Before calling upon the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) to move the motion standing in his name, I must draw attention to the fact that, since notice was given of the motion, the Minister of Finance has given notice of motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means on taxation proposals, which include income tax and excess profits duty. As the taxation proposals have the greater legislative effect they will block discussion on that part of Mr. Oost’s motion which refers to the revision of legislation relating to income tax and excess profits duty. The hon. member should therefore move his motion in an amended form, omitting the words “especially legislation relative to income tax and excess profits duty”.

I move—

Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I had no intention whatsoever of making any remarks or comments on the Minister’s wonderful Budget. That Budget, in any case, has been passed and I cannot do anything about it now. The Minister and his colleagues are already taking tens of millions of pounds out of the pockets of the taxpayers, but the tail of my motion has been cut off by your ruling, or, rather I should say, the head has been cut off, and I am afraid that in the circumstances, and particularly as a result of legislation which is now being enforced in this country, the head of many an industry will be cut off. Nobody can deny the fact that there is an increasing feeling of uneasiness among the public, among the thousands of people who are making their living out of our industries; but not only among them, but also among thousands of other people who are directly or indirectly concerned with our industries there is a feeling of uneasiness. Anyone reading the newspaper reports must have noticed that several institutions connected with trades and industries, and that several organisations have more than once expressed their concern and their anxiety about the country’s future on the subject of industries. Before I rose to address the House, I received a letter from the General Council of Women of South Africa, in which similar anxiety was expressed about the future of our industries. I think I can prove, at any rate, I am going to try and prove, that there is cause for this uneasiness and very good cause, too, because some time ago a speech by Dr. Van der Bijl was published, a speech from which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has already made some brief quotations, showing that he, too, feels concerned about the future, and even about the present position of our industries. We know that the policy which is still being enforced today is the policy which was laid down in this country immediately after 1924. I well remember that the elections in 1924 were run principally on this question of the development of our industries, and as soon as the new government came into power in 1924 it took steps to give effect to its promises made to the electors and among other things important legislation appeared in 1926, with which we are all familiar, in connection with our Customs duties. A new principle was introduced in regard to our industries. Up to 1926 Customs duties had been almost exclusively imposed for the purpose of getting revenue for the Treasury. From that year onwards, however, the principle was laid down that the object was not only to obtain money for the Treasury, but that the object of those Customs duties was particularly to build up young industries and to protect them. So that year we altered the whole system. That was done by the Minister of Finance of those days, Mr. N. C. Havenga, and his efforts were successful. He was very successful as I am going to show a little later. Mr. N. C. Havenga may be called the father of our industries and it will be recorded in his favour for many years to come. If we study the figures we find that as a result of his policy and also as a result of the previous war there was a sudden development in our industries. I well remember that after the Boer War it was generally taken for granted that South Africa was to be nothing but a producer of raw materials, but that it should not process those materials itself. Those materials had to be sent to other countries to be manufactured there and the manufactured products, the finished products, were sold here again; that was the position then, and it is still happening to a certain degree now. The great fight before 1926 was against this very principle. I very well remember that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) who in those days was member for Bezuidenhout, and other members fought the Minister of Finance as hard as they could to oppose that principle. I well remember the hon. member saying: “Why do you want to give further protection to the Garment Industry? Why do you want to give it more than 5 per cent. protection? There are only a few thousand people making a living out of it.” But what was the result of the protection? The result was that ten years after those few thousand people making their living out of the industry had increased to 17,000 people. I must say that the hon. member for Kensington certainly was not a good prophet in those days. Perhaps he may have been a good prophet on another occasion—I don’t know. At that time he certainly was not a good prophet, and it was very fortunate for South Africa that he was wrong. I have figures here showing very clearly the great importance of our industries to South Africa. Here are figures showing that in 1939 it was estimated that South Africa’s national income from factories amounted to no less than £70,000,000. That is the national income derived from factories; from farming it was £50,000,000, and from the famous, protected and idolised gold mining industry it was no more than £81,000,000. That goes to show the tremendous factor our factories are in the national economy of the country. I want to quote a few more figures to strengthen my argument still further. Here is the figure giving the number of Europeans, men and women, who are earning their livelihood in our factories; in 1936 there were 132,000, while ten years before, when Mr. Havenga introduced this legislation, there were 82,100 employed in our industries. An increase therefore in that short space of time of 50,000 Europeans directly making their livelihood out of the industry. I also have a figure here which is of interest to the House, and that is the figure of the raw materials used in our industries. I am quoting the figure for the year 1937—the quantity of South African raw materials used for industries in the year 1936—’37 is valued at £45,000,000. The number of institutions, that is, the number of factories, in 1937—’38 was 10,224. Those figures must convince anyone that with a gross production of our factories in the year 1937—’38 of £187,000,000, our industries certainly should receive the attention of this House, and particularly should receive the support of the Government. And do they get that? Do they get that support through the legislation in existence and in other ways—do they get the support they are entitled to? Let me again quote a few figures, official figures, which will show hon. members what is going on now. I have already quoted figures to show the tremendous progress there has been as a result of the previous Government’s policy. I am now going to show figures to show how alarming the deterioration has been under the rule of the present Government. These figures I am going to give are official figures which every hon. member can check if he feels inclined to do so. Naturally, there are continuous fluctuations in the registration of factories. Factories are registered in different names, but in addition there has usually been progress. Let me take three months in the year 1940 to show the progress that did take place at one time, and the deterioration that has taken place since. I take the months of October, November and December of the year 1940. And I find that so far as progress was concerned the number of new registrations was 62 with the number of employees amounting to 1,313. The deterioration for that self-same quarter was 39 factories with 254 employees. In other words, twice as many factories were established as went out of existence in those three months. Now let us take the last three months of the previous year, namely, October, November and December, 1941. Those are three months in which the effects of the legislation of the year before, which is still in force now, were felt. I am not speaking about the proposed legislation now, but in those months the effect of that legislation was already known, and Mr. Speaker, it is a most striking fact that during those three months not a single new factory was registered.

Is not that an unfair conclusion?

