I move—

I second.

I move—

I second.

I move as an amendment—

1. (a) what amendments, if any, they recommend; and
2. (b) generally upon the merits of the scheme embodied in the Bill.”

I second.

May I, with your leave, make a short statement to indicate that, by reason of my amendment, the motion proposed by the hon. member becomes an opposed motion and in accordance with Rule No. 40 of the Standing Orders, in view of the importance of the succeeding motions set down for debate today, I submit that the adjournment of the debate becomes a matter for consideration.

Before calling upon the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) to move the motion of which he has given notice, I wish to draw attention to the fact that in dealing with the general question of “social security” it refers to a large number of social and economic problems. The notice of this motion was given first on the opening day of the session and under a strict interpretation of the rule of anticipation it should block any other motions dealing with similar matters of which notice was subsequently given if such motions can be adequately debated on it. I do not, however, think that a motion of such a general nature should be allowed to block discussion on motions dealing with specific matters.

On examining the notice paper I find that there are several notices of motion dealing with questions referred to in the notice given by Dr. Malan. It seems to me that the best course to follow is to allow such notices of motion to remain on the order paper and hon. members should avoid as far as possible impinging on such motions. Members are of course at liberty to withdraw their notices of motion and if they do so full discussion will be allowed on the motion by Dr. Malan.

There is, however, one notice of motion, viz., No. III for Tuesday, 2nd February, by the Rev. Miles-Cadman, dealing with the establishment of a “security code” which is clearly blocked by Dr. Malan’s motion and must be removed from the notice paper.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether your ruling will also apply to an equally comprehensive amendment which immediately follows the motion?

I shall deal with that matter when the amendment is moved.

Under the Ruling now given by you, will you allow me to withdraw my motions?

All the hon. member need to do is to inform the House that he will not move. His motion will be taken off the Order Paper.

I move—

1. (a) that the people be regarded as a moral and economic unity with full claim to the devoted service of every one of its members but at the same time with full responsibility for providing to every one of them an existence worthy of a human being;
2. (b) that in exercising all its functions the State should as its first duty take human values and human needs into consideration above purely financial interests;
3. (c) that, in order to achieve this, the State should on the one hand provide for the expansion and building up of our national income by the systematic development and reinforcement of our natural resources, secondary industries and agriculture, and on the other hand provide for a better and more equitable distribution of the wealth of our country as well as for the effective elimination of all parasitic activities from our economic life;
4. (d) that it is in the fundamental interest of all classes of the population that the position of the European race and the European civilisation be maintained and safeguarded in accordance with the principle of trusteeship and that it is therefore the duty of the State faithfully to seek to achieve this also in the social and economic sphere;

and that, in order to carry out these principles, this House urges the Government to consider the advisability of—

1. (i) the establishment of a truly representative and competent Central Economic Council which, in collaboration with a reformed system of control boards, would advise the Government regarding all aspects of our economic life as far as may be necessary for the systematic development of all our resources, the co-ordination of the various economic interests, the elimination of parasitic activities and the upholding of social justice by means of profit limitations and wage and price determinations;
2. (ii) effective State control of the goldmining industry and, where it appears to be in the national interest, also of our key and other industries, including representation on the directorates of such industries by the Government as representing the people, and the participation in the profits by the State, the shareholders and the workers on a basis determined by the State;
3. (iii) effective State control of all credit facilities and of banking, inter alia, with a view to furthering our own economic development and casting off the domination of foreign capital;
4. (iv) the rehabilitation of the farming community by ensuring profitable markets for farm products and doing away with over-capitalisation of agriculture by means of a State-aided mortgage redemption scheme;
5. (v) making available agricultural land on a large scale to landless farmers who apply for such land and have the necessary qualifications, inter alia, by expropriating company lands held purely for speculative purposes and not beneficially occupied by Europeans;
6. (vi) the establishment of our own separate monetary system;
7. (vii) the effective protection of all workers against unfair outside competition by radically reviewing our immigration provisions;
8. (viii) the introduction of an equitable segregation and quota system in the employment of Europeans and non-Europeans, respectively, in State and other industrial undertakings together with a system of minimum wages for Europeans, coloured persons and natives;
9. (ix) making provision for healthy and inexpensive housing on a national scale together with the elimination of slum conditions within the shortest possible time;
10. (x) the establishment of a State medical service for the organisation of instruction in health matters on a national scale and for bringing medical treatment in all its forms within the reach of all classes of the population;
11. (xi) the total improvement and modification of the existing systems of social services and pensions including old age, mothers’, oudstryders’ and miners’ phthisis pensions, disability allowances and workmen’s insurance against accidents and sickness; and
12. (xii) the acceptance by the State of full responsibility for providing employment to the unemployed, inter alia, in undertakings in the public interest in accordance with an extensive and pre-devised plan.

I wish to start off at once by making a request to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, which I hope he will give his serious and favourable consideration; I want to ask him to give the House as much time as possible for the discussion of this Motion. The reason for my request is that in the first place this is a comprehensive motion. That fact has already been referred to by Mr. Speaker. The second reason why I ask this is that it will render unnecessary the discussion not only of motions of which several members of the House have already given notice, but it will also render unnecessary discussions which will otherwise take place in this House when opportunity will offer itself in connection with financial subjects. For that reason, to allow for a proper discussion of this comprehensive motion in the House, will in actual fact mean a saving of the time of the House. The third reason which I wish to put forward for my request is that the questions which are dealt with in my motion are matters which are unquestionably occupying the attention of the whole world today, and they are also occupying to a large extent the attention of people in this country. These questions concern our policy for the future. They deal with post war conditions. I need not say it here—everybody is aware of the fact today—that the attention of the public is concentrated on these matters and so far as platform issues are concerned these matters are occupying a very prominent position today. For that reason I feel that it is not only members of Parliament in particular, who take an interest in these matters, but I feel that the public as a whole expect the House at this stage to give its serious attention to questions of this nature. The motion which I am proposing is the motion coming from this side of the House, of which I am a member. I merely wish to remark that this motion—let me put it like that—is complementary to the motions which have been proposed here as party motions since the opening of Parliament, since the outbreak of war. The first motion which was proposed by us on this side of the House was a motion about neutrality. It was a motion aiming at keeping South Africa out of Europe’s wars. The second motion which was proposed—it was proposed twice in succession, on those occasions by Gen. Hertzog,—was to the effect that notwithstanding the fact that the war was going on, South Africa should withdraw from participation in it. Last year we proposed our third motion. That motion dealt with the future. It dealt with what we considered we should aim at for the people of South Africa from a constitutional point of view. We proposed the Republican motion on that occasion. We proposed that motion not merely because we wanted to bring about a constitutional change per se, not because we merely thought that the Republican form of government was better than any other form of Government, that it was more in accordance with the aspirations and traditions of the people of South Africa; but we also did so because we were thoroughly convinced that under that form of government we would get peace in South Africa and that in that way we would render cooperation and peace possible as between the various sections of the population, and that that peace could only be attained on two foundations. The first foundation was equality of rights, language and cultural rights—for both sections of the population. And the second foundation was that of full freedom, Republican freedom, which could be fully enjoyed. Only on those foundations shall we be able to secure true national unity in South Africa. That motion aimed at the future. What we are proposing here now is complementary to what we have already intimated in this House, and declared as our point of view. This motion also concerns the future, and concerns the kind of country we want this to be, the kind of country we aim at having when the war is over, we are proposing this motion not simply in view of the steps that should be taken when the war is over but in view of the steps that ought to be taken as soon as possible, and we feel that we should start taking these steps without any delay whatsoever. I say that my motion is a comprehensive one. It is comprehensive from the very nature of things. It is unavoidable. When we want to build fresh foundations for the future and we want to enumerate the various steps, the various measures that have to be passed in compliance with that foundation, then such a motion has to be comprehensive. But I think that the very last man to object to the comprehensiveness of this motion is the Prime Minister himself. The reason why I say so is that this question of, so-called, social security was discussed here last year on a motion by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). On that occasion the Prime Minister very quickly rose to tell us what his attitude was, and he invited members to assist,—and his invitation testified to two good qualities in him. The first of those qualities was his modesty. He said in all modesty—“I am willing to be guided; I am willing to allow members of this House to guide the Government on the question as to what must be created after the war.” He therefore said that he not only welcomed the motion proposed by the hon. member for Krugersdorp but he also welcomed any contribution by any member of the House, any suggestion which any member might make to the Prime Minister and the Government as to what in his opinion should be done to bring about those conditions which should be created and to suggest what steps should be taken. I say that the modesty shown by the Prime Minister in this respect was most praiseworthy. And this side of the House immediately reacted to the Prime Minister’s suggestion. A comprehensive amendment was introduced by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in which a number of points were put forward. The other good quality displayed by the Prime Minister was his desire to have concrete proposals. The Prime Minister dislikes being vague, he hates playing with words, he dislikes using big words and being up in the clouds. He is a realist, and that is why he asked for concrete proposals. We as a Party now want to comply with the request made by him and that is why we have introduced this motion. Therefore, because we have to state specifically that we want so as to bring about better living conditions for the public, we have introduced this motion and it is for that reason that the motion is as comprehensive as it is. Now I want to pause for a moment at the preamble of this motion. That preamble makes it clear that this motion aims not merely at generally improved conditions to be created after the war, but more specifically aims at the introduction of measures which affect the social and economic life of the people. The motion is a proposal in connection with social and economic conditions. The preamble of the motion draws attention particularly to two matters which, when we think about this question and consider what has to be done, require steps to be taken, matters which we cannot lose sight of. The first point is that we find conditions of serious poverty and distress among a large section of the population. That fact cannot be denied. And that fact alone requires steps being taken to put an end to those conditions. There is no need for me to go into that point at any great length. It is unnecessary to do so because it is a well-known fact. It is unnecessary because the Government has realised the necessity of appointing commissions from time to time which have travelled through the length and breadth of this country and have taken evidence from all quarters to ascertain what are the real conditions in regard to this poverty and distress which prevail in this country. The Government’s shelves are full of reports, covered unfortunately by a thick layer of dust. But if members wish to get information about health conditions and about the conditions prevailing among those sections of the population who live below the breadline and if they want to know what the position is in regard to underfeeding, I ask them to read the reports, to read the blue books containing the findings of the commissions. They will then be able to know exactly what the position is. That is the position, that is the condition of affairs that has to be remedied. Another matter to which attention is directed and which we must not lose sight of, as set out in the preamble of this motion, is that the war will have its after effects, that the war is creating fresh problems which must be kept in mind. Among those problems is undoubtedly this important fact that this war is costing large sums of money, that the war has already cost us a lot of money, it has already cost us £230,000,000, and that a great deal more is being asked for and will be asked for. As the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech last year told us and admitted, there will be a repercussion in this country—I think his words were that one could not dissipate the wealth of a country on such a huge scale and then think that the public would not have to pay for it. There will be an aftermath of poverty and misery. At the same time, however, we have to contend with the psychology which has been created by the war, the psychology which we have to expect from the war and which has already made its appearance. And that psychology is this, that those who have been involved in this war, those who have made sacrifices in the war, and especially those who have gone to the Front in the majority of cases do not believe and particularly after the war will no longer believe what they have been told—they will no longer believe that all that has been put before them was true. They have been told one-sided, often misleading things, and sometimes even downright falsehoods. They have heard propaganda about the reasons for the war and they have come to the conclusion that those reasons were insufficient to give their blood for; they believe that to give one’s blood just in order to win the war was too dear a price. They want something more. They want to see better conditions established. They want a better world; they may have been convinced that the people and Parliament were right in dragging us into the war and in making us take part in the war, but once the object for which they have given their blood has been achieved, they will ask for more; they will ask for very much more than just victory. We must take account of the psychology of those people and we have to take that psychology into very serious account. This motion in its preamble also points out that while we are conscious of those conditions, improved conditions must be created for the people as a whole, better living conditions for the people as a whole, but also improved conditions for every individual, so that he can be assured of a sufficient degree of what is usually called “social security”. I want to say at once that my motion should not be associated with a movement like the one we got after the last war, a movement of the kind we are also becoming conscious of today, a movement which simply aims at higher wages. A plea is being put up for higher wages for that class of the population in particular which is suffering as a result of increased costs of living. Simply to ask for higher wages and to obtain higher wages does not remedy the position, or at any rate it only remedies the position to a very small extent. In any case it does not in itself create a better world. It does not create a permanent condition which can be regarded as an improvement. What did we find at the end of the last war? At that time there was an agitation for higher wages and higher wages were paid, but how long did they last? The wages were raised, but the self same government which increased the wages again reduced them afterwards. And the self same government which is raising the wages of the workers today may reduce them again tomorrow. That is what happened in the last war and it may happen again. God knows that in some cases higher wages are absolutely essential, and they have been needed for a very long time, irrespective of increased costs of living caused by the war, but that is not all we want. Nor should this motion of mine be associated with what is called the Social Security Code. I am not opposed to that. On the contrary, the Social Security Code for which propaganda is being made at the moment and which was referred to in the motion which the hon. member for Durban North (The Rev. Miles-Cadman) has just withdrawn, demands freedom from poverty and want, it demands freedom from fear, freedom from want and freedom from the results of all these things. I can accept all these things and I very definitely accept them, in the motion now before the House. That is why in one of the clauses of this Motion it is clearly set out that we demand an amended pension scheme, and improved old age pension scheme, motherhood pensions, miners phthisis pensions, invalidity grants, oud stryder pensions and we are also anxious to see something which does not yet exist, introduced, or at any rate does not exist to a sufficient extent, namely accident insurance and also sickness insurance. I therefore accept that scheme and as a matter of fact it was accepted last year in the amendment proposed by this side of the House to a motion by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. Nor have I any fault to find with the Prime Minister in his having appointed a Commission to conduct a thorough enquiry into the social legislation and social measures which will be needed after the war. I only hope that that Commission will do its work effectively and thoroughly. We welcome the fact that an investigation is being made into that aspect of the matter. But since the Social Security Code has made its appearance and the campaign in connection with it has been started, the Minister of Finance has reacted to it; and his has been an important reaction. He said “If we are going to carry out all these things, where are we going to get the money? If we give effect to all these things, you must give a thought to what our national income is, on which we are going to draw for these schemes. If one takes the national income of today, running into many millions, many hundreds of millions of pounds, and one divides that national income among the population of the country, it will mean only £40 per year for every member of the population, or if the white population only is to be paid, it will mean £85 for every member of the population,” and the Minister asked how in view of that fact we could give effect to a scheme such as the Social Security Code contemplated. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was not so careful. True, he did in his so-called Bloemfontein Charter, say that he was prepared to accept it as a necessity and to aim at it for every one living in South Africa and for every section of the population of this country, for people of all races and all colours …

