I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to just explain to the House very briefly that the reason why I am asking for this extension of time for this Committee, is not due to any dilatoriness on the part of the Committee itself. We sat never less than three days a week, and sometimes four days a week, and sometimes in parliamentary time when that has been possible, but there has been a great deal of evidence to take, and it has been necessary to secure information in regard to soldiers’ pay from the other Dominions within the British Commonwealth. Actually we have only this morning received a reply from Australia, so it has been quite impossible for us to complete the work. I am hopeful that with this extension we will be able to report on the date mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last week I was discussing the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that the policy that had been adopted in 1936—’37, making provision for natives in urban areas, should be changed. She suggested that we should establish parallel native townships with our European townships, and there give natives title. I met that with the reply that the policy of the Government then, and it has been followed up since then, was to proceed with housing plans, making provision for large numbers of natives who are earning a living wage in towns. I think at this stage, in view of the development that is taking place in the country and the uncertainty of the economic position, that is the only policy that can be or should be carried out. I agree that there are numbers of natives who have been in these towns for a considerable time, and whose interests are there, but in changing policies of this nature I think we must look to the great masses, and make provision for those masses who have drifted to the towns to seek labour purely during a temporary period, such as we are going through now. If you look at what has been done in the course of the last five or six years in this country you will find important townships where industries have been created. You will find there has been a very definite move forward in making provision for the housing of natives. Last year I had the opportunity of travelling right through the Union, and wherever I went I saw the recognition by the responsible people of this country of their duty to the natives, and there was an urge on the part of municipal authorities to make housing provision for natives. I think at this stage that is the only thing we can do. Looking at it from the point of view of the interests of the natives alone, as the hon. member has stated, there is extreme poverty, but I disagree with her to a large extent. On our travels we went through these urban locations, and we saw many of their homes, and we saw them very well furnished, in many cases with furniture of a nature you find in many European houses and homes—most of it I am sorry to say on the hire purchase system—hut it was there. We found, generally speaking, the natives in those areas were satisfied and happy, and it seems to me if we proceed along the lines I have suggested that is the way of meeting the difficulties we are facing today. I think, sir, we are not expediting these housing schemes sufficiently, and the cost of these houses is excessive. We of the Native Affairs Commission have met the Housing Board, and pointed out that houses costing £200 to £250 are not what are required at this stage, and the native cannot pay the rent. I have made enquiries and I find that in Northern Rhodesia and the copper mines they are erecting houses of a similar nature to these, two rooms, kitchen and an out-house, at a cost of £40, constructed of Kimberley brick. In the course of our visits to these places, we found out that if the present housing policy is pursued it will take at least a hundred years to overtake the demand, or to meet the demand of the natives in urban areas, and therefore I think that we must adopt a simpler plan of construction of these houses. Down at Kingwilliamstown the Native Trust found they had to meet a similar position, and at a cost of £25 small cottages suitable for the natives and infinitely better than the hovels they are living in in those areas, were erected, and I think the Government should enquire into that aspect of the position, because until we can suitably house these natives we will have this continual agitation on the part of both natives and Europeans. We found conditions prevailing in those urban areas that were absolutely disgraceful. I have seen hovels in many locations where pigs would not be put by the ordinary individual, and if the Government would try to encourage this housing expedite it, we will meet that trouble that we have both from the European and from the native. Parallel with that I think we should carry out more expeditious development of our native rural areas. There is no doubt that the native rural areas have not been developed to the extent that we anticipated when we passed those Acts in 1936—’37. The millions of pounds that were voted by this House were not for the acquisition of Land only, but for the development of that land as well, and the point I wish to make, and have made repeatedly in this House, is that very little development of a permanent nature is embarked on in those rural areas. I refer especially to the Transkeian territories, where we have wonderful water supplies. I do not know of any irrigation scheme of any consequence that has been inaugurated there during the last five or six years. We have in the Transkei water power excelling anything else in the Union, huge water falls where electricity could be generated, and where development should take place, and I think that the attention of the Government should be directed to the development of that nature in those areas. I think the most serious thing we are facing in this country today, is the fact that we are educating large numbers of natives. In the Native Trust we are continually met by demands for grants towards scholastic institutions for higher education for the native. Only recently we agreed to the erection of a secondary school in the Transkei, and in these big towns large amounts of money have been expended. Wherever you go you see provision being made for education of the native up to matriculation and even beyond, but those natives have no openings whatsoever. The matriculated boy today can only become a teacher or go into an attorney’s office as a clerk, but there are no other openings for him, and it seems to me we should try to meet that particular difficulty by encouraging the natives to develop townships in their own areas where these men can take a part in civil life, and earn a living amongst their own people. Until we do that we are bound to have that drift to the towns, we are bound to have that type of agitator who comes down here and hopes to find a good opening, but after having received a good education he finds he has to go into some occupation which he thinks is below what he is entitled to. I think that is one of the most serious phases we are facing in this country, and I repeat that I think the Government, although they may not at this stage be able to vote greater amounts of money for the acquisition of land, should definitely try to develop the rural areas in which the natives are living. The hon. member for Cape Eastern raised this question of native trade unions. I do not think I can do better than refer the House to the report of the Native Affairs Commission of 1939—’40 dealing with this particular case. To-day we know there is an agitation by natives all through the country for recognition. The hon. member for Cape Eastern made use of two phrases that rather struck a chill in my heart. I do not know whether she spoke with responsibility, but she said: “Strikes denote a serious maladjustment of native policy”, and “Strikes are a hopeful sign and a reflection of grave economic grievances.” I think nobody in this House should say a strike amongst natives is a hopeful sign. A statement of that kind is not made with any great sense of responsibility. Those of us who know the natives know that they are of a fanatic nature. I remember the Bulhoek disaster that took place some time back, and those natives were driven by fanaticism, and they hesitated at nothing. You will find in the course of history in this country wherever any trouble occurred, there was an element of fanaticism behind it and we dread the day when a strike becomes a power in the hands of the natives. I think the Government should do everything in its power to help organise the natives so that when they have grievances they will be met in a properly constituted manner. I agree with the recommendations of the Native Affairs Commission in 1939—’40 dealing with this particular aspect—

There, I think, we have the germ of the solution of a trouble of this nature. We who are in close contact with the native, know that there is an element of suspicion amongst them, of dissatisfaction amongst them, and that is being worked upon by a certain type of native and a certain type of European, who does not realise his responsibility to the country as a whole. That element which they call “communists”—I do not know where they get that name from or exactly what the term denotes—is certainly not “good South African,” and such people certainly deserve some attention from the police. It is that type of person who is doing underground work, meeting natives at street corners and enlarging upon the unhappy conditions of natives generally, and urging on them continually the necessity for higher wages, that is the type of person that is unquestionably doing great harm not only to the Natives, but to the Native trade unions as a whole. If we read the history of trade unionism, we find it grew gradually amongst a type of religious person who was working for the good of himself and his people. There were clashes, of course, but at the same time there was steady progress. We find that these trade union movements amongst natives have sprung up like mushrooms, and are growing. We find native agitators going into the native territories, where there are no demands for trade unions, advocating that no native should work for under £2 a week, and that is upsetting the native, and is, I think, a very, very dangerous phase in our native administration. The Government will have to face that issue as being one of the most important and difficult issues we have to face in this country. Before I close, may I say that I think most of us who followed the Smit report, dealing with the economic conditions in urban areas, will realise that that body has done a tremendous lot of useful work, and that the Government is to a very large extent carrying out the recommendations of that Committee. I feel that the amount of wages is a very secondary one in matters of this nature. The native is a squanderer by nature. He spends his money freely, but I am convinced if we can better the conditions of natives in their homes and in the country generally, there will not be that continual demand for increased wages that we hear from these agitators. If the Government goes into that report carefully and carries out the recommendations wherever possible, it will be conducive to a more settled and contented mind amongst the natives, more than either giving them title in municipal areas, or by creating trade unions or things of that nature. They are a contented people, and they are an easy people to deal with, and if we give them fair play we will not have to face the dangers which we are facing at the present rime. In conclusion, I want to deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy). His amendment is that the Government should adopt the policy laid down by this House in the Hertzog Bills. The hon. member (Mr. Conroy) is a member of the Native Affairs Commission, and he should know that the policy of the Government from the very outset, since the inception of these Bills, since these Bills became law, has never deviated in any shape or form from the recommendations or the policy enunciated under those Bills. Where perhaps the Government, owing to the financial position engendered by the war, has not been able to prosecute the land policy and acquire more land for natives, there I think they might perhaps reconsider the position. Certainly in the native territories, promises were held out to the natives as compensation for loss of their votes, that land would be added to those areas. Owing to the war and owing to the difficulties of administration generally, that policy has not been proceeded with, but I do urge the Government, in view of the position in these rural areas, to reconsider the position there. There is no doubt that there is congestion in these areas, overcrowding. I remember I was present at the last Bunga meeting at Umtata, when the matter of overstocking was discussed. There was a report by a very responsible body, the Young report, dealing with the question of overstocking, and when the matter was put before the Bunga, they said they realised their responsibility, and the danger of overstocking, but at the same time the Government could carry out the promise made in 1936. I think that has had a tendency to create a certain amount of dissatisfaction and suspicion in the minds of the natives in those areas. And I seriously suggest the Government should reconsider its attitude in connection with the acquisition of further land. I know it is difficult. I know we have to face the position with a very depleted staff, but at the same time the promise has been made, and I think that promise should be carried out. I, however, repeat again that the Government has not at any time deviated from the policy laid down by this House, and I myself see absolutely no necessity for the introduction of that particular amendment, more especially as the hon. member who introduced it from the Opposition knows, from the position he occupies, that the Government is doing its best to carry out what is known as the Hertzog policy.

Mr. Speaker, may I start by complimenting the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) on her address. She has stated her case fairly and objectively, and whether one agrees with her viewpoint or not, one must admit that she spoke with sincerity and with a sense of responsibility. She put forward a proposition in which she made it quite clear that she did not advocate equality. As she put it, that would get us nowhere. She also did not try to make debating points, and I will try and follow her lead in that respect, and make no attempt to make debating points. I want to speak as objectively as possible, and merely state the Government case on the merits of the case. She raised some very important issues, and let me say straight away that the Government is doing all it can to face up fairly and squarely to the needs of the native people and to see that the needs of the native people are fairly dealt with. At the same time, I would ask those hon. members who represent native interests in Parliament, to remember and appreciate one fact, and that is that the issues that have been raised are of a highly contentious nature, and the Government must always bear in mind its responsibilities, not only to the natives, but to the community and all sections of the people as a whole, and has to keep a fair balance between the interests of the natives and the interests of other sections of the community. So argue as you like, put the case from whatever aspect you want to, the fact remains that during the past century the dominant problem which has always faced the people of this country has been the relation between black and white. The main difficulty has always been between black and white, to find a basis on which black and white—and to which I must add the coloured races—could live in the same country under rapidly changing industrial and economic conditions, and yet allow sufficient scope for the future fair and legitimate development of all sections of the community. I listened with great attention to what the hon. member had to say regarding the industrial development of the country, and the subsequent expansion of employment to provide work for returned soldiers after the war. At one time when she was addressing you, sir, and through you the House, and also incidentally me, I did not know whether she was addressing me in my capacity as Minister of Native Affairs or in my capacity as chairman of the Civil Re-employment Board, because she spoke for the best part of a quarter-of-an-hour on white soldiers finding employment after the war. I am afraid I am not so pessimistic as she is, as to the future, but I do not think it is necessary for me to go fully into that argument here. Arising out of her remarks, I should like to make this point which has been so ably dealt with by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) in his speech before the adjournment of this debate some ten days ago. He said: “Why raise this question now in these abnormal times, and ask for drastic changes in our native policy, when we do not know what the future holds.”

A sensible remark.

The remarks that come from this side of the House are usually sensible. The hon. member for Cape Eastern indicated that this urban native problem had come so urgently to the fore, because of the industrial expansion that the war had caused. She said also that she thought there would be a retrogression of industry after the war.

I said I did not see a rapid expansion.