Not a single new factory was registered. If my hon. friend doubts it I am prepared to take him to the office where he himself can study the official figures, but how did we go back? In those three months 52 factories with 554 workers were closed down. That is the effect of the policy followed by the Minister of Finance. That is the effect of the policy which he and his colleagues have lately been pursuing. I think it is our duty briefly to go into the causes of this position. What are the causes of this extremely disquieting deterioration in the position of our industries? The causes vary. The hon. member for Vereeniging made some remarks a short while ago on the subject, and several other speakers also referred to the matter in their speeches, although they were not at liberty to say about the position what I am going to say. They should try none the less to tell the truth about getting too much underneath the Government’s skin. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) was very brave the other day, and told us that we should develop a Robinson Crusoe mentality, and I want to express the hope that he will state just as clearly today what his opinion is about this motion. Then we also have the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), who eloquently talked about this motion, and quoted a large number of references from a speech by Dr. Van der Bijl. Then we also have the hon. member for Germiston, South (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss), who was discussing this matter when he got into the same difficulty with you, Mr. Speaker, as I have got into now. The hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) urged the encouragement of diamond cutting, and the hon. member for Pretoria, West (Mr. Wallach) also put up a plea for the expansion of our markets up North, a subject which I used to urge very strongly in the past, and which I shall most certainly deal with again at the right time. Then we also had the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), who in this House showed up the uselessness of the Factories Act. That Factories Act unquestionably is a cause of the deterioration and of the difficulties—of many of the difficulties—in which our industries find themselves. But there is more than that still. I am sorry the Minister of Railways and Harbours does not take enough interest in this subject to be present here this afternoon, because we can blame the Minister of Railways for some of the causes for the difficulties our industrialists are suffering from. I am convinced that the hon. member for Maitland will support me on this point. Our system of railway tariffs is hopelessly antequated. I am going to mention a case from my own personal experience, where the raw materials are being carried by the railways, and after that, the manufactured article. The transportation costs over the railways of the manufactured product is eight or nine times higher than the transportation costs of the raw material. This sort of thing may have been very good in days gone by, but it certainly is no good today. I hope the hon. member for Maitland, who is familiar with these conditions, will give the House the benefit of his opinion and his knowledge on the subject. Yet the Hon. the Minister of Railways a few days ago told us in this House that it was not the Government’s business to establish industries. All the Government can do, so he said, is to encourage others to establish industries, and that is being done now. That is what the Minister said. Whether it is being done is a matter on which I have serious doubts. One had hoped that the Minister of Railways, knowing the unfortunate position in regard to his tariff system today, would on his Budget have said something about the subject, but he remained perfectly silent, and he only said that he was doing all in his power to carry soldiers and war materials cheaply over the railways. That does not touch the kernel of the matter, and I hope that before South Africa is much older the Government will decide to revise the railway tariffs, and that it will realise that some of our industries are going back. Of course, there are other difficulties, too; there are difficulties caused by the war. It is difficult to get new industries going, particularly because the gold mines, which still wield the greatest power in South Africa today—because the gold mines since the beginning of the war have been spending large sums of money for the purchase of all the machinery they might require, “hoarding”, as the Englishman calls it. The result is that the ordinary industries have to stand and look on. They must do the best they can, and sometimes they have to produce their own machinery. That is one of the important causes. Another important cause lies in the fact that last year’s taxation legislation has to a large extent contributed to the deterioration of the position of our industries. The result is this, that no one on earth will think of starting a new industry today. The Minister has such great expectations; he told us with so much confidence that in South Africa we allowed our new industries 8 per cent. profit whereas Australia only allows 5 per cent. The Minister should know that that argument means nothing. He might just as well say that we allow them 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent. as 8 per cent., because the Minister must know that a new industry takes years and years before it can produce any profits at all. I am speaking from experience. Since the day we passed our legislation in 1926 I have assisted in the establishment of industries. I have done some hard work in doing so. In more than one industry. And I have been fortunate, and everything we have tackled has met with success. Let me assure the Minister that if he some day gets all the experience I have had he will never use that argument again. I am speaking from practical experience. Let me add that this practical experience has not come easy. A new industry built in South Africa gives more trouble and worry and requires more pertinacity and courage than anything else I have ever come across. Don’t let us forget that South Africa is still a young country, and everything that is created in this country must be created in a South African spirit and must be turned in a South African direction; even the experts coming from other countries must first of all become familiar with our conditions. During the first years of a new industry’s life all the promoters find is trouble; they have to buy land because one cannot establish a factory on hired land; one has to get one’s experts. By the time one starts producing one has to see to it that one’s machinery is put in working order, and three, four or five years of hard work pass before everything is eventually got going. I have often promised myself that I would never again assist in the establishment of a new industry, and I am certainly not going to do so again, because the Minister of Finance has made it impossible for me. So long as the conditions which we have today prevail no new industry can be successfully launched. Since October last year not a single new industry has been registered. As a result of this taxation legislation the poor industries have no choice of getting a little capital together. No industry is encouraged to obtain its raw materials. Nothing is encouraged. It is only a case of paying out and we cannot go on like that. The results will become worse and worse as time goes on. This excess profits tax mentioned by the Minister of Finance plus all the other taxes—once they have been paid, what is there left? Absolutely nothing. But now I am coming to a point which I have no doubt will greatly interest hon. members opposite. There is another very important factor which I am sure will scare them when I tell them about it. This great difficulty which has been caused—I cannot say “caused” but still it crops up under regulation No. 1268—let me give an instance of what that regulation means. As hon. members know, South Africa is a very rich country and it is particularly rich in marble. One gets marble from Karibib in South-West Africa and Oudtshoorn in the South, right up to the far Northern parts of the Transvaal. One gets marble in mountains and on the plains. Marble, black and yellow, and all the colours one can think of. More marble than the whole world can absorb in thousands of years, but it takes a lot of work to exploit that marble. It is very difficult to establish a concern like that, but it has been done in the Transvaal, in the Cape and Natal. I should like to invite hon. members to look, for instance, at the post office here in Cape Town, to see for themselves what South Africa is doing today in regard to its marble. Now, people will say: “Surely South Africa is an exporting country”; yet South Africa today imports marble, it does not export it. Up to the present it has been importing from Portugal through Delagoa Bay and that marble is imported on an import permit issued by the Government, but it is not only marble; quantities of chrome tanning salts are produced in South Africa—a brand new industry. This industry has been established with very great difficulty and the commodity is very scarce in other countries. America refuses to send any more to England, and what is the result? If they want to get any of the stuff here in South Africa they practically have to go on their bended knees to President Roosevelt to ask him to send it here. Why is not the industry developed in this country? The same thing can be said of bichromates. Today, in a time of war, when every foot of shipping space counts, they are importing goods which South Africa itself has. I want to remind hon. members of what was said by Sir Stafford Cripps, England’s great man today, about the abuse of shipping space. He talks of waste, and this is what he said—

is used for the importation of unnecessary commodities. I have mentioned three articles but there are a great many more. Of the 100 per cent. of goods of various kinds 97 per cent. are imported or can be imported on import permits. Only 3 per cent. are excluded. I notice in the papers today that an English member of Parliament is getting obstreperous because English ships are being used for the conveyance of gold. While England is importing gold we are importing marble and chrome tanning salt and other goods which we can produce ourselves. These matters should be brought to the notice of the Government. I am holding it against the Minister because I have reason to assume that he does not listen to sensible advice from his technical advisers. I have told hon. members of the scandalous things that happen in regard to the importation of goods which can be produced here. One cannot find words to describe that condition of affairs. We need all this money ourselves —money which we are paying to other countries—we need it very much more than those other countries do, even if only to reduce the burdens resting on the taxpayers. No, the money has to be sent to America or to Portugal. Shipping space is more valuable than anything, but it is used for things which we do not require. Where is the Government’s common sense? I think one has the right to put that question to the hon. the Minister. Having studied the conditions in our industries as a result of mismanagement we now ask what the results of those conditions are. We hope it will not take a long time before our men return from the North. Don’t let us forget that when they return they are no longer the same as when they went away. They have been mechanised now, they have been dealing with everything mechanical. Guns, vehicles, planes, and all the rest of it. They have had a mechanical training, and I want to know where the Minister is going to employ those people? Industries are no longer being built up, but, on the contrary, they are being destroyed. The big capitalists will see to it that after the war people will get food until such time as the danger of revolution has passed, but they will only feed them until such time as they think they are no longer a danger. Every year 40,000 white children leave the schools— they have to be absorbed into the army of workers of the community. What is going to become of them in the future? Shortly before the outbreak of war there were 11,000 apprentices in industries. What is going to become of them? Are they simply to be fed? Are they simply to be put on the dole and become the cause of the deterioration of our country? I am of opinion that any country which introduces the dole has to go to the wall. That is my experience from what I have learnt in Europe. What is to become of these people? Are they to become pick and shovel slaves on the roads? I am afraid that is all there will be left for them to do. I think it is our duty, while we still have the chance to bring about improvements, to tackle the matter in all earnestness at this stage. I have a list here which happens to have been given to me, of various organisations and bodies constituted for the purpose of uplifting the community. Among them is a Committee for Post-War Construction, the National Planning Council of 1941, and a number of other Boards as well. We also have the Prime Minister’s announcement about social and economic planning councils. All these things put together are worth nothing; they will be no use unless plans are made to supply South Africa with really sound industries. Providence has intended South Africa to be an industrial country. Agriculturally the position here is very difficult. As an industrial country South Africa will develop and become one of the greatest countries in the world—when we get another Government. But then we must not set about things in the way we are doing today—we must not destroy things. We must not destroy those things which have been built up with care, determination and courage. The Government dare not openly state the position as it sees it today.

Why do you blame the Government?

Have I not proved at the outset that degeneration has taken place? And who can be blamed for that? Surely not our party. We are here merely to assist with the little experience we have gained from life. We are here merely to put the Government right where it has gone off the road.

Then you should join the New Order.