And the Jews as well?

He said that he accepted it—that for everybody there must be adequate food and clothes, at least a minimum of Social Security, as he expressed it, but at the end he added, “So far as the finances of the country will allow it.” But afterwards he became a little more courageous, and he then sent a message to the Social Security Congress in Durban, and when he sent that message he did not add those words, but he expressed the conviction in his message that South Africa possessed sufficient natural resources and also had at its disposal sufficient brains to be able to regard as that what was asked for as a practical possibility. We cannot avoid the question: “Where are we going to get the means required for the creation of such a better world for the people of South Africa?” I also put that question to myself, but in replying to that question I say this: it is possible, but it is only possible if we go still further afield in our reforms. It is not sufficient merely to agitate for social security and to take money out of the people’s pockets, and to impose intolerable burdens on the country. One can only give effect to this scheme if one is prepared to introduce drastic reforms, not patch-work. It is only possible if the reforms are radical and far-reaching, very much more far-reaching than those reforms which so far have been proclaimed from different platforms. If a room is flooded by a running tap, it is no use coming along with buckets and baling out the water and throwing it out of the door or out of the windows. There is only one way of dealing with the position; there is only one effective way, and that is to turn off the tap. In this country we find that we have a state of poverty and misery. In this country we come across poverty and under-feeding. We find here a state of serious deterioration. It is no use coming here and saying that we are going to give those people a pension and that we are going to look after them by providing for a minimum of social security from the day of their birth to the day of their death. It is no use doing that while the process of impoverishment continues throughout the country. If one wants to be practical one has to go very much further, and as I have said in the preamble to my motion, we have to reform our social and economic system most thoroughly. And that brings me to the promises which have been made in this country of late. If promises are made by the Government about the future, and if other people also make such promises, I don’t blame them for making them. There are always promises of that kind when there is a war on. They are made to help the war effort, to make people feel what they are really fighting for, or what they have to fight for. Those promises are made in practically every country in the world. But in view of what I have just said I must say a few words about those promises. We have a surfeit of that kind of promise today. We had the same position in the last world war, particularly towards the end. We had President Wilson’s fourteen points, which were full of promises for a better world to come. But what became of them? The war was hardly over before they were simply torn to shreds. Today we have the Atlantic Charter and in reading the provisions of the Atlantic Charter, which the Prime Minister also stands by, it struck me that there was a tremendous similarity in some essential points between President Wilson’s fourteen points in the last war and the Atlantic Charter of the preseit President of the United States and the Prime Minister of England. The Atlantic Charter actually has already been torn to shreds. In the Atlantic Charter it is stated that there shall be freedom for the different nations, the very same thing as Wilson said. In other words, there is to be reparation of violated rights. Better conditions are to be created after the war, and as the Charter further says, the high tariff walls must be broken down so as to build a better world. But even at this stage the voice of England’s Prime Minister is being heard across the water: “Come what may, we hold what we have.” We know the friction that has already arisen, we know the discussions that have already been taking place, with more or less heat about this Atlantic Charter, between the various countries which have entered into this very agreement. The Prime Minister of this country of ours sounded an echo of what was going on when he wrote his article in “Life,” an article from which it became clear that the Atlantic Charter is not going to lead us anywhere. Promises were made in the last war that the conditions of the workers would be improved. A Workers’ Convention was brought into being. That Convention met at Geneva every year, but who is going to say today that the promises that were made to the workers had any other object but to make the workers believe that they were getting something while in actual fact they were getting nothing? The Convention, which was set up to satisfy the workers, in actual practice had no value whatsoever. The world knows nothing about it, and our Government knows nothing about it, except that year after year people are sent to the Convention with a free ticket for a journey to Europe. Promises were made during the last war for better social conditions, better housing, improvements in the conditions of the working classes; and what have those promises led to? The mountain has been in labour and it has produced a mouse! In 1920 our present Prime Minister gave us a Housing Act, but that law did not even contain the very necessary principle of sub-economic housing. It had to be left to the Government which succeeded him to introduce such a sub-economic housing scheme. We had the wage legislation to improve the conditions of the workers. That wage legislation was not introduced by the present Prime Minister but by his successors. And what did the Prime Minister who made all those promises in the last war do on that subject? He fought the Wage Bill tooth and nail. And who of us has forgotten the Jagger policy, a policy, which was also the Prime Minister’s policy, on the question of employment on the Railways. What is the use of talking of more sympathetic treatment for the workers and better conditions for the workers? On the Railways, natives and coloured men have gradually been brought in to replace the white workers, and the white workers have been put off. They have been put off this work which provided an important source of employment so far as the State was concerned. And worse than that. When the workers objected to the policy which was pursued in the other important industry, the gold mining industry, the Prime Minister did not side with the workers in order to protect them; on the contrary the Prime Minister called out the Defence Force and he shot down the workers. When we hear the promises that are made today, we must not forget—and the Prime Minister will forgive us when we say this—that promises were also made in the past. The present Minister of Labour has stated that as far as those promises are concerned he does not trust this Government. He is a member of the Cabinet, but on a public platform he stated that he did not trust the Government in regard to the promises that were being made, and I on this side of the House say the same thing. And then I ask: “Is the Prime Minister when he makes those promises insincere, does he mean to let people down, to mislead them?” Far from it. But I must agree there with the Minister of Labour that the reason why the Prime Minister will not keep his promises is that he is in a cleft stick—he is in the hands of the capitalists, just as the Minister of Labour said. On the benches behind him, and in the country, his principal supporters, the supporters he cannot do without, if he wants to remain in power, are the capitalistic sections in this country. He is held in a vice by his capitalists and he cannot help himself. To that I want to add that he is not only held in the vice of capitalism but also in the vice of Imperialism. During the last war, for example, he made promises about the expansion of industries and the devolpment of industries, the creation of new industries and the expansion of the existing ones. Industries were established during that war, but what happened to them when the war was over? The Prime Minister refused to give those new industries the protection they required and he also refused to provide for the expansion of existing industries. A cry for help went up throughout the country during the latter years of the Prime Minister’s Government, the factories and industries cried out for help. They came to us, for support because the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister made it impossible for them to carry on. The industries put up their hands for help to this side of the House and in 1925 the new protective tariff was introduced so that those industries were able to carry on. That is what this side of the House did, but that policy was fought by the present Prime Minister. So much for his promises. Now, let me come to the reforms which my motion refers to; for those reforms a clear and definite foundation is laid down which this House can accept or reject. It is a foundation which we can submit to the people, for the people to say whether they consider that our future should be built up on that foundation. The first point is that the people must be regarded as a unit—and that has not always been the case so far—they must be regarded as a moral and economic unit. The people are entitled to put that claim to every member of the community but on the other hand the people as a whole also bear the responsibility of providing every member of the community with a decent living. In other words, the people, the public, are not there merely as a congregation of loose units, each of whom has to look after himself. The people, the public, are a family, and in that family the responsibility for every one of its members is borne by the family. The second principle is that the State is not a business enterprise in the ordinary sense of the word. The State in everything it does has to take into account, or has to bear in mind in the first place human values and in the second place human needs. The State is not a mere business enterprise which only concerns itself with financial profit. The first principle is that the people must watch the profits made by the country, and they must see to it that the profits that are made signify national welfare. The other principle is that which the Minister of Finance has also emphasised, namely that adequate care must be taken of the national income so as to render improved conditions possible, and that being the case we must see to it that our natural resources are developed, and are developed according to plan. But if we increase the national income by the encouragement of greater production we must also see to it that there is better distribution of the public wealth, better distribution among the different sections of the community, in order to put a stop to poverty and privation, and to put a stop to parasitical activities. What I mean by parasitical activities are those activities which are being carried on in this country and which do not render any service to the country, but are only there for the purpose of exploitation, which are only there for the enrichment of the individual at the expense of the public. We must not waste the people’s earnings by pursuing the parisitical course. We have had an instance of that in our country. While on the one hand large sums of money have been made in the gold mines on the Witwatersrand, on the other hand we have the direst poverty in this country. On the one hand we have poverty and on the other hand great wealth. Millions of money put in the hands of a few individuals, individuals who have gathered those millions to a large extent on the share market by manipulating the share market, so as to enrich themselves there as individuals at the expense of the community. That is a parasitical activity, just to mention one. The other principle I state here is that we have a duty, a task to perform here in South Africa, a task which other countries have not got, and it is this, that we must protect and maintain the white race in the position it occupies, and we are responsible here for white civilisation. If we fail to do so it simply means that South Africa is doomed as a white man’s country. If we lose sight of that principle, and if the Government does not exert all’ its efforts to protect white civilisation and to maintain white civilisation, I contend that we shall be cast back—and partly we have already been cast back to the days of Philip and Van der Kemp, to the days of the Black Circuit, to the days of the Voortrekkers, when those Voortrekkers not only had to leave their farms, not merely for the sake of their own safety, but for the sake of the maintenance of white civilisation and the maintenance of the white race. For that reason on social and economic grounds it is our duty as a Government and as a state to bear this in mind in all the steps we take and in all we do. This motion which I have introduced and the details of which I have explained here does not follow any of the European or Foreign ideologies which are today clashing with each other on the world stage. These things will not satisfy the National Socialists because to their mind this motion does not go far enough, because a National Socialist wants to give the State very much greater powers than what we propose here. This motion starts from the assumption that the State is not all powerful. God is Almighty and this motion acknowledges that the State must serve the Almighty and the Nation. I therefore say that this motion will not satisfy the National Socialist. The National Socialist wants a dictatorship. He does not want the power to be returned into the hands of the people, he does not want the massas of the people to have a say in the management of their own affairs. Nor will this motion satisfy the Communist, because the Communist stands for one class, for the domination of one class—for the dictatorship of the Proletariat. We do not accept that. We are opposed to that. And I therefore say that the Communist will not agree with what we propose. The Liberalist and the Capitalist who live in luxury under the Liberalistic form of Government will not be in agreement with this motion either, because what I am proposing in this motion is to restrict and tie down the Capitalist and the exploiter of any kind, and to see to it that all activities prevailing in the State, all the economic activities shall be carried on, not in the interest only of the individual concerned with those activities but that they will be there for the good of the people as a whole. We are not choosing any side between the ideologies which in Europe have clashed with each other. South Africa is concerned here with its own conditions. South Africa has its own task to perform and has to build up its own nationhood. South Africa has to find its own course between those existing ideologies in the world, and South Africa need not choose any side. So far as the execution of these principles which I have mentioned in my motion is concerned, I have enumerated a series of practical measures and from the very nature of things I cannot possibly deal with each of these measures one by one. Not only is it impossible for me to do so, but it is also unnecessary because a large part of what is contained in this motion and set out as the measures which are to be taken, is by no means new to this Party, nor is there anything new in those proposals so far as the House is concerned, insofar as the House is conversant with the attitude which we have adopted throughout. For that reason, so far as those matters are concerned which have been raised here from time to time and which have been advocated here, I can leave the task of placing these matters in the right light and of placing the proper emphasis on them to other members of my Party, but there are a few new aspects, and it is only those new aspects which I want to stress so as to amplify what is already laid down in our programme of principles and what we have already said in the course of our statements in this House. The first matter which I wish to refer to is the course which we wish to be pursued so that the people, whom we desire to become a social and economic unit, may be brought together as a unit in that particular respect. I say that the people, the nation, constitute one family and the family as a whole must look after every member of the family. It is for that reason that we have laid it down here that our object is to have a Central Economic Council brought into being. That Central Economic Council must be a representative body and it must be a body of standing and ability. This, as hon. members know, is a matter which I emprasised eight years ago and in respect of which I introduced a motion into this House eight years ago. Unfortunately this House turned down that motion, the majority on the other side was opposed to us. In 1936 this side of the House again proposed the appointment of a Central Economic Council and it was clearly intimated what we meant by such a Council, and what the functions of such a Central Economic Council were to be. The Prime Minister has now appointed a so-called Planning Council. All I can say of this Planning Council is that it is neither representative nor competent. It is not representative because the great economic interests of the country—the Council has the right to take cognisance of those economic interests—are not properly represented on that Council, and the Council is therefore not in a postion of being able to take into account the whole economic position of the Nation through the representatives of the great economic interests of the people. The Council is not composed of men of standing and ability. There are a few men of great standing and ability on the Council. Let us acknowledge that, and I am pleased myself to acknowledge that that is so, but the great majority of the members have not been appointed because of their competence, their ability, to perform the tasks expected of them. They are people who have been appointed simply because they are loyal supporters of the Government, and because the Government wanted to give them influential positions. I hope that this Planning Council, which has been described by some people on the Government side as a Planning Council without a plan, will not become a body of the same kind—or perhaps that is exactly what the Government wants—as