The hon. member gave me to understand there would be a shrinkage after the war, and I will tell the hon. member why I am right in saying that from her remarks. What would eventuate now if we accepted her suggestion and her prophesy proved to be true? Her first suggestion that we should change the policy would naturally bring about a greater influx of natives into the large cities, because you will make it easier for them to come there. They would bring their wives and children with them and settle permanently. They are going to be allowed to buy land and settle there in freehold. At the same time that they are being settled there and have settled you will suddenly find there is a great shrinkage of industrial output, when hostilities cease, at a time when hundreds of thousands of white, coloured and native soldiers are returning to civil life, having been demobilised from the army. What are you then to do with the natives you have allowed during war conditions to come into these industrial areas, to buy land, build homes, and settle their families permanently, legitimately, and legally on a permanent basis? Are they then, when the shrinkage comes, to be shifted back to the native reserves under the Urban Areas Act? I do ask the hon. member and this House to bear that aspect in mind very carefully. In short, she suggests increasing the permanent native urban population based on the present requirements of wartime industry, and at a time when hundreds of thousands of men of all races are at the front. I am not talking about people working in war industries, but about people in uniform. I hope I understood the hon. member correctly, that she said she did not expect the white soldiers to be absorbed by industry. At the same time, I do not agree with her. But holding that view, does she suggest now we should complicate the position by bringing in natives from their present domicile and settling them here with their wives and children. It is quite true what she stated that a great and comparatively new problem has arisen in connection with the urban natives, a problem which was not fully foreseen, I venture to suggest, or fully realised when the 1936 legislation was before the House. I, as a realist, realise fully that no native policy can be static, any more than any process of evolution can be static, but evolution is always on the move. Nevertheless, it follows a smooth, co-ordinated long-term plan. It does not plunge forward in fits and starts and change course with every shift of the wind. Our native problem is a form of evolution, and I think that these remarks, therefore, that I have made, definitely can be applied to our native policy. As new problems arise, we must face them. As new situations arise, as the position alters, so must our approach to it alter as well. No Government has the right to sit still or follow a policy of laissez faire. At the same time, it must not jump to conclusions and rush matters, or get too far ahead of public opinion, and I do not think it would be in the interests of the natives, nor in the interests of the country as a whole to do that. I have said that no policy can be static. Might I also remind the hon. House of the dynamic law they learnt at school that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you throw a thing like that into the pool, you are going to create very grave reaction and repercussion, too. For the reasons I have given I do not think that definite conclusions can be drawn as suggested by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) on which to base a policy from conditions which are, we must admit, abnormal today. Only time can show whether the conditions created by the war are going to persist after hostilities cease. To make sweeping changes of policy which are of a highly contentious nature, as anybody will admit, to meet conditions which might never arise, or anyhow might not arise of the magnitude which the hon. member thinks, would in my opinion lead to grave repercussions. But that is not the whole story. When you start on a new policy, you have to remember the old parable about the man who builds a house without first weighing the costs and his means, and seeing that when he starts to lay the foundations whether he will be able to build it. In other words, when you start on a road you must at least look ahead and see where that road leads to. You must consider everything that is going to flow from the action you are going to take. If the suggestion of the hon. member is followed, then we must expect in future to have huge native townships to grow up alongside our great industrial centres. I think the hon. member fully realises that. The hon. member must see that flowing from her suggestion, that must happen. Imagine the Reef in twenty years time. There may arise native townships equal in population to greater Johannesburg, and I ask hon. members would the Municipality of Johannesburg be expected to provide for all the essential services for those people, or would the natives themselves as ratepayers, be expected to find the money? We are told by the hon. member here that their poor conditions allow them no further taxation. Would they then as taxpayers have to do it, or is the Central Government expected to come in and assist in supplying essential services for them? If that is agreed to, then the smaller white municipalities who have populations of the low wage earning class, would also expect to be assisted by the Central Government. I say this merely to show that many other things flow from the action suggested by the hon. member, and it shows there must be an investigation and careful consideration before we suddenly jump into such a thing. I do not wish to pursue the matter any further. I only state this must be expected to flow from it if this country and this House was to adopt the suggestion put forward by the hon. member, and the point is she wants it done at once, before it can be seen where it is going to lead to. The hon. member made it quite clear she did not want to drag politics into this discussion, and from the moderation of her speech, the responsible way in which she spoke, we must admit she intends to keep politics out of it, and we admire her for it. What was the whole idea of the 1936—’37 legislation? In my view it was to lift the problem out of the political arena, because at the back of the European’s mind, rightly or wrongly, there is the fear that sooner or later he is going to be swamped by the native in this country. That is the fear that is behind every European mind, and you cannot get away from it. Before 1936 he felt that as the native in the Cape could get a vote alongside the European for members of this House if he had the necessary qualifications, if he helped him to earn more and be better educated he, the European, was merely loading the dice against himself politically, in the long run.

Do you share that view?

I share the view that that was definitely the fear at the back of the European’s mind.

Do you share the fear?

I shared the fear then definitely. It was a logical conclusion. If you have got 6,000,000 against 2,000,000, and in the end you educate the 6,000,000 and give them the money, there must be more votes to swamp the 2,000,000. It is a question of two and two make four. But, sir, that is wrong from the point of view of seeing that the native develops properly, and therefore until you can remove that fear you will not get the white man coming forward and helping the native to be educated and get a decent wage, and that is our job, to see that the native develops along proper lines. When these Bills were put through in 1936, immediately as far as the Cape was concerned, that fear was lulled and straight away this House, assisted by a lot of members who now sit on the opposite side, but who were then on this side, voted large sums of money for the development and education of the native, and the fear was removed. Now, the hon. member for Cape Eastern asks that the Land Acts of 1936 be amended to allow of natives buying land in white areas. If her suggestions were followed, it would mean the amendment of the Native Urban Areas Act as amended in 1937. It must be taken as part of the whole. Here, again, the results that must follow such a new policy must be considered in relation to the 1936 legislation. The economic structure of our country has brought white and black into close contact. You cannot get away from that. If you bring large numbers of natives into white areas to work for our benefit, then you must have economic contact to a large extent, and the problems which have arisen from this fact have almost Droved insurmountable. Unfortunately, the two sections of the community have found themselves at variance in the past, where their respective interests are concerned. That is another fact that we have to face, and this has created deep-seated prejudices which cannot be expected to disappear overnight. Added to this, is the always-present fear of the European that he might be swamped by sheer numbers in the long run. In its ultimate native policy there were two roads which the Union could follow, and I think I should just like to make the position clear. One was the development and the assimilation of black and white into one single community, and the other their residential separation on parallel lines as two distinct communities. Politically the Union had to adopt either the principle of common citizenship for black and white, or black alone or white alone, ending ultimately in a coloured or black South Africa, or the white race had to face up to its responsibilities of leadership and trusteeship, and separate the communities within the borders of the Union. It is up to us to see that the native gets his chance and a square deal, as a citizen of this country. I want to remind the House of that just to give a background to what I want to say later, and I want to remind the House of certain facts. Less than eight years ago, after a Select Committee had been sitting under the Chairmanship of nobody less than the former Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog), a Select Committee constituted of members of very political party—constituted of representatives of the present New Order, the Afrikaner Party, the Opposition and this side of the House,—a Select Committee of the greatest importance, thoroughly representative—almost as represenative as the National Convention—that Committee, came to a decision and out of that decision flowed the 1936 legislation. I repeat this stage was reached by a majority of Parliament never seen before or since on a great and highly contentious problem. Probably never before had a matter of such outstanding importance been decided upon in such a manner—never had such a unanimity been reached as we had on that occasion. Huge areas were cleared of white inhabitants at a cost of millions, and the land was available for natives only. Probably many of those who voted for these Bills at the time did not entirely agree with them, but they thought that by voting for those Bills they would lift the native problem out of the sphere of politics, out of the sphere of party politics, and they would help to kill that fear to which I have referred. But for the war both the areas and the amount spent would have been much greater, and the moment the war stops they will both rise steeply. It is the policy of the Government, and I say so deliberately, that after the war both the amount of money spent and the areas will rapidly rise. The matters stated by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) are of great importance. And the facts stated are fully justified. We have to go on with this business. The amount set aside by the decision of Parliament was £6,000,000. This policy was approved of by a majority of hon. members who sit on both sides of the House today. But the generous spirit that has been shown by Parliament in these matters was conditional upon the separation of the land rights of Europeans and natives, and if you introduce a provision by which natives may now acquire land in the European areas, it will arouse the greatest resentment among the Europeans. You cannot get away from that. No doubt the Europeans and the native people would demand the same rights—the natives would want to buy land in European areas, and the Europeans would demand the right to buy land in native areas. Friends of the natives will appreciate that if the Europeans were given those rights, with their greater purchasing powers, their greater knowledge of business—it would not be very long before the fertile native lands would be owned and occupied by Europeans. Would the hon. member for Cape Eastern like to see that? Hon. members cannot have their cake and eat it. Further, out of that decision was born direct representation of natives in the House of Assembly and the Provincial Council of the Cape, while the rest of the natives in the Union, who had no representation at all before got it in “Another Place.” That was a step forward and that step has been carried out. But the Native Trust and Land Act only dealt with the rural natives. The Native Urban Areas Act, though passed in 1923, had to deal with the urban problem, and to bring this into line it was amended in 1937. These two Acts must be taken together. Now, if you amend the one, then you are up against the other difficulty. I want to say that the Government does not intend to depart from the policy which was laid down in the 1936—’37 legislation. The Native Urban Areas Act has secured great improvements for the natives in native areas, but let me say that it is this very improvement which has increased the problem with which we have to deal, because it has increased the influx of natives into urban areas. For a moment I want to deal with the position at Alexandra Township as an example of what has happened. Speaking from memory, in 1916, I believe, there were only 900 natives in Alexandra Township. The unofficial census in 1942 showed that there were 41,000 natives there, so the number went up from 900 to 41,000. That in inself shows the way things are moving. Now, to get back to the 1936 Acts. The hon. member for Cape Eastern now wants portions of both these acts altered. There is the danger that to amend those Acts would be looked upon by many who voted for them at that time as a breach of that agreement which has brought material gain to the natives, as I shall show later. In other words, it would bring the whole native question again into the forefront of politics. Many of those people who voted for these Acts might turn round and say that they will have nothing more to do with it. That is a fact which we have to face. We must remember also that large numbers of natives have become permanent town dwellers. This matter was dealt with even in the report of the Native Economic Commission of 1932. The problem is one which must be dealt with, otherwise it might become an even greater problem in the future. Since the report of the Native Economic Commission was published, the Johannesburg Municipality has suggested to the Government that permission should be given for the establishment of a native village as an adjunct to the Orlando Native Location, where respectable natives, who had become permanent town dwellers, should be permitted to purchase their own allotments from the Municipality and to build their own houses thereon. The idea is to allow decent natives to become land owners.

I thought that was what you objected to.

I am trying to make it clear that these suggestions have come from the Municipality of Johannesburg for this purpose. I am not going into the merits of the case. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong. I wish to see and study the problem at first hand in the recess before forming any opinion. I merely mention it to show the way white opinion in certain large areas is moving. If the hon. member thinks that that is a move in the right direction, then I would point out to her that this anyway is an indication of the way in which white opinion in the large urban areas is moving, and if she thinks it is the right thing, then I would suggest to her not to break it down by stampeding people and by rushing them.

That is not what I suggested.

That is what I am trying to point out. If the hon. member thinks that is right, and if she now wants the whole of the 1936 legislation to be amended, she is going to create such an amount of suspicion and such an uproar that she will never be able to achieve anything. Here we have a clear indication of the way in which public opinion is moving. By carrying on in the way she wants us to we should only be setting the clock back, Now, I believe in public opinion, and in the humanity which exists in such opinions to see that justice is done. Public opinion is sometimes wrong in the short view, but in the long view it is usually right and it demands that justice is done. If there is an injustice—I don’t say there is—then I believe that public opinion as expressed by the ordinary common people of the country, will see that sooner or later it is rectified provided it is not rushed or hurried. The responsibility of the Minister of Native Affairs is to consider himself one of the main trustees of the native interests. If he is honest and sincere he must not look for popularity, or be moved by applause or criticism, but he must do what he believes to be in the legitimate interest of the natives, at the same time always bearing in mind the rights, interests and wellbeing of other sections of the community. But to revert for a moment to the suggestion of the Johannesburg Municipality refered to earlier on, the Native Affairs Commission gave its careful consideration to that suggestion, and came to the conclusion that to give effect to it the Urban Areas Act would have to be amended, and therefore the principle involved is a very important one—the question is whether it would mean departing from the principles laid down in 1936. The Urban Areas Laws, which some maintain have some harsh provisions, are nevertheless sympathetically administered, and no great hardship or injustice has resulted since they were passed. On the other hand, there are some provisions that are most beneficial to the natives living in the towns, particularly those dealing with improved housing and sanitation and social services. To hear some people talk, one would think that nothing has been done for the natives. I am not suggesting for a moment that everything in the garden is lovely, but I do suggest, and I suggest most strongly, that the picture painted is too sombre, and the great progress that has taken place, the large sums expended, and the move forward, that has been resulted in the years since 1936, is completely lost sight of in an endeavour to portray only the gloomy side. I admit that there are some deplorable conditions in parts of the country. But a great deal has been done, although a great deal more remains to be done, if we are to prevent the natives from becoming a C.3 race.

That applies to the whites, too.