May I rise to second this motion? I want to say at once that I am not doing so as a man who wants to pose as an expert in regard to industry. I want to deal with the question merely from the point of view of the layman, and I want to quote a few facts in support of what the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), has put before the House in such a competent manner. I only want to point out that we on this side of the House are somewhat upset to notice at this late stage that the latter part of the motion appearing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Pretoria, District, has now been cut out as a result of the introduction of a motion by the hon. the Minister of Finance. It makes one wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Finance may have noticed that this motion has caused a commotion throughout the country in the ranks of the industrialists, and whether the step to prevent the motion being put in its entirety was not taken with the object of silencing this part of the House. I hope that that was not the motive, but at any rate that is the impression which is left in one’s mind, and anyhow, that is the practical effect. The hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), gave a comprehensive summary of the detrimental effects and of the conditions prevailing today in industrial spheres. Personally I have always taken up the attitude that the State should interfere as little as possible with private enterprise or private initiative, and to a certain extent I still believe in that; the State, however, today functions in practically every sphere of the people’s economic existence, and however much one wants to guard against the State killing private initiative, one feels with the development we have had in the industrial sphere that it has become almost essential for the State to step in continually as the economic manager of the people’s economic menage. Our Director of Census and Statistics divides our industrial world in his Year Book into more or less fourteen groups. I am not going to weary the House by giving those groups in detail. I merely want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is a tendency on the part of the country which are enjoying the protection of the State but which are not always entitled to that protection. The protection policy followed by the State makes it necessary for continuous investigation to be made into the industries of the country, because I make bold to say that if the State affords protection to an enterprise the State must also take the responsibility of ensuring that the standard of the manufactures of such an enterprise is of a sufficiently high quality to warrant that protection by the State. I am not convinced that the State is giving sufficient attention to that aspect of the matter. What the State does do is systematically to look after the wages and the health conditions of the people employed in the industries. That is a very good thing, but I feel that the time has come when the State should go a step further and also interfere in the internal affairs of those factories, so as to ensure that we get real value for the protection privileges enjoyed by such enterprises. I further only want to say that I do not think we can get away from the fact that in the past two years all has not been well with industrial life in our country. True, we have had a revival in those of our factories which under present conditions are producing goods in connection with our war effort, but to a certain extent this phase is disquietening to me in the light of the figures which the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) has mentioned, showing that there has not been an adequate increase in our factory development during the past few months. Those figures speak for themselves. For the last six months of 1940 the number of registrations was: 27 in July, 20 in August, 19 in September, 29 in October, 17 in November, and 16 in December. If we take the year 1941 for the corresponding period of six months, the registrations are as follows: June 21, August 20, September 11, while during the months of October, November and December not a single registration was reported. If we look at the number of factories which were shut down we find the figures for the last six months of 1940 to be as follows: July 9, August 16, September 26, October 12, November 11, and December 8. This is a diminishing number. Now, let us take the corresponding period for 1941. We find the figures there as follows: July 13, August 2, September 27, October 14, November 24, and December 9. Over those six months the aggregate number has come down by 52. We can come to only one conclusion, and that is that there is not sufficient encouragement for the development of our industries. The fact that during the last three months of last year there has not been one single new registration of a factory can be laid at the door of the Government’s taxation system. If I were allowed to give an example I could show the House that an existing enterprise making a profit of £200,000 has paid nothing beyond the ordinary taxes, while a new concern, making a profit of £5,000, had to pay round about £3,000 in taxes. Those are the only examples I want to mention here to show what is happening in the industrial world today, and that there is a certain amount of disquiet about the increasing demands that are being made on profits, so much so that the factories are not able to equip themselves on modern lines, and to provide for reserves for the evil day, for the day of storm. And that sort of thing is killing new enterprises. If we have succeeded this afternoon in drawing the attention of the Government to this condition of affairs, then we can say we have succeeded with our motion. I want to repeat that I am not speaking as an expert, but as a man who takes an interest in these matters, and if we have succeeded in directing the Government’s attention to these matters, then we will consider ourselves fortunate. I second the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) has introduced this motion, if for no other reason than that it gives one an opportunity of discussing the industrial position of our country today, which, I admit, requires the most serious attention of this House and of the Government. I am rather sorry that some little party capital has been attempted to be made out of this motion. One would get the impression, listening to our friends opposite, or rather the two members who have spoken, that on this side of the House there is an entirely unsympathetic Government with unsympathetic supporters. One, indeed, would get the impression that the followers of the Government are totally opposed to this motion, and that hon. members on the other side are expecting the worst to happen. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the vast majority of the industrialists of this country are supporters of the Government today. I would point out that on our Benches here sit far more men interested in industry than on the other side of the House. That being so, why bring up this bogey, why build a wall like this, why try to set up ninepins that really only exist in their own imagination? We on this side of the House, and the Government itself, are entirely in accord with sound plans to develop our industries as far as they can be developed. The sting, of course, has been taken out of this debate on account of the tail having been cut off the motion, as my friend over there humorously put it. However that may be, I do not know whether the Speaker will allow me to deal in a small way with the incidence of taxation and the measures which the Government have taken in regard to industry. Our experiences in the past of war have lead us to expect in our country and in other countries, not only a development of industries, but a much greater development than during a period of peace. That is easy to understand. Many supplies are cut off, imports are reduced, setting up a demand that local industries perhaps can supply, and in many instances in the past war profits so-called have been taken to start such industries; in other words, people who made war profits were prepared to risk the money they had made in starting those industries. Today we must realise that the whole position is fundamentally changed, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world we have a changed outlook. Whether it is in Australia, America, England, or South Africa, public opinion is out for taking all profit out of war. And we can see that type of legislation being tightened up everywhere today. The Minister of Finance was able to quote in his Budget speech action which has been taken by the Australian Government; we see that drastic steps are being taken in America, and we know what drastic steps were taken in England almost at the commencement of the war. We have to recognise that. The Minister, after all, the Government, after all, must be amenable to public opinion, and public opinion in this country, and in all the countries I have mentioned, is absolutely opposed to profits being made out of war. So that you cannot compare this war with the last Great War; you cannot compare developments that may take place from profits made during this war, with the developments which followed the last war. You cannot do that, because it is the business of the Minister of Finance to take the profits out of war. On the one side by taxation, and on the other side through the appointment by the Government of a Price Controller. The Minister takes all he can by way of taxation, and the Price Controller, on the other hand, sees to it that prices are controlled, so that profit is taken out of war. Under these circumstances you can well appreciate that you bring your industrial position in our country into a very difficult position. There is another factor to consider, and that is that most of our factories in South Africa today are dependent on overseas materials, and those materials are very difficult to get today.

Supply them locally.

Yes, that is all very well, but my friend knows that in every case you cannot manufacture all that you want in this country.

[Inaudible.]

My friend is speaking of chrome salts.

And marble.

And, of course, marble. But there are, of course, other products than these, and we are up against that fact all the time that we cannot get all the materials we want. One would like to follow the cases of factories that have been closed probably as a result of not being able to get materials. We cannot blame our legislature for that, but it brings us to the very serious position we are in in South Africa today in the matter of getting overseas materials. Taxation is high, there are big risks to be taken in business today, and many people as a result of high taxation are definitely trying to keep their businesses from developing. They say, “We would rather stay put for the period of the war than take risks by going on developing.” All these things have to be taken into account when you discuss this question of industrial progress or retrogression, and that is why I am really disappointed at the wording of this motion.

At the tail being cut off.

There is a leisureliness about this motion of his. He wants a review of the whole of our legislation affecting industry, but I can see that the position is much too urgent for that. My friend, for instance, brought in the question of railway rates; well, will he inform me how you can sit down and get railway rates changed to how I want them, and he may want them, in a period of a few months? The matter is so urgent that we cannot wait for that sort of thing. We have to realise that the position is so serious that we must do something about it and do it very quickly indeed. If it is right for the Minister to tax as he is taxing us, very largely because of the demands of public opinion; if it is right for the Government to control prices as they are doing also very largely at the demand of public opinion, and if as a result of their responding to public opinion in that way, the development and even carrying on of industry is hindered, then something has got to be done about it, because it is not only a question of developing industry, it is a question very largely of the necessities of our people, the commodities which they require. We have got to think of that. If you do what is thought to be the right thing, that is, taking all war profit out of industry, and at the same time do not take into account these other factors, before you know where you are, you will have people ceasing to make goods. People will cease to make things, they will even cease to grow food, and if that happens, you will have to look at things from a very different angle, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us here in South Africa to take a most serious view of the whole position.

What do you suggest?

I said in my Budget speech that our food position wants to be dealt with in an unprecedented way, and a very effectual way, and the same remark applies to other commodities. My friend the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) asks me what I suggest. Well, it is a very difficult thing for an ordinary backbencher to make a suggestion that will be listened to by the Government. I would have liked to move an amendment, had the Minister of Commerce and Industries been present, but unfortunately he is ill, and I have to try to frame an amendment that the Government itself will accept. More than that, I want to impress upon the Government that there is no time for delay, and that is why the motion of the hon. member is all wrong. Nothing can be done about it, says the hon. member in effect, until Parliament meets next year. Mr. Speaker, much water will have flowed under the bridge before next year, and what we want done in South Africa must be done before that, at least a beginning must be made or we are going to be in a very dangerous position. I can give you examples of new industries which could be started here, but one of the big difficulties in starting any new industry is the high cost of building and the difficulty in getting building materials. The Factory Act demands this, that and the other, in the way of amenities, and one of the great difficulties is what is known as builders’ ironmongery. You cannot get that today, and so also to build a new factory is next to impossible from the point of view of costs. It is uneconomical, and then after you have built your factory, if you are able to do it, what about machinery? It is almost as impossible to get machinery from the other side today. If you want to import machinery from America, say, you have to give a certificate which says that the particular machine you want is wanted for war purposes. Now there are many things that we want in this country, things which are necessary for our internal economy, but they are not in the category of war products. I can give you examples from my experience in my job of war supplies. I have a company prepared to give me a certain requirement that has never been made in South Africa before, but when the scheme was put before us, it was found that this particular requirement would only employ the machinery of the factory for three months in the year. And for the other nine months of the year the plant would be put onto necessity consumers’ goods. In these circumstances I could not get a certificate to say that this machinery was wanted for goods required in the war effort, and naturally the necessary machinery could not be got. Facts like these we are up against, and unless something is done we are going to be absolutely at a standstill. Even spare parts are almost unobtainable. Our farming friends have been speaking about the difficulty of getting spare parts for motor lorries and reaping machines, and the same applies to our factories; we cannot get spare parts, and generally the position is getting more difficult daily. And that is why I say we cannot afford to lose any more time. I suggest that in these circumstances the Board of Trade be given authority to go into this whole matter, and perhaps under the Emergency Regulations they may be given certain powers. To emphasise my contention, I want to tell the House something that came under my notice four or five months ago. There is a proprietary article of food which has always been made overseas and imported. At last some enterprising people in South Africa were given the formula to make it here. It is a very important foodstuff, and has a very high vitamin content, and in every way is something which is desirable and useful. More than that, all the raw materials are available in South Africa. The company in this case was able to get local machinery and to adapt an existing building, and when they had met all these difficulties, they were going ahead, when they found that the law of the land through a regulation was really up against them starting this industry at all. It took from four to five months to get this matter put right; it is not yet finally righted, and the factory has been at a standstill for six months. In circumstances such as these the Board of Trade ought to be given extra powers, or some similar body to the War Supplies Board should be set up to deal with the position such as I have described. I would also suggest that at least for the duration of the war in this time of emergency and difficulty the Board of Trade should co-opt a group of business men. These men could be got today very easily, men who would be prepared to work for the public interest; they don’t want salary, rank or position; these men would come together, public spiritedly, and give their services to the Government through the Board of Trade. And that is the very practical suggestion I now make, namely, that the Board of Trade should immediately be given powers and instructions to go into the whole position. In those circumstances I would move the following amendment—

