinds of people like that. We must have the right men in the right places. It makes no odds if the man was a bootmaker in civil life; all we must see to is that the best man is made commanding officer. After the Afrikaners had passed through these days of suffering in Lybia we got another officer for the Afrikaners, the man who was in command at Bardia and Solium. The great art in conducting a war is to achieve one’s object by spending as little money as possible, and by having as few casualties as possible. What did Gen. de Villiers do at Bardia and at Solium? Only a few hundred men were killed and wounded, and he captured thousands of the enemy. Is it not a fact that here in South Africa, and in Africa, only one of our own South Africans has the ability to command our own South Africans and our own troops?

The Afrikaners who have gone to the front are men through and through.

Even though I am opposed to this expenditure of £40,000,000, which is a burden on the Afrikaner people because it is being spent on a war which we do not want to have anything to do with, I still want to see to it that the money we have to spend is spent in the right way, and I contend that we are spending this money in a manner which is not right. Those old military methods are worn out— they belong to the past. Today we see regiments here containing a number of young men, and also men who are as old as Methusalah. I have been in several wars and the Minister of Defence also knows something about war. If 30 per cent of your men are old and beyond the stage of usefulness one finds that those people begin to get scared, and it is no use having men like that in the same units, in the same regiments or brigades where one has young men, men who are prepared to take a risk. No good work can be done in that way. I say that it is high time we in South Africa reorganised our forces. Take those young men—those volunteers who will take a risk, put them on one side, in regiments and in brigades; Then we shall have men there who are ready to give their blood for South Africa, men who we can do something with. And then we will get the middle class, and after them we will have the reserves. That is what we should do in South Africa. Even though we are at war today with Germany and other countries we can still learn from those other countries. I can learn even from my enemy. Today in our regiments and our brigades we have a conglomoration of young men and of very old men. If I am on the battlefield I know what I myself am going to do, but if I am uneasy as to what the man on my right or left is going to do I never know where I am. We know every unit, and if we know we have old officers and old men to deal with, if we have a conglomoration, a mixture, of everything, it makes us feel that we cannot do our duty as it should be done. Now I want to meet the Minister of Defence. I want to say this to him: Re-organise, and then we shall get value for this £40,000,000 which we are spending, but if he does not do so we shall have to retire in one battle after another, and the result will be that our young and plucky troops will afterwards also become cowardly. If I as a farmer spend a penny then I want the assurance that it is being spent in the right way; even if I am defeated I still want to know that the best possible thing is being done for our people up North. I should like to know from the Minister of Defence whether he is going to take those steps for the re-organisation of our South African units in the way I have suggested. I want to know whether he is going to see to it that our commanding officers will be Afrikaners. The Afrikaner has shewn in Abysinnia, at Bardia and Solium that he deserves to be put in command. But this imported stuff—I do not believe in imported stuff at all. Nor do I believe in those imported Imperialists. In the beginning, when we got into this war I said in this House that a new method of war was coming into being, and I said that the Maginot Line would be broken. I assumed that it would be broken from underneath—from underneath the earth. Instead of it being broken underneath it was broken from up above, out of the air; but the line was broken. In any sphere of life, if we fail to adopt the latest methods, we must fail—if the farmer does not avail himself of the latest methods and uses obsolete methods, bankruptcy must be his end, and that also applies to war. If I look at the commanding officers on the side of the Allies in this war it seems to me that they are continuing to adhere to old and obsolete methods, and that is going to mean bankruptcy to them. It is going to mean a big V, but the V in this case stands for “Verloren” (lost). Do hon. members know what makes us on this side so anxious? We feel anxious about South Africa, and I want to ask the Minister of Defence to use the greater part of this £40,000,000—he refuses to give us any details—but I ask him to use the major portion of this £40,000,000 on South Africa, so as to protect our mother country here. That is what he should do. If we do not avail ourselves of up-to-date methods things will go with us as they go with the farmer who refuses to avail himself of the most up-to-date methods—that farmer must go bankrupt, and if we fail to put South Africa in a proper condition of defence our own country may perhaps be devastated. What are the new methods I am referring to? There are only two things in my mind which we should take note of in order to safeguard the interests of our country. The first thing is to give attention to our air arm. If we fail to do so we can rest assured that when the fight comes to South Africa we will be beaten. I am concerned about the money that is being spent on coastal defence. I want to say this to the Minister of Defence. South Africa is a wide-flung country; it has a long coastal line, and I want to ask the Minister not to spend that money on coastal defence, on fortifications at specific bases; I feel that any money that is spent on defence should be directed to means of defence which will be movable. It does not make any difference how many guns may have here at Leeukop. The enemy will know how many there are. He is not going to come here but will land somewhere else. We know that the enemy in this war is aware of everything we are doing and he will know where our fortifications and fortresses are. In the old republican days we had a fortress near Pretoria, but what was the use of it? What I am saying here today will be read in Hansard in ten years’ time, and I tell the Minister of Defence that any money he spends on fixed fortifications in this war is so much money wasted. Spend the money in the air, spend it on trains, and on means to make the guns movable, so that your defence can be moved from place to place. If you do not do that but concentrate on fortifying places like Cape Town and Durban with fixed fortresses and fortifications, you surely realise that the enemy will know what you are doing? Spies are at work in every war and the enemy gets all the information. If a fortification is at a particular place the enemy is not going to attack there; the enemy will only attack places which he knows are not strongly fortified. They will attack somewhere else, where there are no fortifications. Let us learn a lesson from the past and build on those lessons. Even though we differ from the Prime Minister today we still want to tell him that we are concerned about South Africa’s defence. We are willing to vote money for South Africa so that South Africa can be defended. Let me tell the Prime Minister again not to waste all this money up North. We are spending a lot of money up North today, and all that money is being wasted. As soon as Aden is taken we shall have to bring back our forces from the North; we shall have to retire if Aden is taken, because the Red Sea will no longer be at our disposal. The only hope I can see is for us to fall back as far as we can and there to put up our defences. The Prime Minister is asking us to vote £40,000,000 for the war, and he pretends that the money is intended for us to fight for the freedom of South Africa. I believe the Prime Minister means it honestly, but I still say that that money must be spent in the best way possible, and that it is our duty on this side to give him as much advice as we can. [Time limit.]

I am in considerable difficulty in approaching this subject of defence in view of the circumstances. In the first place I do not wish to say anything which is going to be of benefit to the enemy, in the second place I do not wish to say anything which may be misconstrued by the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Defence or his department, but I do wish to make a few practical suggestion which I hope will be taken notice of. I am fully aware of the splendid work which is done by the military authorities and of the great achievements which have been brought about—we are very thankful for what has been done. But ever since the fall of Singapore there is no doubt that the war situation has changed, and I cannot help feeling that we are not taking advantage of those who have had practical experience in this war. I should like to suggest that the present War Council be strengthened by having some younger men added to it and officers who have had practical experience in the present war. I believe if that were done it would tend to improve matters and help us to face the difficulties confronting this country.

Are you getting nervous?

There is no doubt about it, that in the minds of many people in our coastal towns there is a feeling that all is not being done that should be done. I realise that the public cannot be made aware of what is being done, but at the same time I think the Minister during the course of this debate might be prepared to make some statement which will allay the fears in the minds of the public.

I though so; Durban is getting tightened.

It is not to be wondered at that the minds of the people in the coastal towns are agitated. I should like to quote from a paper a statement which has been prominently displayed under the head of “Warning to Durban.”

We should send some Boer Generals there.

The article reads as follows—

Can it be wondered at that people are agitated if they think that everything is not being done that should be done. I should like to make a few practical suggestions which I hope will be taken notice of by the rt. hon. gentleman. The first thing is the question of water supplies and also the provision of supplementary water supplies. We know what happened at Hong Kong and Singapore and possibly at other towns, and we know how vitally important is the question of water supplies. I think that the defence authorities should take into consideration the necessity of using every available means to protect the water supplies and to have additional water supplies in case of need. That is the first point. The second one is the question of telephonic communication. This is a very important matter, and I think the Defence authorities should have alternate telephone lines so that in the event of bombing, or in the event of an attack, if one line was dislocated there would be an alternate line to carry on with. Then there is another matter, and that is the question of preparing defensive measures for land attack. In the past we have looked upon a coastal town as being one which may be attacked from the sea, but we have not taken cognisance of the fact that it may be attacked from the land. That is what happened at Hong Kong and at Singapore, and we all know what happened there. I submit for the consideration of the military authorities that this matter should be gone into. And then there is the question of the possibility of air attack.

As a rule, there are a good many ships in the harbours which have anti-aircraft guns on board. I would like to suggest that in all cases where there are ships in the harbours that the gun crews should be kept on board so that in the event of a surprise attack they will be able to assist in the defence of that port. There is also the question of smoke screens. I feel that all vulnerable points should be protected by smoke screens. That is a measure used very largely and very effectively in Europe. I do urge that all vulnerable points, such as power stations, oil tanks, and so on, should be protected by means of putting up smoke screens. Then there is the question of balloon barrages. All those vulnerable points ought to have balloon barrages, so as to prevent low flying, and to have the effect of making bombers keep at a great height. Now, on the question of incendiary bombs. Are the people being trained to extinguish incendiary bombs? I think that that is a very important matter. When I visited some of the bombed cities in Europe recently, I was told that the greater part of the damage done, was done by fire. The actual bomb does not do nearly so much damage to the cities as the incendiary bombs which cause fires. The question of having ladders so as to get on top of the roofs to extinguish incendiary bombs is another matter that ought to be attended to. May I divert for a moment? I had the pleasure of going over the College at Cambridge, where the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Defence did his studies. We were shown the room which he occupied, and outside the window was a ladder, reaching up to the roof. I asked what this ladder was for. I thought that, possibly, it was to enable the occupant of the room to make a quick getaway, but I was told the ladder was there to enable the occupant to climb up and extinguish incendiary bombs. I think that is a matter that civilians should be instructed in, so that they can deal with fires caused by incendiary bombs when the occasion arises. Then there is the question of gas attack. I would like to know whether any provision has been made for gas attack? I would not put it past some of the enemies we have to come along and drop gas bombs. I consider that the population ought to be prepared for that. They ought to be supplied with gas masks, and, furthermore, we should be in a position to retaliate if the occasion arises.

I know that whatever we may say from this side of the House on the vote will have no influence on the Government side. These huge amounts for war purposes will be approved of no matter what we say. I don’t want to dilate on that. The Prime Minister has plunged us into war and he is going to carry out his war policy, but I feel it is our duty, and I feel it is my duty, to criticise the way this money is being spent. We have been at war for almost three years now. What did the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister tell us yesterday? He quoted what a Japanese spokesman had said, namely, that they have reached their first objective in the Far East and that they were now going to expand and possibly also go to South Africa. In that connection I must remind the Prime Minister of what he said about Danzig and the Corridor. At that time he stated that the Danzig Corridor was going to be the cause of a second world war. His words have come true. That was the breeding place, and that was where the war started. Now there is one thing I fail to understand. England declared war; England has most possessions in the world. England declared war, but we know now that England was not ready; France was not ready. We find now that France only had a few aeroplanes left when she surrendered. Today the people who brought France into the war are being charged before a court and an investigation is being held into what has been done wrong there. But what is the position today? Japan has achieved wonderful things so far. I am convinced that President Roosevelt, that America, and even England, never took real account of Japan’s power. I met a highly placed officer the other day and he told me that he had lived in Japan for years, and the unfortunate thing was that England and America knew nothing about the secret armaments of Japan. In Japan there is no fifth column and no secrets are given away. Everything is kept secret, and in that way Japan has quietly raised this tremendous army. Germany has also been purified, possibly it also has secret armaments, but in England all the races of the whole world are concentrated, just the same as in South Africa. I do not believe that any secrets will be given away by this side of the House, but they may be given away by the conglomeration supporting the Government. I am not talking now of the members on the Government side, I am talking about the conglomeration outside. Perhaps there are German spies among them, and possibly our secrets are given away by them. They may leak out that way, but if we look at the position we find that Japan by this time practically possesses Burma; Rangoon has fallen, the Indian Ocean is open, and Australia is in the greatest danger. Now people ask where the American and English navies are. I can quite realise that the navies cannot take the risk of going so far away from their bases today. They have to be guarded against a knockout blow, against destruction, because at Pearl Harbour and other places they have already suffered heavy losses. If they attack Japan today they would have to do so on such a scale as to be able to administer a knockout blow, because if they could not do that they might just as well stay away and prepare themselves for the future. If I look at things I must say that England and America have left the other countries which depended upon them in the lurch—whether we like to admit it or not. Possibly the reinforcements could not get there in time, but in any case those nations have been disappointed. Now we understand that America is on the way, that the biggest convoy that has ever been on the ocean is on the way now. Where they will get into contact with the Japanese seafaring powers is not for me to say. I understand that America and England are going to fight to the bitter end. They cannot give in; neither will the Prime Minister give in. Knowing him as I do he is going to fight to the bitter end with all the forces at his disposal, and now he even wants to arm the coloured people and the natives. I disagree with him there and I particularly disagree with him in regard to the consequences of such a step. There is Central Africa. We know the Askaris as brave fighters and thousands of them are under arms today. In Africa there are about 180,000,000 coloured men and natives today, and we have only 3,000,000 whites here. What is our future? What is the future of South Africa and of Africa as a whole? If we don’t look out I feel that in fifty or a hundred years time we shall stand under the coloured people and there will be no white race left here. It may perhaps be a fortunate thing for our civilisation that China and Japan are fighting each other today and are in separate camps, because otherwise the danger to the white race would be more serious than it is. I feel that although we are in different camps today we may perhaps be in one camp again tomorrow, as friends, and we should not close the door in such a way that we cannot become friends again. I feel the time will come when we shall all have to stand together, but I disagree with the Prime Minister when he says that he is prepared to do anything to defend South Africa. Let us keep out eyes on the future. The future seems dark to me, because if we are not careful the coloured races will be our masters here. If they were to take up arms and unite, what would happen? Their mentality is not like ours. They have one grievance and that grievance is against the white man. Recently a man who was in Syria told me that the people there, that is, the coloured races, were not exactly against England or against the Germans, but they were antiwhite; I asked him what the position was in Egypt, and he said the position there was the same. The Egyptian officers hold their heads high and hate the whites. That is where the danger lies. We in South Africa should realise that if the bolshevik powers spread we shall be in grave danger here. I saw a little paper the other day which is circulated widely among the natives in Johannesburg, and even gets to the farms, and in that paper the natives are told that they must stand together to get their rights and not to be slaves any longer. They are told that they are going to get their rights because they are now allied with the bolshevik empire. Bolshevism treats everybody alike, and this doctrine is spreading throughout the country like wildfire. That is where the danger lies today. We have to be very careful. One mis-step may be the cause of the white race being destroyed for ever in South Africa. That is the danger. In regard to the way in which we are conducting the war I already referred to the position the other day. Let the Prime Minister, when he goes to Pretoria, travel about a bit and make an investigation. He will find thousands of officers and men there who can be used for the war, but they are loafing about today doing nothing. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister should put his own house in order, because millions of pounds are being spent here on people who are useless for the Prime Minister’s purposes. They loaf about, they draw salaries, and they are useless. If one is at war it is better to go along with ten men one can depend upon than to have a hundred men one cannot depend upon. That is the position here. Millions of pounds are spent on men who are of no use. I came across a certain officer here the other day; he was English speaking. He told me he was going to England. I asked him why, and his reply was that he preferred to go to England, rather than go up North, because England today was the safest place in the world. England was surrounded by wire and fortifications, and he prefers being in England rather than endangering his life up North. [Time limit.]

I do not want to impose more burdens on the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister than he has already, but I want to put the position to him with regard to tyres, one of the essential services. On the 1st March they closed down all tyre sales. I went to see the Deputy Provincial Controller, and I said …

I think this matter comes under “Commerce and Industries”. I do not think it should be raised here.

I should like to ask the Minister of Defence to what extent the Union’s defence machine is a machine standing on its own? To what extent is the Union’s defence machine part and parcel of, and subordinate to, the Imperial organisation? I am asking this because there is a complaint in the report of the Auditor-General to the effect that he is definitely of opinion that there is inadequate control over expenditure in regard to the supply of war material to our forces. What is more, it appears from the report that since January, 1941, the Union forces have been amalgamated with East African forces, and the Auditor-General in his report complains that supplies go from the Union up North, and are received there in the depots of the Imperial forces, from which they are issued, according to reports which he has received, without adequate control being exercised. I am putting this question because it is a clear indication of the fact that the Union does not act there as an independent unit, and that the Union as such is in danger of its having to make its defence account higher than is really necessary. I also want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to tell us what the arrangement is under which airports are established in the Union, that is, the airports where facilities are provided for the Imperial forces to train? The Union is interested in this, not merely from a military point of view, but also from a financial point of view. I should like to know from the Minister to what extent the Union bears the expense that is incurred in regard to the training of pilots? How far do the financial duties of the Union go in regard to the maintenance and training of the Imperial forces which are now being trained in the Union? Then I also want to know from the Minister what the contract is between the Department of Defence and the Railways in regard to the supply of war materials? We cannot get away from the fact that a large section of the organisation of the Railways has been converted by the Defence Department, both in regard to machinery and the supply of materials in the interest of defence. How much of that is debited against the Department of Defence, and to what extent are the Railways saddled with those obligations. Now, there is another point I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. In a speech recently he made a very serious appeal to South Africa to supply food to the convoys calling here. Personally I have no objection to that appeal. I consider that from an economic point of view it is also in the interest of the country, that it benefits the country, to dispose of our products in that way, but there is one point on which I am not sure. To what extent is there a gap between the price paid to the producers for the products they supply and the price that the convoys are charged? Let me say straight out that there are rumours, and I think there are grounds for those rumours, that some of the convoys calling at South African ports, are exploited in the most scandalous way in regard to the prices they have to pay. I want to ask the Minister of Defence whether he does not think it would be in the interest of South Africa if the Department were to see to it that the convoys calling at our ports are not exploited. These are friendly convoys from his point of view, and they should be treated in such a manner that when the war is over they will remember South Africa as a friendly South Africa, and not as a country of exploiters. I have grounds for saying that the differences in price between what the producers get and the price at which the goods are delivered to the convoys is such that it can be described by only one word, and that is scandalous. Now there is something else I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Minister about. Thousands of horses were bought by the State for the Defence Department. “We have heard now that horses are no longer useful for defence purposes. What has become of those horses? Have they been offered to the public and at what prices? How much has the State lost over the purchase and the subsequent sale of those horses? Now I also want to associate myself with the point made by the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). I really do feel that our Defence Account is unduly increased by the fact that in the Union itself a whole lot of people are being mobilised who would be better off in some nursing home than in the Department of Defence. That applies to the female units as well as to the male units. The public cannot help getting under that impression. If one keeps one’s eyes open one cannot fail to realise that there are many people in uniform today who are nothing but a burden to the State. Physically they give the impression that they need a nurse to look after them, rather than that they are able to render any services to the country so far as the country’s defence is concerned. Now that the first hysteria has passed, I think the time has come for the Minister of Defence to take stock of the position and to clean his own house in this particular regard. The public get the impression that every man and every woman, whether they are physically fit or not, are put into uniform when they join up, no matter whether they are capable of rendering any service or not. And then they draw salaries! No wonder there are complaints about our taxes going up unduly high. I do not believe everything is in order in the house of the Minister of Defence.