for instance the Railway Board, or the Irrigation Board, which very often is merely a cloak for the Government to shelter itself behind. These Bodies are there, but to a very great extent they are futile. We want to bring about this unit by means of a Central Economic Council because our economic life apparently is in a condition of chaos today. I deliberately use the word “chaos”. It is a strong word but our economic life and our economic development are both to a very great extent chaotic. What do we find there? We find that the one section of the population is digging in against the other section. The producer on the one side, the middleman on the one side, and the consumer on the other side. Take the workers. Every section is trying to dig itself in as strongly as possible against the other section, and the result must necessarily be that the strongest one will dominate and the weaker sections must go under. There is a lack of co-ordination. We have for instance the Board of Trade and Industries which has really developed into a Body of the nature of a Tariff Board to advise the Government in regard to customs tariffs and the revision of tariffs. The object with which that Body was originally established really was that industries which showed any promise at all and which could be developed should be given encouragement. But what connection is there between this Tariffs Board and our Banking system? If the banks fail to give a young industry proper facilities, what becomes of such an industry? If they refuse to give credit facilities and if they do not make it possible for industrialists to carry on, the position is made impossible for young industrial concerns. But the Board of Trades and Industries has no contacts in that direction. And then we have the Railways. The Railways are a separate industrial concern which to a large extent have very little contact with the rest of the economic life of the people. The Railways look after their own revenue, their own earnings. It is true that the Railways are not supposed to be run for profit. The profits that are made are supposed to be returned to the people by way of reduced rates. But on the other hand, so far as the economic life of the people is concerned, the Railways have very little contact with that economic life, and they are today developing their own independent identity. The Railways protect themselves, they protect their capital, and that being the case the Railways do not ask whether more traffic should be allowed on the roads for the sake of the people and whether, if traffic is restricted, it is going to be to the benefit or otherwise of the people. That does not concern the Railways The Railways have only one plan and that plan aims at the protection of the Railways and of the monopoly they hold in this country, the protection of their own revenue. Then we have an Institution like the Wage Board. The Wage Board only looks after the wages of the workers. But the question whether the wages, if laid down on a definite basis, are going to eliminate a particular business or enterprise, the question as to whether that is going to be the result of the fixing of those wages, that is a matter which does not receive the primary consideration of the Wage Board. And then we come to a national activity such as agriculture. Comprehensive machinery is in existence to enable the farmer to learn to produce, to learn to produce as much as possible and to produce as cheaply as possible in the interest of the economic life of the nation. That is the great object with which that machinery was instituted, that is the great object of the Agricultural Department—the encouragement of production. But on the other hand we find this again. If the farmer produces, schemes are devised against the encouragement by the Agricultural Department in order to get rid of surpluses of products, and our economic life is so constituted today that we have this state of affairs, that commodities are dumped on overseas markets while at the same time there is want and starvation in our own country; those products are sent to overseas markets instead of their being used here to provide a better living for our own people. While our own people are starving we are talking about surpluses. Then we have the system of Control Boards, which I also want to mention. Every industry has it own Control Board. Very well, but the introduction of the Control Board system as it exists here today has brought about this position, that in our economic life today we have serious malconditions simply because the Control Boards have not been established on the right foundation, and not only that, but the Control Boards in their present form have brought about chaos and confusion in this country. In this motion of mine I ask for the reform of the system of Control Boards, and what I mean by that is this: the Control Boards were established and the idea was a good one, but those Control Boards must be reformed. What is happening today? Under the present system of Control Boards there are people on those Boards representing a specific industry, the most conflicting interests, and inside the Control Board there is a conflict of interests, and where there is a conflict of interests inside a Control Board there is bound also to be a conflict of interests outside the Control Board. Control Boards are very good things, but if we have a Control Board for the wheat industry, for instance, then let it be a Control Board composed of the wheat farmers and of the wheat farmers alone. If the millers want to organise a Control Board let them do so, and let that Control Board be a Control Board of the millers. If a Control Board is wanted for the mealie industry, let it be a Mealie Control Board composed of the producers, and let that be the position in respect of all the different industries. Give them their own Control Boards, but create one body then, a Central Economic Council, which has to consider the interests of the whole people and which will take into account and look after the interests of the people as a whole. Create that link between all those Control Boards and let the Control Board see to it then that by means of the fixation of prices and by the limitation of profits and the fixing of wages, each of these industries and concerns will be able to exist, while the Central Economic Council will see to it that these things are not done to the detriment of the people as a whole. Let the Control Board see to it that those who are occupied in the industry for which it has been appointed, and for which it is responsible, are able to make a decent living. Let the Control Board see to it that by means of what they suggest, parasitical activities are cut out of their own industry. The Central Economic Council must look after the interests of every section, but at the same time those industries and concerns and activities must safeguard themselves in the way I have described and they must occupy a proper place in the economic life of the people as a whole. There is another new and important principle which is introduced here. In actual fact it is not new but it is an expansion, or a further development of what was already contained in the principles of this side of the House. I am referring to the principle of control over the various occupations and industries in the representation of the Government on the managements of such occupations. Hon. members will see that I do not cut out private initiative in this respect. In other words, we do not agree with the Communistic principle. There must be private initiative and private initiative will, in terms of this motion and in the policy which we lay down, be duly encouraged. But private initiative may become, and so far, under the economic system which has prevailed, it has often become the master of the people and not the servant of the people. What we must see to is that private initiative will be so controlled by the Government, will be so effectively controlled by the State, that it will be the servant and not the exploiter of the public. The interests of the people in the past were protected differently. They were sufficiently protected by the doctrine of free competition on a free and open market. Private initiative establishes its business. Businesses compete with each other, and prices are kept low for the public as a result by means of free competition on the free market. That was the position, and in past times that state of affairs used to provide adequate protection to the public, but since those days monopolies have come into being. Those monopolies have been opposed, or rather efforts have been made to counteract them. For instance, in America efforts were made to deal with monopolies by means of anti-trust laws. But those efforts failed. One simply cannot master the system of monopolies. Why not? Simply because capital meets capital. Afterwards one gets large combinations of capital and those combinations render it impossible for small enterprises to compete with the big enterprises simply because the big enterprises have everything in their power. It is clear that if one produces on a small scale, one cannot possibly compete with concerns going in for wholesale production; and large scale production, simply because it is large scale production, is cheaper than production on a small scale. The costs of production are lower, and for that reason it is to the advantage of the big concerns to destroy the smaller ones. In our present day economic life we have concerns which use machinery for production for which in the past human labour used to be employed. These concerns for the effectiveness of their production are dependent on technical methods, consequently they are dependent on capital. Only big concerns are able to undertake this sort of thing and the smaller concerns cannot compete. Consequently, private initiative along that course gradually develops into a monopoly, and unless one does something to counteract the monopoly, unless one takes steps against monopolies, such monopolies lead to the exploitation of the public and are to the detriment of national interest. Such monopolies are created not merely on the part of capital, but monopolies are also created among the workers. The workers combine in exactly the same way as capital combines, and we get what we also find in other countries, that an organisation of skilled workers gets into such a position that it takes possession of the whole labour market for a specific occupation, that it stands at the door of the labour market and it states that it is not going to allow others to be admitted into that labour market, with the result that a large proportion of the workers of the country, the semi-skilled and unskilled workers, simply have to remain outside, often without employment, without bread, so that in the end they die of starvation. That is the condition of affairs which we find in existence today. Monopolies dominate our economic life, and monopolies are the cause of the exploitation of the public and the creation of conditions such as we find today to the detriment of the public in our own country Let me say this, I do not condemn all monopolies. I say that in any case one cannot stop that sort of thing under existing conditions. I go further and I say that the creation of monopolies, where they do not exist, may be directly in the interest of the people, because the people benefit from the fact that production will take place on a large scale by means of the most up-to-date machinery available, as a result of which it becomes possible to produce cheaply. Monopolies can, and must sometimes be created by the Government itself in the interest of the people, but in order to prevent a monopoly from becoming a danger to the public it should be under proper control, so that the Government can keep a watchful eye and see to it that the monopoly shall be to the benefit of the public. I therefore propose in my motion that there shall be effective control over the gold mining industry. That industry is an important industry in this country and it is today proceeding along a course set by itself, it is a key industry. There may be other industries involving the interests of the public, industries which should be controlled by the Government, for instance by the Government being represented on the management or by some other means, and in cases, where as the result of the protection afforded by the Government, enterprises are enabled to flourish and to advance, steps should be taken to see to it that the workers, if large profits are made, share in those profits on a fair and reasonable basis, a basis to be laid down by the Government. That self-same principle, which is also contained in this motion, should be applied to the credit concerns, the banks. The banks are the power stations of our economic life. They are controlled today by overseas capital. That capital serves its master, the banks serve their master, and their masters are overseas. It will be said that we have a Reserve Bank but the Reserve Bank does not dominate, does not control the position in this country. The Commercial Banks, which are old established concerns, and which are supported by overseas capital, control the Reserve Bank, or rather they do not need the Reserve Bank. There is no need for them to go to the Reserve Bank for facilities or for money. This domination of foreign capital should be done away with and our banking system must be used in such a manner as to be of service to our people. Our banking system must be used to serve our own economic welfare, and must assist in the building up of new industries in our country. And that is how these reforms must be brought about. I now come to segregation and the quota system in regard to employment in Government and other concerns. This is a matter which I have raised in Parliament from time to time, and there is no need for me to go into the question any further, except to remind the House that in the South African Labour Market today there is a clash of competition going on to the detriment of the white man. The white man, because he is white, is forced to maintain a certain standard of living. There are other sections of the community which do not have that standard of living to maintain. There habits of life are different. They can get along with less. If that condition is left uncontrolled, as it is now, the things which are happening in this country today, will continue to happen and the white man will gradually be forced out. He is overwhelmed by the nonEuropeans and he loses his work. Those are facts. Let hon. members look at the interesting but at the same time alarming figures in regard to the Census showing the ever increasing employment of non-Europeans in the industries in our towns. There is an influx of non-Europeans into the urban areas but the influx of Natives and Coloured people to the towns is larger, and all our towns—I believe that Pretoria is the only exception as a result of special circumstances,—are becoming more and more black. If we want to have peace in South Africa we must remove the fear which the white man has that he is going to be pushed out and is going to be deprived of his livelihood. There is only one way of protecting especially the semi-skilled and the unskilled white workers, and that is to lay down that some industries shall be white and other industries black, and where there are industries where the different races work together, they should work separated from each other in the factories, and each of them should have a quota, so that there will be a specific percentage of white workers, a percentage of coloured workers and a percentage of natives. If that is done, justice can be done to all those sections, the white man will have security, his wages can be increased so that he will have a white man’s wage without any danger of his being kicked out to make place for labour in receipt of lower pay. He will be protected in that way. At the same time we shall be able to see to it that the coloured man will be able to live in accordance with his standard of living, and it will also be possible gradually to raise the Native’s standard of living. He, too, will then be able to get a minimum wage, and be protected against exploitation. And that is what we propose in this motion. So far as public health is concerned I only want to point out that we are advocating the institution of a National Health Service to include the organisation of the whole of the people in respect of the protection of their health. The Government must organise a National Health Service on a National scale. We suggest the introduction of a State Medical Service, so that we can put an end to the condition of affairs which prevails today where a section of the population simply cannot obtain medical treatment because people cannot afford it. We have this position, that people who cannot afford to get medical attention, die in their poverty, without being able to get medical assistance. Although provision is made for the poorest of the poor the middle classes often suffer the greatest hardships. People who live far away from a doctor are often unable to afford calling in the services of a doctor, and only at the last moment, when death is near, is a doctor summoned. That is the section of the population which suffers most severely today and that is why we are strongly in favour of a State Medical Service. Private practitioners can continue their practice and their services can be used by those who are prepared to pay for them, but the State must see to it that every individual can receive medical treatment if he is unable to afford to pay for it. Finally, I come to unemployment, which I say, must be done away with. In the Social Security Code provision is made against unemployment. I am not in favour of that because we do not want the dole system which is in operation in England and America. Nothing is more calculated to perpetuate unemployment and to bring about unemployment than the dole system. That is why we don’t want it. There is a remedy for unemployment and that remedy is work. The providing of work can, and must, be the responsibility of the Government, and the Government must provide work in accordance, as we say here, with a preconceived and effective plan. So far very little has been done in that direction. We wait until a calamity threatens us, or until a calamity has struck us, and only then do we set out to try and find employment and to deal with the position. The Government must be the assurance for employment in the country, it must protect the people against unemployment in any form.