I second. In seconding this amendment I want to point out that up till now we have only dealt to a large extent with secondary industry, I think it is far more important in reviewing the industrial position of this country that we look to our primary industries as well, and I claim that while we are busy developing our secondary industries, we are shamefully neglecting some of the primary industries of this country. Of the primary industries which we are neglecting are first of all our agricultural industry and secondly, our fishing industry. We all know the real importance of this fishing industry. Twelve months ago a departmental committee was set up on which I had the honour to serve and the report was handed to the Minister of Trades and Industries about twelve months ago—it was a report dealing with the industry and secondary industries that might arise out of the fishing industry, and up to now, to my great regret, nothing has been done by the Department to put the recommendations of that Departmental Committee into being. I do know that that particular department is very much overworked, and some of the officials who served on that committee felt that they could hardly do justice to the recommendations at the moment, because they have so many other things to do. But I claim that everything else they are doing today is not so important as putting this primary industry on the map. When we talk about secondary industries and neglect one of the biggest industries at our doors, that does not require machinery which does not require very much more than just attention and supervision, I think it is wrong. Before we go on developing other big secondary industries we want to pay attention to our primary industries. I need not go into the merits of the fishing industry; we have today a great scarcity of fertiliser. There is a terrible waste going on today in this particular industry and that waste today could be used as a fertiliser. Today there is great need for essential oils, fish oils, for which we could even develop an export market—it is wasted today; and so we go very much further and look at the amount of imported foodstuffs which we still bring into this country, particularly fish. I have not the figures before me but there are thousands of pounds of fish imported that we could have manufactured in this country. We are doing a little today as a war effort, because Canada has stopped the exportation of fish, and many other countries from which we used to import have done the same. Their markets are closed but the canning of fish, the preserving of our fish—smoking and canning — would employ thousands and thousands of people, and would open up a great vista of employment. And not only have we today in this particular industry a large number of Europeans employed—but there are openings for many more. There are large numbers of coloured people employed in this industry today, and when once the recommendation of this committee which I spoke of is put into effect, it would undoubtedly employ many more; in fact it would employ thousands. We calculate that there are 30,000 employed today, but there is room for 130,000. The second industry that is neglected is agriculture.

What an admission.

It is neglected and I say that we should put every inducement forward for farmers to produce more and more. If every inducement is given to the farmer no doubt production can be greatly increased. The mover referred to the Board of Trade—he referred to the activities of the Board of Trade—but my experience in the development of our primary industries is that the Board of Trade has never been sufficiently interested in that matter, and that these industries governed by these various boards could be encouraged to a very much greater extent. I am afraid that these boards have not given the necessary attention to the marketing of those products of those industries. This affects the dairy industry, it affects your meat industry—it affects all those industries where you have control boards. Of course, these men probably know a great deal about the production of these particular articles, but as far as the distribution, the merchanting of these products is concerned, they know very little. And it is in that connection that I welcome the suggestion of the previous speaker, of letting the Board of Trade go into the matter. They should go into the question of distribution and not so much into the question of production. Naturally, the production has to be studied, because I think a great deal more can be done in the production of food. The only industry in this country that does not seem to be neglected is the mining industry. I came across an article in the paper this morning dealing with the mining of gold, and the heading of that article made me realise more and more what the position is. While gold mining is definitely the most important primary industry which we have in this country, I think the time has arrived to take stock of that industry, to see whether some of the labour which is employed there could not be more profitably released and employed in other industries. For my part I cannot see when we do know that there is an adequate supply of gold, I cannot see why we should go on at this stage, in time of war, with the developing of new mines. The developing of these new mines means a great deal of labour, a great deal of waste material, and I would suggest that if that labour, which is being spent today in the development of these new mines, were transferred to the farming industry, we would definitely get better results, better immediate results.

At the same wage?

There is definitely a scarcity of labour on the farms, and I would very much like to see something done. And it must come to it, because a lot of these developing mines will not be able to get machinery and tools and requirements they need, but if that labour which is used on developing new mines were used on farming, it would suit the country much better. Now, just a word about our secondary industries. I do not think anyone realises what development has taken place in regard to our secondary industries. To the industrialist who comes from overseas always dangles a picture of the perfection which they have obtained over there. We know that, but they forget that what they have overseas has taken centuries to achieve, whereas we have achieved here in years what it has taken other countries centuries to achieve.

But we are going back now.

No, I don’t think we are going back. I say that we have made progress. It is only the war now which retards that development, and naturally so because the machinery is required for other purposes, but in the past there has been nothing to complain of in our industrial development, nor is there anything to complain of now—there is nothing to complain of the attention which this Government and the former Government have given to these matters, but I would like to see our primary industries more fully developed before we pay too much attention to the development of further secondary industries.