When my time expired I was discussing the question of precautions against bombing attacks, and asking that measures be taken to retaliate if necessary. There is another matter to which I want to refer, which more particularly refers to Durban. That is the question of road communications from Durban. I do not know what the position is with regard to the other coastal towns, but in Durban the position is that there is only one road, which is very narrow and inadequate for the existing traffic; and in the event of Durban being threatened it would be a very serious matter to evacuate the women and children and to bring down the necessary troops, and so on, and I certainly think that the Defence authorities ought to take some notice of this very urgent matter. I brought up the question nearly four years ago, when the Roads Board was considering the construction of a road out of Durban, and I pressed them for an alternative road, so that we could have two roads from Durban to Pietermaritzburg. But for some reason or other the Roads Board decided to spend the money on reconstructing the existing road. At the present time, the position with only one road is utterly suicidal, and I consider that if the Defence authorities do not take cognisance of this matter they are not doing their duty. Instead of spending money on reconstructing the existing road, they should spend the money on an alternative road, and not tamper with the present road. There is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that is the question of compulsory registration of all citizens between the ages of 20 and 50 in the coastal towns, and possibly other towns which may be threatened. I do not suggest compulsory service, because I know that this country is not suitable for conscription or compulsory service. But I do think that men and women between the ages of 20 and 50 should all be registered, so that the military authorities know who they can call on. When they register, they should be required to fill in forms, stating what their qualifications are, so that the authorities will have a reservoir to draw from in case of need. I do hope the Government will take that suggestion seriously. If it has no other effect it will enable the authorities to know who the slackers are, and who are not, because, in many cases, those who have not already joined up have adequate reason for not having done so; but there will be some who will have to register compulsorily, and who will not be able to give satisfactory reasons as to why they did not join up. I would say in this matter, that there should be no victimisation. That should be an understood thing. There should be no victimisation of anyone who has not joined up, and who should have done so. I commend this matter and the other matters I have brought up to the Minister, and I do hope he will find these suggestions useful and constructive in the defence of the country.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in answering a question asked by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) yesterday in regard to the refusal of students at our universities, gave a reply which was unsatisfactory, and which we cannot just leave where it is. In reply to the question he said that he on his side, or as Minister of Defence, did not intend doing anything to improve the position in regard to the admission of students who are today refused. There is not the slightest doubt that many students are turned down today, and if we look at the position we find that at the university in Cape Town, it is not the students emanating from Cape Town who are turned down, but young fellows who come from the platteland.

What has that to do with this vote?

I am coming to that, because it is connected with recruiting for the army. The students from the platteland are turned down in the first place. One does not only get that position in Cape Town but also in Johannesburg. Now we do know what kind of students are turned down in Johannesburg, but here in Cape Town the position is that it is not the young men from Cape Town and the Cape Peninsula who are turned down, but the young men from the platteland, and students from Rhodesia, for instance, are not turned down. What is the result? The result is that students from the platteland are turned down and are not able to continue their studies. Are we to regard this as another attempt on the part of the Defence Force to compel Afrikaners to join up?

The hon. member cannot discuss that on this vote.

I am asking whether we are not dealing here with an attempt of the Defence Department to recruit people as soldiers.

We have nothing to do with the matter.

It has its effect on the recruiting of soldiers.

The hon. member cannot discuss it on this vote because it has nothing to do with defence.

I contend that an attempt is definitely made to recruit a certain type of person for the war, because of that I want to ask the Minister of Defence whether he intends doing something, or whether he is going to sit still and allow young Afrikaners to be compelled in this way to join the Union’s defence forces? The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that certain patriots in our towns, and also in other parts of the country, have made the charge against certain people that they want to use the universities as funk holes, as holes to crawl into, because they do not want to do their duty in the war.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

I say that there is not the slightest doubt that certain older, and also younger people, who support the war, who have been stirring up the war, want to crawl away into our universities instead of taking part in the war, into which they have urged the Government to plunge the country, and now we have an attempt here to force the young Afrikaners out of those universities and thus compel them to join up.

The hon. member cannot discuss that on this vote; he can discuss it on the Higher Education Vote.

But this matter has nothing to do with education. If you rule, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot discuss this matter, then I feel that I am compelled to ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling. I am discussing the question of the recruiting of soldiers.

This question comes under higher education.

It has nothing to do with higher education; it is a question of the recruiting of soldiers. The Prime Minister knows that he is wrong. I am going to put a pertinent question to the Prime Minister, whether he intends to so ignore his duty towards his fellow-Afrikaners that he is going to allow young Afrikaner students to be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy higher education in South Africa, while those students who were overflowing with loyalty for the war are using the universities as funk holes instead of going to fight? I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that his principal recruiting officer in South Africa, Col. Werdmuller, has already charged this loyal section with using our universities as funk holes? And I also want to ask him whether he is now going to encourage those people, while they crawl away to our universities, to push the young Afrikaners out of the universities and so force them to join the Army? Now, I want to put a further question to the Prime Minister in regard to the recruiting of Hollanders in South Africa, and I want to know from him whether he is going to do the same thing to other non-Union citizens in South Africa? He told us that the Government of Holland had annealed to him to see to it that those Hollanders were recruited and were handed over to the Dutch Government, and I want to ask him whether he is going to do the same thing with the Englishmen in South Africa, returning from Singapore and such places, and who are not Union citizens? I also want to know from him whether he is going to do the same thing to the Jewish refugees who are here in South Africa, and who are not Union nationals? Is he compelling them to take part in the war? The Hollanders are compelled to go and fight; why not those people? Incidentally, I have a letter here which I received from an English speaking person in Port Elizabeth, who, inter alia, says this—

The Jewish refugees in the country are busy getting hold of all the trade in our dorps and towns, and they are busy making money.

Making snug.

They are not prepared to take part in the war, but they are making money. The Hollanders are being commandeered, and I want to know from the Minister of Defence whether he is going to continue that? I am pleased the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) has put certain questions about the arrangements between our Government and the British Government in regard to the air training centres here in South Africa. We have air training centres throughout the country; for instance, at Kimberley, Bloemfontein, Oudtshoorn, George, and other places, where British pilots are being trained. I should like to know who puts up those schools, who is responsible for the expenses, and under whose supervision they are? We should like to know what are the arrangements between our Government and the British Government in regard to the costs of those schools? Then we should also like to know whether only British pilots are being trained, or whether South African pilots are also being trained there. If we look at the reports of casualties and accidents in the papers it seems that it is not only English people who are being trained there, but that Afrikaners are also being recruited for the R.A.F. Only yesterday there was a report from Kimberley about a plane accident which had occurred there. I notice that four people were killed. Two of those were members of the R.A.F., while the other two pupil pilots were both Afrikaners. I should like to know from the Prime Minister what the arrangement is in regard to these flying schools. Do they come under the Defence Department, or are they entirely separate from the Defence Department? And are our pilots also trained there, or only English pilots? Now, I also want to put a question about the French in our country. We have taken a number of French ships, and there were quite a number of Frenchmen on those ships. Are they being detained in our country, or will they be allowed to go back to France? I can speak from personal experience, because some of those French people live in the hotel where I am staying. There is a colonel with his family there.

He is anxious to return to France, but he is not allowed to. I also want to know at whose expense they are being kept here, and what the Government’s attitude is in regard to them, and whether they will be allowed to return to their country? I also want to put a few questions about our food supplies. [Time limit.]

I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Defence to the third report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in regard to contracts for buildings and works. According to that report the Select Committee on public accounts unanimously recommended the appointment of a Commission or a Committee to take evidence and to report on the whole question of the use of contracts on the cost plus basis in connection with defence requirements. Hon. members will see that evidence has been given in favour of the system of cost plus contracts. But they will also see that serious objections have been raised to such contracts. The first objection is that those contracts lead to increased expenditure. There is no encouragement for economy; and it has also been said that it is an evil which is felt in other countries as well. For the information of hon. members who are not conversant with it I wish to quote a few remarks from the British Commission’s report which went into this matter, because it gives a different picture than the evidence of our own officials on this subject. I want to bring these few quotations to the notice of the Minister of Defence particularly. I may say that this British Commission is a particularly strong Commission and it says this, inter alia, about defence contracts—

Later on the self same Commission says this in that regard—

And then we get this statement—

I don’t want to go into merits of the case now, I only want to give a practical example. This is a fairly technical question but the Committee will see how dangerous that type of contract may be if an individual can calculate his profits on a percentage of costs. Assuming two people enter into a contract for the identical article. The one works hard and zealously and it costs £1,000. The other one works lazily and in his case it costs £1,500. It means then that the weaker type of contractor gets 50 per cent. more profit under his contract. There are many other ways in which such contracts can be entered into and by which the accummulation of profits in comparison with costs can be avoided. There is, for instance, the system of cost plus a fixed globular amount, not of percentage. In such a case account can be taken of the nature of the work. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he will be prepared to give effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. If he is prepared to do so I would like to draw his attention to the importance of his taking careful note of the constitution of such a Committee or Commission, of the fact that the personnel of such a Commission may be of great importance. We don’t want a Commission or a Committee which is going to be merely a whitewashing Committee, which is simply going to shut its eyes to the mistakes which have been made, and which will try to whitewash those things. No, if this Commission is to be of any value it must be a Commission of people who are prepared to express an honest opinion, irrespective of who may be affected. It must not be a Commission of people who want to protect others. It must not be composed of people who take up the attitude that it is their duty to protect certain highly placed officials. If we want to get at the root of the evil the Prime Minister in appointing the Commission will have to see to it that he appoints people who will sit there as judges and who will not take up the attitude that it will be a handicap to the Government’s war effort if some particular head of a department or some highly placed official may perhaps be criticised. We know that in other countries, since the beginning of the war, great changes have come about not only in the staff of departments and committees, but even in the personnel of the Cabinet. In this country there has been practically no change worth mentioning, and I think that if the Prime Minister himself will cast his eyes about and will also look at the ranks of the officials he will admit that there is room for improvement. The Commission will have to put itself out to find where there are leakages in the war expenditure. If the Government wants to carry on the war, and if it wants to carry on on the presentday scale, and if at the same time it wants to keep the country in a condition of solvency, it will have to see to it that no money is wasted, and we therefore want to urge on the Government to make sure that we get value for the money we are voting. That is why we on this side of the House say that if the Prime Minister is willing to give effect to this suggestion of the Select Committee on Public Accounts it should be very careful in the composition of the Commission. In a later instalment of my speech I propose asking that the Commission be given wider terms of reference than recommended by the Select Committee. The Select Committee can only deal with the scope it is supposed to cover, but I think wider terms of reference should be given to such a Commission. I want to remind the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that in England where they also have an Auditor-General and Select Committee on Public Accounts it has long since been realised that they must see to it that no unnecessary expenditure and no waste of money takes place. They realise that war time is a time which lends itself to extravagance unless definite efforts are made on the part of the Government to keep the expenditure within bounds, because there is a natural tendency for expenditure to get out of hand. Realising that to be the position the British Cabinet as far back as the 12th December, 1939, appointed a very strong Commission with wider terms of reference than asked for in this particular instance. I propose reading those terms of reference to the Prime Minister at a later stage and to ask him to appoint a similar Commission here, because there is a feeling in the country that there is an unnecessary waste of money, that the necessary control is lacking, and also that the co-ordination is faulty. And it is in order to have these things properly investigated that a Commission is wanted. [Time limit].

Perhaps I should reply to what the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has just said. It seems to me that the system of contracts on the cost plus basis is regarded as something unusual and evil. It is not so; it is a system which fits in with the tender system. Circumstances arise when this system of contract has to be followed Hon. members will understand that in time of war it suddenly becomes necessary to manufacture things which have never been manufactured in a country before. The whole of the country’s capacity is used to its full extent for the production of a particular article. Nobody may have produced those articles until they are needed for war purposes. Nobody has experience of manufacturing them, and because no contractor has the experience no one is able to calculate the cost for the purpose of sending in a tender, with the result that a contractor has to calculate the highest price. If the system of cost plus is followed it is perhaps the best way of testing the matter. We then have the position that various factories are perhaps busy manufacturing the same article on the same basis. Now, take a case where it is found that the costs of the one factory are very much higher than those of another factory. Well, if that happens, that factory does not get the contract again. In such cases an investigation is made, and if it is found that the costs are unduly high, such a factory does not get another contract. I know of instances where the costs have been so high that the factory concerned has not been given another order. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that nobody contends that this system of contract is the best, but circumstances arise when one cannot help it, and I say that in such circumstances it sometimes provides a good test. I also know of cases where tenders have been invited and where the prices have been very much higher than those of contracts on the cost plus basis. The alternative has been there and the Defence Department has saved money. The contract was cost plus of the tender which was lowest—the contract was given on the basis of the lowest tender plus costs. It has been due to circumstances that we have been forced to go in for contracts of that kind. I only want the House to understand that there is nothing unusual in this, and that it is not an unknown practice. It is a system which has been adopted before, but then they were dealing with firms of repute whom they can trust. In exceptional circumstances like the present it is a system which sometimes has to be made use of. There are difficulties connected with it, but in the course of events those difficulties solve themselves. I am convinced that the Government is not adopting this system as being the best of all, but that it has been compelled in times of emergency to make use of it.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is not here, because I wish to address a few words to him arising out of this vote, which also provides for recruiting work. He is a recruiting officer receiving a large salary every month, and I have before me certain expressions which he used at a meeting on the 18th July, 1941, at Stofberg—

Those are the words of a responsible member of this House, a member of Parlaiment who also holds the position of an officer in our army. He comes along with threats and intimidation of this kind, well knowing the sentiments of the Afrikaner nation in this war. Another recruiting officer was also present on that occasion, but the hon. member for Krugersdorp actually used those words, that he would have shot us long ago were it not for Gen. Smuts’ patience. I want to lodge my protest here against such language, and I hope the Prime Minister will avail himself of this opportunity to rap the hon. member for Krugersdorp over the knuckles. The other officer who was there said this—

And then we also find that the Principal of the Witwatersrand University, a certain Mr. Raikes, expressed himself in this way. He is an imported Britisher and he has the conceit, imported as he is into this country, to want to lecture the Afrikaners on their duty. He said that the students who refused to join up would deeply regret the fact that they had not joined up. He acts the part of recruiting officer. Did the Prime Minister instruct him to do so? We shall remember this Mr. Raikes and the day will come when we shall settle with him. What right has he to act as recruiting officer and to come and lecture us here? I am prepared to offer my services to the Prime Minister as a recruiting officer without salary. Only let him give me authority to get hold of those people who have the V signs on their motor cars and who are medically fit, by the scruff of their necks and put them into the army. It is unfair that they should hide behind other people’s blood, and especially behind the sacrifices of those who in their distress are forced to go and fight. We want to object to those people who are driving about with V signs on their cars and who are medically fit but who refuse to go and fight. I assume that they support the Prime Minister in his war effort. They can make as much noise as they like, they can sing as many songs as they like, but it is not going to help the Prime Minister. Those friends of his who support him with their mouths and who give nothing but lip service should put their words into effect and should go and fight. I can quite understand why hon. members opposite are kept here because the Prime Minister is afraid of a defeat in this House, although we have offered to pair with them if they go to the front. I am not going to say that they are cowards, because I am not allowed to do so, but still their attitude is a peculiar one. If I had been on the Prime Minister’s side I would have been up North long ago. Now I want to know from the Prime Minister, and surely there is nothing secret about this information, how many English pilots we have here, and how much we contribute to their upkeep. I also want to know from the Prime Minister whether there is a plan of stationing American troops on a large scale in South Africa. Before I sit down I want to lodge my protest against the Government’s expressed policy to arm coloured people and natives in the event of Japan attacking our country. To do so is a departure from the policy of the Afrikaner, and it constitutes a serious danger to our country. Yes, the Japanese danger is there, but what are we going to do after the war if the natives and coloured people are put on a footing of equality with us? It will be a tremendous danger to us after the war if once we arm them. Let me give the Prime Minister an instance of something that happened in a tram. A native was sitting in the tram with his feet in the aisle, so that a lady fell over them. The conductor also fell over the man’s feet and when the conductor said something to him the kaffir replied: “Wait until Japan comes here, then we shall settle with you.” That is the sort of thing that is going on in the hearts of the natives. They will welcome Japan’s arrival, and yet the Minister talks of arming those people now. There is another instance of waste of money which I wish to raise. It has been mentioned to me but I do not know whether it is true. I notice the Minister of Finance is here too. I am told that the bricks used in the Defence Department at Oudtshoorn have been brought down from Benoni at a cost of £7 10s. per 1,000. It is a terrible thing if it is true, and I should like to know if it is so.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to some of the facts brought out in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I notice that in all the big contracts given out for military work, only three firms seem to have had the great majority of these contracts. In the Cape Town contracts I notice the names of Norman Kennedy and Murray & Stewart. Some of the contracts run into amounts of £100,000, £228,000, £167,000 and so on. I wonder whether it would not be wise on the part of the Defence Department to see that all firms get a chance to get some of the work on these defence contracts. It is strange that when a big firm gets a contract simultaneously other firms lose their skilled labourers to the particular firms that get the work, and in many cases some of the big firms in Cape Town have not had the men available to take up contracts because of the labourers having been taken by one or other firm. I think it would be a good thing if the department could see to it that some other big building firms also had an opportunity of doing work for the Defence Department.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the scandalous and reckless waste of money which is taking place in connection with the Defence Force. The Minister of Finance has tried to evade the matter by saying that we, as members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, have had the opportunity in our capacity as judges to make an investigation in regard to the defence expenditure, and that we have not reported anything in the Select Committee’s third report. The Minister in his reply to the Budget debate did not produce any evidence to prove that this reckless waste of money is not taking place, he only gave this misleading answer that we had had the opportunity of reporting on the matter. I do not know whether the Minister underestimates the intelligence of this House, but anyone studying the report of the Select Committee will notice that we were dealing with a special case and that we considered it in the interest of the people in our special report to point to the spending of the tremendous amount of war expenditure, and that we drew attention to one aspect of the matter. We did not report on the expenditure of the whole amount of £80,000,000. In regard to the control of war expenditure I tried to help the Government by making suggestions to them. I pointed out that it was impossible for us to keep careful supervision over every item, but I added that at any rate they could follow the advice that was given by those who drew their attention to scandals that were occurring. The Minister of Finance says that in the report we made no mention of waste of money. Let me tell the Minister that we are going to introduce a further report. The report which we have introduced so far is only a preliminary report which we considered it necessary to bring before the House so that the Government could take immediate action. That report concerns the expenditure of £9,500,000 of which no less than £5,000,000 is connected with the cost plus percentage contracts. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) says that one cannot do anything else and that the amount involved is not a very large one. Let me tell the hon. member that he surely cannot have read the evidence given before the Select Committee because if he had done so he would not have made such a ridiculous statement. So far as this system of contract is concerned, I do not want, to repeat what the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has said. He went fairly exhaustively and thoroughly into the matter, but I only want to say that so far as the cost, plus percentage contracts are concerned, one finds that under that system profits are made on profit. If there is one thing that is rotten and wrong, it is that one can make profits on profits. That in itself is a wrong principle, and I only want to refer to the paragraph dealing with that point, which says that contracts are often given to sub-contractors, and that in that way profits are made on profits. I do not want to be too severe in my criticism in many cases, because it may be that in some cases speed is essential, and it may be considered the best system, but if the position is really abused, then it is the Government’s duty to go into the whole question, and make an investigation in order to bring about improvements. It is for that reason that the Select Committee has recommended the appointment of a committee or a commission. That recommendation having been made, the Minister of Defence should not sit still, but it is his duty, and it is the Government’s duty to the people and to the taxpayers, to take immediate action. But the Minister of Finance comes here with this miserable argument to which I have referred, and he wants to tell the House that in our report we have not said anything about waste of money, although the Minister should know that to make a statement like that is misleading, and he should know that he tried unfairly to give the House the wrong information. I hope that we are not going to have a repetition of a thing like that, but that the position will be thoroughly enquired into and improved. In regard to the hon. member for Vereeniging, if I am not mistaken, he is also associated with Iscor. If I am not mistaken he represents the iron and steel industry of Vereeniging, and what does one find in that connection? One has the unsound position that the Director of War Supplies is also the Chairman of Iscor. What happens? He is the man who has to make purchases for the Government, and one further finds that the Department of Defence pays more for the goods it buys from Iscor than what the Railways pay. Is not that a condition which should be changed? Can it be wondered at that the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is the second lieutenant of the Chairman of Iscor, comes here to defend such a position? In regard to the large expenditure, one further finds that, although the war has been going on for more than two years—almost three years —proper accounts are not yet being kept, and payments are not properly being accounted for yet. I therefore say that it is a scandal and that improvements must be effected. The Prime Minister has always told us that we should allow for a little time, but how much more time must we give for matters to be put in order? The time has long since passed, and the books should now be properly audited, and the administration put in order. The auditing is not done, and the excuse given for the unsatisfactory state of affairs is that the staff cannot do the work. In Cape Town one finds large numbers of men in uniform, practically every one of them have some rank. There are very few ordinary soldiers. Does the Prime Minister want to tell us that he cannot get a proper staff to go into the books and keep them in order. No, I think the Minister of Finance was very unfair, and I feel that conditions should be very definitely improved. [Time limit.]

