The Minister in his speech in introducing this vote informed us that the increased expenditure, in part at any rate, was caused through an expeditionary force having been sent to Madagascar. We on this side of the House most strongly object to the Minister of Defence breaking his word of honour which he pledged to us on the 4th September when he said that no troops would be sent overseas. Possibly he does not regard Madagascar as being overseas. But troops have been sent overseas and in consequence additional expenditure has been incurred. We emphatically object to this as Parliament has never approved of troops being sent overseas. I want to say at once that I have respect for soldiers, but we are now told that those people went voluntarily. I want to tell the House what my experience is of this going voluntarily—people are simply told that they have to go. A professional soldier simply has to go where he is sent, and if he refuses to go he is penalised by senior officers, as happened in the case of Professor Bosman’s son. When he refused to go he was penalised and sent to South West Africa in a clerical position. There he was penalised by everyone and his life was made most unhappy. But let me go even further. So-called volunteers are sent but the fact of the matter is that they are compelled to choose between starvation wages or otherwise to join up. We on this side of the House want to defend our own country but we object to our people being forced into the wars of other countries, and we object to their being sent overseas. I hope that in future we shall be able to attach more value to the Prime Minister’s word. It would be a most unfortunate thing for South Africa if we could no longer place any reliance on the Prime Minister’s word, on his promises that troops will not be sent overseas. Troops have not only been sent to Madagascar but I have been told that troops have been sent to Crete and to various other places. It is unfair to expect the Boer population to agree to our people being sent to other parts of the world to wage war there on behalf of another country. And we most emphatically object to this amount which we are now asked to vote on these Estimates being used for those purposes.

I don’t as a rule have much to say about matters concerning the war, but I should like to know from the Minister of Defence what right he had to attack Madagascar. I quite understand that if one is at war with another nation one may be compelled to attack that other nation’s country in order to be able to protect oneself. But we were not at war with France, and simply because it paid us to do so we proceeded to attack French territory and to occupy it. I quite realise that the large nations are all out to look after themselves. When Germany considered it advisable it simply attacked Holland. When England found it necessary to fire at French ships, she simply did so. But South Africa is a small country and yet we had the temerity to attack another country, we attacked the country belonging to a nation with whom we were not at war. To me it does not appear as if there can be any excuse for an action of that kind. The excuse which has been put up to us that Japan was going to take Madagascar and was going to make use of it. Even if there was a suspicion that that might happen, surely we could have waited to see if it was going to happen. Japan still has its submarines in those waters today and has its ships to supply those submarines with all they need in some way or another. We have no evidence to prove that Japan was going to use Madagascar as a base. We simply attacked the territory of a friendly nation which used to be our Ally and we took that territory away from them. The Prime Minister is a great deal older than I am and what I am saying I say with due deference to him, but I did understand him to promise that he was not going to arm our coloured troops, and now I am told that Madagascar was taken very largely by coloured troops, that they were armed and that they went to Madagascar together with our own people. Now, was it necessary to take that step and to arm those people? The Prime Minister is an old Afrikaner and he knows the trouble that will be caused by the arming of coloured men. That is why he said at the outset that the coloured soldiers would merely be used for general service, to help the white troops. (Agterryers). Now they have been armed and they are full-blooded soldiers. We conquered another country by using those coloured troops and then our coloured soldiers are brought back to Cape Town to march through the streets. I do feel that there has been a breach of faith to a certain extent and I want to say so to the Prime Minister with all due respect. If I can possibly avoid it I don’t want to criticise him, but it does not seem the right thing to me that he should break his word in the way he has done. It was unnecessary and it seems to me that the arming of the coloured troops and sending them to Madagascar was merely looking for trouble. It would appear to me that other influences were brought to bear on the Prime Minister to induce him to take this step and I feel it is my duty to protest against this additional expenditure because we attacked the territory of a nation with whom we were living on friendly terms, and secondly I protest because the pledge which the Prime Minister made to us has been violated.

I wish to stress the protest which has been registered by a former soldier of the old Republic. The charge which has been levelled has been levelled against the Prime Minister who himself is also an old soldier of South Africa. I do not wish to repeat what the previous speaker said, namely that the Prime Minister is a man so much older than he himself is. He is not very much older than I am. As an old soldier of the former Republics which had been plunged into trouble I rendered service to the State at a time when I was still studying. I have here before me the speeches containing the reasons which were deduced for our participation in this war. In his pleadings the Prime Minister at the time made certain promises to the people of South Africa, promises which in the course of this war have been broken in a most scandalous manner. If we read what appears on page 27 of Hansard, volume 36—from the 1st September to the 5th September, 1939, we find the following—

Those were the Prime Minister’s words—there would be no question of our active participation in the war. Well, our active participation has not been cut out but it has taken place and it has taken place without any evidence that the public had agreed to our participating. And this forces me to go further, and to go back to the beginning of this war. And for that reason I am going to oppose this war expenditure and all proposed war expenditure in the future. I shall oppose it because of this statement made by the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister further promised that he would only use volunteers as far as South Africa was concerned. I have had the privilege, and I regard it as my duty, to get into touch with every young Afrikaner, young man and young woman, who joins our voluntary army and to discuss matters with them. I mention No. 7 in the Defence Force. I discussed matters with him, and I was convinced as to what we are to think of this system of so-called volunteers. It is just as lacking in genuineness as those Liberalistic conceptions and pretences that we are fighting for today for the maintenance of Christianity. That is why I have risen here to emphasise that we on this side protest most emphatically, against what? Yesterday when my Leader rose to introduce his motion he was told by the other side of the House that he should leave his motion alone and first of all win the war. Win the war! No, there are greater problems than those which this Parliament will solve. Greater problems than those which the nations of the world will solve because no war will be won.

I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the vote before the House.

I have diverted somewhat as a result of the challenge which has been thrown out by the other side of the House, but let me come back to the subject. We are asked here to vote for further war expenditure. This is the first portion of this vote, namely the war expenditure which has to be met from revenue funds. We are going to deal with the matter further still in connection with the Loan Estimates. We also have to deal with war expenditure which is hidden away under other votes and which we are told nothing about, and that is why I wish to protest most emphatically, and why I associate myself with everything that can be said in opposition to this war expenditure which is forced on to our people and also in opposition to every other vote where war expenditure is hidden and covered under the cloak of other expenditure. There is only one thing that counts today and that is to win the war. And that is why the Minister of Finance has had to cover all these things by taxes and loans before we brought our motion before the House. I want to warn him that the people of South Africa will call him to account. They are calling him to account today for the waste that is going on in the Administration; but that is a matter which I shall deal with later on. I am opposed to this waste of money on the war. I am opposed to all this hustling to win the war and to put everything else into the background for that purpose, and that is why I am going to register my vote against this further expenditure for further war purposes, proposed in these Estimates.

I am not here today to throw mud at our soldiers. A soldier is a person whom I always admire, because he fights for something which to his mind is right. But what I am opposed to is that soldiers are used for something they are not concerned with, for something which they have not understood from the very start. On the 4th September, 1939, the Prime Minister said that all he wanted to do was to break off relations with Germany. To what extent has the Prime Minister adhered to that promise. Hardly had he promised the people that that was all he had in mind before he changed his views. He broke his pledge to the people; he declared war against Germany, and when he did that he again told us here in this House and he told the public outside, that the South African troops would only be used in the service of South Africa for the defence of their own mother country. Again, I don’t want to say anything against our troops. I have as high an opinion as anyone of their acts of heroism.

Yes, now they are “our boys.”

Those hon. members opposite sit in this House and get fat on the blood of our boys who are fighting up North. Let me say this to them, that I am prepared to take the Blue Oath and go North if ten of them sitting on those benches opposite will do the same and go on the same conditions.