It is a good thing that the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) has brought this very important motion before the House. It is a pity that the most important portion of his motion dealing with the question of taxation has to be deleted in terms of the Rules of the House, because that is a matter which we should like to discuss. Still, we shall get the opportunity of doing so later on. You, Mr. Speaker, of course, ruled correctly that that part of the amendment cannot be discussed. As we cannot discuss that part of the motion we can only discuss certain other aspects of the matter. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) said repeatedly “Something has to be done” and “we must do something.” It reminds me of a member of the British Parliament who said that someone who continually said that some thing must be done admitted in saying so that he did not know what had to be done or who had to do it. That is the case here too. The hon. member said that we must do something but he did not make any practical suggestions as to what should be done. He said that the Board of Commerce and Industries could tackle the matter and could do something, and that the Government should consider this question and do something, but he did not say what had to be done. I propose on behalf of this side of the House to move an amendment putting forward a practical suggestion without in any way detracting from the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria, District. We welcome the motion and we accept it. Before coming to the amendment, however, I want to say that the old Nationalist Party during its existence always took up a very definite attitude on the question of the protection of our industries. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) discussed a number of points in that connection. Hon. members who have been in this House for a long time will remember that in 1924, when the Nationalist Party took over the reins of government, a protection policy was introduced which went very much further than previous governments had even been prepared to go. In those days a fairly sharp struggle was waged on the subject of that policy. It is a matter which is today generally accepted as the country’s policy, but in those days there was strong opposition. We recollect that a man like the late Mr. Jagger, whom we always greatly respected as a man and as an able business man, strongly opposed us, and in 1923 he really wanted to resign as a Minister of the then government because of the small degree of protection which the then Government Party had announced in its election programme. In 1925 the Nationalist Party Government announced and introduced its express protective policy, but it did not go so very easily and a violent struggle ensued. The Nationalist Party Government of those days went even further, and it not only applied its protection policy but it also introduced a policy of State help, and that particularly found expression in the law passed at the time to establish the iron and steel industry. The hon. member for Hoopstad mentioned the fact that certain people opposed the protection policy because they were interested in overseas industries. We, who were members of this House at that time, remember it being stated in the country and also in this House that we could not achieve those objects, that it was bad business, poor financial policy, and that we should rather leave these things alone, leave them to older countries which could supply us with the finished article manufactured there, but the government of those days thought differently and carried on with its project. We remember the tremendous fight in this House about Iscor, a fight which was carried on to the end. This House eventually passed the Bill, but the Other Place, where the old S.A.P. had a majority at the time, rejected the Bill. This House passed it again, and after it had been rejected by the Senate for the second time the government of the day was compelled to call a joint sitting of the two Houses to get the extremely important Bill in regard to the iron and steel industry passed. Consequently, the fight was waged to the end until we had a joint sitting. And today? Today all sides talk with pride of this magnificent enterprise. I am mentioning this matter not with the object of dragging in any party feelings, but only to show how difficult it was to convince people even of the necessity of the establishment of key industries. Members with national sentiments always felt very strongly on the point, and all those years we have been pointing out that it would be a good thing, and in this time of dislocation—this time which we are passing through at present—we find that this industry is really a key industry without which we would not be able to get on. I wonder what would have become of us if we had not had our iron and steel industry today. Today we realise its value, and if the government of the day had not taken that step of establishing the iron and steel industry by means of State assistance we would not yet have had that industry today, and we would have been in serious trouble. The attitude which we adopt is that as this matter has turned out to be such a huge success the Government today should go further and also tackle other enterprises in the same way. It is not only the iron and steel industry which is a key industry; it is not only the iron and steel industry which is a vital necessity to the country, but there are many other things too which are highly essential and which should be developed. After all the struggle about Iscor it has turned out to be a good thing, one of the best measures ever taken by any government throughout the whole of our history. That being the case the government of the day should consider the question of also tackling other matters in the same way. It is of the greatest importance to us also to develop other industries in the same manner. I was a member of the Select Committee in those days, which sat for months and months to consider the question of the establishment of the iron and steel industry, and in spite of the extremely favourable report which we had before us, members told us that the thing would never pay, that it never could pay, that the industry could not possibly exist; in the second place they said that the State should withdraw from it. They were strongly opposed to the establishment of the industry, but their objections have turned out to be entirely unfounded. In the first place the industry has paid, and in the second place it has been proved that the interference and assistance of the Government is not an evil but a benefit to the country. Today, in these times through which we are passing, no obstacle should be placed in the way of industrial development. The motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (District), with the amendment of the hon. member for Maitland, shows very clearly that obstacles are very definitely placed in the way of the development of industries. Those obstacles should be removed, and should be replaced by encouragement and assistance, especially in times like the present, and in the near future. We are almost cut off from the rest of the world today, and it is quite possible that we may be cut off entirely. Our imports may be almost completely brought to a standstill, and we say that this is the right time, and that this is the opportune moment for the Government to tackle the whole matter. I am afraid that it may even be a little bit late, the Government should have thought of it earlier. When, soon as war broke out, there was still ample opportunity to get machinery and all the necessary requirements, and the Government should have taken steps to get these requirements into the country, so that our industries could be extended and enabled to carry on. It is necessary for the feeding and the clothing of the people, and for the general care of the people, and for the expansion of the field of labour today and after the war. Will there be an adequate field of labour for all the people who after the war will come back from the field of battle? We who know what happened after the last war, and what is going to happen again today, realise the position. It makes one jealous to see how a country like the United States of America is economically independent, and how practically anything may happen without that country economically being placed in an impossible position. America may suffer damage, the war may detrimentally affect it, but it is economically independent, and it need not turn to England or to any other country in the world for necessary things. We in South Africa could have been in the same position if we had established more secondary industries to support our primary industries, and to stand by our primary industries. I do not know how much too late it is, and to what extent it may perhaps be impossible for the Government to expand today in that respect, but even at this late sage the Government should do all in its power to develop and establish secondary industries. It is very clear, however, that it would be very difficult today to do these things with private capital. Unfortunately we are not allowed now to discuss the influence of the taxes, and the fact that those taxes are having a discouraging effect on people in regard to investing their profits in new industries. Rightly or wrongly that is a fact. The Government therefore had to step in, and just as the previous Government had to step in, in regard to the iron and steel industry, it is necessary today as well to render State help to establish vital industries. I therefore move as a further amendment—

Here we have something practical; here we are putting something forward, something concrete, and we are helping the hon. member for Maitland, who says that “Something must be done”. We say here what must be done, and we say that the Government must tackle the processing of raw materials as a matter of vital importance to the people. It is essential for the sake of the food, clothing, and care of the people, and as the possibility does exist that during this war we may perhaps very soon have to rely upon ourselves for goods of all kinds, articles manufactured from wool, etc., the Government should render the necessary assistance, and, where necessary, step in to establish industries. The utility principle is a sound principle, not only as a basis for the Government to render assistance, but also for the people, those individuals who still have capital to invest, to invest it in those concerns. I therefore urge that the Government should render assistance on the utility principle to establish industries on the lines of the iron and Steel industry. There are numerous industries which can be made a great success of. It is of vital interest to the people. It is of essential interest. It is vital to tackle this matter, and if we tackle it at his sage posterity, the generation which after this war will have to be built up from the very bottom, will be very grateful to us in the far distant future for the work we have done if we follow this course.

I second. In spite of what the industries of South Africa are. South Africa is primarily an agricultural country, and if we want to develop agriculture we must also take care of our inland market, and we cannot do that better than by increasing the purchasing power of the community. If we want the full value out of our products, and if we want to give the people of the country the full use of our products, we must give them to the consumer of this country and to the overseas consumer, not in the raw form, but in the processed form. Why should we send our wool, for example, 6,000 miles overseas to be processed there and to provide work for thousands of labourers there? And then it again comes back to this country, and then we have to pay for it here. I feel that we ought to keep our wool in this country and to process it here. That would at the same time provide our labour forces in this country with adequate wages. To my mind that is the best means of providing a proper living for the labour forces in this country. We import into this country processed fish to the value of £489,688.

Is that in weight?

No, that is in value. In 1939 we imported fish to the value of £489,688. Since we can process it in this country, why do we not make proper use of our fisheries ? Why is this not encouraged by the Government? In 1938 we imported clothing into this country to the value of £6,691,882, notwithstanding the fact that we send all our wool overseas. Here we have the best opportunity of processing our own products and then exporting them. We imported machinery to the value of £17,000,000 or £18,000,000. I take it that we cannot make everything here, but what we do feel is that a big percentage of it can be made here. We find that for a small population of 2,000,000 Europeans and of less than 10,000,000, if one includes the non-Europeans, we imported into this country during the year 1939, goods to the value of over £90,000,000. We feel that we have not by any means done everything in order to encourage our own factories in the country. It is no use our saying, what did the previous Government do, or what did it not do? The position is that we ought to face facts, and see to it that we make proper use of the opportunities which we have. The hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), correctly said that after this war our men will return, and where will they get employment? We must expect a time of depression, and it is for the very reason that we expect that that this is the time to make a start. It is no use saying that machinery is expensive. It will be much more expensive to feed those returned soldiers when they do unproductive work, than when they are placed on a productive basis whereby we give them a proper living. It is no use finding excuses. We must remember that nothing lowers or demoralises one more than when one cannot make one’s own living. I feel that we ought to do everything in this direction, and I trust that the Government of the day and the hon. Minister will give their attention to this matter, and not allow themselves to be deterred by all sorts of difficulties.

I think probably there will be general agreement with some of the views expressed this afternoon in favour of a definite speeding up of industry, where it can be done and where the industries which exist in this country today can be further developed. To my mind, however, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) does not meet the position. He proposes to ask the Board of Trade to go into the matter, although he stressed the point that it is urgently necessary for immediate steps to be taken in order to further the development of industry. Already the Board of Trade is overworked, however, and could not deal effectively with the position. My own experience tells me, I advance this view with some trepidation, but my own experience tells me that there has not been sufficient push in the departments of the Government which deal with these matters. The hon. member for South Peninsula spoke of the fish industry. One of the things we needed for the army was as much extra canned food as we could possibly get, and we investigated in order to see how far we could supplement the rations which were asked for with locally produced canned fish. We found, first of all, that the local factories with the exception, I think, of one, were quite inadequate to expand production to any marked degree. One or two factories are good, but there is this difficulty in connection with the fish industry, that there are only certain types of fish suitable for canning, and they only run at certain times of the year. But our factories were totally inadequate to deal with supplies which could have been made available. There is no doubt about it that if these factories had been properly developed and organised, the output of canned fish in this country could have been quadrupled. What has happened since then, I don’t know. Now I want to take another industry, canned fruit. The Government authorised the canning industry of this country to go into full production and to keep that plant fully employed in canning everything they could in the way of jam, fruit and vegetables. They went into full production and their output was trebled, and the whole of these supplies were taken up and used. Then there was difficulty in getting adequate supplies of tin plate. Over a period of eighteen months or two years immense quantities of canned jam and fruit had already been prepared and sent overseas, but the output of these industries is regulated entirely by the extent to which you can get tinplate, which has to come from the United States. I know that measures were taken last year to see that these supplies were obtainable, but shipping difficulties arose and the canning industry experienced the same trouble as other undertakings in supplying their wants in the matter of machinery and plant. On the other hand, an encouraging sign is that this country is turning out ever-increasing quantities of machinery and plant which can be used in industry. A great deal of plant and equipment which used to be imported is now being manufactured here in our own factories. With regard to a point mentioned by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet), the Government has power, under the Emergency Regulations, to overcome difficulties arising from existing legislation. The army biscuit is a case in point. In manufacturing army biscuits we had not sufficient wheat, and certain legislation stood in the way of getting supplies. We contacted the Wheat Board and the Department of Agriculture, and got all the supplies we wanted. So the Government has power, under the Emergency Regulations to deal with many of the difficulties which hamper the development of industry. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has suggested the starting of State industries. In that connection I would point out that the Government has set up an industrial development corporation which investigates new industries, and has power to assist those which show a reasonable chance of standing up in the future. I can give an instance. We wanted a certain army ration, and the firm concerned pointed out that they had to make tests, and extra costs were involved. What happened was this. We went into the whole question, and the Government has actually taken over that plant, lock, stock and barrel, and the whole thing is being run under State control.