In the first place, I want to thank the Minister of Defence for having established an airport at Kroonstad, where young fellows are being trained, and in that connection I also want to express my appreciation to Gen. Sir Pierre van Ryneveld for the trouble he has taken in regard to this matter. I must say that the relations are excellent there, and that those young fellows are contributing considerably to a pleasant social life in Kroonstad. I wonder whether the Minister of Defence could not get into touch with the Imperial Government to see whether these young fellows who are being trained there could be paid a little more by the Imperial Government? I understand that their pay is very small, a good deal less than what the young fellows of our Defence Force who are being trained there get. The result is that two small groups are being formed, and the one group of young fellows is able to spend more than the other group. I also want to say a few words about the 10 per cent. plus cost system. I do not think the Government could devise a much better system, but still I think it can be improved upon. I realise the difficulty that nobody is able in times like the present to accept contracts by tender because the cost of material is continually changing, and tomorrow or the day after prices may have risen considerably. That is why this system of cost plus 10 per cent. has been resorted to, but I agree with the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) that it often happens that a contractor gets somebody else as a sub-contractor, and in that way costs are driven up, and, instead of 10 per cent., it becomes 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. plus cost. It also happens that the contractors buy materials from others at higher prices, and that there is a mutual understanding. If the system of 10 per cent. plus cost is really carried out in war time one cannot improve greatly on it, but where buildings are erected, as, for instance, at Kroonstad and Bloemfontein, I want to suggest that somebody should be appointed as secretary, somebody to represent the Department on the spot, to watch against any abuses taking place. I know of an instance where natives were paid up to 6s. per day for building work, while the farmers in the neighbourhood were only paying their natives 1s. per day, and the people at the Docks 2s. 6d. per day. To this 10 per cent. extra is added. I think the Government should see to it that the 10 per cent. is not paid on costs which have deliberately been raised. Now, there is another question I want to put. The Union troops have taken the main share in the conquest of Abyssinia. After Abyssinia had been conquered the Emperor of Abyssinia was again put on his throne. I do not want to find fault with that, because I do not understand the international laws, but I notice that in England, in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons, it was stated in reply to a question that from £80,000,000 to £90,000,000 of Italian money was invested in Abyssinia. In reply to the question what was to become of that money, it was said that it would be held in trust until after the war. I am one of those who feel that it has not yet been settled whether Germany is going to win the war or not, and I want to know what our share is going to be after the war—our share of that £80,000,000. We have had tremendous expenses, and we have conquered Abyssinia, and I want to know whether we are to be excluded—whether we shall not also get back a share of our expenses in conquering Abyssinia, and in restoring the Emperor of Abyssinia on his Throne. I just want to put that question. We are spending millions on the war, and we should be repaid pro rata for our expenses in connection with the conquest of Abyssinia.

I am going to repeat what I said a few weeks ago here, and that is that Mr. Churchill in the House of Commons said that each Dominion would have a voice in the War Council, and I want to impress on the Government, and more especially on the Minister of Defence, that the voice of South Africa on this most important matter should be heard in that Council. I refer to the gratuitous information which is supplied to the enemy from particularly Great Britain and America, and whatever may be said about the enemy already knowing all about it, I still maintain that to get confirmation of the information he already has is of importance to the enemy. Now I have two cuttings here which I took from the one edition of a newspaper a short while ago. Let me read them. The first one says this under the heading of “Silence the main weapon of war”—

In that same edition of that paper there is this under the heading of “News ought not to have been divulged”—

I drew attention to this matter some weeks ago and I quoted certain examples of information being supplied, the most notable of which was in conjunction with Hong Kong. I read Morse as fast as anyone can send it, and over the Press service from England to South Africa there an intimate description of the defences of Hong Kong, and particular attention was drawn to the vulnerability of the water supply. In fact it was said “One lucky shell may knock it out and then Hong Kong will be gone.” I suppose it was a coincidence, but the Japanese immediately went for the water supply of Hong Kong. But I would refer to a daily published in Cape Town where it was stated today that munitions, troops, materials and other things were pouring into the Western Pacific. Why tell the enemy about this? I do ask that information of this kind should be suppressed by the censor throughout the Allied countries. Things being as they are I do think that our voice should be heard in the War Council and the War Council’s attention be drawn to the fact that there is gratuitous information supplied to the enemy, either new news or confirmatory news of information they have. We all know the insatiable maw of the Press for news, and if I had my way I would hang, draw and quarter every one of the Press barons in London. A week ago the Leader of the Opposition quoted a cable which was sent from Durban to London and repeated from London to South Africa in which it was said that the United States, Great Britain and South Africa had agreed upon a common course with regard to Madagascar. Whether that was true or not it should never have passed our own censor, and I particularly draw attention to it as one of the things which should never have been allowed to have been published. And then there is another matter to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister, and it affects our Intelligence Service. There is no doubt that what occurs in this House is within a short time transmitted to Germany, and it returns here in the form of criticism and comment over the broadcast from Zeesen. By what channel does it reach Zeesen? We have heard all kinds of statements about people just over the Portuguese border transmitting to Germany. The proceedings of this House are within forty-eight hours known to Germany and there must be a regular channel of communication between this country and Germany. It is the duty of the Intelligence Service, or of the authorities, to discover that channel and stop it. Now I want to refer to one other matter. I want to support the appeal made by my hon. friend for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) for the construction of an alternate road out of Durban. The hon. member first introduced that matter in July, 1938. Had his suggestion been acted upon, that alternate road to Maritzburg could have been completed today. There are 100,000 Indians and some 60,000 natives in Durban. One can imagine them streaming out on that road, and horses, motors and material coming down that one road. What a glorious target! An ideal target for any airman. It happened on the roads of France, Holland and Belgium. The refugees presented such a wonderful target that the airmen simply had to shut their eyes and fire into the brown, and they would do so here. I add my appeal to that of the hon. member for Stamford Hill that this road should be commenced immediately. It should have been finished by now. Do not let us delay any longer, but commence at once, and perhaps save a holocaust.

Two years ago I stood up and tried to make a strong plea in connection with the restoration of the cadet movement. The Minister of Defence said at that time that he would not re-introduce it under any circumstances, to see that the cadet system has now again been restored to its position of honour, and or place it on a better footing. I am glad that the Minister of Defence held an inspection a few weeks ago and expressed his satisfaction in the system. In time of emergency, it would be of great value when your citizens have already had some training. In time of emergency it does not help to try to apply corrective measures from the top when the evil lies at the root. I feel convinced that if our Defence Force in South Africa is to be placed on a strong foundation, we should start at the bottom, and the cadet system is the best system for South Africa. If the worst comes to the worst, and it becomes necessary to defend the country, then the citizens of our country will not be altogether raw, but they will have had a foundation which can be used in their further training. Now I should like to point out a few matters to which the Minister of Defence, in my view, should give his personal attention, and which he should investigate, because we feel that there is some leakage or other. Until the 30th June, 1941, that is almost a year ago, no less than 9,436 persons were discharged from the service as medically unfit. When we take into consideration the number of soldiers, it is surprising to think that up to a year ago 9,436 persons had already been discharged as unfit. It seems to me that there is something wrong with the recruiting. Up to the 31st March, 1941, there were no less than 120 persons taken into the army who then already drew disability allowances. When we go to the Department of Social Welfare and we try to get a disability allowance, we are confronted by almost insuperable difficulties. One must be half dead before being able to get a disability allowance. Notwithstanding that, 120 persons had been taken on in the army up to the 31st March, 1941, who were receiving disability allowances. I hope that the Minister of Defence will also feel that something is wrong. Are these people to be enlisted only in order to draw a high salary? I would also like to know whether, when they are discharged from the service as medically unfit, they receive war pensions. I am afraid that one must come to the conclusion that people are taken into the service only in order to give jobs to pals. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter, so that in every case people are not taken on who receive disability allowances and who cannot carry out the smallest military duty. How on earth were these 120 people recruited? There is something else in regard to which I do not feel wholly at ease. We were told that we get 1s. 6d. per day from the British Government in respect of Italian prisoners of war. But we know that the cost of living is very high—I am not even talking now of the expenses connected with guarding, etc.— that 1s. 6d. is not nearly sufficient to cover the costs. Must the Union also contribute a share of the costs? If that is the case, we might possibly use these Italians in order to build roads, because I feel that not sufficient attention is devoted to our national roads today. There are portions of our national roads which are not even linked up with the North. Japan will never come here, but she may send bombers here which will destroy our harbours, and then we will not have the necessary link with the interior. I hope that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will give his attention to this matter and tell us what that 1s. 6d. per day covers. Then it seems to me that there is still something radically wrong with recruiting. The Auditor-General mentions this in his report. You know, of course, about the various recruiting commandos which travelled about in the country. The Steel Commando, for example, spent £9,000. What did they get in return for this? There are no less than 845 persons, that is to say, up to the 31st March, 1941, who were recruited and who received their railway tickets but who never arrived at the place to which they should have gone. They simply disappeared. Well, when there are nearly 1,000 people who disappeared after they had been recruited, it seems that there is something wrong with the recruiting. In addition to that, there are those cases where people were transferred from the air force, for example, to the coastal forces, and in the meantime the wives of those persons received two allowances. No less than £107 was overpaid to one person in this manner. I feel that there is something radically wrong here. Then we have the case in the supply depot of the Defence Force, for example. According to the report of the Auditor-General we have not the necessary qualified persons to do this essential auditing work. What I feel is that, if that is the case, we should not look whether or not a man is prepared to wear a red tab, but one should have someone there to see that everything is in order in the supply depot. And we know that it is the policy of the department not to appoint anyone to such a position unless he wears the red tab. Is it not in the interests of the country, in the interests of the taxpayer, that proper care should be taken that enormous sums of money and materials do not disappear in that supply depot? I hope the Hon. the Minister of Defence will see to it that where there are no suitable persons who are prepared to take the red oath, others may be appointed to do that work, although they do not want to take the red oath. There is something else which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. When such a recruiting column travels through the country, there are people who are overwhelmed by the war spirit, and whether they are able to or not they enlist. There are numbers of cases where that happened, and the Minister of Defence knows it. I personally have brought it to his notice. A farmer joins up and his farming is altogether ruined. As it is, the farmers have so many plagues. To mention one only—unless you have the necessary labour the blow fly ruins any farmer; and if there are people who enlisted and who did not consider the matter well before doing so, especially farmers, I hope that the Government will agree that it would be in the best interests of the country for them to return and look after their farms. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to that matter. And then it seems to me, according to the remark of the Auditor-General, that we have so much money in connection with defence that one gets this case at a place like Iscor. It charges one price in the case of material, steel, etc. to be delivered to the railways, but when it comes to the Defence Force a higher price is charged; and I want to know why that should be so. I received the assurance that the delivery of that material to the railways does not bring about a loss, but that a profit is made on it; and why should those higher prices be charged in the case of the Defence Force? It seems to me that the moment we come to the Defence Force, everyone scrapes together as much as he can get, because this is war time, and we are not working with hundreds and thousands of pounds, but with millions. The Auditor-General pointed out that permission was given for the erection of some place of recreation for the soldiers. No less than £10,000 was spent on that. It is not taken into consideration that this sum also comes from the pocket of the taxpayer. Then there is another point which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. [Time limit.]

A few days ago a report appeared in the newspapers that the Prime Minister had appointed a commission to investigate whether there were any persons on the railways or in the civil service who could be spared so as to enlist and to take part in the war. Now I want to ask the Minister whether there will be any compulsion? I was told in Bloemfontein that the senior officials demand of certain persons that they should take the Africa oath. They are told that if they do hot take the Africa oath they will be dismissed or penalised in the service. I hope the Prime Minister will give the House and the country the assurance this afternoon that not the slightest compulsion will be applied to a civil servant or a railway official who does not want to go to the North. I think that the country is waiting for that assurance on the part of the Prime Minister. There is great confusion amongst officials, who are afraid that they will be victimised, and we hope that the Minister will give that clear statement to this House and to the people. After the 4th September, the right hon. the Prime Minister made a very solemn promise. He was asked whether he would arm nonEuropeans during the war, and he very solemnly declared to the House and the people in the country that he would not arm non-Europeans under any circumstances. We welcomed that immensely. The Prime Minister knows why we ask for that assurance; especially because the Afrikaans section of the people have a horror of arming a non-European against a European, and for that reason we got the promise from the Prime Minister that he would not do it. What we see, however, is this: Today when one is at a station and troop trains go past; one sees in some cases that the whole train is full of non-Europeans who wear bandoliers. Now I want to put this question, if those coloured people are not going to be armed, why then do they wear bandoliers? I should like the Prime Minister to tell us why these coloured people wear bandoliers. I repeatedly saw non-Europeans at stations walking about with bandoliers. In this connection a question was also put to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché). The question was this—

And the Prime Minister replied—

The Prime Minister does not deny that non-Europeans are serving as soldiers, but he says that he cannot notify the number, because it would not be in the public interest. Now, I want to ask him whether it was an oversight on his part, or whether there are really non-Europeans who are serving as soldiers? According to this reply of the Prime Minister’s to the question, he admits that there are non-Europeans who are doing the work of soldiers; in other words, who are armed and who fight.

The soldiers are not all fighting. There are various categories of soldiers. I shall explain it.

Then I shall leave the matter there. There is another point which I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. He said on another occasion that it was very difficult to get trained persons to keep the books of the Department of Defence. I know of persons who are qualified auditors, and these persons tried to do auditing work for the Department of Defence, but nevertheless in the case of one person whom I know, he was sent to the North. Why is that so? I know of one case, where the farmer is a captain in the Defence Force. The son is an auditor, and he made an effort to do auditing work for the Department, but, in spite of that, he was sent to the North. One would expect that if the Prime Minister wants capable persons to keep the books of the Department of Defence, that he would not send qualified persons, who are qualified auditors, to the North. I asked the Prime Minister a question in connection with beds for military cases in South Africa. He replied that he could not make the details public, because it was not in the public interest to do so. But I find here that Sir Edward Thornton is giving this information to the Press.

Will you please repeat what you said?

I asked the Prime Minister how many beds there were for military troops and for our soldiers; and he told me that, owing to the fact that it was not in the public interests, he could not give the figures. But here I find that Sir Edward Thornton tells us that in the near future there will be 16,000 beds in the whole Union.

That is the total.

Yes, that is the total figure. My question is this: One would have expected that the Prime Minister would have given the House all the details he could. In reply to a question he says, however, that it is not in the military interests to give the information. But we find that one of his officials gives this information to the Press. He says that there is ample accommodation, and that during the next two or three months many hospitals will be erected in various parts of the country; that the total will amount to 16,000 beds. He says that 8,000 are for our troops, and 8,000 beds for the Imperial troops. Why is this information withheld from us, and why is it given to the Press? I think the Prime Minister will agree that if the information can be given we are entitled to have it.

Yes, certainly.

Now, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question in connection with the hospital at Ladismith. I was assured by a person in Johannesburg, who has something to do with building societies, that the contractor who is building the hospital is paying the bricklayers and carpenters a very high salary, and that some of those artisans, together with overtime, earn as much as £80 per month, and after investigation I found that the contractor gets 10 per cent. above costs for his work. If that is the case, such a person will drive up the cost as high as possible, because the higher the cost, the higher his profits. In this case, there are artisans who earn up to £80 a month at the hospital, and it stands to reason that in such cases the contractor makes a big profit on it.

Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that members of the Public Accounts Committee should raise questions in this debate which are at the present moment the subject of enquiry in the Committee itself. One point in particular which was raised by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) and one of the other hon. members is the question which was mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report about the difference in prices charged by Iscor to the Defence Department and to the railways. It has almost been indicated that Dr. Van der Byl, the head of Iscor, being also Director-General, is in a position to benefit in this matter. It should be remembered, however, that the managing director of Iscor is a salaried official to look after the interests of that industry from the point of view of the national welfare. The question is being investigated upstairs, and a very conclusive reply was given by Dr. Van der Byl showing that to a great extent the criticism is not justified. In any case, the Committee has not yet made a report in connection with the matter, and it is therefore obviously like prejudging the case by those who will have to pronounce upon it when the report has to be issued. The other point referred to was the matter of “cost plus” contracts. I was one of those who originally suggested to this House that that system might be preferable to the system of tenders in the case of the Defence Department. It is perfectly true that many difficulties have arisen, and that it is a system which lends itself to exploitation on the part of dishonest contractors who can perhaps make additional profit on material used or by solwing down labour, and it is undoubtedly a system which requires the utmost possible care and investigation. But the fact remains that this is a matter which is under investigation, and therefore we are not justified at present in making any statement such as those that have been made in criticism. Not only is it a matter of investigation, but the Public Accounts Committee in its report has stated that it had not had sufficient time to come to a decision, and had recommended the continuation of investigations in connection with the matter, during the recess. That being the case, it does seem a pity, and indeed unreasonable on the part of members of the Public Accounts Committee in the light of that report, that they should come along and utilise this issue for the purpose of criticising the Defence Department. Then the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) made two references. He first referred to aliens opening up and carrying on business at a time like this when others who might be pursuing civil occupations had been forced to join up. I entirely agree that to the fullest possible extent aliens, regardless of creed or race, should do their service to the country in which they live, but it has to be remembered that in many of these cases they find difficulty in being accepted by reason of the fact that they are aliens, and where that is the case surely it is right to give them an opportunity of making a livelihood in the country in which they have taken up residence. The other ference which the hon. member made was to university students. I think everyone on this side will agree that it is desirable that the universities shall not to any extent be regarded or be utilised as a means of escape from military service by young men who are of age. In regard to that, it should be remembered that the Government has itself indicated that they don’t want young men under 19 to join up, and secondly, it should be remembered that only a few days ago the Principal of the Witwatersrand University, in an address, dealt with the matter in a most effective manner.