I second. I regard it as a great privilege to be allowed to second this extremely important motion proposed by my hon. Leader. It certainly is one of the most important motions that has come before the House during the past few years because it deals with the very life and existence of the people of South Africa. It strikes one that the Labour Party is not even sufficiently interested in the life and existence of the people to listen to this debate. They are conspicuous by their absence. It is also a striking fact that comparatively few members are present on the Government side of the House. They also take very, very little interest in the real economic policy of the country. One hears nothing but “social security” today. Every paper one opens under large headings has something to say about social security. A heated squabble is proceeding between the Labour Party and the Government Party as to who is the real progenitor of social security. The Labour Party contends that it is not a child born out of the unholy wedlock between them and the Prime Minister’s Party. They say that it is a child born out of their own Party without any wedlock. The squabble almost resulted in a breach between the Labour Party and the Government Party. The Labour Party has put forward certain conditions on which they are prepared to continue operating with the Government, and one of those conditions is that the Government shall adopt the policy of social security. The Prime Minister, with his usual astuteness and his well-known sympathy for the poor man, took the most extraordinary step of appointing a Committee to enquire into social security, and the Labour Party is very pleased with that and perfectly happy. My Leader introduced a motion here today containing principles which will really serve towards a solution of the important economic problems of the country. That motion represents my Party’s policy. The principles contained in the motion constitute the economic policy of my Party for the New South Africa, that is a policy which this Party, if it comes into power, will put into force. As I have said, we propose a new economic policy. Not merely patch-work to improve the present system, but a total change, a total revolution of the present system, that is to say, a complete revolution of the present-day liberal capitalism which today is holding sway in South Africa; but what is of specially great importance is that this new economy of my Party is based on a system of National Government in which the people will retain their full say. We do not want a dictator state. We are not going to tolerate a dictatorship. We propose State interference and State control on a large scale, but we avoid regimentation. There must be economic freedom of all classes in so far as such is in the interest of the nation as a whole. We propose a more balanced division of the country’s wealth, but we do not propose to go in for a system of communal ownership. We propose the protection of every citizen of the country against parisitical exploitation, but based on the principle of absolute equality between the two big sections of the population of South Africa. We propose differentiation between Europeans and non-Europeans, but we also want to see to it that the nonEuropeans will be able to maintain a decent economic level. What I have just mentioned are merely a few of the important principles which are contained in the motion proposed by my Leader. In the main, however, I wish to confine myself to one aspect of the policy laid down, and that is in regard to the workers of South Africa, and when I speak of workers I mean white, coloured and native. I am speaking on behalf of my Party, and what I am saying can be taken as being the policy of my Party. In the first place, as my Leader has said in his speech, we start out from the point of view that at all costs the position of the white race and white civilisation in South Africa must be protected and maintained. On the other hand my Party also feels that at the present juncture at any rate the coloured population in general are on a higher level of civilisation than the natives, and that they should be treated accordingly. The coloured man must consequently also be maintained on a higher economic level. It is not our policy to oppress the coloured man until he gets down to the level of the native; on the contrary it is the policy of my Party gradually to uplift the native so that he will eventually get on to the same level as the coloured man. We therefore propose to divide the labour force of South Africa into three parts, namely into whites, coloureds and natives. We further propose the introduction of a system of national minimum wages which will assure every citizen of a decent standard of living. This system of minimum wages will not be applicable to agriculture. The reason for that is a very simple one. I know that it is usually said that we are willing to lay down any policy for the urban workers but that as soon as agriculture is affected we hold back and refuse to do anything radical and to do anything of importance in that regard. The reason why agriculture is excluded is a very obvious one. It is not that we do not want to assure the workers in agriculture of a decent living, but agriculture has problems of its own, special problems, peculiar problems, which have to be solved in their own way. And it is not possible at this juncture, or in the immediate future to introduce a national minimum wage for nonEuropeans for instance which will also be applicable to agriculture. It is not a practical possibility. In agriculture one meets with factors which radically differ from anything coming under trade and industry. But I want to emphasie that it is the policy of my Party to assure every individual of a decent livelihood, and that also applies to agriculture. Arising from the doctrine that the position of the white race in South Africa must be maintained and that the coloured man is on a higher level of civilisation than the native and consequently must also be placed on a higher economic level we lay it down as a policy that the white man in general must also be maintained on a higher economic level than the non-European. In other words, we take up the attitude that the requirements of the white man for the purpose of maintaining a decent standard of living are higher than those of the coloured person, while at the same time the needs and requirements of the coloured people are higher today than those of the natives. We therefore propose that the highest minimum wage to be laid down will be for the white worker, the next highest will be for the coloured worker, and the lowest for the native. In actual fact therefore there will be three systems of minimum wage, namely one for the whites, one for the coloureds and one for the natives. Now, it will be said at once that under such a system the white worker will be driven out by the nonEuropean, and the coloured worker by the native—that they will be driven out of trade and industry because the employer will always want to employ the cheapest labour. I do agree that if no control is exercised that will happen under the present system. It is the policy of my Party, however, to provide for a large degree of State control and to see to it that the quota system is introduced for commerce and industry. It will be laid down how many whites, coloureds and natives are to be taken into each particular occupation. That policy will protect everyone, whites, coloureds and natives.