I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the vote.

I was only replying to an interjection. The Prime Minister further told us that this war would be fought without the arming of our coloured troops. What has he done? Hardly had he given us that assurance before he went along and armed the coloured troops. We know what it means. We know that they go up North where they pick up all sorts of things which they bring back to this country. We also know that these coloured troops are in receipt of high pay. Their dependants are paid big allowances, and they don’t know how to spend the money they get in a decent manner. A coloured woman gets £8 per month. She spends and wastes that money and the result is that a whole lot of people, wasters and won’t works, are kept going by her. Three or four families are kept by her, and that is why the farmer finds it so difficult to get labour today. Those large sums of money are used to feed the loafers. That is why we feel that the Prime Minister has broken this pledge, has broken faith with the people of South Africa, and I ask how we can trust him any longer after he has done a thing like that. He went further and he said that he would not send coloured soldiers overseas beyond our borders. Seeing that he has done so I ask how we can accept his word in future? I am sorry to have to say this to the Prime Minister; I have no personal animosity against him, but he makes the public outside suspicious—they have no faith in him. Now he is busy with a Blue Oath—how far is he going to go with that Blue Oath, or is he going to break his word there again? I feel very definitely that I cannot support the voting of this money because the Prime Minister has broken faith in every possible way with us and with the people of South Africa.

I wish to have some information from the Prime Minister in reference to a statement which the Minister of Finance made here yesterday in regard to the object for which this amount of £16,000,000 is asked for as additional Defence expenditure, an amount of which the £3,500,000 which we are now dealing with constitutes a part. The Minister of Finance informed the House yesterday that part of this amount was caused by the fall of Tobruk, and by the equipment of soldiers owing to the fact that that equipment was taken at Tobruk. In addition to that, part of the money was also needed for the sending of troops to Madagascar. Now I want to ask the Minister of Defence whether he can inform this House and the people of South Africa about how much of this additional amount is due to the fall of Tobruk and everything in that connection. I think it is very essential that we should have that information because we have to keep these two matters separate as far as we possibly can. I assume that the Minister of Defence cannot tell us what the exact amount is, but I believe that after having gone into the matter, and after our having been specially told that the amount is partly required on account of the equipment of additional soldiers who have to take the places of those who have already been captured, he should be able more or less to tell us what the amount is. It is of the utmost importance that the public outside should be thoroughly informed because as I already said yesterday, and as I want to emphasise today, an additional amount of £16,000,000 is a huge amount. It constitutes 20 per cent. or one-fifth of the total expenditure which we voted last year for the current financial year in respect of war purposes. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to tell us roughly what the position is because the public would like to know exactly the extent to which this additional expenditure had been caused by the setback which we have had up North, so that they will know in future what it will mean if the Axis Powers should meet with success, that they will know how much it will cost this country. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the Army which has gone to Madagascar. I dealt with the question of sending troops to Madagascar yesterday. I said that it was a case of a breach of faith on the part of the Prime Minister to have taken an action of that kind, but as I say, I don’t want to go into the merits of the case now. What I want to bring to the notice of the House is this, that I feel that a large number of coloured troops were sent to Madagascar and if there is one thing which is wrong, which is to the detriment of the people of South Africa as a whole, it is that coloured troops have not only been armed, but have been used for the purpose of conquering another country. It is to the detriment of the people of South Africa that those coloured troops were sent overseas for the purpose of conquering that country. I merely want to point out that the Prime Minister in a debate in this House said that he was in sympathy with the farming population and that he wanted to assist the farming population. He said that he wanted to assist the farming population to produce, because it was essential that the farmers should produce more so as to enable him to carry on the war and to feed our men. But what do we find now? We find that in spite of his sympathy—and a Nation cannot live on sympathy alone, one wants action—in spite of the fact that he left everybody in this House under the impression that no more coloured troops would be recruited, in other words that the Prime Minister would see to it that labour would be available to the farmers to enable them to produce, in spite of all that he did not keep this promise which he made to us; what did we find? He has continued with the recruiting of coloured troops and he has even gone further. He has sent those coloured troops abroad for the purpose of taking Madagascar. I hope we are not going to have a recurrence of that sort of thing. Surely if the Prime Minister gets up here and makes a statement we should be able to accept that statement and depend on it. Everybody will agree with me that the Prime Minister in this particular instance has not kept his word. I can only say that an attitude of that kind is disastrous to the interest of the people of South Africa and it is for that reason that I feel that I am unable to vote in favour of this additional amount for Defence. Not only are we asked to vote a huge sum of money but in addition to that we find a breach of faith on the part of the Government in power and we have to register our vote against this in the hope that there will not be a recurrence of this sort of thing in the future. We must put an end to this sort of thing and we must see to it in future that this kind of expenditure is not going to be placed before us for our approval in days to come.

I hope it may be in order to ask if some of this extra money now to be voted can be expended in supplementary payments towards the dependants of men who have been killed on active service, and more particularly to mothers, widowed mothers at that, who have lost their only support in the war?

That is a matter, of war pensions.

It does not come under this Vote at all.

Very well, I shall bring it up in the proper place. May I try something else and see if that is in order? It certainly does involve a little expenditure on this vote—it has to do with the soldiers newly returned from the North. Psychologically these men are not precisely the same as when they went away. They are strained and tired men. They have returned to Cape Town with possibly a £1 or £2 owing by them on their pay books. It seems to me that it does not matter very much—it is a matter of extremely small importance—whether we expend an extra £1 or £2 on such men as I am mentioning. It matters very little to us but it matters a great deal to them, and I want to ask the Minister to see whether some provision can be made to meet their case. They will make up in future service any small overpayment they may possibly receive. Discretion should vest in the Local Paymaster to make such concessions where necessary.

I am afraid that that is not in order either.

Anyhow you have made your point.

I wish to put a few questions to the Prime Minister so as to obtain some information from him about the new position which he has entrusted to Dr. Hendrik van der Bill and other prominent South African economic experts. We have read in the Press that the Prime Minister has given Dr. Hendrik van der Bill and other prominent people instructions and powers for the control of supplies in South Africa. I must admit that as far as one was able to find out from the newspaper reports this was a highly necessary and essential step. I am not criticising what has been done, I am merely putting a question for the purpose of getting information. The question I want to put is this: How far do the powers given to Dr. Van der Bijl and his colleagues extend as regards control over the supplies in the country, that is to say the production and distribution of those supplies; and how far do those powers extend in regard to the export of products and the importation of essential requirements and so on? I wish to repeat that I and I think every member in this House have the greatest respect for Dr. Van der Bijl and his colleagues. They are very competent people and I assume that in the abnormal circumstances that prevail it has become necessary to take this drastic step, but none the less we should like to have more information and we want to know how this new system is operating. I do not know exactly what the relationship is of Dr. Van der Bijl—who, according to the information which we have, is the dictator of South Africa’s economic life at the moment—we do not know exactly what the relationship is of Dr. Van der Bijl in respect of the other ministers, in respect of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. This new system which is being carried out is a new one, and I feel that all of us would like to know how it is going to operate. I want to repeat that to my mind this step which the Prime Minister has taken is not merely a very good one, but it is also an essential one, and I also want to say that as to the choice of people for this important work, this responsible work,—I could almost say for this dictatorial work,—it is also a very happy one. It should therefore be clear that I have no wish to criticise but I feel that this House and the country in general is rightly anxious to know what the actual position is and how the new system is going to operate and what the Prime Minister expects to happen in the near future in regard to the development of this new system which he has now initiated.