Yes, I can raise a large argument on that. It applies to a large number of people, it applies to people who have had hundreds of years of civilisation behind them; it applies to parts of Europe which are in a deplorable condition, but that does not justify us from having deplorable conditions in certain parts of this country. I do not wish to use that as a debating point. I say again that great progress is taking place, that large sums of money have been spent, and great steps forward have taken place since 1936. If we disclose and admit the debit side of the balance sheet, we should also examine the credit side. Again I say, let us get away from the political issues, and get down to bread and butter politics and economics. Let us keep to the fore the betterment of the native’s economic conditions, his health, his sanitation, his feeding, housing and general well-being. That the Government is all out to do. Just as it is useless to try and fill children’s heads with knowledge if their stomachs are empty, so it is useless to spend time and energy beating the political drum until the economic needs of the people are dealt with or adjusted, and this aspect is definitely the policy and the concern of the Government. Let us endeavour to build up a strong, healthy native population—for a healthy body creates a true sense of wellbeing, which in turn creates contentment. It is in this sense that I see the application of the Atlantic Charter to the future of the native which will make him free from fear and free from want. Discontent is as much a disease of the body as the mind. No one can be contented if they are undernourished and in bad health. This problem is being tackled as rapidly as possible, but discontent can be fostered if people are continually told that no one cares for their material welfare, the adverse side always being stressed and no mention made of the great advances that have taken place since 1936. Mention was made by hon. members of the Inter-Departmental Report. I gave fully in Another Place the details of what had already been done or accepted. I will not repeat it here, but it was substantial and seemed to satisfy most of those who heard it. What criticism there was from the angle that in accepting certain recommendations a greater problem would eventuate because as one improved the conditions of the native urban dwellers, so the influx increased and the problem increased in magnitude. It has been suggested that Parliament should repeal parts of the 1936 Act. Let us see what good has eventuated since that date. Let us count our blessings. Take the purchase of land. During the period 1936 to 1941, Parliament voted £6,000,000 for purchase of land for Native Settlement. This vote was agreed to by the majority of those sitting on the other side, as well as by most of us. Is it in the interest of the native to antagonise the goodwill of all those who voted for this by changing the laws which were the basis for the voting of the money? Of this £6,000,000, £4,683,024 has been spent, in acquiring over 1,500,000 morgen, and £195,494 committed. In addition to this, substantial sums have been spent on the development of the native areas and a special staff of agricultural and engineering officers has been created and a great deal done to improve the economic conditions of those areas. The policy of my department is to scend large sums as the money becomes available on the development, improvement and safeguarding of the soil of the Reserves; in the prevention of overstocking and erosion and the increase of water supplies and modern methods of farming. The policy is to continue the process of improving stock and the elimination of scrub cattle and the cull sheep, as was done by the previous Government, as soon as normal times return. It is suggested that because purchase of land in large amounts has not gone on recently that therefore the Government has departed from the spirit of the 1936 legislation and that therefore our side of the contract has been broken. The Treasury has £1,000,000 in hand, to go straight ahead, but the fact that 33 per cent. of the department’s staff is on active service, means that there are not the men available to look after the land bought. This would mean its rapid deterioration. But let me state categorically here that it is the intern tion of the Government that the buying of land will go on in full force immediately the Department has the staff to handle the area bought. It is strictly a war condition and constitutes no breach of faith whatsoever. As hon. members are aware, native education services have been steadily expanded since 1936, and this expansion has been continued in spite of the war. And whilst it is said that sufficient is not being done in this field of development, it is nevertheless true that large sums of money have been set aside by Parliament for this purpose. The policy set in 1936 by the previous Government has been followed and expanded. Take native housing. Since the passing of the Housing Act, approved loan applications for sub-economic housing for Non-Europeans amounts to over £8,500,000. The present Government having come in only during the war, cannot take the credit for all this I must admit, for the major portion was voted with the assistance of the leaders or deputyleaders of the Opposition parties, together with a majority of members opposite and all members on this side, who were members during those years. I must give credit where credit is due and I feel that the world outside should know this. Again I ask, does that not indicate progress as well as sympathy towards the native population? Take the question of health. Admitted, satisfactory health services have not in the past been provided for natives. Hon. members are aware, however, that the Government is giving this important problem its very earnest consideration. The National Health Services Commission has been appointed to go into the health services of all sections of the community. A short while ago, in Another Place, I dealt with the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee’s report on the economic conditions of urban natives, and stated there the number of recommendations already carried out or accepted. I mention these things as an illustration of what has already been done by the Government in furtherance of their policy to improve the conditions of the natives, and as an earnest of the Government’s policy towards the natives in the future. Don’t misunderstand me. In many instances the conditions are deplorable. Much must be done, and done quickly, if the natives are to be prevented from deteriorating into a C.3 race. Every member of a State, be he white or black, is a precious asset to the State, and the man or State who does not guard his assets is heading for bankruptcy. This Government will see to this aspect of native welfare generally. But from the above short summary of what has and is being done hon. members must admit that the Government is not sitting still or letting matters drift. We have the unfavourable aspect brought into prominence, but no one takes the trouble to show the other side of the picture. But again I say we will only benefit the natives taking the lines I have indicated if we keep his affairs out of the political arena. And whilst I do not for a moment suggest or think the mover of the motion desires to drag it into politics, to repeal parts of the 1936 legislation at this juncture would have that effect. Take the question of public health. The Department of Public Health knows no colour bar. The Public Health Department have not only to make up leeway, but have been definitely faced with an adverse current which is increasing in volume. The Health Department put this down to the sudden change from rural to industrial conditions which is taking place today, with the result that tuberculosis presents a serious problem. But a great deal of progress has been made, and we should not be unduly pessimistic about the future. For instance, the Durban Corporation, with the assistance of the Government, is taking very active steps to discover early cases of tuberculosis in that city, and is now providing 200 beds for native consumptives, with Government help. At East London, 50 beds are being provided, and at Umtata 36. At Lovedale a tuberculosis block with 100 beds has been erected at great cost to the Government. Further, it is proposed to open in the Transkei another hospital in the near future. At Bulwer, where good work is being done, a health clinic has been established. A “hut to hut” inspection is being carried out, and a detailed survey is being made of native health conditions in that area. Another clinic is being opened at Bushbuckridge, in the Transvaal, and provision is being made for a third. Active steps through mission hospitals and other institutions are being taken to combat tuberculosis and venereal disease. Furthermore, steps are being taken to extend district nursing services and to proceed with the training of medical aids at Fort Hare. It is hoped that native doctors will play an important part in the development of health services in native areas, and to this end provision is being made for training facilities in Johannesburg, so that natives can take a complete medical course in South Africa. An amount of £128,000 has been provided during the current year for compassionate allowances for blind natives. In addition to this, the Department of Public Health had an amount of £8,000 on its vote for the investigation and treatment of blindness among natives, but unfortunately, owing to war conditions it was not possible to secure the services of the necessary technical staff. A start has, however, been made in the Louis Trichardt District for this investigation, and £1,000 was expended on this service last year. Since the passing of the Housing Act, loan applications for sub-economic housing for non-Europeans to the extent of £8,641,206 have been approved. I am not in possession of separate figures for the housing of natives, but a very large portion of this money has been spent for re-housing our urban natives, and I am able to say that loans to the extent of approximately £3,000,000 have been approved for housing schemes for natives which are contemplated. Considerable sums of money are being spent on social welfare services and a trial settlement for aged and indigent natives is being established on the farm Elandsdoorn, in the District of Pretoria, at an initial capital outlay of some £4,000. A great deal has been said about the poverty of the native workers in the towns, and there is no doubt that much remains to be done towards improving the conditions under which many of our natives live. But I should mention that under the Wage Act during recent years, a considerable amount of progress has been made in the improvement of native wages either by way of wage determinations or Industrial Council agreements, which have, within comparativeiy recent times, raised native wages by amounts representing from 9 per cent. to 27 per cent. According to figures which have been supplied to me by the Department of Labour, between 1937 and 1942, there were 49 wage determinations affecting 239,199 employees and involving a total additional annual cost to the industries concerned in wages and benefits of some £5,000,000. Of the number of employees affected 134,446 or 56.2 per cent. of the total were natives and while it is true that Native Trade Unions may not be registered under the Industrial Conciliation Act, the provisions of that Act and of the Wage Act dealing with wages and conditions of service, hold no colour bar. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear that the Government has made and is making every endeavour to carry out the native policy envisaged in the 1936—’37 legislation—but rapid industrialisation and the conditions created by the war have brought about a new situation and that is the problem of looking to the needs of the natives employed in the towns and in industries. It is constantly said that we should get rid of surplus native labour from the towns. But recent figures indicated that there is no appreciable surplus in the large towns. The fact is there is a definite shortage of labour throughout the Union, not only on the farms but in other industries, including the mines, and a solution cannot be justly sought by excluding the native from one sphere or industry for the benefit of another. So that while we adhere to the native policy laid down by Parliament in 1936, we appreciate that from the point of view put by the hon. member for Cape Eastern, the country has to move forward with regard not only to the rural native but with regard to the urban native as well, as we are doing that. I therefore move the following further amendment to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cape Eastern—

I second the amendment proposed by the Minister of Native Affairs, and I do so with all the more pleasure after listening to the comprehensive impressive and sincere statement of the Governments’ policy which has fallen from the lips of the Minister. I do not support the amendment so much, because I am satisfied with all the results of the Government’s endeavours. No honest supporter of any Government can be expected to endorse every detail of his policy, or can he be expected to be satisfied that the best success of that policy, particularly in regard to the social or health conditions of this country has been achieved. But I do realise, as does the Minister, that the situation is too grave and too urgent, particularly in the field of public health and social services—and I refer to European as well as non-European policy—to encourage any sense of complacency or any feeling of satisfaction with the record of any Government. I do recognise, moreover, the special difficulties with which the Government is faced in abnormal and difficult times like these in carrying out any policy. But I approve the general policy of the Government within the existing framework established by Parliament six years ago in the sense that I thoroughly endorse the spirit in which the Government had endeavoured and is endeavouring to give honest and full effect to that agreed national policy. May I in passing add my tribute to the hon. the mover of this motion on her brilliant and moving, and, as the Minister has said, moderate and closely reasoned speech? Although I am not able to support her motion as framed, I support the plea which she has made for a better integration of the native reserves and the urban natives into our whole productive system, and I look to the Government, in pursuance of its pledges to help to implement that plea. I also endorse very strongly her appeal that this question should not be at any time allowed to leave the national non-political party plane on which the framers of the legislation of 1936 sought, and sought very successfully to keep it, and that neither in this debate nor later should vital national questions which are at issue in this motion be allowed to become the plaything of party politics. I am unable to vote for the mover’s motion for the reasons touched on by the Minister. Her motion to my mind plainly ignores existing political realities. I agree with the Minister that for this House to accept her motion to scrap the existing basic native legislation at this time—which I am sure the hon. mover herself admits is impossible—would be to run the certain risk of antagonising the, I believe, overwhelming volume of public opinion as well as the opinion of this House—who are prepared to endorse, and to accept and to carry out the policy of development and sympathetic administration within the framework of the existing legislation. I feel sure that any such attempt at this stage to scrap or even seriously to modify that legislation would not only be doomed to failure, but would inevitably result in a setback to that growth of appreciation throughout the country of the needs of better integrating the nonEuropean population with the European community in the interests and welfare of the country as a whole. No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the mover must realise that public opinion in this country could not, and will not, stand at this time for any such immediate or complete revision of the native policy as she has so eloquently and temperately pleaded for. What public opinion will insist on, and what the Minister has today clearly indicated, that the Government stands pledged to, is a sincere and unfaltering and generous carrying out of these aspects of policy of uplift and development, of the improvement of the health and social services which are just as much implicit in the policy agreed on by Parliament as a whole at the joint sitting as the particular ingredients in that policy of partial segregation to which the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) refers. I am one of those who deprecate the dividing of students of our native policy into segregationists and antisegregationists, because it is not possible in considering the position as a whole to label any one person as being a segregationist, without considering so many modifications which that person would willingly concede, as to make the label a very unreal one. I am one of those who believe that however earnest a segregationist may be in theory, he will agree as to the need to do increasing justice to all sections of the community, he will agree on the necessity for entirely a sympathetic administration, an understanding administration. He will likewise agree that on this big national question a good deal of patience and tolerance must be exercised on both sides and of understanding in regard to the bona fide but conflicting views in matters of theory in regard to the native question as a whole. I agree that the Government stands committed to a comprehensive and honest implementation of the agreed national policy. It stands committed to carrying out its promises to acquire land for natives so soon as circumstances permit,—and I agree with the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that the Government should reconsider the question now in regard to such promises and to resume in part at least the buying of such land for natives. The Government stands pledged likewise to continue loyally and faithfully to fulfil and apply the machinery of consultation and co-operation. It remains likewise committed also, I think readily committed, to the encouragement of the method of representation, the method of political representation of natives admittedly indirect so far as representation in this House and the Other Place are concerned, which was set up by the 1936 legislation. In my view and I believe most members agree with me, this experiment in political representation is proving itself an unquestioned success. I am one of those who welcome very much the results so far of that modified form of political representation. I believe that those who have been entrusted with responsibility of representing the interests and aspirations of the non-Europeans, have both here and in Another Place done a good deal to promote co-operation. They can do still more. I repeat that the majority of the members appreciate not only that this form of representation has made for increased co-operation and can make for a considerable increase in goodwill and confidence as between European and non-European. Most members will I think agree with me that the experiment may do much to combat exploitation of non-Europeans by subversive destructive or unwise extremist agitation in these Very difficult times of transition and war. I am one of those who took part in the deliberations of 1936—’37 when the Trinity of the existing Native Acts was put through Parliament and I do not repent the vote which I then gave in favour of those measures. I then voted for what was admittedly a compromise on a grave national issue, which as the Minister has indicated can never be a static one, and on which if there is to be national agreement there must be a measure of compromise. I voted for these Bills as admittedly a broad framework within which for the first time a national and non-party native policy might develop, fruitfully I believe, for a matter of years. I recognised as I do today that the time must undoubtedly come from the very nature of the issue involved, and perhaps sooner than some members anticipate for a revision of that framework.