And will the mineworkers also come under that?

Yes, and as a result the system will avoid improper competition taking place between whites, coloureds and natives in the labour market. The position of the white man will be maintained at all cost, while full opportunities will be given to the non-Europeans to enable them to progress along reasonable lines. This scheme is thoroughly in accordance with the segregation and trusteeship policy of my Party. It is also the policy of my Party that there is to be spiritual and moral uplift of our poor whites, as well as economic improvements. We therefore propose that the description of “unskilled white labour” is to be done away with entirely. It is that label which is the cause of such an inferiority complex with all the associated evils which we find among such a large section of pur poor whites. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) realised this fact in the flays when he was Minister of Railways and he changed the nomenclature of unskilled white labourers into railway workers. This is only a minor part of the upliftment policy for which my Party stands. We propose an improvement in the economic position of that section of the population which today occupies the bottom rung of the economic ladder—but side by side with that again training and education on a large scale must go hand in hand. The people have to be taught so to spend their increased earnings that they will be able to raise their standard of living. Take for instance the coloured women today. They are now suddenly getting large allowances of from £7 to £8 per month if their husbands have joined up. But we find that they have not raised their standard of living; in actual fact they are spending their increased incomes on totally unnecessary things. They are not bringing about any improvement in their living conditions as such. That danger also threatens the white workers, and it is therefore necessary that if there is to be an increase of wages by way of minimum wages or otherwise, such increases should go hand in hand with the education of the people to teach them how to spend, how to use their increased incomes. In industrial life in South Africa today we have on the one hand a small group of skilled artisans who are in receipt of reasonably high wages and on the other hand we have a very large group of unskilled workers in receipt of a precarious wage on which they cannot exist. Between those two groups there is a very small group of semi-skilled people, so small that it is hardly worth while mentioning them. The gap between the wage of the unskilled worker and that of the artisan is very big and we propose that that gap shall be reduced. We don’t propose that the wage of the skilled workers shall be reduced until it gets nearer to the wage of the unskilled workers, but what we do propose is that labour in industries is to be re-classified. As a result of such a policy there will be a large number of occupations which today are classified as skilled or unskilled, and which will come into the group of semi-skilled occupations. This, however, will not make any difference to those workers so far as wages are concerned—it will make no difference to the wages of those workers who today are classified as skilled workers. The restrictions in existence today in regard to the training of skilled workers will also have to be removed by giving every individual the right of becoming a skilled artisan. This is already being done to a certain extent today by means of the basic technical training scheme where adults receive intensive technical training for a certain period of time. In regard to children, vocational training will be started in the Trade Schools. A certain quota will be fixed by a Board to be appointed for the purpose, which I shall deal with later. After a certain age or a certain standard the child will therefore enjoy the privilege to get free vocational training, knowing for certain that he will be absorbed in industry when his apprenticeship period is completed. Special facilities will also be provided for the intensive training of certain adults as artisans. It will be argued at once that the supply of skilled artisans will very soon exceed the demand with the result that all the evils of improper competition will make themselves felt, that wages will drop and that unemployment will set in. I agree that under the present system that will be the unavoidable result of such a policy. But we are going to alter the system. We are going to substitute a system of individual responsibility together with a system of collective bargaining by a system of State responsibility. When I explain this new system it will be noticed that the skilled worker will have no reason to be afraid, but that on the contrary he will be very much better off than he is now. Under the present system the onus is placed on the employer and on the employee in regard to the fixing of wages, hours and the working conditions in general. Even so far as unorganised workers are concerned the onus rests on the employer and the employee today to see to it that wages and labour conditions for the employee are improved. It is true that there is an ineffective Wage Board, but that Body only takes action at the request either of the employees or of the employers. In addition to that, this Wage Board is so restricted that it very rarely if ever gives satisfaction, and that it rarely if ever provides the workers with a decent livelihood. In actual fact therefore the State does not assume any responsibility for the provision of a decent livelihood to every individual. The State does not assume responsibility for the regulation of proper working conditions for everyone. That is simply left over for the employees and the employers to come to an arrangement, a joint arrangement on the basis of what is known as collective bargaining. We therefore propose that the existing system is to be changed in the following ways: (1) in place of the present unsatisfactory Wage Board there is to be established by the Government of the day a Chief Wage Board, a Chief Wage Board to be presided over by a Judge. This Chief Wage Board will be entrusted with a very important task. With a view to bringing about uniformity and with a view to doing justice to workers in the service of the State as well as in private service, the members of this Chief Wage Board will consist of representatives to be appointed by the State—representatives of the Railways and of the Public Servants. There is to be uniformity in regard to wages as between private service, public service and the Railway service. We further propose that on that Chief Wage Board there are to be representatives to be appointed by the employees in the Railway Service and in the Public Service. We further propose that there will be representatives of all other employers and also representatives of all other employees. In that way we shall get a Wage Board which will be really representative of the employers and the employees and it will be responsible to the Government. This Wage Board will be entrusted with the task of fixing wages and of regulating working conditions. It will have to fix the quotas for white, coloured and native workers, that is the quotas which are mentioned in this Motion. It will be entrusted with the task of reclassifying workers in industry, with the task of determining which classes of work are to be regarded as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled. It will also be responsible for seeing to it that there is work for every man and woman in the country, and that those who do not want to work will be compelled to work—a system which we already have in this country up to a certain extent. It will also have to fix the annual quota of school going children who have to receive vocational training. It will be responsible for the regulation of intensive training of certain adults as skilled workers and it will be responsible for seeing to it that there is uniformity of wages and working conditions in occupations of the same kind. Those are a few of the duties of this Chief Wage Board which I want to touch on in order to show that it is a most important Board which we want to be established. In order to enable this Chief Wage Board to carry out its duties in the way they should be carried out the necessary machinery will be provided. Among other bodies there will have to be local wage boards, and a Central Employment Board. There will have to be a co-ordinating Board for labour and social welfare, which are inseparable. There will have to be a Miners’ Phthisis Board and so on. But the fact remains that collective bargaining except for domestic matters will be done away with altogether. This system of collective bargaining has outstayed its usefulness entirely. It was an essential part of our economic life in the past, and it is still so under the present capitalistic system where the worker himself is responsible for his livelihood. Under the new economic system which we want to bring about, it will, however, be redundant. The Body by means of which this so-called collective bargaining takes place is the Trade Union, but if the State accepts full responsibility for the fixing of wages and the regulation of working conditions, the principal function of the present Trade Unions will disappear. Trade Unions under the present system, as it exists today, are indispensible. The Trade Union has rendered great services to the worker. It is to them that the worker owes his improved conditions. If, however, the present day liberal capitalistic’ system is destroyed and is replaced by our system then the Trade Unions—as they exist today—also lose their most important function. Unfortunately some of these Trade Unions have also degenerated to such an extent that their officials are not concerned so much with looking after the interest of their members, as they are with the preaching of a foreign doctrine and the promotion of strife between the various classes. It is therefore unavoidable that under this new system the trade unions will be largely converted into actual workers’ organisations which will be representative of the workers. Those organisations will not so much be entrusted with the function of obtaining better wages and better working conditions by means of collective bargaining with the employers, but they will be mainly entrusted with the task of regulating domestic matters as between the employers and the employees. And for the rest of looking after the spiritual welfare of the workers. We therefore propose to have workers’ organisations on a sound basis, organisations which actually will look after and promote the spiritual and material interest of their members. These organisations will be entitled to negotiate with the employers about pure domestic matters. We further propose to have direct representation of the workers’ groups on the Communal Council which will form part of the Government system which we stand for. We therefore propose for the workers the organisation of a Chief Wage Board which will function under the Government and which will be responsible to the Government and which will be entrusted with the task of regulating wage and working conditions. Then we shall also give representation to the workers on the Communal Council which is to be part of the Government system. This Communal Council will be a body on which groups such as agriculture, industry, vocations, employees, and all the rest of them will be represented. It will have advisory powers and will also in the first instance consider all industrial legislation before it comes to Parliament. The employee will therefore have direct representation in the Parliament of the country by means of this Communal Council. The worker will further be able to negotiate directly by means of his representatives, with the Chief Wage Board and also with the Government. He will therefore be in a better and in a more privileged position than he is in today. He will be represented in the Parliament of the country and he will be represented on the Chief Wage Board and in both these ways he will be able to bring his interests to the notice of the Government. Now, what do we further propose in regard to the workers of this country? There is another important principle contained in this motion. It is something which no Party in this country has ever advocated; it is something which offers the workers in South Africa a still better future. I am referring to the principle which is laid down here that the workers will have the privilege of sharing in the profits made in the occupation or industry in which they are employed. We take up the attitude that the real producers of the wealth of the country are the workers and not the capitalists. It is true that the capitalist supplies the capital, but without the labours of the workers all that wealth will never be produced. We therefore propose that the workers who produce that wealth by means of their labour are to receive their share of that wealth. Let me give an example. The mineworkers who go 7,000 or 8,000 feet into the bowels of the earth to get the gold out of the earth are in receipt of a precarious wage for the work they do. The mineworker sacrifices his health and his life. After a few years work underground he gets Miners’ Phthisis, and not long afterwards he starts tearing his lungs to pieces by his coughing. He gives his health and his life, together with his work; what right has anyone got to say that that miner who gives his labour, his health and his life has not got the right to share in the wealth which is produced as the result of his labour? That is the attitude which we adopt. We say that the workers have the right to share in the profits which are made by their labour. We therefore propose that a start shall be made with the key industries, and the mining industry is the biggest of those key industries, and there the workers must have the right to share in the profits. Those key industries will be under State control so that those industries will be carried on in the interest of the nation as a whole. We want to say this to the people of this country, that if our system is put into force the worker will not only be assured of a proper and adequate wage, but he will also have the privilege of sharing in the profits of the industry to which he gives his labour. It will mean that the thousands of workers in the gold mines on the Witwatersrand over and above their wages will also receive a share of the profits. In other words, they will share in that wealth which is created by their labour. I also want to say that these are not vague promises, but that it is our intention to give effect to what I am saying here. That is the policy of our Party. I want to go further than that. We propose a working week of 40 hours. That used to be the policy of the Labour Party, but now that they have the opportunity of giving effect to it they do not do so. That is what we propose and it is our intention to give effect to it. It is important from the economic point of view that working hours should be reduced. By reducing the working hours greater opportunities are created for the employment of workers; it gives the workers better opportunities for development; it gives them better and more opportunities for a healthy domestic life which will make them greater assets to the country. We further propose that the workers shall receive full pay during times of sickness with free medical services. With the position as it is today, if the worker gets ill, he simply has to starve and go under. In many private concerns no proper provision is made for him. The worker is placed in a position that even if he is sick he still has to go and work because he cannot afford to stay away from his work. Then we also propose that every worker shall have adequate leave facilities together with travelling facilities, so that he can derive the best possible advantage from his leave. How many private employers are there who do not even give 12 days’ leave to their employees in the year? Nobody who works hard for eleven months in the year can be expected to be satisfied and to benefit from short periods of leave like that. What is the use of a ten or twelve days’ holiday for a man who has worked hard for eleven months, and what is the use of his having a holiday if he has no travelling facilities, and if he has no money to go away and to enjoy his leave? Then we also propose the prohibition of all Sunday time except where it is imperatively necessary. If work has to be done on Sundays it should only be done with the consent of the Chief Wage Board, and then at double wages. We also propose an improvement in the whole system of accident compensation and confinement allowances. The present Act was passed through Parliament two years ago with a great flare of trumpets. The Act is ineffective, and inadequate. As I said at the time, it did improve the old system, but it still falls very short of what should really be done. And then we propose another very important matter, and that is a contributory scheme for all workers—it will have to be a nation-wide scheme which will give every worker when he reaches the age of sixty the assurance of a pension on which he will be able to live. There are pension schemes in operation today in certain private concerns and in the Public Service and the Railway Service, but for the great mass of the workers there is no provision of that kind whatsoever, and that is why we propose a national-wide pension scheme to which every worker can contribute, so that he will have the assurance that when he reaches a certain age he will get a proper pension on which he will be able to maintain a decent standard of living. In regard to unemployment I want to say that that will be unnecessary under our system. Under the new economic system which we propose it is the responsibility of the State to provide the unemployed with work. There will, of course, have to be provision for interim periods when the worker transfers from one occupation to another, but actual unemployment relief such as we know under the present-day system can be cut out. We also propose that there shall be an extensive housing scheme with the ideal that every worker will eventually possess his own house. I do not propose discussing this matter because other hon. members on this side of the House will explain it more fully. With all these improvements it will naturally be essential to maintain the greatest and strictest degree of control over the cost of living. It will be no use to improve working conditions and then to allow cost of living to go up inordinately. It will be no use and it will be of no avail to the worker if we improve his wages and if we fail to control the cost of living. For that reason we propose that there is to be effective control in respect of cost of living. There will have to be expansion of the training facilities for workers. We cannot create a new economic heaven unless at the same time we provide for the extension of the present day system of training. The workers will have to be trained and educated so that they will know how to spend their increased wages, and their increased earnings, so that they will spend their money usefully and with a view to improving their standard of life. Other members will also deal with that aspect of the matter. In passing I merely want to say that so far as the education of our children is concerned we have this in view: universal free vocational or industrial training after a certain age or standard, in consultation with parents and educational authorities, and side by side with that, of course, as I have already explained, there will be the absorption of young men in specific industry in accordance with a fixed quota. I also want to say this, that we propose that every young man or young girl will undergo compulsory military training or labour training for a fixed period of time. It is essential to do that. This is something with which we are all familiar. We want to preserve the health of the nation and that brings me to the question of Miners’ Phthisis. In the first place the attitude which we on this side adopt is that we must as far as possible prevent people from contracting Miners’ Phthisis. We do not take up the attitude that it is sufficient to provide adequate compensation for those who have contracted Miners’ Phthisis but what we must do is to prevent miners contracting Phthisis. We say that no miner should be allowed to work underground for more than fifteen years. If he contracts Miners’ Phthisis before the expiration of that time he must immediately be paid a pension which will assure him and/or his dependants of a decent livelihood. But after fifteen years—and I want to say in passing that according to the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau the average working life of a miner is 18 years—but after fifteen years the underground miner must be compelled to leave the mine, and as the State is responsible for the worker he must be provided with proper work at an equivalent wage. He will then be able to contribute to the National Pension Scheme from which he will eventually receive a pension. If he contracts Miners’ Phthisis in the meantime, he will be treated as an ordinary Miners’ Phthisis sufferer. This compulsory leaving the mines after fifteen years will mean, of course, that there will be a great shifting of labour in the industrial world; consequently this policy will have to be a long term policy. The benefits attached to it, however, are of such a nature that it will be essential to apply such a policy in the new economic system which we stand for. That, broadly, and in short, is the labour policy which we stand for on this side of the House. We propose a complete reform and complete changes in the present system. The changes which we propose will be further explained by the speeches of other hon. members on this side who will deal with other aspects of our social economic policy. We stand for something which is radical and which differs widely from the present system. Other people may differ from us, but they cannot place a finger on anything in our policy that cannot be given effect to. But what is very important, and what I want to emphasise again, is that we propose this radical policy, which is based on a national system of government, a system in which the people will retain their eventual say. That is what we offer the people of South Africa. We are convinced that the public throughout the country will accept it. If they will give us the opportunity to put this policy into force, we only want to say that in that event a new South Africa will be created, a country in which the highest degree of freedom, peace and prosperity will prevail.