He was a good recruiting sergeant.

His attitude, and I think the attitude of the universities generally, will be to discourage young men from going to the universities unless they are there to do something for the advantage of the country. One other point I want to mention to the Minister, and that is that there is a growing feeling in South Africa that the present system of imparting news as to the activities of our troops up North is one that should be altered. There is a growing feeling, and I think there is some justification for it, that we should not depend on the general communications issued by headquarters up North, who are interested in all sections of the troops, nor should we have to depend upon Reuter’s. The Defence Department should consider establishing a method by which it could issue its own communiques as to what is taking place and as to the activities of our forces up North. I hope the Minister will consider the advisability of starting a system such as has been started in Australia, and which is very desirable and would be very popular in this country, a system by which we shall issue our own communiques.

There is something which I would like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, and it is in connection with the recruiting of natives in the North. You know that the Free State, especially the South-Eastern Free State, is an agricultural area, and natives are today being recruited there for the army on a fairly large scale. I realise that while there is a war in progress, natives will be recruited, but I want to make a request that when that is done, it should be done systematically, and, before the recruiting takes place, that it should be ascertained in which parts of the country there is a shortage of labour. In the neighbourhood in which we live, we have to make use of machinery to a great extent in order to gather our crops. We know that in the present circumstances it becomes more difficult every day to get hold of the necessary machinery and even the accessories for that machinery. In the future we shall more and more require native labour. I know of cases in our neighbourhood where the farmers, when they had to plant mealies, experienced such a shortage of native labour that various farmers could simply not carry on. I know of farms where two or three trek teams simply had to stand idle. There were no natives. But nevertheless natives are joining up. I also want to draw attention to the fact that when a native joins the army, it is not only the services of that native that one loses, but a whole circle of natives who are dependent upon him also give up their employment. An allowance of £3 10s. is given to the wives of these natives who enlist. We know that their standard of living is on a low basis, and they can live well on that. Consequently they do not want to work. In our part the position is simply that with the next harvest we shall have no hope of gathering that harvest. Hundreds of self-binders and other machinery are sold annually in order to gather these crops. Today the position is that we can practically not replace that machinery. The machinery does not last very long, and is so expensive today that the farmer cannot afford to buy new machinery. What is going to happen in our neighbourhood if we have no native labour? I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, before continuing with the recruiting of natives, first to find out what the position is with regard to farm labour in that area. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was not carrying on with the recruiting of coloured persons in the south, but I want to give him the assurance that the farmers in the north, too, are in the greatest difficulty as a result of a shortage of native labour. I do not object to the recruiting of natives in those areas where they are crowded together, but it is very clear that under present conditions the farmers cannot get farm labour. There are no natives, because for every native who joins up, three, four or five leave the service. I know of farmers who employed three, four or five natives, and who have not a single native today. The natives who are employed by us frequently do not live in that neighbourhood. Today one gets a poorer type of labourer from the native territories. That person comes in and works temporarily on the farm, but when harvest time arrives he returns because his harvest is also in progress in the native territories, and then the farmers are without labour. I hope the Prime Minister will see to it that the recruiting of native labour in our neighbourhood is not continued with, because it hopelessly handicaps the farmers in their agricultural industry. They cannot continue with their activities. Then I feel that it is not reasonable that a budget is today placed before us, and we are asked to vote £40,000,000, without our being informed where the money is spent. We are asked to vote as much money for war purposes in one year from revenue funds as we spent on the whole world war, and nevertheless we are not told how the money is to be spent. We on this side of the House do not object in the least to money being spent on defence, but we feel that the time has now arrived, in view of the developments of the war, for more money to be spent on defence, and less on aggression. The Prime Minister told us yesterday that neither England nor America was ready for this war, and that they are now engaged in preparation. America will only be able to throw in her full weight in the future. It is therefore very clear to us that, taken at its best, this war will still last for many years. We know how adversely the war has developed up to the present. We know in what a sad position Russia is today. We know that in spite of all the boasting Russia’s position is miserable. We know that Russia relied upon being able to drive back Germany during the winter, but we know that very little progress was made. But the matter has developed even further. We heard here last year that the Allies would start winning in 1943. That reminds me of the man and the mouse. When on the third day he had not yet caught one, he said: “If I catch that one, I shall at least have one.” Now we are asked, while the matter has developed in such a way in the East, too, that there is the greatest danger, to vote this money for the Government, and we are told that the Allies will now start hitting back. While that is the development of affairs, the Union of South Africa is asked to spend these huge sums on an aggressive war. We want to object to that. It is still worse when we see how reckless they are with the lives of our own soldiers in the North. There is a good deal of boasting as to how the soldiers of the Union can stand their ground. They are pushed into every conceivable place to challenge danger. We know what happened in one battle, and now again I have another report in front of me as to what happened in Libya—

This is a Sapa message, which goes on—

We are glad that the Afrikaners can stand their ground, but what we object to is the reckless manner in which the lives of our people are exposed to danger. We know that it is necessary for every country to prepare itself for its defence, and while that is so we proceed to spend money on this campaign in the North, where our war material is destroyed and where our people lose thenlives, while we need our men and material for the defence of our country. We on this side of the House want to object to that. I say that we have an unprecedented state of affairs. Our manpower and war material is being wasted in the North, while we will quite possibly require them for the future defence of our own country.

There are one or two matters on which I would like to say a word or two. In the first place, there is the matter of the issue of discharge certificates to men who have been found to be, after service in the Army, medically unfit. It seems to me there is no reason why a man who has got his discharge should not immediately, or, at any rate, without undue delay, be presented with his discharge certificate. The fact of the matter is that it often happens that an appreciable period is allowed to expire between the date of his discharge and the date on which he receives his certificate, and to many men it is a matter of considerable financial sacrifice, because men who have positions waiting for them are unable until they are in possession of their discharge certificates to enjoy the full benefit of the fact that there is this position available to them. And the period which intervenes between the date of the man’s discharge and the date on which he receives his discharge certificate is in the majority of these cases a total loss to the men concerned. I would suggest that the means be invoked—and it does not seem to me a matter which presents much difficulty—to ensure that the discharge certificate is made available when the man is discharged. I want now to say a word or two in relation to our medical services in the Army. There was a feeling, I think, in the past that our medical services were far from satisfactory, and there was a good deal of criticism, perhaps in some instances exaggerated, but nevertheless the basis for that criticism was there that our medical services were not what they should be, and not what they could be. I am glad to know that that is past.

It is no better.

But I do say that there is still room for considerable improvement, and I do not feel that the position has altogether been remedied. Now, the position of the medical man who joins up is rather unique. In a sense it can be said that he makes a greater sacrifice than the volunteers who come from other walks of life, because here you have a man who, in the first place, is no expense to the State in the matter of his training. The whole of his training has been provided for at his own expense, and, let me add, at considerable expense, and he comes into the Army qualified, with minor exceptions, to do the job required of him. And, again, in respect of the sacrifices he makes there can be no question. Many of these men willingly give up well and established practices yielding them a very good income for the relatively—and there is no element of complaint there—but the relatively meagre income they get in the Army. So the sacrifice which the medical man makes on joining up is a very substantial one. I think it should be almost axiomatic that in the Army in relation to medical services, qualifications should be the predominating factor, and the man with the higher qualifications should be made better use of than the man who does not enjoy the same qualifications. Unfortunately that is not the case. The principle is that the rank of the medical man determines his utility, his status, his right to promotion—all the factors which apply in every other department of the Army. I am not raising the point entirely from the point of view of the medical man. The significance of the criticism, if it is true, is that it directly influences medical services in the Army, and that is the important consideration. Today you may have—you do have—cases where work is undertaken by one of two men which should be undertaken by the one, because that man has the better and the higher medical qualifications. In point of fact, that responsibility is undertaken by the other man, because he happens to enjoy senior rank. I make the statement that in relation to our medical services the best use is not being made of the available talent, and men are today in the Army, medical men, doing jobs which do not give to the Army the benefit which can be got from the presence of these men in the Army. Men with specialist qualifications who should be doing a specialist job are doing the work which could be done by a general practitioner, and I emphasise that the important factor is not so much that the medical man concerned has a grievance, which is bad enough in itself, but that the Army is losing valuable services, because that man is doing work which for him is the wrong job. I know it applies to other parts of the Army, too. I am concerned for the moment with this department. I do not want to emphasise the matter unduly; I think I have made my point clear. May I, while on the question of medical men, ask the Prime Minister to make it possible for medical men in the Army to give evidence before the commission which the Government has undertaken to set up, following the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckmann), to investigate medical services throughout the Union? I imagine at the moment that unless leave is given to these men—they are soldiers now —that it will not be possible for the commission to have the benefit of the very valuable evidence and assistance they can give—there are men in the Army of considerable experience—an experience rather different to that of the ordinary medical official. Their experience is different, their outlook is different, and it would be a great pity if the commission were deprived of the valuable co-operation which can come from the medical men at present in the Army. [Time limit.]

I want to direct a special word to the Prime Minister. In my constituency there are a few Hollanders. They came to this country as young men and they are married to Afrikaner girls; they are engaged there on their farms and they have now been called up. The one has been here more than twelve years and he came here as a young man. Because he neglected to become a Union national, quite probably because of the expense of naturalisation, he has now been called up because he is still regarded as a Hollander. His wife, children and farm remain behind. There is a special regulation under which the Union Government is extraditing these Hollanders to the Government of Holland. This man is no longer a Hollander; he has become an Afrikaner. They have lived their lives here, they are married to Afrikaner girls; their children are born here, and they are doing useful work for the districts in which they are living. I understand that these people have to be in Cape Town by the 15th March to leave for England. I do not want to say anything about the legal point. I think what is being done is wrong, because I fail to see how a Government which is in another country can commandeer its people. Still, I leave that point, but what are those people to do now? These Hollanders cannot get any protection and they are now appealing to this Government. I want to know from the Prime Minister whether in a case of this kind he will meet these people. I can quite understand that Hollanders who have come here during the last few years should obey that order if their Queen thinks that Holland is in danger—they will have to suffer what there is to suffer, but here we are dealing with people who have for years identified themselves with the country, people who we regard as Afrikaners. I really feel that in this case, and the family of the woman also feels it, that this is a very serious matter, because these Hollanders cannot appeal to any Government to protect them. They are being forced to go to England to fight. I doubt whether they will ever get to Holland. I should like the Prime Minister to go into those cases, and if there is a possibility of protecting them I want him to protect them, even if it should be necessary to amend the regulations in that respect. I also feel that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not utter a word of warning against the attitude of the universities, especially lately, and more particularly the attitude of the university in Johannesburg. It seems that those universities are acting as recruiting agents. They want to choose the students as they like.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter here; it comes under Vote 18.

I am not going into it any further. I only want to say I feel it is wrong. Those institutions are supported with our money and the Government should see to it that those things do not happen. I want to say that I feel very seriously about these matters. In regard to the Estimates, we are in the position that we have no details before us on this vote, and we are not supplied with any information. This year the various heads are mentioned under which the money is to be spent, but we have not yet had an opportunity of knowing where and how the money is being spent. People outside are getting very irritable about it all. They have to pay the taxes and all of us have to pay—we have to pay until it hurts, but we don’t know how our money is being used. We see cripples in uniform and we have to pay for them. Surely we are entitled to have some assurance that we are going to get value for the money we are spending. We know we are obliged to pay although we don’t like it, but in those circumstances we want a little more information as to what is being done with the money. I feel that the Government can give us a little more information without disclosing any military secrets. Now I also want to put a question to the Prime Minister on another subject, and it is this—I want to ask him, before he arms the natives and coloured people, to come to Parliament and get the consent of Parliament for doing so. If the Prime Minister takes up the attitude that world conditions justify him in doing so, then I feel it is right that the question should first of all be considered by all sides of the House before we proceed to take such a step.

And if Parliament is not in session when Japan attacks us?

Parliament can be convened in good time. I am pleased the hon. member is here. He tried to turn the Japanese danger into a political question. I personally feel, and I think this side of the House, feels, that hon. members opposite are the cause of the danger, because they are the people who declared war on Japan. There was no necessity for them to do so, and if my wife and children have to suffer for what they have done, then they must not blame me if I go for them should I get the opportunity. And if they do not run away fast enough I shall let them have it. At any rate I feel I have the right to ask the Prime Minister to first raise this matter in Parliament before taking that step. I can quite realise that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) does not feel very seriously on this question because he does not understand the difference between white and black. We have all grown up in this country and we know what it may mean if the coloured people are armed. We saw the consequences after the last war. We have seen them walk about here with the white girls who they married. We have seen the condition of our coloured people, and I have often wondered how people in this House could be willing to do such a thing. Even the Prime Minister cannot be so dumb that he fails to realise that if he arms those people he will be looking for trouble, and he can depend upon it that he will get trouble. For that reason I ask him, if it is his intention to do so, first of all to consult Parliament and to take a vote in Parliament before taking such a step. I don’t want to say anything about the coloured people, but the Prime Minister knows as well as I do what the position is, because he has also grown up among them. There may be some brave men among them, but the bulk of them will not give us very much assistance in a time like that— it will be nothing in comparison to the harm they can do if they are armed. The Prime Minister has a majority, he can rule this country as he pleases, but if he does this thing he will rue the day. I assume that he considers I am wrong. He has said that before, but force of circumstances have been such that he has been compelled to make such a statement here, and I therefore feel I am fully entitled to ask him to consult Parliament before taking such a step.

We on this side of the House owe special thanks to the Prime Minister for the fact that he has already been sitting here a few days listening tirelessly to the criticism levelled at him from this side of the House. It is a very good example, and it is appreciated. But when we listened to the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday it came as a disappointment to us. We try to criticise, we want light to be thrown on matters, and I consider the Prime Minister did not treat us fairly. I shall be pleased if he will take a little more trouble in future to answer reasonable criticism. Hon. members have spoken here about the recruiting of natives and coloured people, and more particularly of natives in the Free State. If the complaints in the Free State and Transvaal are reasonable how much more so are they not in the Cape Province? The number of coloured men employed on the farms here is very much smaller than the number of natives in the Free State and Transvaal. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was not going to continue with the recruiting of coloured men—I think I understood him correctly. Now I want to tell the Prime Minister that I returned from the North West only two days ago, and the train was full of coloured men who had been recruited. So far as I know they are still busy recruiting coloured men in the North West. I am referring exclusively to the North West. That process has been going on to such an extent that the labourers from the platteland have been coming to the towns to fill the places of people who have gone to the Front. There is a shortage of white labour in the North Western areas. The only labour we have today is coloured labour, and I can assure you that we have no coloured labour left in the North West. The farmer himself has to look after his sheep, and how many other duties has not the farmer to attend to? It is impossible for him to look after his cattle and his stock, to attend to his animals at home and in the veld, and to look after his camps. But that is not so bad—the troubles of the agriculturist are even worse. The farmer who required twenty or thirty labourers to cultivate his farm in normal times is left with perhaps one, two or three labourers; that is all he has. The whole of his activity is being handicapped, and that handicap is definitely detrimental not only to him where he is farming and where he has a heavy interest burden to face, but it is detrimental in view of the country’s food problem, because the food problem is greatly affected and considerably aggravated by it. Is it fair for the Prime Minister to take away our labour forces, the mainstay of agriculture? What does this farm labour mean to the army? Those labourers are not much use in the Army. The Prime Minister knows that they are inferior; what can they do in the veld? But they are of great value to the farmer; their services are indispensible to the farmer. Without those labourers we are unable to carry on our agricultural pursuits. It is absolutely impossible for us to do so. I shall be pleased if the Prime Minister will look at the matter from a practical point of view. It is not the Opposition only which will suffer from it. Let me assure the Prime Minister that his side of the House is suffering just as severely and does not know where to turn. There is general dissatisfaction. They do not say anything, but they are just as dissatisfied. It will be disastrous to the platteland if the Prime Minister proceeds with this policy, and it may land him in a very precarious position. We need our labourers and cannot get on without them. We require them to carry on our production and to supply food. There is no shipping left and we have to become self supporting in this country. How can we do it without labour? It is impossible, it cannot be done. I want to make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister to give this matter his favourable consideration. I notice that in Kenya, and even in Southern Rhodesia, the Governments have been compelled to consider farming interests, for instance by commandeering the natives to go and work on the farms. They realise that the farmers cannot get on without labour. A number of natives are taking part in the war, but the Governments of those countries have thought of the producers who have to produce the food for the country, and they placed natives at the farmers’ disposal. They have thought of the most important aspect of the matter and I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister also to commandeer natives for labour in the same way. If he then needs the coloured people so badly let him give us natives to take their place. And not only the North West, but I believe that the Western Provinces, are also suffering from a shortage of labour. The Prime Minister will be rendering the country a great service if he tackles this matter. I did not imagine that the Free State and the Transvaal also had the same trouble, but I notice that it is so, although I am convinced that their difficulties are by no means as serious as those of the Cape Province. I am surprised at hon. members representing the Western Province sitting on the other side of the House keeping so quiet. Take the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. De Wet) and a few other farming representatives. They are perfectly quiet although they know that there is a shortage of labour. In the Caledon district the farmers need labour. Why does the hon. member keep so quiet? We do not wish to handicap the Government’s war effort but what is to become of this country if the farmers have no labour? How can the farmers carry on with a few old invalid, dreary “hotnots”—those labourers who are at all strong and energetic are passed for military service and go to the Front.

I must say that I was struck by the degree of reasonable criticism exercised by the Opposition. I am pleased to notice that at any rate hon. members opposite have a certain amount of feeling for our troops up North. At one time we got the impression that they did not care what happened to those men, but today we find them taking up a better attitude, and that fact in itself is encouraging. We welcome it. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) said that we should follow a policy of defence and not of aggression, but military strategy teaches us that the best defence is to attack. One thing is certain, and that is if one is not trained for attack in modern war, one knows nothing about war. Charges have been made about our troops up North having been pushed into the forefront in a reckless manner, but I do not think hon. members meant that. I am convinced that the leaders very definitely are deeply concerned over the welfare of their men, and are not likely to treat their lives and their safety in a reckless manner. I believe that they look after our troops well, and I have the fullest confidence in our generals. I know that they will see to it that our troops are not recklessly sacrificed. In the Transvaal we have always had a somewhat different feeling towards the coloured people from what the Cape Province has had, but in view of the attack which the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and others have made on the coloured population, I want to quote something to the House, the opinion of someone in the Transvaal, who is an officer up North. He writes this to another officer—

That is what a man who was there writes, a Transvaaler. Why should we, even if these people are coloured men and natives, not give honour where honour is due?

Are they actually fighting?

I did not say they were fighting. At Sidi Rezegh transport work had to be done. In modern warfare transport riders come into the fighting lines, and that is what happened at Sidi Rezegh, but in Abyssinia, too, as we are told by some of the most highly placed officers, they behaved extremely well. Naturally some of them are not so good as others, but let us give honour where honour is due. These men have behaved well, so why should not we give them the praise they are entitled to?