When business was suspended, I was making the point that many of us who voted on the legislation of 1936 realised that the time would come, in the opinion of some perhaps sooner, than others, for revision of that legislation. But my belief is that that time is not now, while so much remains to be done, and to be effectively done, in carrying out all the constructive and positive aspects of that policy. The answer to the strong case which the hon. mover has put up, can, I think, best be put in the words used by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister a month ago, when replying to somewhat similar representations on the part of the non-Europeans. The Prime Minister said—

He repeats—

The hon. Minister this morning gave concrete evidence of that goodwill, as he has given early evidence of his appreciation of the complex questions involved in his Department, and of his own sympathetic approach to these difficult problems. I welcome the not unimpressive record that he was able to point to. I welcome it not as a consummation or a culmination of his policy, but I welcome it as an earnest and an instalment of that policy. I also welcome two fresh indications given by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech, which show that the Government is not unmindful of its responsibilities to the non-European section. The first is the proposed timely transfer of a further £230,000 to the Native Trust for native education purposes.

Out of Poll Tax.

I welcome that transfer, whatever the source. Furthermore, I welcome the feeding scheme proposed by the Minister, whereby every school child, irrespective of race, will get one free meal per day. That is a significant and welcome step to combat the menace of malnutrition which threatens white and non-white alike. How grave that menace is in regard to the non-European, appears from the report of 1938—’39 of the head of the largest native hospital in Durban. According to that report, no less than 5 per cent. of all cases admitted to the hospital during the year—the King Edward VIII Hospital—died of malnutrition. In plain language, Mr. Speaker, they died of starvation. The same report goes on to say that nearly all natives admitted, quite apart from the disease or injury they suffered from, were under-nourished. This degree of malnutrition of the non-European section has not been lessened in the outlying areas in my own as well as in other constituencies, by the Government’s recent failure to ensure normal and adequate distribution of maize in these outlying areas. I was glad to hear the hon. Minister’s declaration that the Government recognises no colour bar in regard to health measures. I welcome it particularly under this feeding scheme. I would, however, call the attention of the Minister to the existence of such a colour bar in the administration of the Children’s Act to urban native children. In the city of Durban, there is a native population of 70,000, and yet, until recently, in the administration of the Children’s Act, only 11 children out of five families in that city were in receipt of grants totalling in all £4 15s. per month. A good deal more could be done under the administration of the Children’s Act to ensure that some help is afforded to indigent urban native children. If I were unmindful or unappreciative of the actions which the Government has taken to evidence their goodwill, I should not be seconding the Minister’s amendment. I do, however, feel that in spite of what has been done, as the Minister himself admits, there is desperately much to do, and perhaps more so in the field of public health than in the fields of education or housing. The Minister can give no such encouraging corresponding figures to indicate how the campaign was going against tuberculosis or venereal diseases, nor against the stagnation or deterioration of character and the lessened production due to soil erosion, overstocking and neglect in the reserves. I do not want to weary the House with figures to indicate the gravity of the menace to our community from diseases amongst the non-European section. I will only mention in passing that a conservative estimate places the percentage affected by venereal diseases at 25 per cent., and that no less than 12,000 fresh cases of venereal diseases come for treatment in the municipal clinics of Durban each year. So far as the even more dreaded scourge of tuberculosis is concerned, from the latest report of the Department for Public Health, it appears that although the European death-rate for 1941 from these diseases, was the lowest on record, there was an actual increase in the numbers of non-Europeans who died from tuberculosis. That number Mr. Speaker, is estimated at no less than twenty times the number of deaths amongst Europeans. There is good reason to believe that the estimate of Dr. Dormer that 37,009 natives in the Union are effected with tuberculosis, is a conservative one. The figures moreover in regard to native infantile mortality are disturbing, to say the least. From the statistics obtained in one of the larger cities in Natal last year it was found that 55.27 per cent. of native births died within the first six to eight months.

Does that apply to the platteland too?

No, that will no doubt be less. But these figures were taken in a city with a considerable urban native population. They help to show to what extent disease has effected non-European health. It used to be considered that the urban areas were the worst in this regard, but I believe that the need is greater today in the rural areas. It is logical to assume that if a person leaves the rural home to work in the town and on entering the town is found to be suffering from venereal diseases, that he left venereal diseases behind in his home, and as the majority of natives go back to their locations, some after having been cured, it is clear that they go back to reinfection. Conversely, one member of the family returning to the location with, say, tuberculosis runs the likelihood of infecting the rest of the members of the family in circumstances in which there is little possibility under present conditions of their receiving any treatment whatsoever. I would urge on the Minister that by way of remedy for the dangerously urgent state of health in the rural areas, he consider establishing an intensive health propaganda service amongst rural natives. Something must be done and long before the report and recommendations of the National Health Commission now sitting can be available, to counter the ignorance and the disabilities obtaining in rural areas. Much more must be done by wav of education in hygiene, in sanitation. Those entrusted with this work should be people conversant with prevailing conditions and with native idiosyncrasies and customs. They should have the assistance of trained natives, trained as medical aids, and I hope before long fully trained also as medical practitioners. And here, I interpolate a request to the Minister to consider whether the time is not overdue for the establishment of a full medical school to train native doctors. I can think of no more suitable place for this purpose than Durban, where better hospital and clinical facilities exist for native cases than elsewhere, much as I appreciate the difficulty due to shortage of personnel in present times, I wish to stress the urgency of increasing the number of whole-time district surgeons, and of giving them greater powers of supervision over mission and other hospitals which are dotted about these rural areas. In my own constituency there are wide areas difficult of access, where one District Surgeon has to tend to the needs of up to 60,000 natives, quite apart from whatever European population there may be in this area. The case for an increase of the services of trained medical men and of medical aids is an unanswerable one. The Government is not entitled to sit back and wait for any comprehensive scheme which may be suggested by the National Commission now sitting. On the grim realities of South African health conditions, the Government cannot afford to hold up the future development of social and health services, pending the formulation and adoption of any scheme of social security for the Union. On the same grim realities, it must be transparently clear in the interests of the country as a whole, that the nonEuropeans must be effectively included in any such national social security scheme. In passing I wish to raise one point in regard to the native reserves. I agree with the statement of the mover that in their present conditions, in their present size, they are not and can never be satisfastory homes for our permanent non-European native community. Nor can they in their present state in any way effectively check the rapid migration to the towns. Not only is ill-health rampant, but there is deterioration of character, often due to drink or due to idleness. These all present a challenge which no self-respecting Government can ignore. I shall quote from a letter recently received from a responsible and thoughtful farmer constituent of mine, the following—

I want in this connection to make a suggestion to the hon. Minister that has already been made to the Department, viz. that experienced European superintendents, carefully chosen and of the right type should be appointed in the various reserves. They should reside in these reserves. So far as practicable, adjacent to their homesteads, there should be the local hospital, the local elementary school, the local trade school and whatever recreational facilities are available for the residents in that reserve. Such supervisors, carefully trained and selected, could do a great deal to help fit our natives for the part that they must necessarily play in our country’s general economic structure. It should also enable them to do something to assist, or more often I feel, to prod the local chief by giving not merely moral support to him in his office, and countering some of the backwardness and inertia which is too often seen amongst native chiefs. I welcome the inclusion in the Native Administration Amendment Bill now before the House of provision for the setting up of assistant native district commissioners, and I ask for an assurance from the Minister that he will take prompt steps to appoint European supervisors in suitable reserves to exercise the functions I have indicated. There are so far none such, in my own constituency. I can think of various reserves where the experiment could be advantageously tried out, for instance in the reserve which falls under the chieftainship of Chief Mtubatuba, or in the reserves close to Empangeni where a supervisor could maintain close contact with the local magistrate. I have tried to indicate the reasons why I support the hon. Minister’s amendment and why I do not feel that I could vote for the motion. There is just one last point I would like to refer to. The motion mentions the Atlantic Charter. There are, I know, a number of people who regard the Atlantic Charter as merely pious platitude and not a document to be taken seriously. I am not one of those. I regard the Atlantic Charter as embodying in a far more dynamic way the war aims of the Allied Nations in the present war than was represented during the last war by the parallel document of President Wilson, the so-called Fourteen Points. The emphasis in the Atlantic Charter is economic. The emphasis in the Fourteen Points was political, and the Atlantic Charter pledges its signatories to the aim that all men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want. This country and the British Commonwealth of Nations are parties to that pledge, and the concert of nations who will be entrusted, whether in the form of a league or otherwise, with the problem of reconstruction, will be concerned with the endeavour to put that pledge into effect. It is my conviction that the part which South Africa will play in that post-war scheme of reconstruction will be as honourable and distinguished as the part which she played in the intervening period between the last war and the outbreak of this war, and South Africa stands committed no less than other members of the United Nations to implement that pledge, and that pledge is a pledge which is universal in its application. This country will fail or succeed in retaining the proud postion, which I believe she will retain, according as she makes adequate and timely provision for social security of all those committed to its charge, irrespective of race; and if we are to justify the proud position which I believe we shall take, viz., of being on the Continent of Africa in an analagous position to the United States on the Continent of America, then it is clear that the Atlantic Charter must remain for this country not merely a pious platitude, but a concrete aim to which national policy will be directed. May I conclude by quoting again from the words of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his reply to the representations made to him last year. He said—

I am sure the hon. Minister and the Government realise that they have a pretty stiff mandate before them. They have a heavy responsibility before them. It is a stiff mandate to combine a sympathetic and progressive programme with the real safeguarding of our accepted standards of white civilisation. It is part of that mandate to make liberal provision in our reconstruction plans for the future for the welfare of all people, irrespective of race. It is part of that mandate to help create that confidence between white and non-white in the handling of our problems of race and colour, without which it will not be possible, soon or at all, for the transfer of the native Protectorates to the Union to take effect, nor for the Union to maintain her role of leading power in South Africa in racial matters as well as economic matters. The words of the Prime Minister constitute a challenge. If we fail, then the European experiment on this Continent will fail. I am one of those who are confident that that experiment will not fail. It will be for members of our Legislature, backed by the growing public conscience of our people, to ensure that that European experiment on this Continent is never allowed to fail, but that, on the other hand, the example which South Africa will set in the equitable handling of the ever-changing and overcomplex racial situation South Africa will eventually make her best contribution to world peace.

I move the following amendment to this motion—

The native question is no doubt a most important and difficult problem. This problem becomes still more difficult because we also have a coloured problem. We cannot separate these two problems, because, although we have legislation prohibiting miscegenation between natives and Europeans, we do not prohibit miscegenation between natives and coloureds, and between coloureds and Europeans. We therefore say that the coloured person has become the link between the European and the native in regard to miscegenation. We are, furthermore, saddled with an Asiatic problem, and we can thus say that taking the nonEuropeans as a whole, it is pre-eminently the problem we are faced with in this country, a problem which overshadows all other problems in our country. The European therefore who trifles with this problem, the European who trifles with this problem for personal reasons or in order to achieve his political aims, is busy trifling with one of the country’s most important problems, and we cannot but condemn such behaviour in the strongest possible terms, We therefore maintain that a shortsighted policy will bring in its wake not only detrimental results for the European, but also detrimental results for the non-European. This problem can, moreover, not be solved during one generation. It is a task which is laid on the present generation, but that will not exempt the next generation from its task. On the other hand, if the present generation does not perform its duty properly, and if the task of posterity is made more difficult by this failure, the responsibility rests upon us. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) clearly indicated that she is opposed to segregation. Whether that is her conviction or whether she did so out of a sense of duty because she represents the natives in this House, I could not say. It makes no difference—she said that segregation is a burden which is laid upon the nonEuropean. She does not openly advocate full equality; she does not openly advocate social equality. No, in such a drastic form she will not venture to do it, not even in this House. But she is very diplomatic, and she proceeded step by step in order to undermine the segregation policy in our country, and to arrive at actual equality between European and non-European.

I said it is being undermined all the time.

She does not object to it; she does not object to the natives having their own areas. She likes the natives to have that, but she begrudges the same right of having his own areas to the European. She is steadily trying to eliminate the separation between European and nonEuropean. She makes it known to this House that she is very much concerned about a good spirit existing between the native and the white man; but, at the same time, it was most remarkable that neither from the hon. member nor from her colleagues did we hear a word of censure in regard to the agitation which is going on among the natives at present. She told us that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the natives; she told this House that not less than thirty strikes took place recently. I should like to ask her this: Did she make any enquiries as to the cause of those strikes?

Yes.

Did she investigate why there should be a measure of dissatisfaction among the natives today? And if she did so, she ought to be aware of the fact that that dissatisfaction exists among the natives because they are being incited by more educated natives and Europeans, and also because Communist propaganda is being spread among the natives. The hon. members who represent the natives in this House are much concerned about a good spirit existing between Europeans and non-Europeans in this country. But I want to ask them: What did they do to help create a better spirit? Should we assume that speeches such as they have delivered in this House are calculated to contribute to that good spirit; and when we hear such speeches from them in this House, where they advocate equality, we know what to expect of the speeches they make when addressing the natives themselves. I cannot help feeling that, in spite of the diplomatic behaviour of those members, they actually are some of the agitators among the natives inciting them against the Europeans.

The hon. member is going too far now.