This motion which was moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is very vague, but it does to a certain extent contain material which is worth reflecting on. If I may say so, it seems to me that the preamble of this motion is too long, and that it wants to provide too much machinery in order to give effect to the little material it contains. It seems to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came forward with this motion after he had heard something which we all knew, namely that a general election will probably be held. This motion looks like a programme of principles for the purposes of an election. What struck me most about the introduction of the motion, and it must have struck many other members, is that it does not go far enough at all. It is too shortsighted. We would like to go to the root of the matter. We should like to see something which will penetrate to the root of this social evil, if I may call it that. This motion, in the introductory portion, sets out the attitude which is adopted in the motion towards the conditions which have been brought about by this war. It does not go to the root of the causes which existed before that time. Even before the war we had these miserable and calamitous conditions in the country. The causes which brought about this disastrous state of affairs in our country as far as the European is concerned, were present even before the war, and for that reason we say that the preamble is too short-sighted. We would like to have concrete proposals which will go to the root of this evil. When we read this preamble, we come to the conclusion that there is a good deal about it which is vague. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has referred here to certain basic principles, and in studying the basic principles which he gives, we find that they are dealt with in such a manner that one comes to the conclusion that it will be necessary to appoint a Commission of Enquiry in order to clear up all these ambiguities, and to tell us what it all means. The proposer of the motion told us that the country has had enough of Commissions of Enquiry. He comes here with certain principles which he wants to lay down, and according to which this matter must be tackled. But he is so vague that one cannot arrive at any conclusion, and it would seem that it is necessary or that it is his intention that a Commission of Enquiry be appointed in order to enlighten us. I want to refer to a few of the ambiguities which we find in the preamble. He refers to a large section of the population of the Union. Why does he not say which section of the population he has in mind? Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us definitely what he means and which section of the community he has in mind. He further says that we should eliminate all parasitical activities from our economic life. What does the proposer of this motion mean by that paragraph? Why does he not say who those parasites are and in what way he wants to deal with them? We have read the motion, and we have listened to his speech, and he does not mention anything about it. I take it that it will require a Commission of Investigation to tell us who those parasites are, and what will have to be done. I have a suspicion that he knows very well who those people are. Why does he not clearly tell us who they are? In the past we have all had experience in regard to this type of vagueness, when it comes to a definite statement. When those people have to be mentioned, we find that the Leader of the Opposition is not brave enough to get up and tell us who they are. We know that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) moved in this House some years ago that it should be definitely stated who we meant by parasites, and what should be done with them, and one would expect that the Leader of the Opposition would have given effect to what was suggested by his supporters. But what happened in Cradock at the 1940 Congress? When the hon. member for Beaufort West suggested that these parasites be mentioned and that they should be dealt with, the Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to take a firm stand and to say that he meant the Jewish population when he referred to parasites, and that they should be eliminated. We then heard that this was an important matter, and that those people supported the newspapers and the press of the party, that they got advertisements from those people, and the Leader of the Opposition could not allow them to be insulted. We expect that when a prominent member like the Leader of the Opposition comes to this House with a motion, that he will take up a definite and concrete attitude—concrete, to use his own word. This motion does not look like a concrete motion. It would not appear that he is prepared to deal with matters of this nature on a concrete basis.

How did you vote when that motion was before the House?

We are not dealing with that now. We are dealing with this motion which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. I say that this is a motion by a responsible member, and yet we find that his whole motion is extremely vague. Here is another example of the vagueness about which I complained. We do not know what he means by it. He says: “Where it appears to be in the national interests, there should be active State control over the gold mining industry.” Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not yet learnt, in so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, not to come forward with such vague statements? Has he not yet learnt that lesson in connection with the war policy of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister explained to us that war would be declared if it were in the interests of the people of South Africa. Look at the position in which that vagueness plunged us. And now the Leader of the Opposition comes here and uses such vague expressions as “when it is in the interests of the people.” In view of the experience we have already gained, we certainly do not expect the Leader of the Opposition to come before this House with such a vague motion. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of a board, but it seems to me that this board is a board without a plan. He also referred to an executive board. I am afraid that in so far as his board is concerned it will be a board minus the “executive.”

Are you saying this merely to oppose?

No, I do not only want to oppose. I want to admit that there is a certain amount of good material here, but we want something more concrete, and it is for that reason that we ourselves are going to introduce a motion. In so far as this machinery in the motion is concerned, I am afraid that we are going to create even more confusion, and that we will bring about even greater difficulties. We will simply appoint more boards, and we will accomplish nothing. When we read through this motion, it seems to be so incoherent that it cannot be regarded as concrete or systematic. Nothing is suggested with a view to doing something for the farming industry. We know that something must be done for the farming industry. We notice, for example, that no mention is made in connection with one of the greatest difficulties under which our farming industry labours. No mention is made of housing. It seems to me that the proposer of this motion only had in mind the town dwellers, and that he only thought of the slums in the towns. He forgets where his best support lies, and he does not mention the miserable position in which a large section of the farming community finds itself, in so far as housing is concerned. He makes no provision for them in the platteland. We know that the Minister of Finance, or rather the former Minister of Finance, did devote a little attention to this subject. Some time ago he came forward with housing schemes for the farmers. But the present Minister very soon put a stop to that. I am sorry to see that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to do anything about it. Then there is the question of national health. We should like to see more about national health than is contained in the motion, and in my amendment I suggest plans which are much better. What do we find in connection with the middle classes? There is no mention of the middle classes, of that section of the community which is taxed most heavily, and which bears the greatest burden in the country. And then they talk of the poor man. Look at Section 11 of the motion. It is true that there is some reference to the poor man, and the proposer refers here to a general improvement and alterations in the existing system, the existing services with regard to old age pensions etc. Alterations and improvements! Is that what the Leader of the Opposition desires? Alterations and improvements in the miserable system of old age pensions? No, I say that this calls for much stronger language. Something must be proposed, something definite, something concrete, to show how the poor man must be treated. Simply to say that the meagre allowances which the poor people receive must be improved—no, that falls flat. We would like to see a complete, fixed scale being laid down.

But so far you have said nothing about your amendment.

To sum up, the motion is too vague, it is not at all clear. It took the Leader of the Opposition and his seconder no less than two hours to explain this motion.

And you do not understand it yet.