Mr. Chairman, I feel it my duty to rise, especially when exception has been taken on the opposite side of the House to the expedition which went forward to Madagascar. I feel that Hitler, Mussolini and the Mikado of Japan owe those gentlemen on the opposite side of the House a deep debt of gratitude for having voiced their disapproval of the action of the Prime Minister, who is Commander-in-Chief of our Forces, in allowing that expeditionary force to leave these shores so as to protect South Africa. We have heard last year and we heard the year before from members on the opposite side, that if ever South Africa was attacked they would not help, they would not even take up arms themselves, they would not help to defend their own country. Well, I think that the Prime Minister took them at their word, Mr. Chairman, and that is why he sent the expeditionary force out of the country in order to protect South Africa.

Why did you not go?

Mr. Chairman, we all know of the sinkings of ships which took place round our coast; there were a lot of them (interruptions). The hon. member does not know too much; if the hon. gentleman destroyed the blow-fly instead of trying to destroy the Government from that side of the House, he would do better. Nevertheless, in spite of interruptions from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) I do feel that the country owes the Prime Minister and our Commander-in-Chief a very deep debt of gratitude for having allowed that expeditionary force to leave this country in order to protect us. And I imagine that force was very well organised, because our troops went through that country with practically no casualties at all, and they have made this country absolutely safe. I feel that I am voicing the opinion of every member on this side of the House, and I am voicing the opinion of practically the whole country with the exception of a few hon. members who have spoken this afternoon—I only make those exceptions because I feel the rest of hon. gentlemen opposite are grateful too—I think the whole country is grateful to the Prime Minister for his longsightedness in having allowed that expeditionary force to go forward and protect our own country. We all know the further you keep the battle away from your own country, the better off you are. You have only to hear of the atrocities which have occurred in the Far East in order to say “God forbid that ever a Japanese force should land in this country.” The Opposition have said that if ever anybody attacked South Africa they would not help to defend it, and imagine what would take place amongst our women and children if the Japanese landed here. Therefore I say the country owes the Prime Minister a very deep debt of gratitude, and the country will show it in no uncertain way when the time comes.

Mr. Chairman, may I supplement very briefly what has been said by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) as to the wisdom of the Prime Minister in seeing that South Africa took a large part in the Madagascar campaign. I had the opportunity of welcoming back at Durban some of the troops that had been in that campaign, and I want to mention one incident in regard to the native troops which shows how wise the Prime Minister was in employing them, and the satisfactory result which came about. Amongst those returned soldiers was a Zulu who was being conveyed to his home at Nongoma in Zululand by ordinary motor bus. I want to give this House the impression made on my mind by the experiences of that native soldier. I said to him: “Have you just returned from the campaign in Malundalunda,” the Zulu name for Madagascar. He said: “Yes, I have just come back, I have been to produce my leave certificate at the magistrate’s court, and I am going home to spend a month’s leave.” I said: “Well, now tell us what happend.” He said in Zulu: “Sesi lidhlile lonke izwe labo.” “We have eaten the whole of their country.” Using the Zulu term for conquest, he meant: “We have conquered the whole of their country. He then went on to explain that it was largely a native campaign, the troops on the other side were chiefly natives. He said that for his part he was there to pick up the wounded, he was a stretcher bearer, and when the South Africans were knocked over and wounded, he was there to help them up and carry them to safety. His whole attitude, Sir, was one of appreciation of having been given an opportunity of taking what he considered was his humble part in the campaign. I think it was an admirable opportunity which the Prime Minister availed himself of, of employing that large class of people who are willing and anxious to show their readiness to serve. As we were about to part, he said: “I have worked for you on three occasions.” That was after I had, in reply to his enquiry, told him who I was. We parted on the best of terms after I had marked my appreciation of his fine service. I only want to show the wisdom of the Prime Minister, as it was testified to by one of that large class of the community, the most numerous section of the population of South Africa. So far from any harm accruing from that kind of campaigning, nothing but the greatest credit will redound upon the Prime Minister and the Defence Department for their conduct of that campaign.

We have been listening to the boastful display of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth). I want to tell the Right Hon. the Prime Minsiter that this side of the House has no objection to the additional Estimates provided he undertakes that twenty of the hon. members sitting opposite—

Make it five.

Well, let us make it ten. If the Prime Minister gives us the assurance that ten of them who are so strong and competent and healthy will go and fight, then we shall have no objection. If the money is spent to give them a rifle we shall keep quiet.

Are you going to come too?

Come with whom?

What is there to prevent them from going? Let me refer them to what is happening in their mother country, England. Some of the young members of Parliament there have already died on the battlefield. The sons of the Lords and the Sirs have joined up there. What is there to prevent those who are sitting here from going? Let them carry out the things they talk about and let them go and not come here to put up the kind of bluff which we have had to listen to.

But surely they are drawing extra salaries.

The hon. member for Rosettenville is hiding himself behind the blood of young Afrikaners. When war broke out the Prime Minister made us a solemn promise that only volunteers would be used and that they would not go overseas. I have already drawn his attention to the fact that certain people have already gone overseas, but his reply was that he knows nothing about them. This was last year and I asked him who was paying them, and he replied that it was not South Africa who was paying them. He promised that not a penny of public money would be spent in respect of people who went beyond the borders of South Africa. What happened after that? I wonder whether the Prime Minister will admit now that he has broken his word, that he has not carried out his promise that he is guilty of a breach of faith towards this country? What was at the back of the Prime Minister’s mind when he made that promise? Was he only trying to get in the thin end of the wedge and to get South Africa into this world war with a semblance of innocence? What happened afterwards? This country was converted into a solid war factory and all the branches of life and of the community were converted into munition factories—all the Government departments, all the offices, houses, villages and towns—there is nothing one can think of that was not converted into a munition factory. Does the Prime Minister still want to contend that he is waging this war with volunteers only? We know that compulsion is being brought to bear on all sides. It is like a dog which is fastened to the back of a cart with a chain; the cart moves along and the dog is dragged along against its will. There are many young men who have never dreamt of going but as a result of this preconceived pressure and compulsion on the part of the Government they have been compelled to join up. One finds this sort of thing even on the Settlements. Young men who should be there to assist their fathers are driven off the Settlements. Why? Because they are young and strong. And what is the object? They are not told that they will be forced to go to war, but they are driven off the Settlements so that hunger and starvation will force them to go. And in that way the war is carried on by means of so-called volunteers. The country is being-taxed heavily, and every day it is being taxed still more heavily. That is why we cannot vote for this expenditure. We can never give our consent to this waste of money. If the money were spent for the defence of South Africa, for the fortification of our country, it would be a different matter. Our whole country lies open and undefended. If the Prime Minister were to come here and ask for money for the defence of the country he could get an unlimited amount so far as this side of the House is concerned. Our country must be defended, and we want to defend it. Our country lies open today and if the enemy were to come here he would find it asleep. The north-western coast, for instance, lies open. Nobody ever though of that. The Prime Minister has only one thought in his mind. He reminds me of a person who has developed and grown up but whose development has only been one-sided. He only thinks of the Empire and not of South Africa. South Africa means nothing to him and the Empire means everything. Unfortunately he will not admit it, but that is what he has at the back of his mind.

I must ask the hon. member now to come back to the Vote.

We are discussing a Vote here on which money is being asked for the prosecution of the war. We have no objection if the Prime Minister asks for money to defend our country.

On a point of order. You are now trying to curtail members on this side of the House in their speeches, but the Minister of Defence has not yet told us what this money is required for, and until he tells us what it is needed for we don’t know what it is to be spent on. Only if he tells us what the money is required for can there be a question of curtailingmembers, but the Minister has not told us this yet.