I shall withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. Complaints were made about the educational facilities of the natives. If we notice the educational facilities the natives are enjoying today, in spite of the fact that the natives are hundreds of years behind in civilisation when compared to the Europeans, and if we compare those educational facilities with those the Europeans enjoyed in our country 75 years ago or even more recently, then we have the fullest right to state that the native child is today enjoying better educational facilities than many Europeans in our country’ enjoyed 75 years ago. What is the actual position in regard to native education? In the year 1925 211,831 native children attended school. In 1939, only fourteen years afterwards, we find that that figure has grown to 453,648. There was therefore an increase of nearly 220 per cent. within a period of 14 years. Let us now have a look at the position of European children. During 1925 343,000 European children attended school and in 1939 this figure had increased to 417,000. If we have regard to these figures, I think that under existing circumstances, taking the level of civilisation of the natives into account, the natives in our country certainly have no reason for complaint in regard to the educational facilities which the European provides for them. The hon. member spoke at length on the way the natives were being treated in the country. But why are they not trying to draw a comparison between the treatment meted out to the natives in the Union and that which the natives receive in a country such as, for instance, Rhodesia? It would be interesting if those hon. members, who are so greatly interested in the natives, were to draw a comparison between the educational facilities and other rights which the natives in Rhodesia enjoy and those which the natives in the Union enjoy. It would furthermore be very interesting to compare the general position of the non-Europeans in our country with the general position of the non-Europeans in other countries and to compare for instance the conditions of the natives here with the conditions under which the Indians live. When hon. members complain here about the treatment of natives in our country, then it is only fair that they should draw such a comparison and that they should tell us that the people of South Africa do not give the same favourable treatment which is given in other countries to the non-Europeans, and if they cannot say that, they should admit the fact here. I have no doubt that the natives and the non-Europeans in general are being treated much better in South Africa than the non-Europeans are treated in other countries. If there is dissatisfaction among the natives, it is not going to do us any good to allow that dissatisfaction to spread unhindered; it is not going to do us any good to allow Europeans to incite the natives who thereafter try to wash their hands in innocence by coming to tell us here that dissatisfaction is rife among the natives and that they are not receiving fair and just treatment in this country. The hon. member for Cape Eastern is also very much afraid that the native population in our country will die out. I wonder whether she believes that herself. We can assume that the death rate among native children is very high. We also know that the birth rate is very high. What is the actual position? The native census of 1921 showed that there were 4,700,000 natives in the Union. The census of 1936 showed that the figure had risen to 6,600,000. This is a considerable increase. But let us consider the position as expressed in percentages. In 1921 the natives formed 76.8 per cent. of the Union’s population. In 1936 the percentage had risen to 78.8. Although the European population of the Union amounted to 21.9 per cent. of the total population in 1921, the European population in 1936—in spite of the fact that there is European immigration from overseas—decreased to 20.9 per cent. of the total population. Seeing that this is the case I want to ask the hon. member from where she obtains the right to maintain that the natives are dying out in this country. No, in the face of these figures she is not entitled to make such a statement in this House. Furthermore complaints were made about the relatively small area of land which has been made available for natives. The natives occupy 18 million morgen and the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) said that there is room for not more than half the native population. Those hon. members will do better if they rather give the natives advice how to make better use of the land which is at their disposal. I also want to ask those hon. members, and I also ask the Minister that question, what is being done to prevent the migration of natives to the towns.

Do you mean those who are out of work?

Natives are migrating to the towns, and to get nearer home, I want to know from the Minister what he is doing te prevent the influx into the Western Province.

I stated that there are no unemployed natives in these parts.

I do not want to blame the Minister. He only recently took over this portfolio and I therefore do not want to attack him personally. But I think that if he were to drive around along the roads of the Western Province, he would see that the roads are full with wandering natives. I also want to ask the hon. Minister whether he knows that last month within a fortnight three trains arrived here in this area with 1,200 natives. Those natives are simply let loose; they do not know where to go and they walk the streets here looking for work. They have been put off practically uncared and unprovided for. I furthermore want to ask the Minister the following—and perhaps the hon. members there know more about it—whether he knows what the conditions are like in the suburbs of Cape Town. If he goes to Windermere he will find there a partition made of wooden palings within which 200 natives live. I maintain that these people are offloaded here without them knowing where to go to. If you go to some of the places which have been brought to my notice, as for instance the place called Mossienes you will find three native families living in one room. Go to 7th Avenue, Claremont; go to New Church Street and to Reliance Street, and you will find out what the conditions are. The position is so serious that local bodies convened a meeting on the 22nd January in order to discuss this difficult situation. There it is stated that in the Cape flats natives tie together the tops of some trees and sleep under it. No control is being exercised; the natives walk about as they like to. They may not be such a great danger at the moment, but when troops come from the North and those native troops are let loose here, we can imagine what the position in Cape Town and surroundings is going to be. As things are going now we here in the Cape Peninsula are to a certain extent exposed to the danger of an epidemic breaking out at any time. In this connection I want to mention a case. A sick native got off the train at Bellville. He proceeded to Oakdale where he went to stay in a house. That native was suffering from typhoid. From Oakdale he went to the compound of the Hume Pipe quarries and from there to Windermere. There he got so ill that a doctor was called in and he was removed to hospital. If they had not got hold of that native, he would have been a great danger. At the Hume Pipe works steps were immediately taken to disinfect the natives. The natives, however, refused to be so disinfected. I understand that even the hon. member for Cape Western was not able to persuade them to allow it. He may be able to tell more about it to the Minister. In spite of his pleading the natives did not want to allow it to be done, and only after the police had been called in did they get the natives to agree to it. I mention this case because it came to my notice and I want to ask the Minister whether sufficient care is being taken that cases will not occur again of natives being transported to the Peninsula without control and put off here. We can imagine how the disease such as typhoid might spread in that manner. I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Western is not here, for I wanted to ask him a question here across the floor of the House. I understand that he personally pleaded with the Hume Pipe people for an increase in the wages of the natives. I furthermore understand that he also pleaded for a wage of £4 per week.

Where do you get that information?

It does not matter where I get my information. I cannot guarantee that the information is correct and for that reason I put the question to the hon. member across the floor of the House. If he says that that is not so, I shall be prepared to accept his word for it. I therefore ask him candidly whether he pleaded for those natives receiving £4 per week. If that is so—well, I withdrew just now what I said, but then I shall be sorry that I did so. He did not succeed with his pleadings. But I still say that if it is true that he advocated it, then I am sorry that I withdrew what I said just now. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he cannot exercise some control or other over the migration of natives to the Western Province and to other towns. We are not opposed to these natives coming to the Western Province when there is work for them. What we are opposed to is that they simply get on to the train and are put off here, and thereafter loaf around until they can get work. I therefore want to express the hope that we shall see some investigation being made into this matter on the part of the Minister and his Department, and that the Minister will try to do something, so that this position will no longer continue. The point of view of this side of the House when discussing non-Europeans and natives is not based on hatred against or envy of the non-Europeans, but it is based on the love for what is our own. We as Europeans in this country believe in the doctrine of self-preservation. The question which is again and again mooted in this House when we are faced with the non-European problem as a whole is as follows: Do we want segregation between Europeans and non-Europeans, do we want to see the European race in this country survive, and do we want to prevent that miscegenation between European and non-European takes place, or do we want to see that the Europeans are eventually absorbed by the non-European races? In regard to this problem, there are only two ways open to us. If we say that this country should remain a white man’s country, then we must be prepared to guarantee that at whatever the cost may be. In this connection we cannot follow a two-stream policy. We should remember that we have only a small European population in this country. Our white population amounts to only one European against four non-Europeans, and on top of that we have a very strong non-European hinterland. North of our borders there are not less than one hundred million non-Europeans. We therefore ask the Government and this House not to follow a policy of laissez faire. If we follow a policy of laissez faire in connection with this matter, we shall be committing a crime against the white population, and we shall be making more difficult the task of posterity. I maintain that is so. The Government cannot wash its hands in innocence today and assert that it is not busy making the task for posterity more difficult. The Government is busy using the non-European population for military purposes. We find that the Government is arming the non-Europeans. We know that not only coloureds, but natives, too, are being militarised, and the result cannot be anything else but to make this question much more difficult in future. If we continue to arm the non-Europeans in this manner and to use them to fight against Europeans, what will the effect be on the non-Europeans in this country? Should we be surprised when those people come back, that they do not want to return to their mode of living of the past, and that they will not be satisfied as a race to take the place which they should take in this country? No, we feel that we have not done our duty, and we accuse the Government that it is not doing its duty, and if we do not do our duty in regard to this problem, we shall be committing a crime against both the European as well as the non-European. For, if there is no healthy spirit between the two sections, we shall find that we are creating difficulties not only to the detriment of the European, but also to the detriment of the non-European. We say that we want segregation in all spheres of life; we want segregation between European and nonEuropean, and we ask that that segregation shall be established not only as far as the natives are concerned, but we also ask that there shall be segregation in respect of coloureds and Asiatics.

Give your opinion on the 1936 Acts.

We feel that we want that segregation, also in regard to coloureds and Europeans, and between Asiatics and Europeans. We on this side of the House feel that there should be a distinction in the wages of Europeans and non-Europeans respectively. The white man cannot work for the same minimum wage as the nonEuropean. We cannot expect the white man to maintain his status in the end if we do not enable him to do so in the sphere of economics. We therefore say that we are in favour of a minimum wage for our Europeans and non-Europeans being laid down in respect of our industries, but at the same time there should be a considerable difference between the wages of those two sections. We also are in favour of a quota of labour in our industries, a quota for Europeans and a quota for non-Europeans. We do not want the non-European, because he receives lower wages, being able to oust the Europeans from those fields of activity. We are opposed to that, and we implore the Government to see to it that Europeans and non-Europeans do not work together, and where they have to work together, that the non-European shall not have the same status as the European. If they have to work together, then the European should at least have a higher status in that work than the non-European. We ask the Government to give effect to segregation in the post offices. What is the position today? When the old age pensions are being paid out, the Europeans are being pushed aside by the non-Europeans in our post offices. We ask for segregation between Europeans and nonEuropeans on our buses. Just have a look at what is happening here in the large towns. We find from day to day that the Europeans when they have to travel to their work, have to sit in the same bus and on the same seat with the non-Europeans. A European lady is sitting in the bus and a coloured man comes in and sits next to her. I do not know whether the hon. members on the other side are so keen to see their wives and daughters having to sit next to non-Europeans in the buses. We of course know that the members of the families of members on the other side usually need not make use of buses. It is the less privileged Afrikaner who day after day has to travel to his place of work here in Cape Town and finds that day after day he has to sit together with the non-Europeans in the same buses on the same seats. If we continue to allow such things, we may expect that in future that feeling in regard to colour will gradually be deadened, and if that happens the responsibility for its rests on this House as the highest authority in the country. We also demand that there should be segregation in the field of politics. We are opposed to coloureds voting together with us.

I am afraid that the question of coloureds is not now under discussion. The motion deals only with natives.

May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that my amendment reads as follows—a sound policy of segregation of Europeans and non-Europeans.

But the amendment of the hon. member cannot go beyond the motion itself. It has to be limited to natives.

In that case I want to urge the Minister to do everything in his power to counteract the subversive propaganda among the natives, that propaganda which incites them against the Europeans. I cannot go into this matter now, for there is a motion in regard to it on the Order Paper. But I do want to ask the Minister to give his attention to this matter. This incitement of the natives cannot have anything but a terribly detrimental effect for both the Europeans and the non-Europeans. As I have already said, we on this side of the House feel that our first duty is towards our own country and our own people. Although we are not in favour of oppressing the natives, we still feel that the policy of self preservation has to stand, and if we take away the segregation between Europeans and non-Europeans, the Europeans will disappear from this country, and we believe that this will not be to the advantage of the nonEuropeans. We feel that the higher the European civilisation in this country rises, the higher can we raise the non-Europeans, but not on the same ladder and not on the same rung. If we want to see the European civilisation here survive, we can never allow the non-Europeans and the natives in this country receiving equal rights and full equality with the Europeans. I want to ask that this matter be not considered from a party political point of view. The Minister told us that he was speaking from the bottom of his heart. I want to ask him to tackle this problem as Minister of Native Affairs also from the bottom of his heart, and to take care that the European civilisation in this country shall be maintained.