I think we can congratulate the House on the change in the tone of the debate after what has happened here during the last few days. I only want to refer to two points. Naturally we cannot expect the Minister of Defence to tell us very much about the army, we don’t know what is going on there. All we see is white and coloured soldiers moving about in trains all the time. Why that should be so I don’t know. Cannot they be given some other work to do? All we know is that large sums of money have to be voted for defence and beyond that we see these long lists of casualties, these so-called rolls of honour. We do not expect to get full details from the Minister, but still the Minister of Defence gave us the assurance that he would not let those people go out of Africa to do war service in other countries. A few weeks ago this question was put to the Prime Minister—

The Prime Minister’s reply to this question was this—

Then this question was put—

The Prime Minister’s reply to that was that he would give no such assurance. He also referred to previous statements made by the Government. The hon. member for Bloemfontein, South (Mr. Hayward) has quoted certain information which was not given here in reply to questions, but none the less appeared subsequently in the public Press. Just a few days after these questions were put in the House the “Cape Argus” of the 20th February contained the following statement—

Now we would like to put a question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. We have been told that on the mines, too, men have been recruited to work outside Africa. We now find that a railway line has been built outside Africa. While we have to accept the position that men have to fight in Africa up North we surely are entitled to find fault, in view of the conditions of our railway service, with the fact that some of our railway men are sent to other countries to build railway lines which are not there for our interest. We should like to have a statement about that. I also want to know who is responsible for the pay of these people. Does Great Britain pay for them or does South Africa? Does the pay of these people come out of the £40,000,000 which we are asked to vote her for the war? I also want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to put a stop to the recruiting of farm labour. There is already a shortage of food in the country and we expect that when the winter comes a large proportion of our poor people, as well as the native population, will be suffering great hardships. A great deal more can be produced today, but there is a shortage of labour on the farms, and it will also be in the interest of the Prime Minister and in the interest of his war policy, and in the interest of the country generally if at least we produce as much as possible. The argument adduced by hon. members that it is practically impossible today to use machinery for agricultural work to the same extent as in the past is a very sound argument. Not only is it too expensive, but one cannot get spare parts. It is in the interest of the country as a whole that we should not go on with the recruiting of farm labour for the army. I also want to support the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) in the amendment he has proposed on behalf of certain Hollanders in this country. Many of them can be described as keymen. In our locality we have at least one who is an excellent cheesemaker and is employed in a large factory. We are told all day long that there is a shortage of cheese and butter. Hon. members can imagine what it will mean to such a large concern if that man who has been employed there for a number of years and who has rendered excellent service is taken away. The results achieved under his management are extremely satisfactory. The cheese he made was of such a quality that it could not be better. If anyone else were put at the head of his division it might lead to failure and great harm would be done to the factory and to the country as a whole. In such cases some concession should be made. I don’t want to say anything about Hollanders who are subject to being called up, but we are making an appeal to the controller of Labour to use his discrimination carefully in such cases, and to let such people off.

I wish to move the following amendment—

We are asked here to vote £40,000,000 without any indication being given to the House in the Estimates or anywhere else as to what the money is to be specifically used for. Now I want to take the Prime Minister’s mind back to a speech made in this House by Gen. Hertzog when our men were sent up North. He warned the House and he said that the Prime Minister was sending our men unarmed to go and fight a modernly equipped army.

He talked nonsense.

Some people can only talk nonsense, like the hon. member who has just interruped. We have been receiving reports bearing out what Gen. Hertzog said, that is to say, provided the newspaper reports can be believed. It is stated in those reports that the first acquaintance our troops made with German forces at Sidi Rezegh were of such a nature that our troops had to fight barehanded against the tank forces of the enemy. Now I ask the Minister of Defence whether it is fair to let our young men up North fight practically barehanded against tank forces, and whether it is fair to waste our money in such a reckless manner. I have the report of the Auditor-General here, and this is what he says—

There are 120 people in receipt of invalidity allowances who are today being paid out of this £40,000,000 for defence. They are people who are completely unfit. Hon. members on the other side of the House will agree with me that a man only gets an invalidity allowance when he is practically dead, when he is practically in his coffin. That is how difficult it is to get an invalidity grant, and yet that type of person today draws military pay, while our young fellows up North do not have the necessary equipment to fight the enemy. If the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is convinced, as he says, that our country is menaced, how can he leave our troops up North in such circumstances? He believes that our country is menaced and I want to argue the point with him on the basis laid down by him The Prime Minister says that Great Britain and America and we ourselves were not ready for war, and yet at the same time the Minister of Defence goes along and allows the small quantities of war equipment to be wasted in those far-away parts in order to restore Haile Selassie to his throne.

To chase the Italians away.

And then the Prime Minister does not even uphold South Africa’s prestige where South African troops have distinguished themselves, but in his loyalty to the Empire he hands over the Italian possessions to the British Empire and we are not made the trustees of those possessions. If later on we should be menaced and attacked we ought to be prepared and we should not waste our war equipment now in the interest of Haile Selassie. Our country will be willing to vote £40,000,000 for the Union’s defence if it is necessary to do so, but then our people must be convinced of the fact that the money will be used in the interest of the Union of South Africa.

The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) moved a reduction of the amount for defence. I wonder whether the hon. member expects us to respect the argument he has adduced here. He said that the hon. member behind me talked nonsense. He accuses the Prime Minister of sending out our troops unarmed, and of having to attack the enemy’s tanks barehanded. Yet those troops have achieved all the successes and they have driven out the Italians, they have liberated Abyssinia, and they have even caused setbacks to the Germans who, according to the hon. member, are so well armed. Is not his argument a nonsensical one then? Does he want to tell us that our troops unarmed, as he says they are, have defeated the enemy? He want to create the impression among the public that the Prime Minister, like a murderer, is sacrificing his people.

The brigade was not protected.

It also happened to other Armies, that battles are progressing and that the tanks happen to be at some other place for the moment. Why should the impression be created that our young fellows have been sent out into the battle unarmed? Let us deal with these matters on their merits and not go on talking what I call nonsense.

There are just two things which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. Latterly, since the lists of casualties have appeared in the newspapers, there have been many of us who represent the distant parts, who have received enquiries from parents, especially in connection with people who are missing. We then have to get in touch with the Castle. A few of these people have also come down and gone to the Castle. I must say that it is very difficult for many people from the platteland to get information at the Castle. The officials there are English speaking for the greater part, and when one gets in touch with the Castle over the telephone, one finds the same thing. They cannot converse with you in your own language. I just want to mention an example to show what happened to one person who communicated with the Castle in this manner. He described his experience to a newspaper. He communicated with them by telephone, and the following took place—

He said abruptly in English that the official was not at office, that he did not know when he would return, nor did he know who could deal with the public on his behalf. In reply to a question he gave the telephone number of another official in the Department of Defence. This number was dialled.

This is the type of thing which goes on here. Why are there no Afrikaans speaking officials who can deal in Afrikaans with such persons who are anxious about their relatives? I hope that the Minister of Defence will give his attention to that. There are mothers who rang me up, and who also complained about the same matter. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) spoke about providing meat to convoys, to British convoys which call here. Quite possibly the meat contract was given out by tender, and what is the position? I hear that there are many complaints. In the one case, there was a complaint that the carcases which were delivered were very small. The British official asked how it came about that the carcases were so small, and he received the reply that it was baby beef; while, as a matter of fact, it was inferior cattle which were apparently bought in the native territories.

When we adjourned, I spoke of the tenderer who got a tender from the British Government in respect of meat, and when the meat arrived in Cape Town it was not up to standard. Then it appeared that the cattle were inferior, and not those cattle which were specified in the contract. The meat was shipped in the Cape Town docks, and went to a West African harbour, and when it arrived there it was found that the carcase was far below the weight it should have been. Then the British Government went so far as to ask that this weight which was given in Cape Town should apply there. I would like the Minister to go into this matter. When we tender in South Africa, for whoever it may be, then it should be on sound principles, and the person who has to pay for it should not be cheated. The other case which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is a case in this country, where there was also a tenderer for meat, to be provided to the Army; and what happened in that case? He got the tender to provide meat to our Army, and thereafter he could not carry out the contract, because he did not have the meat. He had tendered far below other tenderers, and then he went to them and asked them to provide him with meat. He was prepared to sell the tender to them at a certain compensation. This person was intent on getting the tender, and then eventually he wanted to do business with the other tenderers with a view to selling the contract to them. I would like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to investigate these matters in the interests of our farming industry, and carefully to watch the actions of those people who receive tenders. There is a feeling in the country that there is a certain section which meet in order to get hold of the tenders. They receive information in connection with tenders for the Army, and then they know precisely how to tender: and eventually they are unable to carry out the contract. In the case of the big tenderer for meat, he could not carry out the contract, and I understand that the Government eventually dropped the matter and invited new tenders. These are the matters which I specially want to bring to the notice of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister; they are important matters.

[Inaudible.]

I do not know whether the hon. member on the other side wants the tenderers to cheat the Government. I raised the matter only because I regard it from a business point of view. At a time like this there are many people who want to make use of the opportunity of filling their pockets, and the Minister of Defence should be very wide awake so as to prevent that type of person from doing such things. This type of tenderer only looks to his own pocket; he is not concerned as to whether he will be able to carry out the contract. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to guard against such a person, and to draw the attention of the Department concerned to the matter.

In support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout), I want to point out that the first amendment which he wanted to lay on the Table and which you could not accept according to the rules of the House, really contained the information which we should have liked to deal with. In the budget before us there is mention of £40,000,000, and then a host of things are mentioned which are done under that vote, but of which we know nothing, and which are not set out therein. But what is the actual amount which it costs to bring our troops and our war material to Egypt and to keep them there? What are the real costs of that item which will have to come out of this amount, plus the other amount made available by the hon. the Minister of Finance? We should like to ascertain the amount that it will cost us to keep the troops in the North. The other thing which we do not know is whether we provide the troops there with war material and clothing, and also food and all those incidentals, and to what extent England, for example, contributes in keeping those troops there? That is the information we should like to have. If that information were given under the vote, then it would have been easier for us to form an opinion on the amounts which we have to vote. In saying in the amendment that we are of opinion that one-half of this amount would be sufficient, we take into consideration the fact that it must involve heavy expenses to maintain an army so far from our borders. I say again that the amount of the expenses is not indicated to us here. It is not at all clear to us, therefore, how the Prime Minister could say, on one occasion, that we need not be afraid that our internal defence is not sufficiently strong in order to be able to resist any country, and on another occasion he says that the country is in great danger and that we should recruit; we should have more war material and more men. That statement puts us in the position that we really do not know where we are. Another statement on the part of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is that it is possible, if our position becomes dangerous, that we shall be able to get assistance from America. Well, if that is the position, then the question involuntarily arises, why not bring back from the North our people who know the country and the conditions prevailing in the country? If the assistance of the Americans is required, let them go to those places where our troops are today. Then there is yet another question. Perhaps the position in Egypt was that Egypt would not have mobilised on the side of the Allies, perhaps owing to the constitution of the Government. But we notice that the Government which is in Egypt today is strongly in favour of carrying out the undertakings which were given to England. When our troops really had to defend the Egyptian border, it was of course necessary for them to be there. But if Egypt is well disposed towards Britain today then it is not only Egypt’s duty to assist Britain, but it is her duty to protect her own borders. I say that we propose the amendment on this ground, and we should very much like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to clear up this point for us a little.

I should like to hear from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether he knows what the precise position is with regard to our food supplies in South Africa; whether he knows that the nation is running the risk of having a shortage of essential foodstuffs; and if that is the case, what he proposes to do in connection with the matter. If there is a shortage of food, is he going to appropriate the food for the troops, or is he going to take into consideration the interests of the civil community first? In case he is going to take into consideration the interests of the civic community first, then we want to tell him that he will not possibly be in a position to prosecute the war with his troops, who lack certain essential foods; and if he accords preference to the soldiers, he must understand that he will have the civic community against him. We should like to hear from him what his attitude is in connection with this matter. The Government was warned that there is a shortage of food; the Government was warned that there is a shortage of corn. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way to recruit, as far as possible, farm labourers for military service, with the result that the farmers are not in a position to produce sufficient food. The Prime Minister made a statement yesterday that in Cape Town, at any rate, he would discontinue that policy of taking coloured people away from the farms. But he has already emptied the farms, with the result that the farmers in the Cape cannot produce sufficient for the requirements of the country. And for that reason, since he persists in saying that he will not now discontinue the recruiting of natives, but that he will carry on with it, I am afraid that in the other Provinces the position will be the same as in the Cape, namely, that there will not be sufficient labour. The people will have to pay heavily for that, and when that price has to be paid, I want to ask him not to leave the civic community in the lurch. The other reason why there is a shortage of agricultural products is because the Government does not hold out the prospect of adequate remuneration to the farmer for his labour. For that reason I want to ask the Prime Minister as the person who is responsible for defence, whether henceforth he will give the farmers the assurance that the Government will ensure reasonable profits to the farmers. Take the case of corn. Will he make a statement to the corn farmers that in respect of the next reason he will guarantee them a minimum price for their corn? If that is not done I want to tell the Prime Minister that there will be a hopeless shortage of corn. The corn farmers realise today that they can produce other grain which pays them better than corn, and unless the Prime Minister gives this assurance to the corn farmers I am afraid that the civic community and the troops of the Government will have a shortage of food. Then I want to put another question to the Minister in connection with the behaviour of our troops during this war, and not only our troops but also visiting troops. We are waging a mixed war, as the Prime Minister knows. Women are today also being armed in the war, and if one has to judge by what one sees in the trains, then the position is critical. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether he is taking adequate steps with a view to seeing that the sound moral standard of our people is maintained. We know that in time of war people sometimes indulge in dissipation and become licentious. Now I ask the Prime Minister whether he is taking adequate measures with a view to ensuring that our troops and the visiting troops do not live a dissolute life. I now want to ask him, for the sake of the good name of our people, for the sake of the good name of South Africa, to take drastic measures and to be careful in connection with the association of the two sexes in this mixed war. We are living today in different times. One cannot prevent this mixed war from being waged, and for that reason one also has to be particularly careful and to take drastic steps with a view to preventing licentiousness. There is another matter which is even more serious, and that is the conduct of visiting troops in South Africa. We who move in Cape Town and who see what goes on in Cape Town, realise that the position is very serious. The visiting troops are allowed to move about in our suburban areas. We see their behaviour, and we ask the Minister to see to it that these troops do not misbehave, especially when we think of the intercourse and the relations with the non-European section in South Africa. The Prime Minister knows that we have the coloured problem in South Africa, and for that reason we want to see that the moral standard of our people is not so cruelly disturbed, as is the case today, by these people who come here and who have not the least respect for those feelings of ours. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister; What is he doing to prevent that type of thing? Has he given instructions to the Canadian, the Australian and the English governments to warn their soldiers and sailors to behave themselves in such a manner, when they come to South Africa, that they do not disturb our views on life and our moral convictions in connection with the relations between the Europeans and the coloured people. We want to ask him whether he cannot direct a special request to those governments and ask them to warn their soldiers and sailors in regard to the position here. We want to ask the Prime Minister to request those governments to ask their troops to regard these matters from a South African point of view, in so far as this problem is concerned, so as to prevent these improprieties from taking place. When this war is over, and the soldiers and sailors have left, we know what the results are going to be. Then the result will not only be a bastard race, but the relations between the Europeans and nonEuropeans in this country will have been disturbed in a cruel manner with the result that the non-Europeans will adopt an attitude towards the Europeans which will differ from their former attitude. It is the Prime Minister’s duty, as Minister of Defence, to see to it that the European community is protected against those improprieties, against that lack of discretion on the part of the visiting troops, and for that reason we ask him to warn those governments and to request them to ask their troops to take into account the circumstances here. I should like to hear from him whether he has ever made requests to those governments, asking them to tell their troops to be careful in this country. Why cannot those visiting troops be under the supervision of officers so as to see that these improprieties do not take place. I blame none other than the Government for this state of affairs. No one else but the Government and the Prime Minister are responsible for that, and since in the future our people will have to pay that heavy price, we hold the Prime Minister responsible for it. We request him to see to it that an end is made to this state of affairs. I hope that we shall get a reply on this point.

There is a small matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Hon. the Prime Minister, a matter which has caused concern in the minds of many people, and that is in connection with the relations between the members of our Defence Force and other troops from other countries which are in South Africa. It is a well known fact up-country—and it is confirmed by members of the Defence Force— that friction exists between South African soldiers and the R.A.F. In our camps where they meet, serious quarrels have occurred. Even assaults and riots have taken place. Numerous members of the South African force contend that the members of the R.A.F. adopt an attitude here as if they are the cat’s whiskers. They adopt the attitude as if they are better than our people, and they look down on the Afrikaners and make sneering remarks about them. I can assure the Hon. the Prime Minister that these things do take place. The members of the South African forces have joined up of their own free will, or they have been forced through economic circumstances to join up. Now they come into contact with the R.A.F. and have to endure all kinds of insults. Even assaults have taken place. I understand that in some cases even a court-martial was held in connection with assaults, because an insulting attitude was adopted towards the Afrikaners of such a nature that no Afrikaner could endure it. When the R.A.F. and members of our forces met socially, members of foreign powers adopt an attitude which is insulting to the Afrikaners. The result is that they get to grips and fight. That should not be so. I want the Hon. the Prime Minister to give us the assurance that a stop will be put to this position. If the Prime Minister enquires into the matter, he will find that these things do actually happen. Moreover, I learned from a reliable source that in some of our camps friction has also arisen between Afrikaans speaking soldiers and English speaking men in the same way, and that sneering remarks have been made by English speaking men which have resulted in quarrels. If that is the case, the Government or the heads of the Defence Force should intervene, and should take drastic steps to see to it that those things do not happen, because it leads to a position in our country which may have far-reaching consequences, and may lead to serious difficulties. It is not a pleasant matter to raise, but I mention this matter because I know that these things do happen. I know that at the present moment a court martial is held in certain centres to hear persons who have come to grips, cases where soldiers have attacked officers when sneering remarks were made against Afrikaners. I want the Hon. Prime Minister and the department to go into this matter and to put a stop to it. There is another matter I want to raise, and that is in connection with the method adopted to force people to go and fight. I have in my hands a form which was issued by the City Council of Cape Town, in the City Engineer’s Department, and heads of departments are asked to compile lists of persons in their service, complete lists. It is emphasised that these lists should be complete lists. The employee’s name is given, the work performed by him, and then there is a column for “observations.” If such a man does not participate in military activities it has to be mentioned behind his name, and the reasons have to be given in the column reserved for “observations.” In other words, every member of the staff is now expected to advance reasons why he does not want to go and fight. This is a very unpleasant matter. I have had personal experience of this kind of thing. During the last world war I was in the civil service, and one day the head of my department and the magistrate came to my office and asked me why I had not joined up. This kind of thing arouses bad blood. If a man wants to go and fight, well and good, but it is wrong for the head of a department to adopt such an attitude. Let the recruiting officer come round; you can discuss the matter with him; but if the head of your department asks you why you are not prepared to fight, it goes without saying that the relationship between such official and his subordinate cannot be what it should be. That is done in the case of the Cape Town City Council. We cannot expect loyalty from people who are forced in this manner to join the army. I hope the recruiting service of the army will drop those practices. Recruit people in an honest fashion, do not force them. Make fine speeches, speak nicely to the people and try to convince them that they should go, but do not force the people and compel them to give reasons why they do not want to go and fight. I speak from personal experience which I had during the last war. It amounts to nothing less than intimidation, and that should not be so. Our army can not be built on sound lines if people are forced in that way. I hope the Prime Minister will ask his recruiting staff to discontinue this kind of procedure.