That is merely a temporary war time factory.

No. That factory can be developed, and will be used after the war for canning foodstuffs hundreds of thousands of pounds worth, of which we have been in the habit of importing. I have had tests made in this country on behalf of the War Supplies Board in regard to canned vegetables which this country only produced in small quantities. We got samples made of different types of canned vegetables, potatoes, peas, tomatoes, carrots, beans, and so on, and we had those samples sent over to Great Britain. They told us that they were some of the best samples they had ever seen. Unfortunately we had not got the stocks, and had to advise the people overseas that if they wanted that type of canned vegetable, we had to get the vegetables, but we would be in a position to supply them. The standard that the war authorities demand has resulted in our factories turning out foods equal to any in the world, and we are supplying not only our own troops, but armies elsewhere. Those factories will be useful after the war.

What would happen if State assistance is withdrawn after the war?

It is not a question of these factories wanting Government subsidies. They are actually producing today; there is one in the Western Province at Paarl that has an output of enormous quantities of canned vegetables. What is essential, however, is to be absolutely certain that we are going to get adequate stocks of tinplate. For that purpose a Board was set up over a year ago. We can only get supplies from the United States now, but if that fails Great Britain will be prepared to help us for domestic purposes, but that is a thing which is absolutely essential. I personally would hesitate very much to increase the establishment of further industries unless we are perfectly certain that those industries can carry on effectively after the war. As I said before, I don’t think there is any need to send this to the Board of Trade, which already has all that it can possibly do. I suggest that the powers which the Government already have are sufficient, and that they should ginger up those people who have to do with these matters.

My difficulty with this system which we have is that we talk and talk, until we are blue in the face; we pass resolutions, but nothing is accomplished. Only last week we had a fine discussion on the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) so much so, that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister also took part in the debate and said: “It is a fine idea; we must work out that idea, but give me some plan.” The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) who perhaps aspires to a post in the Cabinet …

It is not necessary to indulge in personalities.

I withdraw it. The hon. member for Maitland is a big industrialist. He says that something must be done. We should like the Government to take effective steps now. There is no doubt that the Government can get funds for other purposes, and we say that the Government can also get these funds so as to make the best use of our resources and industrial systems. We are glad that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) proposed this motion. You have seen what support it has received on all sides of the House. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) added something to that amendment, and I should like to add something more, because I think that it will promote the matter; and the matter is so comprehensive that the motion still does not cover everything. My amendment will read as follows—

This is what we on this side of the House regard as the duties of a State which has the interests of its people at heart. The State should be responsible for that type of thing. It is no use saying that the State will grant subsidies. Two years ago we passed the National Development Act. It has functioned for more than a year now. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) who is on the board, told us of one case where the Government has now stepped in and done something, and that is to encourage the canning of fruit and vegetables in this country. That is all that has been done in a whole year, and then he still makes the excuse that we cannot expand it because we have not the necessary tin. But that is just the point that we want to make. It is only then that we shall not be dependent upon the importation of these things from other countries, if we develop our own resources. We have all those articles. We have tin, iron, etc. We talk and talk: we pass resolutions; boards are appointed, but those resolutions are not carried out. Here we have the third report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission. May I just quote a few passages here which will convince the House that the commissions which we appoint do provide us with the necessary information, and point out the course that we should follow; but that course is not followed. For some reason or other our Government is not in a position—what the reason is I cannot say—to give effect to it. On page 79 there is this finding of the commission, for example, and they say this—

That is what the experts say. Why are commissions appointed if their recommendations are not carried out? Why should I come and waste my breath here if the Government accepts proposals, and we find such recommendations in blue books, but nevertheless nothing further is done? We want the Government to act. In the same report, we further find the following on page 78—

The only solution, as the Commission indicates, is to erect and to expand factories, so that we can avoid those things. Technical people compiled this report, and we ask the Government to give effect to the recommendations of its own people. We have all the requirements in our own country. We have chromium, iron, tin, manganese and magnasite, asbestos and all sorts of raw materials. In my constituency there are large quantities of chromium, asbestos and magnasite, and it only awaits Government assistance in order to develop it, and the erection of the necessary factories in order to process the raw materials. Those articles are necessary not only for the war, but also after the war. We want the Government to step in and to adopt the attitude that there are assets in the country which are awaiting development. We must develop those assets so that we can elevate the country and make a rich country for our descendants. I am glad that the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) indicated so clearly what could be done in respect of the agricultural industry. This Commission also recommends it. This Commission recommends, inter alia, that the agricultural industry should be placed on a better footing, and it is admitted by the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), who is on that Board, that we require those things now, and that we will also require them after the war. We possess great riches in our country, but in the past the position was that our goods had to be shipped to England and other countries; our chromium, our manganese, etc., are shipped there and processed there, and some day when they are returned to us we have to pay a hundred times as much for those products as we received for them. We must develop those resources in our country and manufacture our own goods from them. For that reason I move this amendment, which I have already read. I just want to emphasise the matter of decentralisation which is mentioned therein. We do not want all the factories to be at one place, but they should be spread throughout the country so that the whole population of the country can derive benefit.

It gives me pleasure to second the amendment of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman). After having heard all about the material which we have in this country, which we can develop to the advantage of our people and our country, one feels that the only thing which is lacking is a good Government to do those things. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), told us how the Government was assisting industrial development, but what struck me is that it seems to me that the industries which they are developing are for the duration of the war only, although the hon. member said that there was a plan to continue those industries after the war. But he coupled with that something which set me thinking. He says that they must not go too far, because what would we do after; the war with all the canned fruit and vegetables? I therefore became suspicious of those factories, and I have a feeling that after the war they will perhaps disappear. Now we say this: We have already delayed too long in our country in the erection of factories, and we see only too clearly today in South Africa that we are suffering because the world is at war. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) told us that we could not get machinery from overseas today, unless it is certified that it is used for war purposes. I do not want to go into war questions, but we know what the reasons for it are. I just want to say this, that it shows us that we must have more factories in South Africa after this war than we have today, and than we had in the past. I am glad that some of the members on the other side who were so strenuously opposed to our industries and to industrial development in South Africa, are now also in favour of it. I am very glad to see that, but what I want to emphasise especially is that we should not erect factories in order to exploit our people. They must not be erected to provide large profits to certain people. It creates more capital in the country, and it does the country good, because it increases the income of the impoverished section of the people. I say that the State ought to establish factories and use them in the interests of the country. After the war there will be many opportunities of getting workers for the factories, because we have not only seen during the past few years that there is a regular influx from the platteland to the towns—because people cannot make a living on the platteland—but I feel convinced, as various members have already said, that the greater majority of the soldiers, also some of those who came from the platteland and who had other work, will go to the towns after the war in order to work in the factories. The State will have to be prepared to train those people to be efficient in our factories. If we establish factories, as we propose in our amendment, then the farming community will also derive benefit to a great extent, apart from the fact that they will be able to sell their fruit and vegetables which have been canned; apart from the fact that it will be possible to export those goods, those factories will provide work for the people of the platteland. If the farmers can get a regular and good price for their canned fruit and vegetables, they will not flock to the towns, but they will remain in the country because it pays them, and because they would naturally not like to live in the towns, but would like to make their living on the platteland. There is something else which I noticed in connection with our factories. We establish factories but the prices of the factory articles are not based on costs but on the price of the imported article. As the price of the imported article rises or falls, so the price of the local article rises or falls. I hope that the State will take steps in so far as that is concerned. There are certain laws which provide that the State can take steps, and I hope that those laws will be applied and will be framed in such a way that we can prevent that type of thing. The erection of factories will prevent further impoverishment amongst the people of our country, and will even result in the victims of the old order, who are victims of this method on the part of the factories in giving people work at meagre wages, being saved from that, and in further impoverishment being prevented. The factories will safeguard the position of the middle classes because they will receive a normal wage, or the Government ought to see to it that they receive a normal wage from the factories. That would create sound conditions in our country, and for that reason it is a pleasure to me to second the amendment of the hon. member for Lydenburg.