Surely we must assume that the Prime Minister is sufficiently broad-minded enough to realise that there are two sentiments in this country, the Afrikaner sentiment and the British sentiment. Is it fair that half of the population should be compelled against its will to be oppressed and nearly throttled to death by taxes until in the end it will be completely impoverished and ruined? On the one hand one has the British sentiment and that sentiment is encouraged and built up by the Government’s policy. That section, the British section, has everyone of its wishes complied with, but the Afrikaner sentiment is destroyed and trampled on. Is that fair? Surely the least we can expect is that the Prime Minister should also take into account and respect the sentiment of the Afrikaners. And when I speak about sentiment it brings me to the question of the sentiment, the feelings, of the Afrikaner towards the natives and the coloured people. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth)—I would almost say the warlike home fronter—has suddenly made a great discovery, a discovery which we on this side of the House made more than a quarter of a century ago. He and those belonging to the same race as he have suddenly made that discovery. We on this side of the House have never been the friends of the Japanese. We have always regarded the Japanese as a yellow race with whom our white race should have no concern, but the hon. member for Rosettenville and those belonging to the same race as he does, were for many years, while they were hoping that the Japanese would become their Allies, great admirers of those self same Japanese against whom they now suddenly want to warn us. The hon. member in those days was only a child but he will perhaps remember that in 1904 there was a war between our great Ally Russia and our enemy Japan, and he will also remember that the English were practically without exception pro-Japanese and anti-Russian. In those days the Russians were everything that was bad, and the Japanese were everything that was good. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville in his youth will probably have joined in the singing with other English people of the well-known songs of those days, “Only a little Jappy soldier.” From 1906, after the war, until 1910, Japan temporarily was a little more yellow than before that time, and the hon. member and those of his race were not such good friends of Japan. But when war broke out in 1914 and Japan saw a chance of getting hold of a bit of loot from the Germans, they suddenly became allies again. But it went further than that. I was studying in the Cape in those days, and I well remember a reception being given here in Cape Town in honour of a crowd of Japanese soldiers who passed through here. After the beginning of this war very great efforts were made in England to get Japan on the Allied side. I well remember Japanese warships coming here and I remember certain people—I believe it was the South African Mountain Club—being given the tip that they should show the Japanese how to climb mountains. It was the Government which gave them that tip. Well, when the members of the Mountain Club were half way up the mountain on the road to Platklip the Japanese had got to the other side. But I don’t want to talk about that now. In those days when the Japanese warships were here one of our papers in this country contained a leading article about the Japanese in which the following was said:—That the Japanese were a race of perfect gentlemen, always courteous, generous in friendship, chivalrous both as enemies and as friends.” When there was a chance of getting them in as Allies they were “a race of perfect gentlemen.” We have always taken up a very definite attitude so far as the Japanese are concerned, but now the hon. member over there wants to warn us against the Japanese. It is not for him to come here suddenly and warn us. We have always been consistent in our attitude towards the Eastern races, but only a few years ago the hon. member for Rosettenville was singing “Only a little Jappy soldier,” making his tenor voice heard to advantage. We object to the expenditure of this money for several reasons, and one of the reasons is that we do not know what the money is going to be spent on. We have done our best to get information as to how the Department of Defence is spending the money. Apparently the Department of Defence, even if they want to do so, is unable to tell us on accout of the absence of receipts—they really do not know themselves how much they have actually spent. We know that in the last war £1,000,000 went astray, but in this war, so we understand, in all probability a great deal more than £1,000,000 will go astray on account of our expenditure being so much higher.

There is a paper scarcity.

Yes, there is not enough paper for the purpose of writing out receipts, but one point which we do object to is that a new oath is being contemplated now, a pink oath or a blue oath. There seems to be no limit to the extent the Prime Minister is going to force us into this war. He has made many promises. He first of all said that we must take part in this war only in order to defend our ports, only for the purpose of defending our homes. We were not going to wage war. We were only going to be in a state of war against Germany, but South Africa’s contribution would be limited to the protection of our homes and our boundaries. The limits of our own boundaries were subsequently extended to the defence of South Africa, and as we also know the boundaries of South Africa were systematically extended. First of all our boundaries went as far as the Limpopo, but afterwards they were pushed further and further North, and at the moment South Africa’s boundaries are in the centre of Tunisia, but so far as the Eastern part of South Africa is concerned, the boundaries are not even limited to South Africa itself. We had an undertaking from the Prime Minister that our troops would only fight in South Africa, but some of our people are already in Palestine and Syria, and a large number of them are in Persia doing construction work in their capacity as soldiers; they are building railway tunnels and so on. The Prime Minister’s promise was that we would only defend South Africa; after that, that promise was made more elastic, we were promised that our people would only be used in Africa, and those were the conditions under which the money was voted. We find that the promises which were made to this House and to the country have been broken. They have been broken not once but repeatedly. Consequently, as we find that the Government makes promises which it does not keep it is impossible for us to agree to the spending of any further money on Defence.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that while this debate is on, we ought to give a meed of praise to some of our young South Africans who have done remarkably well, particularly in the campaign in Madagascar. The man who commanded the naval forces is a South African, born and bred, he was educated here, and he performed almost a miracle of navigation in bringing that big-expeditionary force through a most tortuous channel amongst coral reefs and capturing the big naval base in the northern part of Madagascar, Diego Suarez. This gentleman has done some of the boldest and most magnificent feats, and has certainly brought great credit not only to the British Navy, but to South Africa and South Africans, and I think we should praise him very considerably for the work which he has done and the fine example he has set to South Africans of the future. It has been said this afternoon that he Prime Minister exceeded his duty and exceeded the rights which were given to him in sending troops to invade Madagascar. But after all, what is Madagascar; is it not a part of the continent of Africa?

No.

It has been a part of Africa since I learnt geography many years ago, it is generally considered a part of Africa. It is certainly not a continent of Madagascar, and it is too far away from Australia, or Asia, to be called part of that part of the world. You might just as well say that Robben Island is not part of the African continent. At that rate Robben Island is a continent by itself because it is seven miles away. Then someone spoke about the Japanese. The hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn) said that years ago someone wrote a wonderful article about the Japanese people. Because one newspaper wrote that many years ago, are all these to be taken for granted? Are they to be taken as the laws of the Medes and Persians? During the past few years things have changed very much. If it were not for the gallant conduct and perspicacity of our distinguished Field Marshal we might possibly have these dreadful people in this country.

We told you that twenty years ago when you wrote those laudatory articles.

I would like to tell the House now that most of us knew much about the Japanese many years ago and we have always looked upon them as the Yellow Peril. We always thought that when these Japanese ships came round here, they should be watched much more closely than they were.

The Town Council accepted quite a number of presents from them.

Order, order!

There is still a monument in the Public Gardens.

I must ask the hon. member to come back to the Vote.

I was astonished this afternoon to hear the remarks which fell from the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen), who has such a very gallant son serving with our forces in the North.

He is a better’ man than you are.

I believe so. I wish I was half as good a man as the son of the hon. member for Namaqualand. I wish I was young enough to be up North. I shall go willingly if they would let me go. I hope that by some chance I may still be able to serve. I have never stood back and I will not stand back now. I hope the House will take a different view from my friends on my right. I hope hon. members will remember that we have had many Japanese submarines round our coast. We know that they have sunk a number of ships round our coasts. Do you mean to say that we are going to take no action, that we are going to sit down quietly and take no action when these things happen round our coasts, and when we know that some of our South Africans have been in Singapore and other places and treated in the most brutal fashion by a barbarous enemy? Are we to stand still and allow this sort of thing to go on? I was ashamed at these thousands of people who have not come forward to defend this country. I hope that a better spirit will come about amongst the members of the Opposition and that in future they will take a different view of the war and that they will see the right side of it and induce their boys to go forward in their thousands to go and take their places, as they should do, in the South African army—like Admiral Syfret did when he led that squadron into Diego Suarez.