I now have hopes for the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). I entirely agree with him that the Prime Minister should see to it that members of the Royal Air Force should not make sneering remarks about our Afrikaner boys. But I think the Prime Minister should also see to it that the members of the purified Nationalist Party should not make derisive remarks about members of our Defence Force.

We have only made sneering remarks about members on the other side who draw double salaries and who do not fight.

I have hopes for hon. members on the other side. When war broke out and our boys joined up, when they joined up to sacrifice their lives for this country, we heard from the other side that they are scum, “hanskhakis” and all that kind of thing. But worst of all, these boys could not even be allowed to go to their own church in uniform. In those days I never heard any objections from the hon. member for Winburg, and he never intimated that he wanted to protect our boys. But because he now believes that he can sow discord between the Afrikaans speaking people and the English speaking people in our country, he tells us that the Royal Air Force makes sneering remarks about our sons. That is hypocrisy, pure and unadulterated hypocrisy. If we were to say such a thing it might be defensible, but then we know that it is honestly meant. But when members on the other side who have made sneering and serious remarks about our sons raise this matter in the House, I say it amounts to hypocrisy. No, I can see a change on the other side. That hon. member who is a party politician—he is not a statesman but a politician—is changing his colours, and when first he said that our sons were scum …

That is a lie.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw the remarks that the hon. member is lying, but I say that he is indulging in an untruth, a mean untruth.

I accept the statement of the hon. member that he did not say so, but where did he disapprove of such remarks? He is the Leader of his party in the Free State, and I have never yet noticed that he disapproved of these things in public, and for that reason I hold him responsible, even if he did not say so personally. In the beginning the boys who went up North were called scum, but now hon. members on the other side have got some respect for them, and they now begin to realise that these young men up North have saved the honour and fair name of South Africa. They now begin to be proud of those people. No, I rejoice and I welcome the fact that they want to protect those boys, but we must not only see to it that members of the Royal Air Force do not belittle our men, but we must also see to it that members of the Opposition do not insult these boys in the House and at meetings outside. I want to ask them to go to their constituents and to tell them that here is danger, that they should drop these political differences, and that we should defend our own country.

In passing, I want to refer to what has been said by the hon. member who has just sat down. I challenge him to mention the person or persons on this side of the House who have called the boys and men who have gone up North to fight, the scum of the country. I am prepared to sit down for a moment if he can mention the name of a single member on this side who has done that. If the hon. member does not do so, then I say that he has indulged in an untruth.

If the hon. member will read the speeches of his leader and those made by Gen. Hertzog, speeches made in this House, he will see that Gen. Hertzog called these people “scum”.

That is untrue.

Is it not scandalous that a gentleman who today is not here, and who sits quietly on his farm, should be accused here? That man is not here tonight, and cannot defend himself, and now the hon. member comes along and creates the impression in this House that that gentleman and those who support him are responsible for these things. That is typical of the hon. member.

It amounts to a stab in the back.

Yes, if ever stabbing in the back took place, this is it. I want to come to another matter. I want to turn to what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister told us last night. Possibly, Mr. Chairman, you will rule me out of order if I refer to it, but these are matters of military importance, and to my mind they can be discussed under the Defence Vote. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister last night, in a pathetic manner, expressed his sympathy for Holland, and the tribulations of the people there. As was said by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) if anybody can express sympathy for Holland, it is we on this side of the House. War has been declared by the Union, and if we look to the future, and things develop as they are developing at present, we are afraid that the misfortune which has befallen those people will also be our share. From the mighty British Empire we will receive sympathy and nothing more. We notice where assistance is required; we notice that Canadian and American assistance is required in the Far East. But if we read the newspapers we observe that Canadian and American troops are disembarked in England. What are they going to do there? Can mighty Britain not defend itself?

The hon. member must not discuss again what was discussed yesterday, and he must not repeat the same things.

I do not know that this matter was discussed yesterday, but these are military matters falling under this vote.

But the hon. member should not repeat what was said yesterday.

We are the ally of England, and instead of England going to the assistance of these people in the Far East, we find that troops are being sent to England to assist in its defence. England has always pretended to be a mighty Power, which is in the position to assist other countries, but now when difficulties arise we find that other countries have to come to England’s assistance. If we are involved in this struggle any longer, we might also experience the fact that England no longer can protect small nations, but that it now expects small nations to protect her. I am afraid we are on a road which we follow not in the interests of South Africa, but in the interests of England. Daily we observe hundreds of healthy officers and men in Cape Town and other towns walking around idle during all times of the day. I think we are justified in comparing the position with what is going on on a farm. If I find people idle on my farm, then I soon realise that it is to my disadvantage. But we find that troops are walking around idle. I do not know where the fault lies. I only know that it is a waste of money.

Those people are on leave.

Then too many are on leave. The same applies to hon. members on the other side, too many are on leave. They are practically all on leave. I may be wrong, but I believe the Prime Minister said yesterday that in North Africa the British troops have done most of the work, and to prove his contention he stated that 70 per cent. of the casualties were members belonging to British units. I do not want to talk big and draw comparisons, but I would like to know from the Prime Minister what the population of England is, and what the population of the Dominions amounts to, and whether the percentage of 70 per cent. truly reflects the position. It is desirable that the Prime Minister should give us more details in connection with the position. Can he tell us the percentage of casualties amongst the Australians, the British troops and the South African troops, etc.? It may be more satisfactory for the people outside if he does that. But now he says that the British troops have done most of the work in Libya. If that is the Prime Minister’s conviction, he should give fuller information, to satisfy us. The Chairman may again rule me out of order, but I would like to return to the remarks made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) the other night. He more or less pretended that we on these Benches are the cause of sabotage in our country. I want to ask the hon. member in all seriousness to mention one case where a member on this side of the House, inside this House or outside, has told people to commit acts of sabotage, and where he has encouraged them. I believe that he himself has contributed towards sabotage with his challenging and bombasting attitude, when he travels through the country with his circus.

I do not think that the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), really received the thanks of the Prime Minister for his contribution to this debate. It is unfortunate that frequently when the hon. member for Kimberley, District, gets up he talks out of his turn. Every time he talks he puts his foot into it. The debate went smoothly and there was every possibility of it being concluded this evening, and it will be due to the hon. member for Kimberley, District, if this debate does not conclude this evening. He is continually engaged, whenever he gets up here—and he cannot resist it—in attacking members on this side. If I can give him some good advice, if he wants to render a good service to his party and to the Prime Minister, the less he talks the better it will be both for his party and for this House. But I rose in order to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) and I want to add to that that the amendment is merely an exposition of the policy of this side of the House, since we have tried every year to move a reduction in the Defence Vote, so that it will only be sufficient for the defence of South Africa. But now we unfortunately find in the Budget that the Defence Vote makes provision for £40,000,000. The whole Budget contains an amount of £90,000,000. As far as I can remember, this is the first time that this important Defence Vote appears in the Budget without there being a proper explanation as to what the money will be spent on. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will understand that in asking for this information it is not because we want to put a spoke in his wheel, but because he, in his capacity as Minister of Defence, owes that information to the House. We want to know how that money is spent. On the other hand, I want to say that this side of the House which is against the war, feels concerned about the future, about the defence of the country. We know that millions of pounds are being spent on the manufacture of armaments in the country. While talking about that I want to say that I have the greatest admiration for the Director and Controller of War Supplies for the manner in which he so quickly, within this short space of time, established these gigantic works in our country in order to manufacture our own armaments for South Africa. But we are continually being told that our country is in danger. I cannot see that as yet. I repeat that. I do not yet see any immediate danger. But none other than the Prime Minister himself referred to the danger, and if that is so, then I want to tell him that the object for which the Prime Minister sent our troops to the North has now been accomplished. Why does the Prime Minister not bring our troops back to South Africa now? We know from the newspaper reports that the most important rubber plantations of the world are today in the hands of the Japanese, and we should like to know from the Prime Minister what provision has been made for rubber for South Africa, because rubber is necessary for the modern mechanical weapon. We know that petrol is just as essential as rubber, and if we have to judge by newspaper reports, then there is a shortage of rubber in the British Commonwealth, and practically in the whole world. Since we furnished equipment to our troops in the North, and since the task for which they were sent there has been accomplished, I want to know from the Prime Minister whether it would not be wise to bring back those troops and equipment, so that in the event of our country being in danger, and in the event of there being a shortage of rubber, we shall at least have properly equipped mechanical armaments. I should like to know from the Prime Minister what the position is, whether provision has been made for rubber for the Union of South Africa. I would also like to know what the position is in regard to petrol? From the newspaper reports we know that the greatest oil supplies in the Netherlands Indies have been destroyed. They are in the hands of Japan today, but the Hollanders destroyed them before Japan could take them. For that reason I should like to know what the position of our country is with regard to rubber and petrol? There are hundreds of other things that we want to know in view of the fact that there are no particulars in the Budget before us. There is only an amount of £40,000,000 for defence, and practically no details. I hope the Prime Minister will realise that he owes this explanation and information to us.

This afternoon I asked the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether he was prepared to agree to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in connection with the appointment of a commission to go into the question of cost plus contracts. I said that I would like the mandate of such a commission to be wider than was recommended by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The Select Committee was, of course, restricted by its functions, and could not give wider terms of reference. I now want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not give the commission wider terms of reference? The position is such that the ordinary measures which are adequate during peace time in order to see that there is no waste of money, are not effective during war time. That was felt in England, and the appointment of the Select Committee on National Expenditure followed. Here we have the position that we have the authorisation committee and the Treasury which have to approve of the expenditure. But there is no proper control over the effective application of the expenditure approved by them. There is also an Auditor-General in England, but usually he cannot do very much more than see that the authorised expenditure is devoted to the professed purpose. Obvious cases of waste of money may escape the Auditor-General, but he has neither the machinery nor the power to expose ineffective application of expenditure. And the Select Committee on Public Accounts is even in a worse position, and cannot do that. In those circumstances, they deemed it necessary to appoint a special committee for the purpose of considering national expenditure. That committee sits during the recess. Its terms of reference are very broad, and it is not restricted, as the Select Committee on Public Accounts is, merely to get the departmental heads and departmental officials before it. But it is empowered to ask any person to give evidence before it. In that manner the committee has already succeeded in discovering many cases of waste of money, and it suggested means for the adequate combating of wasteful expenditure. Now, I would like to ask that the Prime Minister should make the terms of reference of the commission, if he appoints one, broad enough not only to go into the question of cost plus contracts, but in all respects to see whether there cannot be a more economic application of war expenditure. In England that committee sits during the recess. It has the right to sub-divide itself into sub-committees which also sit during the recess, and up to the present they have submitted 30 reports, and, as I have said, they were valuable reports. Now, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if he appoints a commission, to make the terms of reference wide enough, within the framework of the English committee on National Expenditure, so that they can function in South Africa. The other question which I want to ask the Prime Minister is this: He said here yesterday, in connection with the conscription of Afrikaners in Rhodesia, that there is an agreement with Rhodesia—and if I am not mistaken—he said that the agreement was that Afrikaners who have been resident in Rhodesia for more than two years are no longer regarded as Union citizens. The presumption is then that they have ceased to be Union citizens, and then there is no protection for them as Union citizens in Rhodesia. I should like to ask the Prime Minister—by virtue of what legal authority he entered into such an agreement? Our Nationality and Flag Act makes provision for Union citizenship, and it also makes provision in what manner Union citizenship can be lost. Other than in the case of similar legislation in Canada, there is no provision that absence from the Union can deprive a Union citizen of his Union citizenship; that is, in the case of a South Africanborn citizen. In that case, there is only one way of getting rid of Union citizenship, and that is by means of a declaration of renunciation in terms of the Act which I have mentioned. What I now want to ask the Prime Minister is this, if there is such an agreement with the Government of Rhodesia that a person who has been out of our country for more than two years, loses Union citizenship, does that agreement not clash with our Act, which makes provision for the only manner in which a Union citizen can lose his Union citizenship? I would like the Prime Minister to adopt the attitude that a Union citizen cannot get rid of his Union citizenship in any manner other than that laid down in our Act. Let us give a positive meaning to Union citizenship, and make it different from the citizenship of other countries. Let the Afrikaner feel that when he is a Union citizen it is not merely a name which he has, but it is something which gives him certain privileges in life. If such a Union citizen then lives in Rhodesia, he will know that the Government of his Fatherland will take care of him. I say that if it is correct that such an agreement was entered into with Rhodesia, then I want to know from the Prime Minister what authority he had for making that agreement with Rhodesia, which, in my opinion, is in conflict with the express terms of our own Nationality Act; on what authority he is upsetting the terms of our Nationality Act in this manner? And I further want to ask him to follow the example of Ireland in this respect. People in Northern Ireland are not even Irish citizens in the same sense that our people who are in Rhodesia are citizens of the Union of South Africa. But they are nevertheless protected by the Government of Southern Ireland, and all that we want from the Prime Minister is that he should not adopt an attitude towards them which is more derogatory than that adopted by De Valera towards the Irish in Northern Ireland, who in the real technical sense are not even citizens of Southern Ireland. But on what ground, can the Prime Minister tell us, does he make an agreement with the Government of Rhodesia which changes and amends the express provisions of our own Act? My contention is that that can only be done by a special amendment of that Act by this Parliament.

This discussion has been going on for some considerable time and I think it is time I replied to the questions put to me. I wish to congratulate the Committee on the spirit in which this debate has been conducted the whole day so far. It compares favourably with previous debates and I welcome the calm, dispassionate and thorough manner in which the various points have been raised and the good spirit which has characterised the debate. Let me start by dealing with the questions of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens). He asked me a question first of all about the item “subsidy to Imperial Airways” appearing on the Estimates, and he asked for what purpose this money is being voted. Let me say this briefly, that it is a nominal amount by which we are giving effect to an old agreement entered into before the war. As hon. members will recollect Imperial Airways before the war used to carry our air mail. For that service they used to get £20,000 per year, I believe. That service does not function fully today. The air routes are not open any longer and only a small proportion of the service is being maintained under present conditions, but the contract remains in force and it is only as a recognition of the continuance of the contract and in view of the small service which is still being maintained that we are voting this money. The mail is still carried from Egypt to South Africa. I am assured that the amount itself is a small one and is only nominal. The hon. member further went on to say that in his opinion—and I have a high opinion of his opinion as an old soldier and an old comrade of mine—there is too much mixing of ages in our Army. He says that our forces today are composed of old men and of young fellows in the same units. The hon. member forgets that we have an age regulation and only people up to a certain age, men in the best years of their lives, are used for war purposes. I do not believe that there is this mixing which the hon. member refers to. I believe the hon. member is thinking of other units which are not combatant units. For instance, we have units in the country used as guards, and not for combatant purposes. We have the Essential Services Corps and other units suitable for local service, far away from the scene of war, and that is where those older men are employed. So far as the combatant units are concerned, however, the hon. member will not find any men there over the age of 45 years. The ages of the men in the combatant units vary from 20 to 45 years—that is the combatant age for all of them. The conglomeration, the mixture, to which the hon. member refers, does not exist. The hon. member has said a great deal with which I am in perfect agreement. He refers, for instance, to the necessity of strengthening our air force. He told the House that in the modern warfare of today great mobility is essential, and I am in entire agreement with him. Great mobility and a strong air force are necessary and if there is one thing which we can boast of to a certain extent it is the fact that we have created an army complying with both requirements to a very high degree. We have an Army which is very largely mechanised. There are no “foot sloggers” among them. All are either on motors or on tanks, or in the air. Never before has an Afrikaans Army had such a high degree of mobility as is the case today. Our Air Force is strong and is getting stronger and stronger, because we all feel that it is in the highest interest of the country with our long distances, with the changed methods of fighting, that we should have a strong Air Force, and that Air Force is continually developing into a very strong force. At one time I intended of going on with horse commandos as in the olden days, and the Committee knows that we bought a large number of horses so as to maintain a horse division on the old style.

Where are those horses now?

I am coming to that. We found that great mobility was essential and that very much greater mobility would be achieved by having people on motors. The horse division which was established early in the war—at least the members of that division, have mostly gone over to armoured units and to tanks. I don’t agree with the hon. member when he says that we are spending too much money on coastal defence and on guns and the like for the defence of our coast. I think he misses the point there. Our towns which are situated along the coasts are to a large extent exposed to what are ordinarily called raiders, to attacks by ships which may come along and release a few planes to attack us. They can bombard towns and furthermore, the coastal towns are also to a certain extent exposed to attacks by cruisers which may come here. It is only raids that can be undertaken in that way by the enemy on our coasts, just to attack our towns, bomb them and cause damage. One needs guns to protect oneself against such cruisers, to keep them away and prevent raids. We have made such provision, and I believe that with the provision made at Cape Town and Durban and the other ports we are fairly well secured against similar attacks by raiders or cruisers and raids from the air or the sea. If we did not have guns here to defend ourselves against raids we would be open to devastation and destruction for which we could to a large extent be held responsible.

†I am coming now to the speech of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) which somewhat follows on the point made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens). My hon. friend has given me very sound advice and he has told me that we should in the training of our troops here make use of the experience which we have gained in the North, and get experienced men from the North to help in the training and preparation of our troops here. I am doing that. I share his opinion and to a large extent we are already acting on his advice and getting the experience of the North to help us in the training of our men here. My hon. friend then goes on to put in a plea for the coast towns, and he touches on the points raised by the hon. member for Ventersdorp. He says there are fears in the coastal towns that there is not sufficient protection for them, that there is not sufficient protection for their essential services. He mentions the water supply of Durban among others. He mentions the disruption that might take place to the telephone services and might lead to disorganisation in case of attack. He also refers to attack by land away from the defences of these coastal towns, the fixed defences they have at present, attacks by land or even by sea. I may say that all these matters have been gone into pretty fully and are now continuously being gone into again under the changes that are taking place and the new dangers that are emerging. So far as the water supply of Durban is concerned, which I consider of great importance, the matter has been repeatedly gone into and I am myself convinced that the protection which we are giving now is adequate. Unless there is a mass attack, an attack in force, against the water supply of Durban, it is quite safe under the precautions we have already taken. And so in regard to the telephone system. My hon. friend is not aware, of course—these things are not published—but very elaborate precautions are taken, and if one system is destroyed there will be quite a different system brought into action at once. As regards air attacks we have a certain system of defence already. That has been strengthened. We are increasing the air defences of our coastal towns quite considerably because it is possible, quite possible, that some raider may pass some distance from our coast, a raider which carries aeroplanes; these aeroplanes may be let loose on the city and by dropping bombs do a certain amount of damage—damage which cannot be very great but which may affect the spirit of the people and cause a certain amount of confusion. We are taking precautions by increasing the fighter forces in the seaports and strengthening the antiaircraft defences of the seaports. I myself am quite convinced that when the steps now in process of being taken have been taken, everything reasonably necessary will have been done to protect our seaport towns against air attacks. By artillery, by fighter aircraft, and in other ways we shall have taken pretty good precautions. My hon. friend also raised the question of another road from Durban to the interior. He is afraid that the one road, which is now the national road, may be clogged and flooded by evacuees and refugees in time of danger. Well, I may say this, I do not look upon this as a military obligation which I should undertake. My friend admits that there has been division of opinion in Natal about what should be done. There is great division of opinion on this question, whether there should not be an alternate road from Durban to the North—to Maritzburg, and although that would be very desirable, it is a matter which the civil authorities should have seen to, and I should not be called upon to bear this burden out of the Defence Vote. It is necessary, I admit, to have new roads in the neighbourhood of Durban. New roads are going to be made there, but they are roads which are necessitated by the defence of Durban and this main road to the interior I do not look upon as a military obligation resting on me under this vote. I believe that another hon. member has also raised the same point of this road to the North, but I am afraid that that is a matter for the National Roads Board and for Natal.