This debate in which I propose to intervene briefly has not proceeded according to plan. That is partly so because the original motion has come to be lost in a welter of amendments in which each particular group in this House sets forward its own industrial policy, but mainly because it was really intended to be a different debate from what it has turned out to be. I came here prepared for a financial debate, to discuss questions of excess profits duty and the like, and I was certainly surprised when I heard that I was not going to be expected to do so. I had not anticipated that that would be the effect of the notice of motion which I gave at the end of my Budget speech for the House to go into Committee on Ways and Means on taxation proposals, and I assure my hon. friends opposite that I certainly never thought that by doing so I would be blocking them in the discussion of matters which they wished to raise. The Notice of Motion which I gave at the end of my Budget speech was the customary Notice of Motion, which is always given there, it had to be given there, and was not given with any sinister motives nor with the intention of cramping their style. The result of the developments which have taken place is that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) made, if he will allow me to say so, a not very conclusive speech, he could not work up to the climax to which he intended to work up. He started in his motion by talking about legislation, the necessity of revising the present legislation which hampers the development of existing and potential industries. He really meant to discuss legislation dealing with taxation, but he could not deal with that, and so he could not refer to any legislation at all which hampers the development of existing and potential industries. So really there is very little to answer so far as the terms of his motion are concerned. As has been pointed out here in the course of the debate, the position insofar as it needs to be dealt with can be dealt with quite well by administrative action by the use of the powers which the Government has. There has been no suggestion of any change of policy as far as the Government is concerned in regard to the encouragement of industries; there has been no indication given of any change in our legislation. All that was in the mind of my hon. friend was the effect of taxation on industrial development, and that he could not speak on. That, of course, is a subject on which I suppose he expected me to speak also. I am afraid I cannot do so, I can only say that I dealt with his motion in advance in the Budget speech, and I refer him to what I said there. I said that this was intended to be a financial debate, but it has come to be something different—it has come to be an industrial debate. The various parties have used this debate as a sounding board for putting forward their industrial policies. The debate has not really been a debate for the Minister of Finance but for the Minister of Commerce and Industries. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Commerce and Industries, owing unfortunately to illness is unable to be present here today, but he will deal with questions such as raised here in regard to the development of industries, existing and potential when his vote comes up for discussion at an early date, and I have no doubt that what has been said here as bearing on his policy will be conveyed to him. I am not going into the general questions raised here. My main purpose is to remove a possible wrong impression which the speeches made in that corner may have left in the minds of the country and the House. The hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) certainly painted far too gloomy a picture of the position in regard to industrial development—far too gloomy a picture; a picture of retrogression and standstill, and indeed of decline, and with that he coupled the statement that no one on earth would think of beginning a new industry in present circumstances. I happen to have here a newspaper cutting from a Johannesburg paper of a few months ago. I read it with all the necessary qualifications; I have no means of confirming all the statements here, but I read it as giving a different picture from what was given here—

That gives rather a different picture from what we have had this afternoon, and I must say that I was certainly surprised by the statement which the hon. member for Pretoria (District) made indicating that there has come a clean stoppage in the registration of new factories. I have not been able to check the actual facts as mentioned by him, but I have obtained information as giving an explanation of what he has said here, and that explanation comes from the Department of Labour. That department tells me that any fading off in the registration of new factories has been due to administrative delays in recording new registrations, these delays being the result of the provisions of the new Factories Act. Those figures which the hon. member for Pretoria (District) quoted are not to be accounted for by the fact that new factories have not been started; they are not the result of any economic or fiscal causes, but they are simply due to administrative delays in registration as a consequence of the new Factories Act. Insofar as the hon. member bases his case on these figures he quoted, I am afraid his case largely falls away in consequence of the statement which I have now made. And that statement is also borne out by what one finds in the figures given in the Monthly Bulletin of Union Statistics. I have the last issue before me. I wish to give the House the index figures of industrial employment in certain classes of industry, the main fourteen classes of industry for the last available month, that is, November, 1941, as compared with November, 1940. These are expressed as a percentage on July, 1935. I find that for Europeans the figure was in 1941 112 as compared with 103 for November, 1940; for natives it was 150, and for November, 1940, 128; for Asiatics 156, and twelve months previously 130; for coloureds 156, and twelve months previously 139; a definite increase over the twelve months as far as employment is concerned. And when I look at the general index of employment covering all industries, except alluvial diamond diggings, I find this; The figure for Europeans in November, 1941, was 1,880; in November, 1940, 1,782; in 1939 1,771. So real progress has taken place in the last twelve months. For non-Europeans the figure in November, 1941, was 1,906; November 1940 1,793; November, 1939, 1,676. Taking all races, the latest index figure (July, 1925, being the basic figure), was 1,900 In November, 1940, it was 1,790; in 1939, 1,700; so from the point of view of employment there is an increase, and an accelerating increase in the amount of industrial employment in South Africa, and that surely should add to what I have already said in knocking the bottom out of the case which the hon. member for Pretoria, District, put forward. Then I give another pointer in the same direction. We have established the Industrial Development Corporation. Recently, when I was preparing the estimates of expenditure on Loan Account, I was asked by the Industrial Development Corporation to make certain additional sums available to it. Now, of course, the Industrial Development Corporation for the most part uses its funds to assist other industries, but it does not establish them. It may even only underwrite the provision necessary for industries. On the facts made available to me, I find that the money which we made available to that Industrial Corporation a year ago now barely covers their existing commitments, and they have proposals under discussion which involve a very considerable expenditure.

How much is there for existing industries?

No, this is for new industries, and they have under these proposals given seven heads of which I do not think I can appropriately give details of at present. When the suggestion is made here that industrial development it at a standstill and is retrogressing in South Africa, I can only say that that statement is not borne out by the facts. Now, let me say at once that the war time development of industries for civilian production has not been as rapid as we expected it to be in the light of what happened during the last war, say eighteen months or two years ago. There have been difficulties to which reference has been made in this debate, there are difficulties today, difficulties of labour, difficulties in getting raw materials, and in some cases difficulties in getting plant. But we must not forget that there has been extremely rapid development in our war industries, and it is that which has brought about a condition of full employment. We have today in South Africa, we have had for some time, what the economists would call full employment, and when that is the position it is not desirable to have an industrial boom, irrespective of the justification for starting any and every kind of new industry. Where you have full employment you cannot just go full steam ahead in industrial development of all kinds—you have to be selective. I think it will interest the House if I were to read from a recent report of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. This statement gives the position in that country. What is said in this report is not quite appropriate to South Africa—certainly things have gone there a good deal further than here, but what is said there does indicate the essential nature of the problem—

We have not done that, but that does, I venture to suggest to hon. members, indicate some Gf these factors which have generally been overlooked in this debate in relation to the development of industries for civilian production. But let me say quite definitely and specifically — the Government’s policy continues to be a policy of encouraging industrial development. The Government fully realises how important from the point of view of the development of South Africa it is that there should be expansion in our industries, and that these should play an increasing part in our national life. We have given ample evidence of that fact. One of the first things we did was to appoint that Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission which has produced some excellent reports from the last of which quotations were made this afternoon. That report only appeared a week ago, and already the Government is attacked for not having complied with all the recommendations. That is typical of the kind of criticism to which the Government is subjected, but as a matter of fact we have done quite a lot in giving effect to the recommendations of this Commission from time to time. Then we have created the Industrial Development Corporation which, it seems to me, does essentially what is proposed in the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) in so far as it can be done, and that is why I do not think we need go any further along the direction which he suggests. I repeat that is our policy, we have acted in terms of that policy and we are continuing to act in terms of that policy, and we shall certainly be prepared to do all we can to stimulate the development of our industries along sound lines. May I just say this finally: The question has been raised here in the course of the debate: “What of the future?” It is perfectly true that our Industrial development in the last few years has been largely in respect of production for purposes connected with the war. That is true, but very many of these industries, those war industries, can very easily be adapted to peaceful purposes later. Moreover, one of the main things that has happened in the last two years has been the development of key industries, like the Iron and Steel industry which must necessarily be basic to further development in the time which lies ahead. We must not, of course,—I think there has been a tendency to do so in this debate— we must not overlook the difficulties with which we shall be faced in the postwar period. There will be countries with a large surplus of productive capacity with the necessity of finding markets for their goods, there will be competition for us to face which will inevitably result from that fact. Now that is a point to which the Government has already been giving a good deal of attention, but apart from any legislative or administrative action which we may take in that connection, I cannot help feeling that the main thing for us to do is to look to our markets. I think it was the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) who raised the question of markets on the Continent of Africa, and I was glad that he did so, because that is an important question, but it is certainly wrong to suggest that we have not been looking to those markets. In the last year we have negotiated agreements with Angola and the Congo, we have sent consuls to Elizabethville, Leopoldville and Cairo, and I have no doubt whatever that just as in the past sometimes trade has followed the flag, so in the future trade is going to follow the footsteps of our South African soldiers. They have been building up relationships between the Union and the countries to the North, relationships which are going to be of very considerable importance for us in the post-war development of our industries. May I say one thing more. One quite important thing is happening today, and that is the tendency of wage board determinations to raise the wage scales of our native workers. That is going to mean that to an increasing extent you are going to realise the potentialities of the non-European consumer in South Africa, and ultimately that is going to be one of the most important factors in the development of South African industries. Well, sir, as I indicated, I am not going to keep the House long, I admit I have not dealt fully with all the issues raised in this debate. Those are matters more appropriate to be dealt with by the responsible Minister, but I have given a general indication of the Government’s attitude, and I hope I have succeeded in removing that quite unjustifiably gloomy impression which may have been created by the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost).