A serious charge has been made by this side of the House against the Prime Minister. He has been accused of not having been true to the promise which he gave on the 4th September, 1939, to this House and to the public outside. He has been accused of not having been true to the impression which he created in this House and in the country outside. I think we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement in this House. On the 4th September, 1939, the Prime Minister gave us this assurance—

The Prime Minister on the 4th September gave this House the impression that we would not take part in this war on as large a scale as we did in the previous world war. But now we find that after the House had voted £80,000,000 during the last session for war purposes, there is a shortage of £16,000,000 on war expenditure. In other words, that there is a shortage of more than the average amount spent on the last war every year. The Prime Minister has time and again given us the assurance that he would not send troops overseas outside South Africa. He gave us the assurance that he would only use white men as soldiers. We ask him this afternoon to make a statement to this House and tell us why he has not carried out the promise he made on the 4th September. We know that after he had made this statement in the House on the 4th September 1939 members opposite frivolously voted in favour of the motion proposed by the Prime Minister. Members over there did not think it worth while—there was no very great hurry about the matter at that particular stage. They did not think it worth while to give members of this House the opportunity of consulting their constituents. Now they say that they fight for democracy, but they violate the very principles and the very first principles of democracy. The Prime Minister has told us of the great reception which he received overseas on the occasion of his recent visit. We are not surprised at that. Great Britain could never have secured cheaper services than she has obtained on this occasion. We also know that no Afrikaner has ever had a good reception in England if he remains faithful to the interest of South Africa. They never had time for a man like Paul Kruger. They had no time for him and for others who stood by South Africa, and they treated them with contempt. But now we find that the Prime Minister is received with cheap flattery overseas and he tells us of the great reception which he was given there. Now I also want to utter a word of protest against the Minister of Defence also being Prime Minister. I want to ask the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the financial matters, how he can refuse to do what the Prime Minister wants him to do. He has to find the money for the Prime Minister, the man by whose grace he occupies the position he does. I think it is in the interests of South Africa and in the interest of sound finance that the position of Prime Minister and of Minister of Defence should be separated. We have had the assurance from the Minister of Finance that there would be sufficient money, and now we find that the amount which we voted last session has been exceeded by 20 per cent. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he thinks that this small country, South Africa, is entitled to spend £96,000,000 per year in the interests of this war. I also want to ask him whether he thinks that if we have to carry on at this rate for a number of years—and it is stated that the war will last a long time yet—that the financial position of the country is of such a nature that we can with any degree of safety force the people to incur such tremendous expenditure? We cannot get away from it, that the public will have to pay for all this. We cannot go on destroying things and spending money in this fashion and then tell the people that we are living in times of prospertiy, that things are flourishing. We should realise that these good times will come to an end, these good times which the Minister of Finance tells us about. Now the people are told that there will be work for everybody. The good times will come to an end and the time will come when there will not be work for everybody. I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance and I want to ask him what his plans are for the future, and I want to ask the Minister of Defence what all this money is being used for. We have the right to know what we are voting this money for. We are not entitled to vote this money blindly on behalf of the people of South Africa. I also want to ask the Prime Minister why our troops must now be sent overseas. Are they to be sent there for the defence of this country? We want to know why he is running away from the promise he has made to this House and to the people of South Africa. I also want to protest against non-Europeans being recruited for military purposes. We repeatedly hear talk about ’the danger from the side of Japan. There is a much greater danger in our own country, and that is the danger from the side of the non-Europeans. They are being militarised, and yet we hear of the Japanese danger. Japan is very far away from us, and it is much less of a danger to us than militarised non-Europeans in our own country. During the last Session the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), who now has such a lot to say about what a native has stated, warned the Prime Minister of the spirit prevailing among the natives in Natal, but now because it suits his purpose, he comes here with a different story. I think the Prime Minister must realise that propaganda is being made on a large scale for communism among the non-Europeans in this country, and while all this is going on he is training the coloured people and the natives for military purposes. Although he gave us an assurance last Session that he would do everything in his power not to take any more coloured labourers away from the farms, we find today that if we are looking for a coloured worker we have to go and look for him among the military. We ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness to carry out the promises which he has made to this House and to the people.

The hon. member opposite who has just sat down has accused this side of the House of having given its support frivolously to our participation in the war, on the 4th September, 1939. May I be allowed to tell him that if ever he has made a mistake he has done it now. Let me tell him that on that occasion I said farewell to the man who for forty years had been my political leader, and the course of events since that time has proved conclusively that we on this side of the House chose the right course in regard to taking part in this war. It is not for me to say what our position would have been today if we had not taken part in the war. The hon. member asked whether this country has the right to spend £96,000,000 on the war. Let me say in reply that even if it were not £96,000,000, even if we had to spend £960,000,000 on this war, it would not be too much for the preservation of our country, it would not be too much to make it possible for our people to be free and enjoy the freedom of life. It is significant that the main objection that has been raised against the voting of this additional amount is that we have taken Madagascar. One of the previous speakers has proved that Madagascar should be regarded as an African island. I go further and I say that it has been scientifically proved that Madagascar was part of Africa until it was torn away from this continent at the time when a great upheaval took place. (Laughter). My friends opposite show their ignorance by laughing like a lot of jackals at what I am saying.

Has it broken away from Africa since the outbreak of the war?

I say that it has been scientifically proved that Madagascar was part of Africa until it was severed. That is proved by this fact …

Yes, all of us used to be baboons.

So it seems. I say that it is proved by scientific facts, one of which is that the type of animals which are found on the African continent are also found on Madagascar, and the same applies to the fauna. Objections were also raised here to the allowances paid to the dependants of coloured soldiers. This is practically the first time that justice is being done to that section of the population. Objections are also raised to the fact that these coloured men are serving the interests of South Africa outside the Union’s borders. Are the Opposition doing the right thing in denying that section of the population the right to defend their country and the interests of their country, wherever it may be necessary to do so? I only want to say this, that our country owes a debt of deep gratitude to those soldiers. I want to repeat—we owe a debt of great gratitude to those soldiers, and I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that we shall stand by him through thick and thin to vote him the money that is required for the continuation of the war.

I thoroughly realise that there are some hon. members opposite who will do all they possibly can to prove that Madagascar does constitute a part of Africa, because there are some of them on the benches opposite who have personally said to me that if the Prime Minister had told them that it was his intention to send troops outside South Africa, they would never have voted for it.

Who said so?

Their word of honour depends on it, whether Madagascar is part of Africa or is outside Africa. No, we realise that so far as this whole question is concerned, it is not merely a question of Madagascar, it also concerns the question of our aeroplanes having taken part in fights over the Mediterranean and having gone to Crete. If we take all these factors into account we must realise that we are dealing here with a matter where the Prime Minister has very definitely broken his word. We know that as long as a year ago there was an instance of a man—I am only referring to this in passing—who wrote a letter to his wife and said: I cannot tell you where I am, but I am on the very same mountain on which Moses sat and I can see the land of Canaan. So we do know that there has been a breach of faith on the part of the Prime Minister in regard to the sending of troops overseas. What I do really feel when we are asked to vote this huge additional amount of £96,000,000 is that we should realise that the Minister of Finance has got so accustomed to dealing in millions, that he spoke yesterday of £960,000,000 instead of £96,000,000. When the war started we talked about more than £30,000,000; today the war expenditure already amounts to £96,000,000. I clearly recollect that one of the big English papers here in Cape Town in large heavy type declared, in dealing with the speech of the Minister of Finance: “We shall pay as we go.” In other words that there would be no need to spend more money on the war than we would be able to contribute from time to time. The Minister of Finance talked so glibly about the £16,000,000 which were available already, that there would be no need to impose taxation now—he talked so glibly that if we study the papers in Cape Town which dealt with that speech, we would almost come to think that that £16,000,000 was like a treasure fallen from heaven without our having to pay any taxes for it. The fact remains, however, that this £16,000,000, whether the money is borrowed now or at some future time, will eventually have to be paid by the taxpayers of the country. I particularly want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to something. In view of the fact that this £16,000,000 is applied particularly in connection with people who were recruited after the fall of Tobruk, I want to point out to him that these people were not voluntarily recruited and I want to prove this fact by mentioning concrete cases. I know it will be useless to quote the Afrikaans Nationalist papers in order to produce proof, so I am going to quote some special instances from the Government papers. On the 23rd of July the following appeared in a prominent English newspaper in Cape Town—

That man was indirectly forced to join up, and if he had refused to join up he would have been compelled to leave the service of of that firm. And then we come to the students.