I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser). That amendment to a great extent embodies the policy of this party in regard to the native question. Before I proceed with a few remarks on the reason of this being our policy, before I explain what our motives are, I should like to point out that this debate on native affairs is so different from other similar debates in the past, that we cannot allow it to pass without any more. I must say that when I listened to speeches from the other side, such as that from the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) and the one from the hon. Minister of Native Affairs, it struck me that members on that side of the House are now able to have an objective point of view on native affairs, something which was impossible for them in the past. The improvement in the attitude taken up in this House when this question is under discussion, is due to one thing and one thing only, and that is the large measure of segregation in the political field which we introduced in South Africa several years ago. There were many people who at the beginning were disappointed with the effect of segregation, who were disappointed that the effect was not such in this case as they had expected. But in the life of a people five years or ten years is but a drop in the ocean, and the disappointment arose because the expected development did not take place quickly enough. Those people would today have been very pleased if they could have been here and could have noticed the fruits the legislation of 1936 is now bearing. We have now witnessed in this House—and what I am saying now is not meant in a personal way—that people who need not go back to report to their constituents on the native question, or let me rather put it this way, that the people who need not be afraid that they must go and report to native constituents on whose vote they had to depend, are no longer put under restraint, with the result that they could really deal objectively with this problem. They could get up here and state what they thought to be in the interests of the people, and they could do so because they are not dependent upon native voters for then seats in Parliament. The result was that their speeches were objective. The speech of the hon. member for Tembuland was objective. If he had been dependent for his seat upon thousands of native votes, it would have been very difficult for him to hold that speech here in the House. But it was possible for him to do so because that legislation contributed to making him independent in this House in regard to this important question. We cannot get away from the fact that today there exists a state of unrest in South Africa between the Europeans on the one hand and the nonEuropeans on the other hand. It does not help us to want to deny it. It does not help us to follow an ostrich policy. The unrest does exist, there is friction and there is dissatisfaction. We notice that right through the country. We all read about it in the newspapers. There are disturbances amongst the natives. Those disturbances have to be suppressed and these clashes do not improve the relations between the natives and the Europeans but make them worse. The native feels that he has a grievance, and the European feels that he has a grievance against the native. Matters of this kind grow like a snowball rolling down a mountain. They get bigger and bigger the further they go. Friction and dissatisfaction exist and the further it goes, the greater will become this friction and dissatisfaction. I think that all members in this House who are interested in this problem will admit that there is a growing tension and dissatisfaction in the country, and I believe that all of us feel much concern about the future of South Africa and about the relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans. In this sense the native question is one of our greatest problems of the future. And if we see things in this light, we cannot but look with the greatest fear at the developments which have taken place recently. It does not, however, help us to try and cure a disease by making the symptoms disappear. I am afraid that the motion proposed in this House, does not get at the root of the disease. It is rather like some ointment which is put on a sore to see whether we cannot make the sore disappear. If a man has a headache, the cause may not be in the head at all. If a man has a sore on his foot it does not mean that the origin of the illness is at that spot. It does not help to put some ointment on it or to swallow a few aspirins. As soon as the ointment has disappeared or the effect of the aspirins has worn off, the illness still remains. I am afraid that in regard to this problem we are busy dealing with the symptoms, that we are busy with “palliatives”. We are looking for remedies to smear over the cracks, but we do not go into the origin of the trouble. We establish the following facts. We have the friction between natives and Europeans. What is the cause of it, and what can be done to remove the tension between Europeans and non-Europeans? If that can be removed, the native question will be solved. If you cannot do it, and if you stick to the treatment of symptoms, you will only postpone the time when the difficulty will come to a head and explode. It is not my task to say what has to be done. One has to feel his way in these things. But what I do feel is that the course the Nationalist Party wants to take, amounts to a preparedness to remove the friction between white and black in South Africa by means of a sound segregation policy. If I say “sound” I do not use the word in the superficial manner in which some people use it, but I understand by a sound segregation policy, a policy which can remove the friction and thereby improve the future relations between European and non-European. My attitude towards the native—and I think I can openly say that it is also the attitude of the members on this side of the House towards the nonEuropean—is a feeling of sympathy. We feel that the Europeans in South Africa carry a tremendous responsibility. That is the responsibility of two million Europeans who have to deal with 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 natives who are partly uncivilised and partly half-civilised, and whose future, whose weal and woe are not in their own hands, but depend on the direction in which we lead them. That is the responsibility which the white man in South Africa has to carry today. The relations between Europeans and natives can be put right not by the natives, but only by the Europeans, and then only if the Europeans in South Africa follow a policy of sympathy and commonsense in regard to the natives, a policy based on a scientific foundation. Only if such a policy is followed can we in South Africa prevent the difficulties which other wise will arise if there should be a clash between Europeans and non-Europeans. But I want to emphasise that when we lay down that policy, it is not only a policy of selfpreservation for the white man in South Africa, but also a policy of sympathy towards the natives. I furthermore want to admit openly that there are thousands and thousands of persons in South Africa, and one finds them in all political parties in our country, and this applies equally to us on Africa prevent the difficulties which other-side, in whom this feeling of sympathy towards the native is absent. It does not help to tell the people that they should be sympathetic. It does not help to ask them why they cherish no sympathy for the native. It does not help that we tell them: You feel sympathetic towards an animal, a dog and why not towards a native? One should ask oneself the question why that man has no sympathy for the native. He is not sympathetic towards the native on account of the friction which exists between Europeans and non-Europeans, the friction which one finds where people live together, the friction one meets with where people work together, and the friction we had in the past when natives were made use of as a political football in South Africa, and the friction which has now again been engendered because Communists and other agitators are busy, again for political purposes, to use the natives as a football in our political life. That friction in South Africa is the cause of the lack of sympathy towards the native on the part of many persons. But, in addition to the friction, there is undoubtedly also a feeling of fear in South Africa among the Europeans against the native, and not only on the part of the European, but the coloured man also is afraid of the native, because the natives in their thousands enter the areas which formerly were, so to say, inhabited exclusively by Europeans and also by coloureds, and the natives are systematically taking away the work which used to be done by the coloureds, and they are even systematically taking away in many respects the work which used to be done by Europeans. And if the native does not actually take away the work of the white man, he in any case puts the European in a position which compels the latter, in order to make a living, to bring down his standard of living to that of the native, as otherwise he cannot compete with the native. On account of that position thousands of Europeans harbour a fear against the native. We therefore find on the one side the fear of the European against the native, and on the other side the friction caused by the dwelling conditions in the large towns, the influx of natives, the working together and the mix-up in places of work. I want to say very little about the debate we had here today, but I do want to emphasise that what we are aiming at in our policy of segregation which was lucidly expounded by the hon. member for Malmesbury, is to strike at the root of the evil. We want to give the European the certainty that he need not be afraid of the native in future—we not only have this physical fear but also the economic fear. Secondly we want to eliminate the possibility of friction arising between black and white, a friction which is caused by the mixed residential areas and the mixed working conditions, and all the other instances where the one rubs the other up the wrong way. We want to eliminate those sources of friction. If we can achieve the position when the European is no longer affronted, if he is no longer rubbed up the wrong way by the native, if he is no longer forced down through native competition, and if the fear for the power of the natives no longer is rampant in South Africa, then we shall solve the problem. Then the entire outlook of the bulk of Europeans about the native will undergo a revolution, and then the Europeans in South Africa as a whole—I am not talking now about a small group of people who possibly think more about these problems than others—but then white South Africa will take up a sympathetic attitude towards the native, and then the European will be willing to do more for the native. This, however, can only happen when he no longer views the native as a danger. But the matter can also be viewed from a different angle. It may possibly be said that I mainly stated the case from the point of view of the European, but we maintain that our policy is also in the interest of the native himself. I need not repeat and emphasise it. Hon. members all know that our idea is not to try and make a good European out of a native, but to make a good native of him, for one can never make a native into a good European, and you will only make a bad native of him if you try to turn him into a good European. To bear out what I say you need only look at the natives still residing in the native territories, where they still belong to the old tribal system, where their tribal traditions and customs are still adhered to. I think that all hon. members who are acquainted with the native territories will admit that in the native areas the natives are the most peace loving people one can find in any part of the world. I was surprised when I came there for the first time to notice how a handful of police maintain law and order in the native territories, and the police were actually only there for administrative purposes, for the natives maintained their own order because they lived there under their own native moral code which they obeyed, and because they followed their centuries old traditions which lay down that the native has to be obedient within the tribal entity. Now the native who in those areas is an orderly and peace loving person, goes to the Witwatersrand or to Cape Town or some other large town, and there everything is broken down; his old traditions, his customs and his moral code no longer count. The tribal opinion which always kept him from violating the laws of his tribe no longer counts. He now comes into contact with the customs of the Europeans. He is not able to hold his own against it. The first thing he does is to adopt a whole string of habits and so on from the Europeans, very few of the good habits, but practically all the evil things—drink, diseases, crime. We then find that the native who was orderly and peace loving in his own territory, completely degenerates amongst the Europeans. After some time he may return to his native area, and it does not happen once, but continually, that the police in the large towns inform the police of the native area: A well-known criminal is returning to his native area; you better watch him. The native comes back and what happens? Does he continue his career of crime? No, he again comes under the spell of the old tribal customs, the old traditions of his people and there in his own tribe he again becomes the peace loving and orderly subject. I mention this to point out that one should not break down the things which are the native’s very own and to give him instead a second hand mode of living he does not want and which does not suit him. One cannot do it and our policy is based on the principle that the native should be allowed to develop but to develop in his own way and that second hand methods should not be applied to him. We want to have him build on his own foundation, on his own tribal customs and popular traditions. We want him to build on his own moral code which he understands and which his people have understood for centuries. Then, and then only, will he be able to achieve something which will be of value to him. But when we proceed to follow a policy which so many of the so-called friends of the natives should like to see introduced, viz., to turn the natives in South Africa, so to say, into Europeans, if we cut him adrift from his tribal customs, then we shall break off everything that is good in him and give him something which he cannot understand and cannot make proper use of. Then you will create conditions in the whole of South Africa which one now finds in some parts where the natives got mixed up with Europeans, and where they forgot everything that was good in their own race and their own people. Our policy, the policy of the Nationalist Party, is a policy of separating black and white in social and economic matters, so that the friction to which I referred will be eliminated; and, secondly, our policy is to allow the natives to develop within their own area, and if they develop there, they build up something that is their own, and of which they can be justly proud. We do not want to make an imitation European of the native, for that is something doomed to fail. But it is a great problem. As the hon. member for Malmesbury said, it is a problem which cannot be solved within one generation; it is a problem we shall probably have to deal with for centuries to come. But there is one thing we can do today, and that is now to stop treating the symptoms of the disease, and to ask ourselves in all honesty what the root cause of the problem is, and to try from now onwards to systematically eliminate the disputes existing between white and black—and when I speak of disputes I have in mind the disputes which cause the friction. As in the future, we shall have three or four times as many Europeans as we have today, and three or four times as many natives, and as thereby the problem may be intensified, we should prevent the problem becoming more acute by today laying the foundation upon which in the course of time, in spite of the increase in population, the solution will be based. I am afraid that we are today making the problem worse for the generations to come. The hon. member for Malmesbury expounded the policy of this side, a policy which is calculated to eliminate the difficulties which exist today, not by treating the symptoms, but by striking at the root of the evil and by curing the disease there, or in any case by taking such steps as will make it easier for posterity to solve the problem.

I appreciate the speech of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). I think the House has seldom had the privilege of discussing the matter so calmly as is now the case, and for that reason I also want to bring to the attention of the Minister in the most calm manner a few matters that, according to my mind, have to do chiefly with the present native policy. I think in 1937 a law was passed by this House providing for the transfer of natives who find themselves in certain areas that are not their own areas, where they do not work in those areas. We hear the farmers discussing their labour problems every day. Let me tell the Minister that according to my rough estimation there are at least 50,000 natives on the Witwatersrand today who do not work. We find, however, that the Government of our country, at the behest of the Chamber of Mines, is perpetually seeking native labour in other territories. There are negotiations with other territories to get natives to work in the Union. It seems inconsistent if side by side with this there is a large number of natives on the Witwatersrand who do not work. It is impossible for me at present to give the reasons why the natives do not work, but it seems inconsistent that we should have so many natives in our own country who do not work, while it is the policy of the Government to allow natives from other territories to come to the mines in the Union to work. I do not think we are justified in permitting this until the whole native population in South Africa is absorbed in employment. It is not right towards the natives and towards the whole population of South Africa to do this—to do our best to obtain a large number of natives for the mining industry, while there is a great mass of our own natives who do not work. I would like the Minister and his Department to ask the Department of Native Affairs: Are you not able to take into employment a great number of the natives who are unemployed on the Witwatersrand today?

Why do they not work today?

All I know is that there are many of the natives who do not work, and I want to know if the Department of Native Affairs cannot bring back the natives who do not work to their original areas. I do not mean that they should be simply compelled and taken by the neck and thrown out of the so-called industrial centres, but I mean that the Department might persuade them to return to their original areas, if they do not work on the Witwatersrand. They will not be worse off there than they are today. Nobody will tell me that they are better off if they idle around on the Witwatersrand than when they are in the areas from which they have come. The contrary is the case. It seems to me that the Act of 1937 has never been brought into effect. I do not want the Government to act recklessly, but as the position now is, it is quite ineffective. The complaint is perpetually heard that the labour problem of the farmers is great, and yet there are thousands and thousands of natives on the Rand who are unemployed. If the Minister would only get the reports of the various police districts of the Witwatersrand, from the Commandant of each of the districts, then he will be informed that during the best working hours of the day, namely at 11 o’clock and 12 o’clock, there are hundreds and hundreds of natives who idle about and do not work.

Are they not perhaps night workers?

If they work at night they must sleep in the day and not sit together in crowds or idle about the streets. The police cannot ask them what they are doing there when they have passes. The police have not the right to ask that. Without departing from the policy laid down by the Minister, without amending his policy, this is a practical matter that the Department can tackle. Secondly, as I have explained, the Department can make attempts to return the natives to the areas from which they originally came, and the natives can be of value in those areas of the Platteland. Nobody can deny that this will be better for the natives than to idle about unemployed on the Witwatersrand or in Cape Town. As speakers have rightly said, we are the guardians and we must keep the natives in order just as in the case of the Europeans, and we must remove the friction of which we have heard. It is indeed also a practical fact that the European workers fear the competition of the natives. I want to suggest that the Government should give practical effect to the Act of 1937 to the advantage of the country as a whole.

We can only act in respect of natives who do not work and who come from the native areas.