And the country will not understand it either. It is not at all effective. It is not sufficiently comprehensive. I shall not take much longer in discussing this motion, because I have a much more concrete motion than the vague proposals which now appear in this motion. I will suggest something concrete to the Government in order to improve this difficult position. I therefore move the amendment which stands in my name. It is only necessary to read this motion—it speaks for itself. It is not vague. No, it furnishes a systematic solution to all these difficulties. Its meaning is so obvious that the country will be satisfied, because in this amendment there will be found a solution of all difficulties. I therefore move—

1. (a) State control through nationalisation and other equally effective measures in connection with—
   1. (i) the gold-mining industry;
   2. (ii) all key industries;
   3. (iii) capital, banking and finance of the Union;
   4. (iv) all tenure of land on a large scale for speculative purposes;
2. (b) State control of the press, the broadcasting service, theatres, cinemas and all other sources of propaganda and applying them to educating the nation;
3. (c) safeguarding measures for the farming population by providing—
   1. (i) stable and reasonable prices for agricultural products;
   2. (ii) safety of land tenure subject to its being used effectively;
   3. (iii) a solution of the farm labour question;
   4. (iv) protection against suppression by unbearable capital and interest burdens;
   5. (v) reclamation and conservation of the national soil;
4. (d) the creation of a European-Christian trusteeship in respect of all nonEuropeans, based upon the principle of total segregation and development among their own lines subject to State supervision;
5. (e) the safety of the middel-class in respect of—
   1. (i) sickness, unemployment and possible want of the aged;
   2. (ii) the exercise of a calling, business or trade, with special reference to oppression by trusts or cartels;
6. (f) the discipline and the education of the whole nation for national service through—
   1. (i) Voortrekker service;
   2. (ii) military and semi-military service;
   3. (iii) an educational system with a Christian orientation which shall include all educational institutions and shall guarantee suitable education for all the fit;
   4. (iv) a comprehensive youth movement;
   5. (v) enlightenment by means of the press, the wireless, theatres, cinemas and all other availbale means;
   6. (vi) purposive encouragement of national virtues;
7. (g) uplifting of the less privileged by the real recognition of—
   1. (i) the right of citizens to ask employment of the State at a white man’s wages with reasonable chances of advancement and sufficient free time for recreation and a happy family life;
   2. (ii) the ethical and national value of all labour; and
   3. (iii) the duty of the State to promote family life and to protect it as a definite population policy;
8. (h) the development of national resources and key industries and the encouragement of industries in accordance with national needs, disregarding considerations of private profits, together with a reasonable decentralisation;
9. (i) the protection of the language and cultural rights of both sections of the people, regard being had to the birthright of Afrikanerdom;
10. (j) State control in respect of the exercise of and admission to callings, trades or business, consideration being given to the national needs of the sections of the people to be served;
11. (k) the restriction of State citizenship and of appointment to any service of the State or institutions under State control to the established section of the people excluding all anti-national, un-national and unassimilable elements;
12. (l) the encouragement of the immigration of elements racially related and the prohibition of the entry of Jews and other undesirable persons;
13. (m) thorough reforms in our law on a basis of justice and equity in accordance with national interests;
14. (n) the maintenance of a high standard of public health through—
    1. (i) general compulsory physical training;
    2. (ii) promotion of a generally hygienic mode of life;
    3. (iii) effective hospitalisation and medical treatment in all its branches, and in respect of the unprivileged free of charge;
    4. (iv) good, sufficient and effective nutrition and clothing for all sections of the people, together with effective housing;
    5. (v) adequate possibilities for effective recreation for all sections of the people;
15. (o) the elimination of all class-strife through intervention of the State and if necessary by decree of the State;
16. (p) the revision, from the point of view of the national interest, of the status of all persons, whether naturalised or not, who entered the country since 4th August, 1914, and reversion to all names which have been changed since that date; and
17. (q) the creation of—
    1. (i) an effective and reliable defence force modelled on true South African lines and based upon compulsory training for the whole of the European population; and
    2. (ii) a compulsory disciplinary labour service for all non-Europeans, consideration being given to the standard of civilisation prevailing amongst them.”

I move this, and as I have said, the motion speaks for itself, and it suggests concrete proposals, without the cumbersome machinery which the Leader of the Opposition wants to create.

On examining this amendment I find that items (c) (i), (c) (iii) and (1) anticipate motions of which notice has already been given. I am accordingly unable to accept those items and they will be removed from the amendment.

May I be permitted, on a point of order, to put a question with reference to the ruling which you gave here this afternoon, that technically all the motions on the Order Paper are excluded by the motion of the Leader of the Opposition? Will you not allow these portions of the amendment, in the spirit of that ruling, subject to the same condition that no details may be entered into in the debate? If it is reasonable to depart from the strict rule that subsequent motions must be excluded, because those proposals are debated in the motion, and if it is permitted to go into those proposals in general, then surely it is just as convenient and desirable that an amendment may be as complete. Otherwise you allow certain things in the original motion which are in conflict with motions which still appear on the Order Paper, but you do not allow, in connection with those portions, those matters, an amendment to the original motion to be moved. I suggest that you will comply with the spirit of the Standing Rules and Orders in the same way that is laid down in the original ruling if you allow the amendment as a whole, subject to this understanding, that members will not be permitted to go into details.

May I be allowed to draw your attention to (1) of my amendment, the question of immigration, and to point out that paragraph (7) of the motion contains a similar proposal. I hope, therefore, that you will allow the amendment on those matters.

The hon. member must remember that notice was first given of the motion which is now under discussion, and thereafter there were notices of motions in connection with certain matters which deal specifically with points which are contained in the motion. In the circumstances, I think that I cannot allow those portions of the amendment which are now proposed, as it will have the effect of anticipating notices of motion. The position in regard to the amendment differs from that of the original motion. The ruling which I have given must therefore be observed.

I second the amendment of the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis). Certain points have now been ruled out of order which I wanted to discuss and I shall try to leave them alone. There is not the slightest doubt that under existing conditions the position of the poor man and of the middle classes and of the farmer has become disastrous. The rich man becomes richer and the exploiter, the unscrupulous business man, lives in luxury. The capital of the capitalist increases daily. When we ask ourselves at whose expense this happens, then the reply is that it is only at the expense of the poor man, the middle class man and the farmer. As a result of the efforts of the labourer and the farmer, the handful of people who control the mines, the industries, the banks — in other words big capital—can enrich themselves and live in luxury, and the poor man must pay the piper. The middle classes are squeezed dry and thousands and hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners have to live below the bread line. Now the hon. member for Vryburg introduces his amendment, and makes certain proposals in which lie the only salvation for our people. He says that the gold mines and the other matters which are referred to here should be placed under State control without delay. We are tired of Boards and Commissions, and the only salvation is to be found in State control. Nor is there anyone who can deny that the press, the radio, the bioscope and the theatre can exercise a surprisingly good influence on the people, but what is the position today? This propaganda is used in conflict with the interests of the country. The people do not get the benefit of it, but the controlling power is placed in the hands of certain persons, and that is not to the advantage of the country. The instruction and uplifting of the Afrikaner nation is being neglected. For that reason we ask that the controlling position of the radio, of the press and of the theatre, should also be placed in the hands of the Government, so that they will not be used to the detriment of the Afrikaner nation, but to its upliftment. In paragraph (d) we also advocate the institution of a European Christian guardianship over all non-Europeans, based on the principle of complete segregation, and their development according to their own character under State supervision. It took years and years to place our segregation Acts in respect of natives on the Statute Book. Now we ask why the segregation policy is not being carried out. It is only by carrying out this policy of segregation that we shall be able to solve this difficult problem. But we do not only want the native segregation policy to be carried out. That alone will not suffice. We ask for general segregation, not only in respect of the natives, but also in respect of Asiatics and coloured people. For them too, separate territories must be obtained. It will be difficult, but therein lies the only solution for the maintenance of the European race, and the retention of South Africa as a European country. Another point which I want to emphasise is the provision of security for the middle classes. We know that the middle classes form by far the greatest majority of the people of our country, but as a result of stock exchange manipulations, depressions and economic catastrophes which descend upon the people now and again, the middle classes always find themselves in a position of insecurity. And we ask that the State should see to it that security be given to that section, the largest section of the people. It is only when the middle classes are safe that we can create a healthy nation. We must help them when they work, and we must provide for their old age. Then we shall be on the right path in creating a healthy nation, and in combating the growth of “poor whiteism” in this country. With regard to the poor whites, give them employment. They are prepared to work but cannot obtain work. The old adage that labour ennobles is still applicable, but labour is not only a matter of work, it must possess ethical and national value, otherwise it is of no use. It is the duty of this House to see to it that every citizen of this country has the right to work, and not only the right to work, but every citizen of the country must have the right to demand that the State will give him employment. As long as he is fit to work he must be able to demand that he be given work. It should not be necessary for him to go to the State and the Government as a beggar to ask for work, but he must be able to demand it as a right. We can only build up a happy nation if we reach this state of affairs. Every citizen of the country, every labourer must have reasonable opportunity of improving his position. He must be able to see that he can progress. He must know that if he discharges his duty towards the State, he will be able to lead a happy family life, and that his family, which forms part of the State, will be able to lead a happy life. I should also like briefly to say something in regard to health. No nation which is not healthy in body can be healthy in spirit. It is vital for the Afrikaner nation to have a healthy body, and through that a healthy spirit. We, as guardians of the non-Europeans in this country, must see to it that we are physically and mentally fit to exercise that guardianship. For that reason we ask in our amendment that better hospital facilities and medical facilities shall be created for the people—not only for those who can afford it, but for every citizen. We ask for compulsory physical training and an improvement in general hygienic conditions. Then we shall be able to build up a better nation which will be able to maintain its position of guardianship. We hear a great deal today about social security. We hear of a world order. We hear of world plans. We hear of the Beveridge plan. Today we heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he agrees with that social security code. We also agree with it, and we say that it is a small step in the right direction, but we say that all those things are but half measures. They cannot solve the problem. The only solution which there is, the best plan, is that which was suggested today by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis), and unless that plan is accepted, what will all those social security codes amount to? It will be something which can only be regarded as patchwork. This plan of the hon. member for Vryburg—and that is the reason why I second this amendment—aims at the transformation of the Afrikaner nation into one huge happy family, with happy individual families, in which the motto will be: All work for each and each work for all, so that each and everyone can find their highest selves in service.