You describe those people as gangsters.

We pointed to the compulsion that was being brought to bear. We had the statement from the principal of one of the universities that certain numbers of students had joined up, but that in his institution there were still about 270 students who should join up, and he further said this—

We know that they were dealt with. Now I want to say a few words about the Prime Minister’s statement, a statement which he made personally. On a certain night after the fall of Tobruk the Prime Minister sent his people out to go and recruit. It was impossible for him personally to attend some meeting or other, and the Prime Minister thereupon sent a personal message through a certain Mr. Welsh, the Chief Liaison Officer of the Defence Force. He stated according to the newspapers supporting the Government that the Prime Minister had sent this message:—

And what did Mr. Welsh thereupon set out to do? He said that that message of the Prime Minister’s constituted a challenge to employers. He sincerely hoped that the challenge would be taken up. And he went on to say this:

And he went on:

And that is a man who spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister, and if by mentioning these few instances which I have quoted, I can succeed in convincing hon. members opposite, who say so often that people are never compelled to join up either directly or indirectly, or if I can put a stop to the statements of Government papers which have told us so often that nobody has ever been compelled to join up, we shall be prepared to grant them any further arguments which they may care to put up. But, of course, we know that those people’s eyes are tightly shut to these unpleasant truths. They only believe the things it suits them to believe. I should like the Prime Minister to get up and repudiate these things and say that he does not approve of them. These things have happened, and what is more, they have been done in his name.

That is your interpretation, which is wrong.

I was in Stuttaford’s tearoom the other day when the arrival of the First Division was announced. A man wearing the red tab was sitting close to me and he made this remark: “I suppose that is another key-man speaking.” So far I have always raised my hat to the man who wears the red tab, but the people I look down upon with contempt are those who draw double salaries, who send others up north, but who themselves keep away from the battle zone. There are thousands of men up north who support this side of the House. I should very much like to send some of the hon. members opposite up north, because I know that all of them will come back as Nationalists. That has happened to many Government supporters, and it would be a good thing if we could send a number of hon. members opposite up north. It might make them come right before their return but perhaps that is the reason why they do not go. I further want to say this, that in regard to Madagascar people are making the excuse that it was a good thing to take Madagascar because it was essential to do so for the safety of South Africa. Madagascar is further away from South Africa than Holland is from England. Assuming England had taken Holland to safeguard itself, or for some other reason, it would have been an unforgivable sin, just as it was an unforgivable sin for Germany to take Holland for military purposes. But now we go along and do the very same thing. We have been guilty of aggressive action and nothing more or less. Madagascar was our friend in every respect; yet we attacked that country and took it away from France. It is no use saying that we shall return the country after the war. When Germany conquered and took other countries, inspired by its rapaciousness, it also said that it would return those countries after the war. Possibly it may suit our purpose to return Madagascar after the war, or possibly it may not suit our purpose. Let us look at South-West Africa. We took South-West Africa and we were to have returned the country after the war. We did not do so. May not the same thing happen to Madagascar? If Madagascar constituted a danger to us in this war, it may be argued in days to come that it may still remain a danger to us, and that the country should therefore be retained. From a military point of view strong pressure will be brought to bear to induce us to retain Madagascar because the country may become such a serious menace to the safety of South Africa. [Time limit.]

I want to enlarge on a point made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) when he paid a tribute to our Prime Minister and our troops for the part they played at Madagascar. I do not think it will be out of place to mention the part which the British Navy played in regard to that matter. They came to the Prime Minister’s assistance immediately he appealed to them and in such a way that the convoys containing our South African soldiers were conveyed to Madagascar and covered their landings without the loss of a single South African soldier. We are in the habit of taking all these things as a matter of course, but one does hear in this House often belittling remarks about the British Navy. I want to remind hon. members opposite that if the British Navy had not played the part it has played in taking Madagascar we would not have been able to sit here in the way we are doing, and we might have lost many of our own soldiers. I want to emphasise the part which the British Navy has been playing day and night in the protection of South Africa, not only in the taking of Madagascar but in stopping the Japanese from landing on our shores.

The spectacle which this House is beholding here this afternoon has been beheld here on many previous occasions since the outbreak of the war—namely, of the Prime Minister being asked by this side of the House to take the country into his confidence and to tell us more definitely what he is going to do with the tremendous sums of money which we are asked to vote. We get no reply. The position is becoming more and more serious and today we are dealing here with this question of an attack on Madagascar. The Prime Minister has been accused of having committed a breach of faith, he is accused of having made promises in this House which he has failed to keep. The invasion of Madagascar is over. If there were any sound reasons for that invasion, if it was necessary in the interest of South Africa to make this invasion, there is nothing now to prevent the Prime Minister from telling us why he took this action. It no longer is a matter of military secrets. He can tell us why he took this action because the thing is over and done with and strategically it is no longer of any importance. What is there to prevent the Prime Minister, in the face of this serious charge which has been made against him, getting up and telling us why he acted as he did? Year after year serious charges are made here in connection with matters affecting the very life of the nation, and the Prime Minister sits still and keeps quiet like the grave and then out-votes us with the aid of the majority behind him. That is the way in which he gets things passed by this House. I want to ask the Prime Minister to get up and to try at least to defend the things he has done and to make a statement telling us why he has committed this breach of faith, why he has not stood by the promise he made to this House. When the war broke out, the Prime Minister said, “We are not going to take any active part in the war.” Those words were used for the purpose of securing votes for the war. He pretended that South Africa was only to be placed in a position where it would be able to defend itself. And it was because of that that he secured a majority on the 4th of September. Since that time, however, he has not stood by his word, and he has broken several of his promises. The Prime Minister gave an assurance to hon. members opposite—they can tell us if what I am saying is not correct—that they would not have to go to war. Blood would have to be shed in this war, but they would be able to stay behind. I believe the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth), who addressed the House a little earlier, told us last Session of an Afrikaner who was seventy years of age, a man named Ackerman, who had come to his recruiting office. The hon. member is a captain in the army and Ackerman was a private. I wonder whether Ackerman was among those who went to Madagascar. Anyhow, the hon. member for Rosettenville did not go to Madagascar. He was given the assurance that he would never have to go to war. It is because hon. members opposite have the assurance that they will not have to go to the front that they do not care whether the war, as the hon. member for Rosettenville said, should cost £960,000,000. Of course not, because they are at the home-front and they draw double salaries from the £960,000,000. We are now asked to vote a further £3,500,000 for defence. This expression “defence” has since the beginning of this war held a distorted meaning in this country. We are voting money here for war purposes and not for the defence of our country. It is misleading to ask for money for defence and then to use it for the purpose of attacking. I recollect that the Prime Minister a little while ago said that the task ahead was to avenge Tobruk. Surely that was not defence. What did he want to do at Tobruk? In addition to that he said a little while ago—if I am not correct in what I am saying I hope he will put me right—that South Africa now had another object in view, namely to go and fetch our prisoners back from Italy and Germany. Did he not know when he declared war that there would be prisoners of war? Right throughout we have had deception of the worst kind. We warned the public and told them that Dr. Jan Smuts would give them their bitter medicine drop by drop, because he realised how stringently the public were opposed to war. He is giving it drop by drop to the very last drop. It is a most disgraceful deception, We are not waging a defensive war, but the Prime Minister will keep on attacking as long as the Empire desires him to do so, and he will retire, according to plan or not according to plan, when the Empire orders him to do so. Chaos has been created in the interior of this country as a result of the war. I want to ask the Prime Minister outright whether he knew that he would go as far with his war effort as the interests of the Empire might require him to go? Did he know that or not? Did he know it and yet give the public the impression that he would never go so far? So far as he is concerned there are no limits, he will go as far as the interests of the Empire demand. We are interfering in countries which do not concern us. South African local conditions are chaotic. Let me mention one specific instance. It is in conformity with our traditions that at Premier Mine, and even in our gaols, white prisoners of war—Italians—are guarded by armed coloured men? Is that in conformity with our traditions? Does not the Right Hon. member realise that he is spreading poison in South Africa so far as the relations between European and non-European are concerned? Is he not creating a condition of affairs which it will never be possible to put right again? The Right Hon. the Prime Minister is violating the traditions of our people and the bitter fruit of his policy will be gathered.