†*The hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) made a big point on the native danger. He naturally raised the usual point that we are a small white community in a large black continent and that if any danger arose in the future it would come from the side of the natives, a black danger. Let me say this: I feel that if we as a white community maintain our good relations with the native population and if we in the language which we use towards them and the treatment we mete out to them show that we are friendly disposed towards them, and if we do not take up a hostile attitude or regard them as enemies, then I see no reason why we should not maintain our good relations with the native population.

What about the communists?

This is not a question of communists. The hon. member will agree that the attitude of the native population towards us to a large extent depends and will be influenced by our attitude towards them. We can be grateful for the fact that the relations between the two sections are good. Danger may eventually arise, but it will arise if the native population thinks that we are no longer fair in our treatment of them, that we do no longer treat them fairly and that by our attitude towards them, and by our behaviour we are harming them. Then they may become a danger. There is no danger and there should never be a danger if we do our duty by them. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) asked this afternoon to what extent our units up North, our army up North, is an independent unit, to what extent we have been absorbed in the general armed forces up North and to what extent we have remained an independent unit which can be easily separated from the other armed forces there. Let me at once give the hon. member the assurance that all our units up North, from beginning to end, are entirely separate as the Union Defence Force, and that they are organised in their own units. No matter whether one takes the artillery or the air service, or the medical services, the engineers, or any other branch, they are separate units. They stand under their own administration, but they are attached to the large army under one supreme command, under English supreme command. But all the units are independent units under our own generals, and the separation can easily be effected if necessary. The bond between us and all the other forces is twofold. The bond is in the English supreme command which exists, and secondly, the source from which our supplies come. Our quartermaster’s work is done in our own units but all the different divisions of the armed forces up North, ours as well as the others, get their supplies from the same sources. The self-same ships bring the food for the different forces and the other requirements and there it is divided over the various army forces. That is the only bond, the only tie, except the supreme command, which exists between our forces and the other forces there. The hon. member also spoke about the Air Force and asked what bond there was between the English and the South African divisions of the Air Force in the training schools where we have combined schools in South Africa. The conditions of the agreement are set out in the Auditor-General’s report on page 14. The conditions of the agreement are set out there and briefly they amount to this, that in the combined air schools in existence all the aeroplanes which we require are supplied from the English side, as also the technical material that is required. England also supplies us to a large extent with the technical staff required for the training of these young men. We on the other hand are responsible for the construction of the camps and the supply of food and the ordinary requirements of the school.

Who pays for the camps?

The building of the camps is one of our responsibilities.

You told me the very opposite last year.

I don’t know exactly what I said last year but there is an agreement, and it is contained in the report of the Auditor-General. The control of the camps and the maintenance of discipline are in our hands. I may say that about one-third of the young fellows who are being trained there are ours, and two-thirds are English young men. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) spoke this evening of unpleasant relations which he said existed between two sections of the Air Force. I know more or less what he refers to. I don’t think he is right in thinking that there are bad feelings between the English speaking and Afrikaans speaking, but there is a certain amount of feeling between the Afrikaners and the R.A.F. in certain camps. And in those cases we take action and we try to remove the difficulties, which are of a minor nature.

What is the cause?

There is no need to discuss that; they are trivialities. When two separate elements are thrown together in the same institution, if they are strange to each other, certain questions are bound to crop up, but I am quite convinced that we shall get over those difficulties, which really are of a very minor nature. There is no doubt that the combined training that takes place there is of tremendous value to us in South Africa. We get the machines, which are tremendously expensive. Hon. members will realise what the hundreds and hundreds of planes which are required would cost if we have to buy everything. It would mean a tremendous financial burden on the country. Besides that we get the technical staff which we have not got here. We would have to send our sons abroad to get the higher technical training and the modern way of fighting. We have not got the staff for that. We get all that, and as a result of this combined training in joint schools our South African boys get the best training available. I am saying this to make hon. members realise what the position is. If minor difficulties crop up every now and then, I don’t think we need be greatly disturbed about them. The hon. member for Hoopstad also asked what had become of the horses. As I have already said, our first intention was to establish a horse division here and thousands of horses were bought for that purpose. That plan has been abandoned. We subsequently came to the conclusion that it was much better to have armoured units rather than mounted commandos, which could not be used in Central Africa and in Abyssinia, and which perhaps could never be used. We have gone over to armoured cars and tanks, but the horses are there. Part of the horses have again been offered for sale to the public, more or less on the same terms on which we bought them. We bought the horses at an average of between £20 and £25 and we have offered them to the public again at the same price, but there was no great demand for horses.

There is a great demand now.

I shall welcome it if there is a great demand. These are some of the best horses one can get in South Africa for ordinary horse service and we are offering them cheaply because we got them cheaply. We shall keep a certain number but we are offering the majority for sale and we are going to sell them if we get the opportunity.

So that that scheme was entirely wrong.

It was a good scheme, but in the course of the war, and with the experience we gained, we found that armoured vehicles were better. The armoured vehicles have played a tremendous part in the war up North. If there is one part of our forces which has covered itself with glory, apart from the Air Force, it is those armoured forces, not alone in the reconnaissance work they have done, but on the battlefields themselves. All the reports I get from the North, from whatever source they come, speak of the excellent services rendered by those units, and there is no doubt that the armoured cars and tanks of all kinds are in the future going to be the best fighting means we have. Our future army will not consist of foot sloggers but of people on motors, armoured cars and tanks. That is going to be South Africa’s army of the future, excepting the Air Force. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) again raised the question of the recruiting of Hollanders. We discussed that question yesterday and I see no reason to depart from the decision arrived at and which, of course, is now being pursued.

What are you doing about other Union citizens, about recruiting them?

This arrangement was made at the request of the Dutch Government. Those people have not become citizens of our country. They have been called up under Dutch law by their Government, and we give their Government the necessary assistance. We shall also give such help to other Governments if they call in our assistance, and if they are Allies of ours. We cannot go back on the step we have taken. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) raised the question of the commission on building and work contracts recommended by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I intend appointing such a commission and to have an investigation made into the question which is giving us a lot of trouble, namely, the question of “cost plus” contracts. This is an extremely difficult question; it lends itself to easier solution in a country like England, but here it presents great difficulties. So far as our war supplies are concerned, Dr. Van der Bijl has almost entirely abolished that system; he found it possible to get away entirely from the principle of cost plus profit, and his contracts are on an entirely different basis, but so far as building is concerned, fortification works and different other kinds of work, we have found the position more difficult, and we have found it almost impossible to get away from this basis. The Public Works Department finds it very difficult, and our fortification department also finds it very difficult, and I shall be very pleased if we can get some lead to help us over this difficulty. I can quite understand—it is too clear for any argument—that the cost plus profit system is open to all sorts of abuses. That is clear, but the difficulty of putting the contract on a different basis is very great. One can no longer ask for tenders. If one asks for tenders one may perhaps get the same people every time. At a time of war, when there is so much to do, and when so many people are employed, the practice of tendering is open to many abuses. I am going to appoint this commission to investigate the matter. The hon. member wants us to go further and also to enquire into the way the money voted by Parliament is being spent. I do not think we need go into that. We have already created something which, in my opinion, is answering its purpose very well, and that is the Authorising Committee. My colleague, the Minister of Railways, is the chairman of that committee on which the Public Service Commission and the Treasury are also represented, together with other officials, and they go into all the contracts that are entered into. All the money that is spent has to go through their hands. If something in regard to defence needs doing, all I can do is to decide that a certain thing is to be done. I may say I need so many guns, or I need so many buildings—that is all I can do. The whole question is put before the Authorising Committee; it is a committee which is answering excellently. They very often make things difficult for me. They keep me tied down terribly, but perhaps it is right that they should keep their eyes open in that way to watch against any abuses. Because in wartime there is a tendency to force anything that is required through. I don’t intend appointing another commission for that purpose. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) got very heated here this afternoon, just as he got last night, on the question of scandals and waste of money. I kept very cool under his attack. If there is any waste of money, if there have been any scandals, I am awaiting the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That committee has been put there for that purpose. We have the report of the Auditor-General which refers to all the irregularities that have to be brought to the notice of Parliament, and I am awaiting the report or further reports of the Public Accounts Committee to point to any scandals or any unnecessary waste of money, and to give this House light and guidance. I am awaiting their report, and I do not propose going into the matter any further at this stage. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) has referred to the difficulties arising between members of our forces and the R.A.F. That is one of the sources of difficulty which I have already spoken of. One of the sources of friction between the R.A.F. and our Air Force. Our young men are paid very much better, and the R.A.F. men get less. The distinction is somewhat unfortunate because it leads to a certain degree of friction. That is one of the sources of trouble which we have heard of—it is not a very serious one, but it is perhaps due to this fact. We are sticking to the pay that we are giving our men, which we do not consider to be too high. For British standards it is too high. We have to face that position, that young fellows getting the same training, get different pay, according to whether they come from South Africa or from England. We simply have to take the position as it is. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Hayward) asked whether we were going to bring any compulsion to bear in regard to recruiting from the Public Service. A committee has been appointed, of which my hon. friend, the Minister of Native Affairs, is the chairman, to see if we can can get more volunteers from the Public Service. The country’s services have to be carried on, and one requires staff for that purpose. One cannot allow people just to walk out as they choose, and leave the service in the lurch—one cannot allow the Public Service to suffer. Still, at the same time, it may be possible to obtain more volunteers from the Public Service. Naturally, strong pressure is brought to bear by heads of departments to keep their staffs. The heads of departments always say: “I cannot spare that man. The work is such that I cannot allow him to go”, and the result is that, although many public servants are only too keen to go to the front voluntarily, they are not released, because their chiefs consider them essential for the service; and the commission has been appointed to see whether those difficulties cannot be overdone. There is no question of compulsion being brought to bear in any way whatsoever. Those people to a large extent want to go to the front, but they are held back by the department which regards their services as essential. And the question remains whether the services are essential, whether the large number of officials we have in the Public Service are still required today? Many of these civil activities have been cut down, and it is a question whether these people who are anxious to go and fight—they have handed in their names, and they are held back —cannot be released. That is the object of the committee, of which my hon. friend is the chairman, to go into such cases and to see whether the officials in such cases cannot be released. We have many Boards and Councils of all kinds in all departments, whose activities have been greatly reduced, and the question is whether it is necessary to keep all these people there. That is what my hon. friend’s Committee will have to go into.

†The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) raised an argument this afternoon about discharge certificates and said that the delay that takes place in the issue of these certificates operates against the reemployment of many men who have come back and who are discharged from the army. These people are anxious to get back into civil employment, and the hon. member says delay in issuing these certificates hampers them in that direction. I do not quite understand how the difficulty arises, but I shall ask my department to go into the matter and see whether there is really ground for this charge, and whether discharge certificates are held up as my hon. friend thinks. I think probably the position is not so serious as he makes out. He raises the further question of the medical men in the forces not being used for the specialist purposes for which they can best be used. He said very often a man who is not so highly qualified, just because he is a superior officer, does the work, and a man under him is excluded. Well, my hon. friend will see that in an army it is very difficult to overcome all these difficulties at once. I can quite understand that an officer who was appointed some years ago is now a man of high rank. Younger men may in the meantime have come in, some of them even better qualified than he is, medically speaking, but they are of a rank below him, and my hon. friend will see than it is very difficult in a case like that to pass over a man who is of higher rank just because the man below him is better qualified. It would lead to grave disorganisation in the medical service. It is, however, a matter that can be gone into, I have made a note of the point, and if it can be met without any damage to discipline in the army, I am quite prepared to go into the matter.

†*The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) also raised the question of the calling up of Hollanders again. I have already replied to that. He raised a question which was also raised by a number of other members, namely, why we do not give more details, why, when such a large amount of money is spent, a total of £80,000,000, more details are not given—there is a total of £80,000,000 here; £40,000,000 is the amount from revenue account, the other £40,000,000 will naturally come from loan account, but the total amount asked for for war purposes is £80,000,000. The hon. member who raised this question will realise that it is really impossible, if we want to preserve any degree of secrecy and not give the enemy all the information he wants, to give more details. Unless we do so we cannot give more details. All we can give is to give that list of purposes which the money is asked for. The Auditor-General sees everything; he sees how all the money is spent, but that is not a matter which can be published outside, no more than it is done in any other army in the world today. The money voted is voted as a globular amount and the furthest anyone goes is to give a general summary of general headings. I am sorry I cannot comply with the hon. member’s request. A question of some importance was raised here yesterday by the various speakers, and that is the labour question. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) raised it so far as the Free State was concerned, so far as native labour there was concerned, and the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) raised it here in regard to the coloured people of the Cape. We have not had any particular difficulty with the native labourers in the northern provinces. I know there is a certain amount of difficulty. I, as a farmer myself, have experienced difficulties in that connection, but it is not a very serious difficulty in the northern provinces. The difficulty has been much greater here, and to a certain extent it still prevails in the Cape where there are a limited number of coloured workers, and the recruiting of those workers has made an inroad on the labour market here in the Cape, and for some considerable time now I have been receiving representations from the farmers, especially in the South-Western districts, asking us not to take away their labour. Many of those workers have had technical training in vineyards, gardens and wheat farming, and the removal of those labourers causes considerable detriment and harm to the farmers. Those representations have been made to me and I have had the question enquired into from time to time, with the result that I feel that the resolution we have arrived at, after having consulted with the agricultural authorities, is quite adequate. I am assured by Col. Werdmuller that if we maintain this and keep it in operation there will be no further trouble. I briefly want to say what we are doing here. In a number of districts which I shall read out here in the Western Province we do not allow coloured labourers under any circumstances to be recruited for war purposes, and that is the position in the districts of Bredasdorp, Ceres, Caledon, Montagu, Paarl, Robertson, Somerset West, Malmesbury, Swellendam, Wellington, Worcester and Tulbagh.

No longer today!

No, we are not doing so. In those districts it is absolutely prohibited. The recruiting of coloured people is forbidden and in the rest of the Union it has been provided that no coloured men who are farm labourers are to be recruited.

But now they go to the dorps where they stay for six months and after that they are recruited.

The difficulty has been submitted to us, that what has happened is that the coloured labourers on the farms leave the farms and go to the dorps or towns, and then they report themselves as not being farm labourers, and then they are recruited. We therefore took a further step and said that we left it to the local authorities, namely, the magistrate, to decide in every case and to see to it that nobody who in the last six months had been on a farm, or had done farm labour, was to be recruited.

But the trouble is that the farm labourers go to the dorps and then tell the authorities that they are towns people.

The magistrate looks into the case and if it is proved that the man has been on a farm within the last six months he cannot be recruited.

I went into that and the magistrate gave me the same information, but on a list of recruited coloured men he had there were sixteen coloured men who had been doing farm work.

That difficulty was placed before us and we also changed that, and we said: That that was not to happen at all in future. In the districts I have mentioned it is entirely prohibited.

Won’t you prohibit recruiting at the same time in the districts of Ladismith and Calitzdorp?

An enquiry can be made into the extension of the list. I give my hon. friend the assurance that the number of coloured men we are recruiting today is so small and trivial that it is not worth worrying about. I am anxious to assist the farmers as far as possible. So far as the Northern Provinces are concerned there the position is much easier. I have just been informed that Oudtshoorn, Knysna, Ladismith and Calitzdorp have also been placed on the list. My hon. friend can therefore sleep better tonight. So far as the labour question in the Northern Provinces are concerned the position is very much easier, and the need is not so great. Our native population is still big enough to enable us to carry on with what is left. I know from personal experience that a certain amount of inconvenience is caused. Some of one’s best natives go away. They become motor drivers and so on. That happens, but there are always enough left to make it possible for farming to be carried on on a fairly large basis. I hope our hon. friends will not urge too strongly that we should apply that same principle of general prohibition which is now applied to the Cape Province. I believe that I have now dealt with most of the questions that have been raised. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) asked me about the figures up North. The hon. member will recollect that I did not mention the figures on my own authority because I have not got them, but what I did was this: I took the war figures which the Secretary for War in England gave in Parliament. Personally I have not got the figures, but from a return which he read in Parliament it appeared that the British Army is very much in the majority today on all those fronts in the Far North and elsewhere. The position in East Africa and in Abyssinia was different. There it was half and half, half South Africans and half British; but so far as Egypt and the North are concerned the great majority are British troops, and the proportion of casualties is also 70 per cent.

But then one naturally has to take into account the different populations.

Yes, but my hon. friend should also remember that for the security of England which is in the greatest danger a tremendously large army has to be kept going, and an army of several millions is kept in readiness there. We are doing the same thing here. The majority of our troops are also kept here for the security of South Africa in the event of danger. And I do not believe my hon. friend can depend upon it that according to the population figures there should be any more English there. I think I have nowdealt with all the principal points raised and I hope we shall now come to a vote.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) is in his seat, because I certainly have a bone to pick with him over the remarks he has made. I want to refer to the insinuations he made against our General, Gen. Hertzog, where he is alleged to have said that the soldiers up North to a large extent consisted of rag, tag, and bob tail. I think the hon. member must have said that in an ill-considered moment.

Well, why don’t you leave it alone then?

I have it in my hand, and I want to quote what was said. I hope the hon. member will get up and say: “I am sorry, but I said it in an ill-considered moment.” I want to assure the hon. member that if he does so he will rise in the esteem of this House. I have studied what Gen. Hertzog said.

The General never said it.

I looked it up, and this is the position. The General did not say it. I am pleased therefore to hear that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister agrees. I want to thank the Prime Minister for what he said in reply to the appeal I made to him to be more tolerant, and to make some concession in the days we are passing through, on account of our feelings differing, and our views being in direct opposition to each other. One cannot expect to remain quiet in these days; one is often led into a trap. The Prime Minister told us that he understood all those things, and that he would act in that spirit. But now I want to tell the Prime Minister that it came to my notice this afternoon that more of our prominent people have been arrested, people who have never yet been associated with sabotage or wire cutting. The Prime Minister will have to take very drastic action if he wants to retain the goodwill and the good feelings of both sides of the population which he has a right to expect. If he wants this good feeling he will have to take more drastic measures against those people who perhaps by exaggerated—shall I say—willingness to perform services expected of them …

By whom?