But that is precisely my point, that there is a big number of them who come from the native areas and who do not work. I object to them coming from the native areas and running about idle in the cities. If they are unable to get work after a reasonable period of 14 days or a month then they must be taken back to their areas. I think some of them do not want to work. There is also another attitude among the natives that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is the spiteful attitude that you get today among a large number of natives. We are in the war, and the farmers are crying for labour. The Europeans in the country, men and women, are busy today to contributing something to the war effort. Where they are not at the front, there they work on the home front, on the Platteland or in the industries, but you find a large number of natives today who say: “We are not prepared to work for you.” That is the spiteful attitude you get today, and we must try to discourage it. I strongly disapprove of the agitation among the natives who come from their own areas and who become the innocent victims of the agitators. The natives idle about on the Witwatersrand, and the agitators tell them they must remain there, and all will be well. If there is a strike, they participate in it, even though they have never worked, and in this way the matter becomes increasingly serious. The natives who work on the Witwatersrand are entitled to remain there, but those who do not work ought to go back to their areas. Then there will be a chance later to bring the natives to a sense of duty and to tell them that if they do not work they cannot eat. There is a great number today who do not work, but who nevertheless eat.

Where do they get food?

That is difficult to determine. That is the position, and, as the representative of a Witwatersrand constituency, I would be neglecting my duty if I did not bring the matter to the attention of the Government. The friction is becoming worse daily, and it is bringing the people of the Witwatersrand to the stage where they no longer have any time for the natives, because the European men and women work, but the natives say: “We do not work for you.” I am therefore trying to suggest remedial measures. Hon. members from the Witwatersrand will agree with me that the matter is becoming worse daily. The Europeans also have such a thing as patience, but that patience is being tried a little too far. As a man who has been a missionary on the Witwatersrand for 40 years recently said in one of the daily papers: “We must not over-exert things.” I am satisfied with the native administration. I want to tell the Minister that as regards the Government and the policy it has laid down I am satisfied, but there are things that demand his immediate attention, particularly as regards the Witwatersrand. The consequences of the situation prevailing there become more difficult of solution the longer they last. The mines need native labour. The mine managers say there is a shortage of native labour. I suggest something positive. The Minister’s Department must find out the reason why the 50,000 natives on the Witwatersrand idle about, and why the mines have not sufficient labour. The Department of Native Affairs—or perhaps it is the task of the Native Affairs Commission—must ask the Chamber of Mines why this is. Is it because their wages are too poor, so that the natives prefer to do odd jobs with shopkeepers and in other spheres of work? I think it is a concrete matter to be tackled. I think the Department of Native Affairs will find that the reason why so many natives say that they do not want to work in the mines is because they can obtain odd work that pays them better with the shopkeepers or the municipality or other employers.

Your Leader says they must receive a minimum wage of 10s.

I do not see where that comes in. Apparently the hon. member did not follow what I said at all.

Sit down, then I will tell you.

But let me ask my hon. friend immediately what he pays his native in cash on the farms. While he poses here as an apostle in that sphere, let him tell this House immediately what he pays his natives. Then we shall see that this is one of the reasons why the natives run away from the farms to seek something better, and get something worse. No, that sort of cheap interjection brings the House no further than it is. If the hon. member makes those interjections, then he can tell us what he pays his natives. But he will neglect to do that. I want to ask the Minister that his Department should give attention to this matter. It affects the Witwatersrand, the mines, and the agricultural population of the Union of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as the proposer of this motion has shown, the real purpose and intent of the so-called segregation policy is to define the political rights of the African people, and to confine the native people to the reserves, except in so far as they are required by industry in the large centres to which they would be as it were temporary visitors, returning in due time to the reserves from which they came. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has indicated that from a variety of causes that policy has broken down. It seems to me, from what has been said, that the Minister has completely misunderstood our approach to this problem which is neither political nor social but rather economic. We contend that owing to the industrial development of the contrary, and the obvious need, if you are to keep down your cost of production, of utilising the supply of African labour which you have, the policy of segregation as it has been understood in the past, is detrimental to the whole of South Africa; and you have to face up to the fact that if your secondary industries are to be developed on an economic basis, then you have to integrate the African population as a part of your industrial scheme. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are many who approach this matter from a practical point of view, who will dispute the truth of that statement. In these days you must look far ahead, because your gold-mining industry is a diminishing and eventually disappearing asset, and if you are not to be faced with an economic crisis in the days when the gold-mining industry ceases to be the main factor in your economy, then you must plan to develop and safeguard your secondary industries. Are you going to leave that very important step until the time when you are faced with that crisis or are you going to face up to it at this stage? We contend that you must face up to the situation as soon as possible, if you are convinced, as we feel you must be convinced that the policy which we are criticising is in fact detrimental to the proper development of your secondary industries. That seems to me to put in a nutshell the proposition we have laid before the House today, and, Sir, so far I have listened in vain for any reply which seems to me to go to the fundamental basis of that proposition. What we need is the integration of the African population into our industrial machinery so that we can develop on sound lines. Now what is the cause of this gathering of the African people in the towns? You must appreciate that as the inevitable result of the particular segregation policy of 1936, we had to find adequate land for the African people. But let me tell the House this, that in the Transkei we have at least from 45,000 to 50,000 adult married African people, who have no land at all. The economic conditions which have been brought into being by that fact forces these people to go into the industrial market. They must live somewhere. If they remain in the reserves, they are placed in the position of having to make out of their small arable allotment intended for one family provision for the support of two families. They go into the industrial world to earn their living, and we know that in point of fact that the number of African people congregated in or near the towns is not in excess of the labour needs of industry, and the point which does not seem to be sufficiently appreciated is that if these people are necessary to industry, they must have somewhere to live. The reserves are insufficient to hold the population that they are now holding. Today in the Transkei the density of population is between 75 and 80 to the square mile as against 9 per square mile for the whole of the rest of the Cape Province.

Is that including Kuruman and all those areas up there?

I am dealing with the areas that I know about.

But is yours a fair comparison?

The density of population in Zululand is between 40 and 50 to the square mile, which in itself is not a satisfactory situation. These people who have no homes in the reserves where they are supposed to live, must inevitably drift to the urban areas. They come down to Cape Town and other centres in hundreds to serve the needs of industry, and yet there are no places available for them seeking their absorption by industry. Such places as do exist are overcrowded, and there is absolutely no place where they can stay. What are they to do? They are required for the industries, and it seems to me there should be some organisation which will provide places in which they can live in decency until such time as their services are required.

I move—

I would like to have an explanation from the Minister in connection with this particular clause. Words are being added to Clause 150 in the principal Act that come down to this, that there will be no right of appeal against an order issued under the law. Are not certain rights being taken away here? I would like the Minister to explain the position to us. It appears to me that these rights existed before, and that those words are being added to take away the rights.

It does not remove any rights. It only prevents unnecessary cases being made.

The Minister says that it takes away no rights, but it prevents unnecessary cases being made. Then it does take away rights. We must be careful about such things, and therefore I would like to know what rights are being taken away.

There have been certain cases which made it clear to us that it would be desirable to bring about this change in the law. It was not clear that under Clause 150 there was a right of appeal, and we now clarify it.

Well, then it comes down to a restriction of the right of persons under Clause 150, and the Minister cannot say that this is not done. This matter is very unclear, and I think we must accept that persons are being deprived of rights here.

The object of the principal Act is simply clarified. There is no appeal against certain orders.

I move—

I move—

I move—

I move—

I move—

1. 30.
   1. (1) The Governor General may make regulations in respect of any town, village or settlement, or a portion of any town, village or settlement, which is not in an urban area as defined in Section 29 of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, 1923 (Act No. 21 of 1923), and which is exclusively inhabited by Natives—
      1. (a) providing for the establishment of a local authority for that town, village or settlement, or portion thereof;
      2. (b) prescribing the area over which such local authority shall have control; and
      3. (c) providing for the election of the majority of the members of such local authority by the householders residing within its area and for the appointment of the remaining members:
         Provided that if two-thirds or more of the inhabitants of any such town, village or settlement, or portion thereof, are natives and the remaining inhabitants are other coloured persons such town, village or settlement, or portion thereof, shall be deemed to be exclusively inhabited by natives.
   2. (2) A local authority so established shall have power to make regulations—
      1. (a) for the prevention and suppresion of nuisances, the keeping of premises free from offensive, infectious or unwholesome matters, the protection from pollution of water, the prohibition of the use and occupation of unhealthy or insanitary dwellings, the provision of sanitary conveniences, the disposal of nightsoil and rubbish and generally for the preservation of the health of the inhabitants;
      2. (b) for the prevention of congestion of the population and of overcrowding and the unhealthy use of dwellings or other buildings;
      3. (c) for the limitation of the number or classes of animals which any person may keep, and for the protection of the grazing within its area;
      4. (d) permitting any person to brew, possess, supply or consume kaffir beer within its area and prescribing the conditions on which he may do so and the quantities of kaffir beer which he may brew, posses, supply or consume;
      5. (e) for the imposition of rates or other charges upon the owners of immovable property or upon residents within its area: Provided that no rate imposed upon any such owner shall, in any one year, exceed two and one-half per cent. of the value of the property owned by him; and
      6. (f) generally for the development, control and management of its area.
   3. (3) No regulation made by a local authority under Sub-Section (2) shall be of force and effect until it has been approved by the Governor General and published in the “Gazette”.
   4. (4) All prosecutions for any contravention of such regulations shall be at the instance of the Crown, and any fine imposed and recovered in respect of such a contravention shall be paid over to the local authority concerned.
   5. (5) If any local authority fails to make, amend or revoke such regulations as in the opinion of the Governor General are, or in such manner as in his opinion may be, necessary and expedient, the Governor General may make such regulations as aforesaid as he may consider necessary: Provided that a local authority shall not be deemed to have failed to make, amend or revoke any regulation, unless it has remained in default in doing so for four months from the date of receipt of a notice by the Secretary for Native Affairs requiring it to do so.
   6. (6) If any such town, village or settlement is not exclusively inhabited by natives, but two-thirds or more of its inhabitants are natives and no local authority has been established therefor in terms of SubSection (1), the Governor General may in respect thereof make regulations as specified in SubSection (2).
   7. (7) Any regulation made under paragraph (d) of Sub-Section (2) shall prevail over any conflicting provision in the Liquor Act, 1928 (Act No. 30 of 1928).

I have moved the amendment, the effect of which will be that the calculation of the immediate value under what we shall call the third alternative, that the interest shall be reckoned on the basis of 3½ per cent. Last evening the question was put: “Why not 3 per cent.?” It is of course quite correct that the Government issues loans at 3 per cent., but that does not mean that the money costs the Government 3 per cent. We have all the expense in connection with the issues of the loans and the control of the loans, and the Treasury has calculated that under existing circumstances, if it places a loan at 3 per cent., it must reckon with additional costs of something more than .4 per cent., so that it then comes to 3.4 per cent. Where we borrow money at 3 per cent., we cannot lend it out again at 3 per cent., but we must calculate 3½ per cent. We cannot go lower than 3½ per cent. While I am busy discussing this clause, I want to move a further amendment. A great deal was said yesterday in anticipation of the clause as regards the position of persons who choose the third alternative, in other words who pay a globular sum in reduction of their capital burden, whereby they then receive an amount from us. It has been argued that persons under the Bill as it stands today, if they make the payment, will no longer have the protection regarding the rate of interest on the amount that remains over in respect of their bond, in other words that the 5 per cent. restriction existing in the law today will fall away. I then said that if someone would move an amendment on the point I would be prepared to consider the whole matter on its merits. It is quite correct that under paragraph (c) of Sub-Section (3) the result will be that such a person will no longer enjoy the protection. Now I see that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) wants to move an amendment in this connection. I am not satisfied with the amendment he wants to move because it does not really fit into the framework of the Act. The Act as such, as it is today, does not restrict the rate of interets to 5 per cent. directly, but in an indirect way. It is actually that if someone is credited, when his creditor makes him pay more than 5 per cent., then the amount, the residue, must be collected by way of taxation. Now the amendment of the hon. member is not really in harmony with the framework of the Act as it is today. On this point I have considered the matter, and I think the best plan would be simply to delete paragraph (c) as a whole. It then means that so long as the principal Act applies, it will also apply to bonds of debtors who avail themselves of the third alternative. I think that will meet my hon. friend. It perhaps goes a little further, but so far as I can see there is nothing in the rest of the Act that cannot also remain applicable to the bonds. Thus the easiest way of getting out of the difficulty is to let paragraph (c) lapse, and I want to propose such an amendment, and I hope that hon. members will be satisfied with it. I move—

I hope my friend will be satisfied, and that we shall have no further difficulty with the clause, and that we can now dispose of the Bill in Committee. I have done my best to meet him.

I think the Minister acts completely in the spirit of the original law by moving the amendment. What he said about the manner in which the assistance was extended under the law is quite correct, namely by demanding back money from a creditor who gets more than 5 per cent. That is how the law stands. I therefore think that we can accept this amendment of the Minister with gratitude. I am not a lawyer, and I would like to see that not the least doubt shall exist, and therefore I would like to know definitely from the Minister if the difficulty will be completely removed by the deletion of paragraph (c).

Completely.

Then I think that we can accept it with gratitude.

I would like to propose an amendment to Clause 3 (3), viz.—

I want to explain briefly. The farming community are finding themselves in a season at present that is going to cause them many big difficulties. In the maize areas an outstanding crop was expected, but a great percentage of the expected crop is already lost. I have received representations from my constituency to the effect that the people, after getting in their wool clip, would have been able to pay off, in one case a man reduced his bond by a sum of £500. He has no hope of making a repayment ahead so as to enjoy the advantage under the third alternative, and consequently I shall be glad if the Minister will consider making the law retrospective as regards the third alternative, to 1st April, 1942. I think it is clear what I mean.

The amendment involves increased expenditure, and I regret that I am unable to put it to the Committee without the consent of the Governor General.