When last year we voted such a large amount for the war we were under the impression that the Government would have all the money it needed. Yet the Government comes here now and asks us for another £16,000,000 and I think we have the right to go into the question of how that money is being spent. Let me just take a few instances. Even the Auditor-General has reported that money is being wasted so far as the war is concerned. At Bloemfontein tenders were invited for the purchase of furniture. Afterwards the tenders were withdrawn and no tender was allotted. Subsequently the order was placed in Johannesburg and the furniture had to be sent from Johannesburg to Bloemfontein. The Bloemfontein furniture manufacturers could have manufactured the furniture just as well and even more cheaply than the Johannesburg people, but the order was not placed in Bloemfontein. We continually hear complaints that the Railways are unable to cope with the heavy traffic; why then should the orders be placed in another town and the furniture have to be taken by rail to Bloemfontein? Money and time were wasted. There is another instance in Johannesburg which was brought to my notice. There was a manufacturer who was told by military sources “you cannot expect to receive military orders while you have twelve men in your service who can be replaced by women; if you have them replaced you will get orders.” That is what he was given to understand. He has to put these men on the streets and replace them by women and then he will be able to get orders. The machinery of the Defence Force is being used to bring economic pressure to bear and to compel employers to put their men off and cause them to starve so as to force them to go up North. And yet we are told that we are waging this war with volunteers! The Right Hon. the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that economic pressure is being brought to bear in order to force people to join up. I have had numerous cases of people coming to me and telling me that they did not want to go but that they had had the alternative placed before them of starving or of joining up. They do not want their families to starve. This form of compulsion which is being exercised today will act like a boomerang. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister is creating a serious state of dissatisfaction. Let hon. members have a talk with men who have come back from up North and see the dissatisfaction prevailing among them. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister will soon have evidence of it himself. It is useless to bring economic pressure to bear in order to force people to go and fight. Yet while he forces the poor man to go and fight he gives a guarantee to members opposite that they can stay here as members of Parliament, and in addition they can become captains and colonels. They get an additional salary of £40 or £50 or £60 per month and they need not go up North. If I had to use my voice here in this House to bring economic pressure to bear to force other people to go up North while I myself was drawing a double salary I would be so ashamed that I would not be able to face anyone. Members of Parliament in England and Rhodesia who were in favour of the war at least did join up and go to the front to fight. All credit is due to them, but what credit is due to hon. members who sit here and draw double salaries and who force others by means of economic pressure to go up North? For that reason we are not prepared to vote this additional amount.

A few points have been raised here which I want to say something about. First of all I want to touch on the charge made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (General Kemp) and by other hon. members that I had committed a breach of faith. I am alleged to have broken my word and I am alleged to have committed a breach of faith, and hon. members accuse me of not having carried out my promises. What was the word? What were the promises? What happened on the 4th September to confirm the charges which they are making against me? On the 4th September a resolution was passed by this House. It was not a promise made by me, but it was a resolution passed by this House, namely that in this war we would not send out an expeditionary force such as we had sent out in the last war. That was the resolution of this House, which subsequently became the resolution of Parliament. It was not a promise of mine. No, there was no breach of faith. It was a resolution of this House, and now the accusation is brought against me that I have made personal promises which I have not carried out. The whole matter is based on distortions and deception. It was a resolution of Parliament and we have done our best to give effect to that resolution.

You proposed it.

Of course I did, but it was a resolution passed by this House.

Do you not regard Madagascar as being Overseas?

The hon. member does not understand the position. He gets away from the issue, from the charge of breach of faith. I reject that charge with all the contempt that it deserves. Another point that has been raised here is why we went to Madagascar. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) asked with what right and for what reason we went to Madagascar. I sent troops to Madagascar because there was a great danger of Madagascar getting into Japan’s hands. There was a great and menacing danger to South Africa. In the circumstances prevailing a few months ago there was a serious danger that Madagascar would fall into Japan’s hands. It constituted a graver danger to South Africa than that East Africa should fall into the hands of Italy. For that reason we went to Madagascar, for the sake of protecting the Union. I should like to know what would have become of the security of South Africa if Madagascar had fallen into the hands of Japan—which was a very probable thing—I know the facts. The hon. member for Cradock says we should have waited. We should have waited until Japan attacked Madagascar. The hon. member knows that that suggestion is childish. There was danger, a graver danger and a danger closer to South Africa than any other danger we had faced since the outbreak of war. The Government would have been wanting in its duty, it would have been gravely wanting in its duty, if it had not taken the opportunity to see to it in advance that Madagascar was made safe and that the enemy was kept away from it. We did not want to attack France; we did not want to take anything away from France, and the proof of that can be found in what has taken place—Madagascar has been returned by us to France and is being administered today by Free France. The intention merely was to safeguard the position in the Indian Ocean and particularly along our coasts. If we had failed to do so we would have found happenings on a large scale, such as now has happened on a small scale, namely that ships are being sunk on our coast. I wonder what the country and hon. members opposite would have thought and said if we had failed to take action and if we had simply sat still. That grave danger was there and we had to exert all our powers to avert the danger. What we did was done in good faith and in the interest of South Africa, and we have every reason to be proud of what has been achieved and of the achievements of our young men from the towns and the platteland.

What about the coloured soldiers, why were they sent?

Why not? The hon. member wants South Africa to be made secure but he tells us we are not allowed to use coloured people.

But why did you make that promise then?

He prefers to be Japan’s slave rather than see the country made secure—even if it means the use of our coloured men. They went together with our Division in the positions and capacities explained by me on a previous occasion.

They went there armed and they came back armed.

Should I have sent coloured men there to face dangers, to be shot dead, without arming them? It would have been madness for me to do a thing like that.

But you made the promise that these coloured soldiers would not be armed.

Another question which has been repeatedly asked is what this money is being voted for. The money is being voted for the war, and the money is being spent on the war.

The Opposition has voted against that.