I think we can ignore the criticism which we have just heard in connection with this motion. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) did not hear what was said when my hon. Leader spoke. There is, of course, a certain type of criticism which can easily be made. There is this general criticism today, like the criticism of the American Legion, which says to the soldiers of the country: “Do not pay any attention to what the old people say at home; they are not going to do anything for you, because their promises are worth nothing; do your work at the front and when you return, then do the best for yourselves that you can.” That is the type of criticism which one may expect on a motion of this nature. It is a motion which exposes itself to criticism. Without criticism this motion would be practically worthless, because we expect criticism from the Government; we expect criticism from those people who do not want to see a re-created nation. We have realised for years that there is no proper existence for the people of this country in so far as the fundamental requirements of life are concerned. We have advocated this for years in this House. It is not something with which we are coming forward today for the first time. We are not asking this because we are about to have an election or because there is a war in progress. It is something which flows from the systematic policy which we have followed for years. We want to safeguard the fundamental requirements of life, for the whole population without any exception. But the criticism which we expected was this: “You come forward with a scheme which refers to the European population and not to the other sections of the population.” No country can be healthy in body and soul if it has decayed parts in that body, and consequently it would be foolish to come forward with a motion which will still leave decayed and weak portions in that body. And for that reason I say that this is not a motion which excludes the interests of any portion of the population. We are dealing here with a motion which aims at ensuring the fundamental things of life to the whole population, and for a long time we have made it clear that those fundamental things of life—in the first place, before one comes to the higher values, one comes to the human values, and these are the things which one must have—employment, food, housing, health services and colthing. I say again it is not as though we are coming forward with a new cry today; this is something for which we have fought for years. Are the people today assured of those things which are essential for human requirements? Is the population or any portion of the population assured of these things? The reply is: “No, we have failed in the past; we have not succeeded in ensuring those things.” And I want to express my gratitude that the fundamental principles of this motion are the fundamental principles which in the first instance place the ordinary human values before anything else, and that is that work will be provided to the whole population. Then, in the second place, it provides the vital necessities of life, namely food, housing and national health services. Once those fundamental necessities have been provided, then it follows that the rest of the motion which makes provision for the training and education of the community—that that training will be given on a basis which will make it possible for everyone to develop and to receive better development; that it will not be dependent solely on the financial position, but that that development will be able to take place if the necessary brain exists. Everyone will have an opportunity in that circle to develop and to improve. I repeat that we are not coming here with anything which is new; we are trying to realise those things for which we have strived for years, and which we have regarded as necessary for years. It is only that we realise that up to the present the opportunity for it has not been ripe, and that the Government of this country has certainly not been ripe for it. For that reason we say: “Give the country a government which will place human values before anything else, so that the people may get these things and not only vague promises.” In a motion one cannot, of course, set out the entire system, as the hon. member for Lydenburg expects; but this is a system which will provide the people with those things. Let us go into details for a moment. We are dealing here, as I have said, with a motion which had to be comprehensive and the complaint was not that it was vague; the complaint of the press was that it was far too lengthy and voluminous, and yet is was necessary for it to be voluminous. We find that in the motion provision is made for the basic principle that every member of the community shall be entitled to employment, and not to alms or to an unemployment allowance. We appreciate, of course, that there must be unemployment insurance for a short period, for a week or two, while the individual is unemployed. We appreciate that, but our attitude is that the people of this country should be entitled to employment, and that the Central Economic Board of the country should be responsible for seeing to it that there is work at all times. When there is plenty of work, all plans must be in readiness which will be tackled as soon as there is a slackening in the field of employment. When there is a slackening in public works, or in the private undertakings of the country, certain fields of employment will be open, into which these people can go immediately, not at the wages which obtain today, but at a living wage which will not be reckoned at so many shillings, but at a wage which will assure them of those things which are essential for a decent living; in other words, we do not want to assess our wages in terms of money, but in terms of what that money can buy. We all know that money cannot buy the same commodities every day, and consequently that anomaly would disappear. The individual who has to earn in order to be able to buy certain things, in so far as food and housing are concerned, must be able to buy the same value every day of his life, irrespective of the value of money at that particular time. There must therefore be a wage which will be assessed in terms of what the employee can buy, and it must be determined in such a way that the worker will suffer no damage in consequence of the fact that there is a fluctuation in the price of any product or service which he requires. Because there has been a complaint that we have not described in sufficient detail what we want, it is necessary for us to say something in regard to a few specific matters, and we come first to those matters dealing with national welfare, and the national welfare requires health services. It requires a public welfare organisation. It requires an educational department which will really be educative to the whole population, and which will not provide technical and intellectual training only, but which will give every member of the community the fundamental training. Let us see what the position is under national welfare with regard to the institution of State health services, which are referred to in the motion. The only reason why the population should be healthy is because we believe that nature intended man to be healthy and not unhealthy, to be strong, if possible, and not weak, that his mental development and his mental state should be what we term good, and not bad. These are relative terms, but generally speaking, we should ensure a level of health to the population, which will enable the individual to do his work, which will enable him to lead a life which is not only healthy, but one which is fruitful, a life which may be of some value to the State, to the community, a life which will improve the social conditions in the country and not make them worse. We know very well that in this world we can speak relatively of what is better and what is worse. We may differ in regard to the meaning of that term. But we must institute a State health service which will place health within the reach of the entire population. I for one believe that we already have ample information, that we have sufficient data to institute such a State service, that it is unnecessary for the State to make investigations for a further two years into the desirability of such a health service. Two years represent a long time in one generation. It is a twentieth portion of the generation which sits in Parliament today. I feel that it is unnecessary for us to make investigations for another two years. We know those methods very well, that is, that you can postpone a matter so as not to arrive at a decision at all, that you can trifle with the people and say to them T intend doing something; just give me a chance.” What do we find? We have a Commission on which a couple of our members are also serving? They travel about the country, and will apparently travel about for another eighteen months. Every now and then we read in the newspaper that the Commission has been invited to have tea at such-and-such a place. We see advertisements in the newspapers that the Commission is making investigations, and we usually find that those investigations concern matters in connection with which we could, before now, have taken effective steps if the Government were prepared to do so. We know that the Government is not prepared to do those things at this stage, and for that reason we introduce a motion which says that we want such a State health service, that we can have it and that we will institute it. The economic welfare of the country can only reach its full development if the health of the people is placed on the highest level. Health is a matter of practical interest to the country. It is of practical economic value to the country. It also enables the population to reach its highest development, and although that is a reason why we should have the best health, and why a health service should be of universal application, in such a weak population as we have now, the real reason is that thereby we will enable everyone to develop himself economically, and to become an economic asset to the State. We visualise a State medical service for the country, under which rich and poor alike can combat and prevent illness. We finally want to make an end to the old system. There will, of course, always be people who will prefer to be treated by their private doctors. Let the private doctor then continue to practise, but let there be a State health service for rich and poor, and let everyone pay towards the costs of that service. Those who want to pay twice because they prefer to go their own ways, may do so. This system will immediately transform the functions of the State doctor, and here is an important scientific point. It will transform the functions of the State doctor, because he will no longer have to rely on disease for his livelihood, but his promotion will depend on combating disease. His promotion and improvement in life will be by virtue of the fact that he eliminates disease and malnutrition. Here we find one of the most economic transformations which we can visualise. We visualise a system under which the scientific combating of the diseases in the country will become the task of the State doctor. He will have to be trained in such a way that his knowledge will not be confined to diseases, but he will have to know everything relating to the combating of disease, or the conditions which cause those diseases. In the first instance, in South Africa he will have to know everything about nutrition. He will have to know what doctors unfortunately do not know today, and what the quacks do not know, although they pretend that they do know, namely, what the true requirements of nutrition are, how to prevent malnutrition. In this sphere he will have to be an expert. The ordinary doctor will have to be an expert in the sphere of combating disease, and surely it is at least desirable that there should disappear from our midst a profession which, although it feels deeply concerned about the people, has no power whatsoever to take any action in connection with the matter. We have our medical profession today, we have good doctors and bad doctors, but generally speaking, there is not ten per cent. of the members of the profession who are not deeply perturbed at the fact that their work is not concerned with the combating of disease, but that only after a person has been wrecked, after he has become a burden to the country, then for the first time they are called upon to cure that wreck. It is an attractive proposal that the State doctor will do this work, but from quite a different angle, and for quite a different reason. The same applies in the case of nursing services, and also in the case of hospitalisation. In so far as hospitalisation is concerned, a great change must come about. I say that a great change must come about, because unfortunately our hospitals are not under the control of the State today, that is to say, under the Central Government. Our hospitals are today under the four Provincial authorities, and this causes the greatest anomalies, and we find that there is this inconsistency, that you actually have no control over your hospitals, which have to train your doctors. They are not State hospitals, whilst the universities do at least fall under a State department. Here we offer a scheme under which we will not find these anomalies. Hospitals must be brought under the control of the Central Government, under the Department of Social Welfare, so that those things which are necessary for the betterment of the nation, for the improvement of health, for the building up of a healthy body, will fall under a central department of the State, which will be able to function throughout South Africa. Your State doctors must be spread over the whole country. The country must be divided into regions, and there should be a doctor in every region, and in that region he will be responsible for the health conditions prevailing there, for the environment in which the people work, for the industries which exist—that is to say, for the conditions under which the employees in those industries work. I just want to indicate that under this scheme there should be a co-ordination of everything which relates to the health of the people. Through your regional doctor, through your hospitals, throughout the country, there should be co-ordination. Under this scheme there will be co-ordination everywhere and you will not have the position which exists today, where a person in a small town suffers from a serious disease, and owing to departmental difficulties, cannot receive treatment. When a person in a small town suffers from a serious disease and efforts are made to give him treatment in another institution, then there is a terrific fight amongst the various State departments in order to determine whose duty it is to transport that person who finds himself in this serious position. Why? Because hospitals come under the Provincial Administrations, and other matters under State departments; there is no co-ordination, and consequently the people must suffer. I say that they quarrel amongst themselves as to who should transport the individual, who should bear the expense incurred for his treatment. There have been cases where people were becoming blind, where a short period of a few days could have saved these people from blindness, but where a quarrel arose as to who should bear the expense of transport, who should bear the costs in connection with the treatment. This is something which is totally eliminated under the new system which we envisage, and for that reason we are in favour of the co-ordination of all health services throughout the country. With regard to the State doctors, throughout the country in every region, the State doctor will become a scouting post in so far as the necessary housing is concerned, the necessary environmental improvement and the combating of infectious diseases, immunity treatment, when one wants to render the people immune from smallpox, for example, and where we are now proposing to render the people immune from diphtheria; here the State doctor will be a scouting post to report and give treatment with the prospect of being linked up with the central department of State which co-ordinates with other departments, so that whenever exceptional conditions exist in any part of the country, it will immediately come to the notice of the central offices of the country, and then there will be co-ordination with other departments of State, charged with the duty of considering and improving conditions. I say that, if only to improve conditions in the health sphere, it is necessary for us to introduce such a scheme, so that no section of the national life will be excluded. Then there is the question of placing all medical services under the Department of Social Welfare, and also other services such as, for example, services for people suffering from mental defects. In that respect we made a mistake in the past by separating what should have been together, but under our Planning Board care will be taken that everything which relates to national welfare will be co-ordinated in such a way that steps can immediately be taken by the Central Government when the scouting posts report that there is anything wrong with the organism. Then our motion envisages a housing scheme for the whole population. We know that in the past, in the last twenty years, the State made money available for sub-economic housing. We know that we have slowly come to the realisation that slums must be removed. But unfortunately the work we have done has not been sufficient to solve the problem. I hope that in this debate other matters affecting national welfare will be dealt with by other speakers on this side, and perhaps also by speakers on the other side. I support this motion, and I am glad that I am in a position to do it, and that we have a motion today which touches upon the fundamental requirements of the people of our country. I have always been greatly concerned about these matters, and I feel happy in being able to support this motion today. It is constructive and not destructive. It contains proposals for providing employment, and for the development and uplifting of the whole population. It was worth while introducing such a motion. I know that certain portions of the motion will be ridiculed, but I am proud to associate myself with this motion. It will be ridiculed because there is a section in South Africa which exploits other people, a capitalistic section, which at all costs desires to prevent a solution of the problems which we want to solve.

I move—

I second.