I am very glad that the Minister has realised that if he does not protect the people who pay off on their bonds they will be worse off than the people who continue to pay interest subsidy. I have always understood that the Minister is earnestly desirous that where possible the farmers should reduce their bonds. Now I want to ask him, if he desires that they should pay off and they do not have money to pay off, how are they going to pay off? If the Minister is as anxious as he appears to be that the farmers should pay off some of their capital burden instead of only receiving assistance in the payment of interest, there the Minister ought to give any farmer who asks for it the amount of the interest subsidy for paying off, quite apart from the question as to whether the farmer himself has paid off a definite amount. Otherwise you place the man who makes the choice in a worse position than the man who takes the subsidy to pay his interest. If that is so, what objection can the Minister have if the farmer himself prefers taking the amount from the Government for re-payment of his capital burden instead of receiving the subsidy on his interest. Why must the condition be put that the farmer must first pay off so much? In the first place, it is not in accordance with the desire of the Minister; and, in the second place, it means that precisely the poor man who must be helped cannot pay off the amount. I agreed that farmers who can pay must be encouraged to reduce their burden, but we are not going to help the man who particularly needs help in this way. Therefore I want to propose as an amendment—

This simply means that the farmer will not be obliged to pay off a certain amount first. Then the Minister will, indeed, help the man who is desirous of reducing his burden, and who is not in a position to do so, and the Government will not be in a worse position because it will pay nothing more, but just as much as it undertook to pay, because if the Government does not give the amount to the man, then the Government must in any case pay it in interest subsidy every year. I also do not agree with the Minister that where the man pays off immediately this means higher costs for the State, because on the contrary the administrative costs are thereby reduced. If he pays the interest year after year, then the administrative costs in connection therewith are higher. Now the Minister says that it costs the State 3.4 per cent. But if we calculate the money on the basis of 3 per cent., and the Government immediately pays the immediate value of the subsidy, then it is not necessary to add the .4 per cent. because there are not more administrative costs in connection with the payment. We should really subtract the .4 per cent., and thus make it 2.6 per cent. for the purpose of the calculation of the immediate value, because the administrative costs fall away. The less the percentage is, the higher will be the immediate value of the subsidy. I do not understand the Minister when he says that the interest plus the administrative costs must be put at 3.4 per cent. I feel that this proposal of mine is fair, and if the Minister will not accept it then he will see what the result will be. I am a business man, and I know that the farmer is not going to take the lesser benefit. If he contributes his share, and the subsidy is paid out immediately, then het gets less than he gets under the interest subsidy. The farmer will not be willing to let himself down. But then I would like to say something on behalf of the poor farmers who are not in a position to contribute their share in order to obtain the immediate value. It is only the rich man who can get this privilege because he is in a position to pay his contributions. I have a further proposal. I realise however that the Chairman will also rule this out of order. I want to move that the 5 per cent. be superseded by 3 per cent. instead of 3½ per cent. I want to speak on this, however, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I cannot go to the Governor General, but he can do so and I ask him to obtain a recommendation from the Governor General to bring down the 3½ per cent. to 3 per cent. Make it 3 per cent. immediately. If I had known what I know now then I would have proposed that it must be 2.6 per cent., because the .4 per cent. administrative costs fall away. I shall be satisfied however if the Minister makes it 3 per cent. I feel I have the right to ask the Minister to accept this amendment. I cannot propose the substitution of 3 per cent. for 3½ per cent. As regards the rest of the proposal, I want Sub-Clause (3) deleted. I did not know what the Minister’s proposal was going to be.

We wish to thank the Minister for meeting us in connection with the representations which we addressed to him in connection with the protection which such persons must now enjoy. But now we want to address a further request to the Minister. As the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said, there are farmers who can contribute their share, so that the Government can enable the immediate value of the interest subsidy, together with their contribution to be deducted from the mortgage. Why can the Government not in any case pay that redemption in without the farmer on his side paying off an equivalent amount? The Government does not lose anything, and it will help the poor man particularly. There are people who can perhaps pay the interest, but who cannot pay off the capital amount. The result is that they cannot make use of this privilege to reduce their capital debt. If our proposal were to cause a further burden to be laid on the Government, then one could understand that the Minister should refuse it. But that is not the case. We ask only that the Government will give the man whose capital is weak the same facilities as the man who is capitally powerful. I want to ask the Minister if he will not at least give us this concession, too?

It seems to me I cannot satisfy my hon. friends.

No, that is not so.

I met them, but then the request comes for something more. Now, take this question of 3i per cent. I think that the hon. member for Swellendam did not properly grasp the position. Under this scheme we have to find the amount for eight years. Assume that it were £500,000 a year, then it would mean £4,000,000 for the eight years. Instead of our finding it over a period of eight years, we shall now under the third alternative have to find it immediately. That means that we have to conclude a loan for the amount of £4,000,000. We have to incur expenses in connection with the conclusion of the loan.

But the State can get money at 2½ per cent.

This money will have to come out of an ordinary loan, and we have expenses in connection with such a loan. Then we have expenses in connection with the administration of the loan. This money therefore costs not 3 per cent., but 3.4 per cent., and therefore I cannot reduce the figure lower than 3½ per cent. The other position is this. I propose here that if the farmer makes his contribution up to the basis of the immediate value of the subsidy, we will supplement it. Now my hon. friends say that we must do it in any case. The whole purpose of my proposal was to encourage the farmer to redeem his debt. This proposal was appealed for on that basis. We give the farmer the encouragement by contributing something. The Government contributes on the basis of £1 for £1. I am not going to depart from that. The whole purpose of the proposal is to encourage the farmer to help himself.

But the poor farmer cannot do it.

Those who cannot do it are helped under either A or B. The man who is prepared to help himself gets the contribution in the form of the immediate value of the subsidy. I will meet the further amendment of my hon. friend with regard to the third point which he raised, but I cannot go further.

I realise what the Minister said in connection with the costs. If he can give us the assurance that it is absolutely a matter of impossibility to borrow money at 2½ per cent., then I feel, as far as I myself am concerned, that he must add the administration costs, and then it will not perhaps be possible, if the Government has to borrow the money at 3 per cent., that he should also calculate it on the basis of 3 per cent. But the Government can borrow money today at 2½ per cent. If the Government can obtain money at 2½ per cent., then we have to do here with a serious matter, and then it is the duty of the Government to help the farmer as much as possible. If the Government cannot get it at that interest, then it is another matter. Then we cannot go further into this matter. We believe, however, that the Government can get the money at 2½ per cent. Add ½ per cent. for administration costs, then it comes to 3 per cent. I want the Minister of Finance to give us the assurance that he cannot get the money at 2½ per cent.

I can get money at ¾ per cent. for a short term.

But this is a short term. It is a question of eight years.

We cannot use short-term money for this purpose.

Then I wish still to refer to this point. We realise that the Minister eagerly wishes to encourage the farmers to pay off their mortgages. But there are two factors which the Minister must take into consideration. The first is that which the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) raised. Look, the farmer must make the choice in this year.

No, he can make it at any time.

Then that difficulty falls away. A farmer can perhaps contribute his share next year, but he is not in a position to do it this year. The Minister must realise that there are a cerain number of farmers who can contribute nothing to redeem their mortgage debts, and for that reason he says there are two other methods to help the farmers. The farmer can make use of the interest subsidy because he cannot pay the interest in full. That hits the poor man. Look, the Minister must not take the attitude that he must help the man who can help himself. That is what the Minister is doing. But that man who cannot help himself is the man who needs help most. This man cannot even pay the 5 per cent. interest. He must be helped to do it, and at the end of the period he still has the same capital debt, or a capital debt which has been reduced by 4 per cent. That does not yet release that man from his difficulty. I hope that the Minister will meet the poor farmer in one or other way and not only the man who can help himself.

I wish to say a word to the Minister in connection with the argument he used that it is his intention to encourage the farmer to help himself. I want to remind the Minister again of what the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) said. Here we have a chance now really to help the farmer. He used the argument that in the present circumstances there is little prospect of doing anything big for the farmer under the third alternative. Now he says quite rightly that here is an opportunity to give the people a chance to help themselves more than would otherwise be the case, namely, that the redemption which the farmer paid during the past year, the redemption which took place in the past financial year, will be taken into consideration under the third scheme. That is entirely in the spirit of the Bill of the Minister. The person is paying off, and if we bring him in now under the third scheme, then that farmer will get the fullest chance to make use of it. All we ask is that in place of April 1, 1943, there be inserted April 1, 1942. I may not talk about the amendment of the hon. member for Hoopstad, because he ran himself stone-dead against the high wall of the Governor General’s prerogative. But the Minister can rectify the matter. He is the only one who can rectify it, and for that reason I wish to appeal to the Minister to break down the high wall of the prerogative a little, so that we can look over the wall a little and also give the farmer a chance to look over it. Special expenditure will not be necessary, or at any rate not expendiutre of great significance. It is only the perogative of His Excellency that stands in the way. It will cost the State practically nothing, and we will meet the farmers, as the Minister wants—we shall help the man to help himself. The Minister of Finance was kind in connection with this matter a little while ago, and if he can meet us in this respect, then I do not doubt that he will do a great service to the farmers. The request of the hon. member is based on actual representations of persons who know life in practice and who are really desirous of doing something for these people. If the farmer has now paid off £50 during the past year on his mortgage, and he has to contribute £100 to get the contributions of the Government, then our proposal is that that £50 which he has already paid should be taken into consideration, so that he has only to add the other £50 to get the £100 from the Government. It will be a great concession, and for that reason I want very much to hear from the Minister that he will agree to procure the formality of the recommendation of the Governor General, so that we can obtain this concession.

I regret that I am not in a position to do anything in that direction. I cannot see how we can make this proposal retrospective. There will be all kinds of administrative difficulties. If we make it 1942, why not then 1941, 1940 or 1939? If we once begin to make the matter retrospective, then we do not know where we are going to end, and then we land in all kinds of difficulties. No, we must stand on the proposal as it is, and I cannot therefore take the step which the hon. member asks.

I was engaged in pointing out to the Minister that, if his amendment is accepted, then a man can contribute his share and pay it off on his mortgage together with the share of the Government, and it still remains under the Act. That means that he still receives an interest subsidy.

No, it is perfectly clear that that is not the position.

But it is provided here that he can still fall under the Act, which means that he will receive the interest subsidy, because it is not excluded.

In SubSection (a) it is provided that he receives that payment in place of the interest subsidy.

Why then is the provision put in. To me it looks obscure. I have, of course, no objection to it. As far as I am concerned, he may still receive a subsidy if he has already paid off part of the mortgage.

But he will not get it.

I think the Minister is making a mistake. If he is satisfied, then I am also satisfied. But I think he will find that he is making a mistake.

I am willing to take the risk.

The Minister said definitely that his desire is that the people should reduce their mortgages, and he wishes to help them do it. But as the matter is now arranged, it seems to me that people who have money over are not going to redeem their mortgages under this alternative, but will invest their money differently. He puts those people in a worse position than those who receive an interest subsidy. He must not, if these people do not make use of this alternative, come and tell me later that he encouraged them to redeem their mortgages and they did not make use of it. If the farmer can pay off a mortgage, then he must pay it off. It is the best thing that can happen. The Minister must make every effort to persuade the farmer to pay off his mortgage, if he can possibly do it. But it is clear that these little things do not count with the Minister. The Minister is so used to working with millions, that he is not in a position to understand that a farmer perhaps has not got £50 or £100 to pay off on a mortgage. If they cannot do it, then he does not care. The farmer can go down. I do not think that it is fair. It is wrong. Where help is granted these people, we are grateful for it. But it is unreasonable to say that the man must first help himself before the Government helps him.

I am very sorry that the Minister answered so soon and said so definitely that he cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen). I stand here with a letter before me which proves how important the amendment of the hon. member is. In our area we have the position that the farmers got a wheat crop which gave them a fairly normal income, and from January they made their payment. Now they can within two months come under the benefits of this Bill. Therefore I feel that in the circumstances we have a very strong case. We must remember that income from crop-farming is irregular. A maize crop is almost out of the question as a result of the drought conditions. If the farmer who has sold his wheat and who paid off a certain part of his mortgage in January last can be brought under this privilege, then the Minister can greatly help those people. Those people have not the least certainty that they will again get a normal wheat crop in twelve months time. In those circumstances I appeal to the Minister to make a small change in this Bill.

Vote for my proposal.

I hope the Minister will be more inclined to take our amendment instead of your proposal. We feel that in the circumstances we have a very strong case. While he wishes to meet the farmers and encourage them to pay off their mortgages, he meets these people who have already paid and who have not the means to pay again.

I do not want to hold up the House unnecessarily, but I wish to tell the Minister that if he knew a little of the farmer’s psychology, he would readily accede to this most reasonable request. The Minister asked why we now wish to move the date back to 1942. I want to tell him there is a thorough reason for it, because the Second Reading of the Bill, when he gave notice of it the first time, was set down for April 22, 1942.

But this section was not in it.

The third alternative was not in it, but I am certain that the expectation had already been created among the farmers when such a storm arose in connection with the Second Reading of the first Bill. I want to ask the Minister to soften his heart and to accede in connection with this question.

Question put: That paragraph (a) of Sub-Section (3), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committe divided:

Ayes—58:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Sturrock F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Wallach, I.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—30:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P J.

Oost, H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

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