I thought I had picked my words very carefully. I spoke of people with an exaggerated willingness to give their services, and who then do those kind of things, with the result that people who should never be suspected land in gaol. I hope the Prime Minister will see his way, even if he is here in Cape Town, and even if he is busy with matters requiring his attention, to also give his attention to this matter. I further want to say that in regard to the £40,000,000 on the Estimates I am strongly opposed to this money being voted. I shall give my reasons shortly. But before doing so I would like to have an explanation from the Prime Minister. I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday when he gave the reasons why England’s one Ally after another had gone under, and he said that France had gone under because England and France had sent their armies to other countries to go and assist small countries like Holland and Belgium with expeditionary forces. That, according to the Prime Minister, was the reason why France fell. If I misunderstood him I hope the Prime Minister, or some hon. members opposite will put me right on that point, because I immediately thought of another occasion when the Prime Minister adduced another reason for the fall of France, and I thought that my memory had perhaps led me astray, because I remember that the Prime Minister in 1940 gave us a different reason for the collapse of France. So I looked up the Hansard report, and I find that on the 29th August, 1940, the Prime Minister gave the following reason for the collapse of France—

As I did on that occasion, I also listened very carefully yesterday to the Prime Minister’s statement, but now it seems to me to be somewhat conflicting, and I hope the Prime Minister on a later occasion will get an opportunity of replying again to this debate, and I hope he will then explain the position to us. Now I come to this amount of £40,000,000 which we are asked to vote this year for war expenditure, and I calculate that in almost three years of war we are busy spending an amount of over £200,000,000. To my mind that is an amount—the amount we are spending on this war—which this country cannot bear. I do not believe that South Africa with its state of great poverty, with all its fluctuations, will be able to bear the debt which we are today imposing upon it. The Prime Minister knows that this war may last another five or six years, and if it has to go on at this rate, and if he continues to place such great obligations on our shoulders, we are going to find that what we said at the beginning of the war is going to be true—that burdens will be placed on the people which they cannot bear. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to consider whether in the circumstances it is worth while going on with our war expenditure on this basis, whether it is worth while spending all this money on the war?

Rather bankrupt than under Hitler.

That hon. member may differ from me. I don’t want to stand under Hitler, but I don’t want South Africa to be burdened by all these debts.

I can place myself in the Prime Minister’s position. The last speaker referred to the fact that a heavy burden was being imposed on this country. Money does not count at the moment. But what the Prime Minister said here, and he is deliberately going on in that direction— the last penny of the last man has to be spent on victory or defeat. I don’t propose going into that. I know the Prime Minister is determined, and that is why I am no going to concern myself whether the expenditure is £40,000,000 or £50,000,000. The Prime Minister, and those with him on the Benches opposite, have all the say, and all we can do is to warn them. Nor do I want to reply to the answers given by the Prime Minister to my question. I have made my speech, I have had my say. The Prime Minister has also had his say, so what is the good of my answering again? The Hansard report is there and Hansard will decide in years to come who was right, he or I. So what is the good of criticising any further? That being so, I prefer to deal with some other points now. I agree with what the Prime Minister said about our white population in South Africa. We have to bear the responsibility for maintaining good relations with the natives. I agree. I have my farm and if I don’t live on good terms with my labourers I cannot get my work done. How can we rule the country if our people are dissatisfied? If we were to have a dissatisfied native population here it would not be worth the white man’s while staying and living here. But now I ask the Prime Minister, is it not more desirable to bring the white people closer together, to get greater co-operation from the Afrikaner people and from the white people, and get them together again? Instead of doing so our people are continually being arrested. As the previous speaker said we are continually getting telegrams that more and more people are being arrested. Today it is a teacher, a friend of mine, who has been arrested. When we get to the vote of the Minister of Justice I shall show how unfair the Government has acted. I am not allowed to do so now. The co-operation of the native people is sought, and it is a good thing to keep them satisfied, but I am pleading here in all seriousness, and I am asking the Prime Minister if he wants to take up that attitude to the native population, if he wants to do that to the blacks in this country—and I agree with the Prime Minister that we must keep those people satisfied—then surely our first duty is to keep our own people satisfied and to secure their co-operation. I have no intention of attacking the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) here because the Prime Minister has dealt with him. Since we met here last time we have found that the Prime Minister wants to follow a different policy. Yesterday he told us officially that he was going to arm everybody irrespective of colour. In that connection I want to put a question to the Prime Minister, although I know he will not answer it. I want to ask him what has already happened and what is going to happen in the British Protectorate? I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to allow the British Protectorate to do so, and I want to know if an agreement has been entered into? I am speaking on good information and do hon. members know that instructors were in Swaziland last year drilling the natives. Does the Prime Minister know anything about that? If the Prime Minister wants to deny it let him give me a free ticket to go there, let him allow me to go into the British Protectorate and I shall see whether it is not a fact that officers, our own people, have already been drilling the natives there since last year. I want to know whether that is correct, and I want to know from the Prime Minister who is going to be the sufferer in this country if that policy is adopted in regard to the natives? I also want to know from the Prime Minister—if that is the policy he is going to follow—what ranks the natives will be allowed to hold? Will he make them non-commissioned officers, and will he also make them into officers? I am also putting this question in regard to the coloured people. Are they also going to be noncommissioned officers? Are they also going to be given officers’ ranks, and even higher ranks? These are matters on which the Prime Minister was silent when he addressed the House. Here we have a policy for the Afrikaner Nation proclaimed for the first time, laid down by a son of this country, a policy designed to arm the coloured man, and I say that the Prime Minister should give us more information in regard to the way in which he is going to carry out his policy, and I am asking him to reply to the questions which I put. Now let me come to another matter. Napoleon said that a soldier fought on his stomach. I want to add something to that. I myself know that in the War of Independence we could not fight on our stomachs. In South-West Africa and in German East we could not fight on our stomachs either but we felt that what gave us victory there was the good feeling, the feeling of confidence between officers and men, a sort of brotherhood bound us together. In a home there must be love if the family wants to prosper and if one wants to build up a Defence Force the very first thing that is necessary is love and brotherhood. It is only after those things have been established do we ask for food. Food is nothing. Give me that love and that brotherhood; if we have those things in our units then we can fight, and have we got that brotherhood in the Allied units? No, there is jealousy, from top to bottom. Sometimes I feel inclined to break the Prime Minister’s neck, but then I feel again, no, he was with me, or I was with him, and he has done a lot of good for us. But there is one thing, dear Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, I advise you—and this advice comes from a man whom you trained as a young man in defence matters—to preserve the peace in your country, and defend your country and your people. Persecute no one, and if you prosecute anyone make sure that the person you are prosecuting deserves to be prosecuted. If there is any doubt don’t prosecute him. I shall never prosecute a soldier, unless I am convinced that he has done something wrong. When I was in German East I believed in punishing a man on the spot where he had sinned. On one occasion when we were attacking, I hit a man with a sjambok. Gen. Van Deventer came to me and said, that I should remember I was in the British Army where we were not allowed to do those things. I told him that I believed in punishing a man if I was convinced that he needed punishing, and I would punish a man on the spot. [Time limit])

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister did not reply to the questions I put to him about the Afrikaners in Rhodesia. I shall be pleased if he will reply to them later on.

I am sorry. I forgot.

The Prime Minister further said that in regard to the criticism of extravagance in the Defence Department he was confidently awaiting the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Now, let me say this to the Prime Minister: It is very poor consolation if he relies upon that, because the Select Committee on Public Accounts cannot, the Auditor-General cannot, and his Authorising Committee cannot see to it that the money voted by Parliament for war purposes is spent in a proper manner. He says he has absolute confidence in the Authorising Committee. That Authorising Committee is nothing but an extended Treasury to perform the selfsame functions as the Treasury performs in times of peace—the Authorising Committee does so in war time, and that Authorising Committee has no more power than that. It is there to see to it that certain amounts asked for by Defence are approved of. It is not there, and it has not got the machinery, to see how the money is spent. The money is handed over to the Department and it is spent, and neither is the Auditor-General in a position to see whether the money could have been spent more economically. He is simply an accounting officer. He has the right to go through the books, but if he gets the necessary vouchers for the expenditure incurred he cannot say that there is anything wrong. Consequently, he is not in a position to bring any waste of money, except where it is very palpable, and where there are no vouchers for it, to the notice of Parliament. Even the Select Committee on Public Accounts cannot go any further than that, because it has not got the time or the power at its disposal properly to control this £40,000,000 which Parliament is asked to vote for Defence—it has not the power to say whether it is properly spent, and whether there is any waste of money. I want to say in advance that it will not give any proof of the money having been properly spent if there is no comment from the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That exactly is the reason why I ask for the appointment of a committee which will have the power and the time to go into the question whether or not the money has been properly spent. It was with that object in view that the committee was appointed in England. The Prime Minister must not misunderstand us. When we plead for these steps, for these measures, to have proper control exercised, it does not mean that we silently approve of the objects on which the money is spent, but if expenditure has to be incurred, then it is essential that we should get value for our money, and that is why we are asking for a commission of this kind. The Prime Minister to my mind was not at all realistic this evening, in regard to the native danger. If he goes on to give effect to his object, namely, to arm the natives and coloured people, he will be braving that danger, and he has told us here that everything depends on the way we treat those people. That would be all very fine and well if we could be satisfied that there were no other elements in this country putting a false position before the natives, falsely representing our object, and our treatment of those natives. That exactly is where the difficulty comes in. We have to fight today for a Russian victory. The Prime Minister insists upon it, and everybody opposite insists on it. What will it mean if a Russian victory does come about? Let me quote something to the Prime Minister from the “National News Letter”, with which Commander King-Hall is connected. In the January issue of that paper we find this—

That is what the position will be if Russia is victorious, and in its comment the paper goes on to say this—

Let us assume communism in Europe is victorious, and we have armed the natives— let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the way we treat these people will make no difference. If this poison of communism is injected into the natives as is now being done by the communistic agitators, if this victory of communism through a Russian victory comes about, and that process penetrates into this country, it will be a great calamity to South Africa, a greater calamity than an invasion by Japan, particularly if we have armed our natives. That responsibility rests on the Government. It is a responsibility which the Prime Minister must take into account before deciding on a foolish action such as the arming of coloured men and natives. The second error will be worse than the first, and there are many Afrikaners who will say that they would prefer to see an invasion by Japan than that type of policy for South Africa which will mean that we in this country will be under the heel of a black communistic republic. Hon. members know that it is the express intention of the communists to stir up the black population against the white population; they are not anti-Afrikaans or anti-English, but they are anti-white. They want to remove all the dividing lines of colour and race, and if the Prime Minister puts arms into the hands of those people who so easily become the prey of communistic propaganda then I tell hon. members that they are preparing South Africa for a disaster, and we can say farewell to the future of this country as a country in which white civilisation will be maintained. No, that is not the direction which a civilised white population in South Africa should follow. That is the road to danger, that is the road of recklessly sacrificing our future as a civilised country— and that only in the interest of the Empire. I hope the Prime Minister was not in earnest when he spoke of the arming of natives and coloured people in this war. I hope he will reconsider the matter and cast his mind back to the days of forty or fortytwo years ago when he, as a Boer General conscious of his ancestry, conscious of the Voortrekkers, wrote in his despatch to President Kruger that to do a thing like that clashed with every principle of civilisation. We do not want those people to overrun our country. We do not want to put the power into their hands. The Prime Minister has taken the rights away from good Afrikaners, and now a second mistake is to be committed, a mistake worse than the first one, by placing the arms that were taken away from the Afrikaners in the hands of the native population, a population which, because of its level of development, may easily become the prey of communistic propaganda which is so zealously carried on by agitators. One complaint is that the Government is doing so very little to stop that process of poisoning the native mind.

I want to express my disappointment that the Prime Minister has not replied to the questions I put about visiting troops who on their way through call at this country. I referred to the matter in connection with the coloured problem and I showed that we were in grave danger, and I therefore asked the Prime Minister to make a request to other governments to inform their troops about the problems which exist in South Africa, but it appears to me that the Prime Minister has become so indifferent that he has actually become colour blind—blind to the colour problem, that he is quite indifferent in regard to these matters, and does not consider it worth his while replying. I can only tell him that the public are not indifferent. I want to make a final appeal to the Prime Minister to take steps to ask the governments concerned to instruct their troops to take into account the colour problem of this country. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) pointed to the dangers in regard to the natives; here we have a danger in connection with the coloured people. May we ask the Prime Minister not to be indifferent towards the danger we are faced with? I want to express the hope that he will reply to our question. Then, arising from the Prime Minister’s reply on the subject of the expenses in connection with the air training camps, I want to say this to him: I said in an interruption that he had said the very opposite last year. I have looked it up and I notice that it is not exactly as I said in my interjection, nor is it exactly as he said it. Last year I asked him who paid the expenses in connection with these air training camps and he said that the matter had not yet been settled. He said that the question was developing and he was dealing with it with a view to ascertaining how a reasonable allocation could be made, in view of the numbers we had and the numbers coming from elsewhere, and in view of the camps we had, and also in view of the planes which the British Government has given. He said: “We are looking into the question of what would be a reasonable financial arrangement.” The Prime Minister has now told us what that arrangement is. We pay for everything; England pays nothing in connection with these camps. We give the camps and pay the heavy expense in connection with them. They only give the aeroplanes. Last year the Prime Minister said that they gave the aeroplanes and we gave the camps, and the allocation of the costs was still being considered. There, again, he has capitulated and we pay all the expenses.

I just want to reply to the point raised by the hon. member. It was not my intention not to reply to it. Unfortunately, I overlooked it as a result of the multiplicity of questions which were put to me. With regard to visiting troops, all steps are taken to warn them. They are warned about the danger in our streets with reference to the racial conditions which exist in South Africa, and patrols are sent out to help them and to keep them on the right course. The hon. member can understand that in the circumstances prevailing in the world, and with human nature being what it is, one cannot prevent all irregularities, but what we can do, is being done on our side. I listened with a certain amount of surprise to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), who practically said just now that he would rather see a Japanese occupation of South Africa than that black troops should be armed in order to participate in the war.

On a point of personal explanation. What I did say was that the people of South Africa would seriously doubt whether the danger of a Japanese invasion would be greater for us than a native rising under the influence of the communists in this country.

That is precisely what I said.

What about the tenders for meat for convoys?

That question is being investigated. A note has been made of that point. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith in connection with Afrikaners who go to Rhodesia, that is also a point which I overlooked. Some years ago, when Gen. Hertzog was still Prime Minister, an agreement was made by correspondence with the British Government, under which the arrangement was made that where Afrikaners, Union citizens, go to England and stay there permanently, they would fall under the English laws and not under the Union laws. When an Afrikaner has already staved there for two years, the presumption is that he is there permanently, but that is presumption, according to the agreement, which can be rebutted.

But that is not the law.

The question then arose what the position was with regard to Rhodesia, and during the last few years the same arrangement has been made with Rhodesia. When Union citizens go to Rhodesia with the object of staying there permanently, or when they stay there for more than two years, the presumption, which can be rebutted, is that they intend to stay there permanently, and then they fall under the Rhodesian laws. Rhodesian citizens who come to the Union are treated in the same manner.

But that is an amendment of the law. By virtue of what authority do you amend the Act?

The Question is that this does not affect citizenship: it is merely a Question under which laws the person concerned falls. He remains a Union citizen until he accepts the citizenship of another country, but the question here is under which laws he will fall.

I cannot understand how the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can adopt the attitude that a person who, according to law, is still a Union citizen, can be conscripted in Rhodesia, when he has been there for two years. Whether the Government of Rhodesia is prepared to grant certain privileges to Union citizens who live there, is another matter. But, according to our law, they remain Union citizens. In this agreement of which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister speaks, citizenship is not affected. Is it the attitude of the Government that it is prepared to allow Union citizens who live in Rhodesia to fall under this conscription? That is precisely our objection. If they are no longer Union citizens, then it is a different matter, but surely the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will agree that an agreement between the Union Government and Rhodesia does not alter the laws of the country? They can only lose Union citizenship when they sign a formal deed of renunciation. That they have not done. They are therefore still Union citizens. Must I now understand that our Government wants to allow Union citizens to be treated in that way, and is it not going to protect Union citizens against conscription in Rhodesia? If that is the case, I say that it is a disgrace to South Africa. It is a disgrace for the Government that it is not in a position and not prepared to protect its Union citizens outside the country; that what the Government does not want for Union citizens, it allows a foreign Government to apply to Union citizens who live over the border. If that is the policy of the Government I can only express my deep regret. I do not believe that there is another country which would allow its citizens outside the borders to be treated more badly than within the borders, but our Prime Minister wants to hand them over to the mercy of a little country like Rhodesia, which has not even the same status as we have. I do not know whether the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister appreciates the full implications of the arrangement. If they are still Union citizens, it is the duty and privilege of our Government to protect them as such, and to do everything in its power to uphold their rights. Without the permission of this Government, I do not think that the Government of Rhodesia would ever apply conscription to Union citizens. It is an unheard of position. How can the Government allow it? I hope that the Prime Minister will again take the matter into consideration, and, now that he is convinced, as I feel he is convinced, that these people are still Union citizens, that he will see to it that the Government does not withhold its protection from them.

The huge sum of £40,000,000 is involved in this vote, which is spent on the war outside the boundaries of the Union by a small country, a poor country, and a helpless country. I should like to put a few questions to the Minister of Defence: Is it right to retain the symbolical, idealistic appellation of “defence?” That is surely only a pseudonym which is no longer suitable. Should we not rather change the name “defence force” to “war force,” and should we not call the Minister of Defence the Minister of War? After all, we are not defending, but we are attacking. Another question: What is the view of the Minister; is it worth while making South Africa ready for battle? England did not remain idle but she dug herself in. I think that was one wise and practical step. Is it worth while making ourselves ready for the battle by building strategical railway lines and harbours? I ask whether it is worth while. I want to know why we are now building railway lines in Syria and not in South Africa. Has the time not arrived to withdraw the Union troops from the North? Australia and New Zealand are in danger. India is in danger. What did they do? They took the wise step of withdrawing their forces. There are no longer Australians and New Zealanders and Indians in the Near East. They were recalled to defend their country. Is the Union of South Africa not in danger too? Has the time not arrived for us to recall our troops in our own interests? Is the Minister aware of the fact that the war may still last for a long time, and that our line of communication to Libya is tremendously long? Is there another country with such long lines of communication as the Union of South Africa? It is no less than 5,000 or 6,000 miles, and where the lines of communication are so long, it involves great expense. It would save expense to withdraw our troops and to defend our own country here. Another question. On the 4th September, 1939, at the beginning of the war, the Prime Minister made the solemn promise in this House that he would not go further than the borders of the Union. Has he forgotten that? I can quote from Hansard where he made the solemn promise that he would not go further than the borders of the Union. Then another question: Does he think that it is of practical value to us to defend the Suez Canal in the North? I put the pertinent question whether it is better to defend the Suez Canal rather than South Africa for the Empire—to defend the Suez Canal with a small handful of our troops which are barely sufficient to protect the Union in any way? He sent our troops to the Suez not to protect his own country but in the interest of the Empire. He has the interests of the Empire more at heart than those of South Africa. As long as he is the faithful agent of England he forgets his own country. He demands this blood money of us in the interests of the Empire and not in the interests of his own fatherland. Will posterity praise him for that; will they forgive them? The war is still developing; the future is dark, and the Prime Minister is looking after the interests of another country and not after the interests of South Africa. Is that wisdom; is that the work of a statesman. I say no.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Bezuidenhout, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—32:

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—57:

Abrahamson, H

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare. W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madelev, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts. J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Bvl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—57:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander. M.

Allen. F. B.

Bawden. W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker. T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet. H. C.

Dolley. G.

Du Toit. R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson. L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hevns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr. J. H.

Hooper. E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—38:

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. van Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.