It is usually very difficult to address the House after such a capable Minister has dealt with the matter. The Minister of Finance has mentioned practically everything here that I wanted to raise, but there are just a few points which I want to deal with. The impression which I got from the speeches of the Opposition to which we listened was that hon. members were of opinion that the country should now suddenly veer round to a policy in favour of the Government establishing all industries. Hon. members on the other side, to whatever party they may belong or belonged, never adopted that attitude in the past. That was never their policy. Is it the new policy of hon. members on the other side that the Government should establish all the industries in the country which are necessary? That is definitely something new. Up to the present our Government has carried on with the policy of development which was followed in the past, and I want to ask hon. members whether they have any objection to that. Not one of them stood up this afternoon and attacked the industrial policy of the Government. The policy has always been that it is left to private initiative to establish industries. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) also clearly said that it should be left to private initiative. All the industries of which the hon. members for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) and Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) spoke, can be established privately. No one prevents them from doing so. If the hon. member for Lydenburg, for example, thinks that the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) neglected his duty by not manufacturing all the necessary tin in this country, I can tell him that this tin is made here, but we have not got the tinplate.

We have the raw material.

Only in small quantities. But apart from that the tin which is required in our country is so little that hon. members will not waste their time in seeing whether they can establish an industry for the manfacture of tinplate. It is economically unsound. There are many people who talk about the establishment of industries without properly considering whether it is economically possible. In any case, the manufacture of tinplate is not possible at the moment. Even if we were to have sufficient raw materials the machinery would not be available. Why then blame the hon. member for Pretoria, Central, in connection with the organisation on which he is engaged, since he says that they have not the necessary tinplate here in order to make tin. But when they can get it they make the article. It seems to me that hon. members say things without proper reflection. The hon. member for Malmesbury, for example, asked why we did not use our wool in order to produce all the clothing which is required in the country. People with knowledge of that type of business have considered from time to time whether it would be economically sound to manufacture clothing here, but as the hon. member for Pretoria, Central, also said, we wear so many different kinds of clothing that the small quantity of clothing which we can use here renders it impossible to make a worsted clothing factory a paying proposition. We would have to export the greatest portion of the products which are manufactured. Where? If we have to export, then we have the expenses against us. Then we shall have to export to countries which are in a more favourable position to manufacture.

We have the wool here.

We have too much wool, more wool than we can use for the purpose of making all the clothing which is used in the country. You must export the clothing, the ready-made article, because there is not a sufficiently big market in our country. The moment a factory has to export more than 50 per cent. of its products, it is, generally speaking, not a paying proposition. Hon. members can take it from me that that is an economic fact in the industrial sphere. What the hon. member for Pretoria, Central, did say and what is quite possible, is the development of wool refineries, such as the one opened in Durban, where we could wash and comb our own wool; and in that connection certain blankets can also be made for kaffirs, and military coats and other articles.

Are those made here?

Yes, we manufacture blankets here, and I think the hon. member knows very well what I mean. The hon. member for Lydenburg advocated industrial decentralisation; that we should set up industries everywhere in the country. Does the hon. member want us to erect a factory at Lydenburg, for example, which could operate much more favourably at Swellendam? That is soft soap for the voters …

Because you have sufficient industries at Vereeniging …

But the hon. member must surely take into consideration the economic circumstances. One must establish industries where they pay best economically, and if people want to invest money in the establishment of industries they surely have the right to choose where they want to invest their money. Why do hon. members now advocate the establishment of industries irrespective of the question where they would best pay? If the hon. member for Lydenburg wants to establish an industry at Lydenburg which will pay much better at Swellendam, how long would he succeed in holding out?

Who would be so stupid?

But the hon. member for Lydenburg proposed that.

Do you think that we are so stupid as to propose that?

Decentralisation of industries simply means, therefore—and so it was intended by hon. members—that our industries should be spread throughout the country and not be at a few places. Their motion is unsound, and hon. members know that these are merely attractive things which are held out to the voters. They advocate industries for their constituencies, and then they say that the Government does not want to do it; but the Government has nothing to do with the establishment of industries; not directly.

Surely gold mines are where the gold is, and we have asbestos and chrome; why cannot we establish the industries where the raw materials are?

When the chrome ore has been taken out of the earth, it has to be melted. We melt it at Vereeniging. Why? Because we have sufficient electricity there. Have they got that at Lydenburg? No. We have coal at Vereeniging.

One does not get electricity out of the ground.

The power station at Vereeniging is situated on a coal mine, next to the water, and at the big mines. That is where a business man would place his factory, at a place where it is economically sound. One cannot establish industries irrespective of economic considerations. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) spoke about protection. One thing is certain; one cannot have both. The hon. members for Pretoria (District) and Hoopstad said that we should look for a market in other parts of Africa. The Minister has already said what is being done by the Government, but there is a price above which one cannot dispose of goods. The moment one establishes an industry under great protection, as the hon. member suggests, so as to be able to make profit in the country, production costs rise, and one must then find a price for the article which makes it worth while; and if that price is higher than the price at which other countries can sell the article in Africa, we shall not find a market for our articles. I am just pointing out that it is easy to say that industries should be established, and that markets should be found. When one resorts to tariff protection in order to establish industries, one reaches the stage when one cannot make a living. For that reason I say that we should be careful in building a great protective wall around our industries, because then we shall not be able to compete with overseas countries. We may succeed in selling a certain quantity at high prices in our own country under protection, but one could easily go too far. I am not against protection, but I am just pointing out that it can be dangerous to establish industries under a high protective tariff. The hon. member for Winburg spoke of America. That is a big self-supporting country, and there things can be done which we cannot do here, especially because there is a great internal market in America which we have not got. They can build up big industries and erect tariff walls around their country, but they have a big internal market in their own country. But we have not reached that stage. And what is the position in America? They will yet suffer under the high tariff walls after the war, as surely as we sit here. It is an artificial system which has to suffer a setback eventually. We talk about the erection of industries, and I am just pointing out the sound direction. One must establish those industries which can be started with a small measure of protection so as to get them going, and which can then carry on. The hon. member referred to Iscor, but Iscor was not established, as he says, under protection. What did happen in that case is that a C.I.F. scheme was introduced. I am 100 per cent. in favour of that. I am altogether in favour of fixing a price under which an imported article cannot come into this country. That price is based on the general world price. That is merely to prevent other countries from dumping their goods here at any price in order to kill our industries. But that is not tariff protection.

All the countries dump.

The majority of the big countries dump, but I can tell hon. members that the C.I.F. price of Iscor has always been lower than the imported price. We can congratulate Iscor on being able to stand on its own feet without protection.

Why is Iscor not expanded then?

There are other industries which are today receiving great protection; from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent., and that is what drives up the cost of living. It is no use saying that there are so many thousands of workers employed in the factories as a result of protection. One might just as well expand industries which do not require protection. Then one does not bring about an increase in the cost of living to the public in general. We must be very careful in connection with the building up of industries, so that we do not make the cost of production so high that the internal cost of living rises and that later on we cannot compete with overseas countries. Then one kills one’s own industries in the end, and one drives up cost of living.

If your policy is followed, what will happen then when we cannot import, at a time like this, for example? Surely we should try to be selfsupporting.

I am only indicating the direction in which sound development lies.

Are you opposed to State-supported industries?

I have not spoken of that. The State created the Industrial Corporation for that purpose, and I supported it.

But by means of protection?

I am not against protection, but it must not be too high, because then internal costs rise, and the price of the article becomes so high that one cannot find other markets. I return now to the hon. member for Pretoria, District. He said that the Government was according the mining industry preference with regard to the importation of machinery, instead of giving other small industries a chance.

On a point of explanation. I said that the big mines, the gold mines, had so much capital available, so much reserve capital, that when the war broke out they immediately bought machinery on a very large scale, and that occurred at the expense of smaller industries who experience difficulty in getting hold of machinery.

Then I misunderstood the hon. member. He says then that the mines took precautionary measures with a view to getting hold of machinery at the outbreak of war, so that they would have the machinery which they might need; but the smaller companies cannot import now. Well, after all, that is the position in time of war, and the Government must give preference to machinery which is required for war production. We cannot get away from that fact.

That retards development then.

As the Minister explained, no retarding influence is exercised. There are many more people employed in industry today than before the war. Why further expansion has not taken place was explained by the Minister. No one would be so foolish during war time as to buy machinery which costs twice as much as it did before the war and will apparently cost after the war, apart from the difficulty of getting hold of the machinery. Only recently I had this experience in connection with an industry which I established. The whole industry was ready, but we still had to get one machine. The machines were on board a ship which was sunk. The industry is there, but it cannot be operated because the machine has not arrived. Circumstances fluctuate to such an extent, and it is so difficult to get hold of machinery that it is quite understandable that fewer companies are being registered for the purpose of establishing industries, but more people are employed in industries than previously, as was shown by the figures which the Minister gave. I now move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—57:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—39:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

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.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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