Oh they will vote against anything, whether it is good or bad, whether it is for the war or for anything else. They oppose everything, even if the country is in the greatest danger. Even if there is a danger of the country falling into the hands of the enemy, into the hands of Germany or Japan, they criticise and oppose. Well, they will find out what the people have to say about their attitude—the people will judge. The money is being spent on the war but it is difficult to define or to say specifically whether it was spent on the campaigning to Madagascar or not. I don’t know whether portion of this money has been spent in connection with Tobruk or not, nobody can say, but when the accounts are made up the Auditor-General will be able to say. What I do know is that the loss of our Second Division at Tobruk, or a large portion of the Second Division, rendered it necessary for new troops to be got together; it made it necessary for another Division to be organised, and to be provided with all that was necessary. That sort of thing costs millions of money. That was a thing which could not have been anticipated when we voted the round sum during the last session of Parliament. It was something new and unexpected. The fresh recruiting of troops on a large scale had not been anticipated and, of course it involved considerable expense. Possibly this amount may also have something to do with the expedition to Madagascar, I don’t know. But this I do know, that additional expense was incurred in connection with Tobruk. Provision had to be made for the replacement of the troops which were captured at Tobruk. We lost a large proportion of the Division there, but the expenditure remains. Those people get paid just as though they constitute an active force with us and under our control. In addition, however, we have the new troops, the other Division which had to be established, which naturally involved additional expenditure. That explains the great increase which has become necessary. But there is another reason as well for that increase, and that is the increased submarine menace. The submarine war has penetrated into the Southern Seas, and that means that additional provision has to be made for the defence of South Africa on land for coastal defence, for defence at sea, and for defence in the air. All this has been extended on a large scale, and involves fresh expenditure, which we were unable to anticipate a year ago when the estimates were framed. That is why this additional provision is being asked for. I also want to say a few words about a remark which is continually being made by hon. members opposite against hon. members of this side of the House. We repeatedly hear them call out: “Why don’t you go?. Why do members of Parliament in England go to the front, why don’t you go and fight?” That is a taunt made against members on this side of the House. Let me say this: Members here joined the Defence Force but the fact that they did not go to the battle zone is attributable to only one man, and I am that man. I forbade them to go. In England one has not the deplorable condition of affairs which we have here in South Africa, that part of the population, which pretends to be patriotic, which pretends to consist of patriots, fights the war policy tooth and nail.

We are entitled to have our opinion.

I have kept them here. The battle field is here in Parliament, just as much as it is up North.

We have offered to pair with them.

Oh, good gracious!

Why don’t you answer that?

I am a man who bears a great responsibility. The hon. members offers to pair … South Africa’s future is at stake more than ever before, and the hon. member wants it to depend on promises of pairing. No, those hon. members behind me are here to defend the country here. This is also part of the war.

And they draw double salaries.

I shall not allow them to go away; this is their place. If any blame has to be attached it must be placed on me because I gave the order that none of them were to go away.

Did they get a promise from you?

I do not think there is any need for me to go into any other points. I think I have dealt with the principal points that have been raised.

I am very pleased that the Prime Minister has at last awakened from his heavy sleep and that he has tried to say something. He said that we had accused him of breach of faith, but that he had not committed any breach of faith. He said that he had never promised the House that our men would not be sent overseas to wage war there. Now, I ask hon. members what we are to think of the Prime Minister who comes here now and makes a statement like that but who moved the following motion on the 4th September, 1939:

Were not those the Prime Minister’s words, which we find contained in his motion? He says that he did not pledge his word to the House. I would be ashamed to find myself in the Prime Minister’s position today, if I had made a proposal such as the one I have just read and then come here and say that I have not committed any breach of faith. If there is one man whose hands are stained with Afrikaner blood it is the Prime Minister. And not only his hands but his footsteps in South Africa are stained with blood.

And what about your own hands?

The Minister of Agriculture subscribed to what the Prime Minister said. He said that we should not send expeditionary forces overseas as we had done in the previous war, but now that, as a result of a coup d’etat he has come into power—not because he enjoys the confidence of the public—now he tells us all these things which the Prime Minister told the House this afternoon. I say very definitely that the Prime Minister has committed a breach of faith with the Afrikaner nation, a breach of faith such as no other leader of the people has ever committed. We have it in black and white here, but now that he has that great following behind him which is simply going to vote as he tells them to vote, now he asks for all this money to send our forces overseas. And when a charge is made by this side against members opposite that they draw double salaries, but that they do not go to fight, the Prime Minister says that he takes all the blame for that because he has told them that they must stay on the home front. He says that he takes the blame, but has he got the right to take the money of the taxpayers and spend hundreds of pounds on double salaries for generals, majors and captains opposite, people who remain here and who do not go to fight? Rather give that money to the soldiers who sacrifice their lives and who go forward to fight for their country. We respect the soldiers who go to fight, but we have no respect for the men who shelter behind the blood of these soldiers. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not taken to heart our accusation that he has committed a breach of faith; it is unfortunate that he has not admitted having made a mistake. Everybody in this world can make a mistake. The Prime Minister may think perhaps that he is perfect and that he cannot make a mistake. He has dragged South Africa into this war; he has done so deliberately, and not in the interest of the people of South Africa, but in the interest of those people opposite and in the interest of Great Britain. We on this side are prepared to go and defend South Africa if it is attacked. If South Africa is attacked we shall know how to do our duty, but if you want to go and fetch enemies, if you want to make enemies for this country, then we say that you are doing an injustice to this country, and then the Prime Minister tells us that he cannot inform us what this money is being used for. Part of the money is wanted to replace the soldiers who were captured at Tobruk, and things like that. I want to tell the Prime Minister that his organisation is so miserably bad so far as the administration of the money is concerned that it probably is impossible for him to tell us what the money is going to be used for. Let me quote an instance. There are certain regiments stationed near to a village. Each regiment sends its own lorry to deliver the mail, instead of the mail from all the regiments being left at one central spot. Instead of one lorry being used five or six are sent out to take away the mail of each regiment and the very thing happens at midday when the mail has to be fetched. This means additional vehicles, it means petrol, and it means people to do that work. But we are not allowed to say a single word about all these malconditions. We have to keep silent simply because the money is to be spent on the war. No, we refuse to remain silent, and we say that we decline to have any truck with that kind of messing up matters in regard to the war. We are going to protest as strongly as we can against this sort of thing, and we shall continue to do so as long as we are able to. The Prime Minister said that this war would be waged with volunteers. He has been accused of people being forced to join up. I have instanced the case of a young fellow, the son of Professor Bosman. They worried him continually and told him to take the oath. When he insisted in his refusal they sent him to South-West Africa where he was parted from everything so that eventually he got tired of life and resigned. Instances have been quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood) of employers having been told that they must release their men to join up. The recruiting of people for this war is one of the biggest curses in the country, and the repercussions will hit the Prime Minister in days to come. He will have to bear the responsibility. The judgment of the people of South Africa will come down on him sooner or later. He holds the power today but he will not hold it for ever. The time will come when we shall settle with him, when he will no longer occupy the benches on the other side of the House. He has tried to trample on the Afrikaner people, and he has tried to induce those people who were trampled down and who were brought to the dust to go and fight for people who in the past had deprived them of their freedom, and now he is depriving other nations of their freedom. Yet he tells us that he is doing so for the purpose of defending our country. It reminds me of a wild animal which wants to destroy its prey. That is what you are doing in regard to the conquest of Madagascar. We are continually being told of the Japanese menace. There is as little Japanese menace as there is Japanese menace in this House. That menace will only arise if you give cause to it—if you bring that menace to South Africa. We are going to oppose this vote and we are ging to do all in our power to put an end to this war so far as South Africa is concerned.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister treated us today in such a contemptuous fashion. For a couple of hours he remained silent and he did not deign to give us any particulars in connection with this vote. Several millions of pounds are asked for here. Before the war this vote was’nt by any means as large as it is now, but in those days the Minister of Defence always made a statement to explain why an additional amount was asked for in spite of the fact that the amount was not by any means as large as that which is now asked for. The Prime Minister always found time to give us the necessary information. I don’t know why he has treated the House in such a contemptuous fashion. This House as a whole is asked to vote this large amount of money. He has taunted us and stated that this side of the House is afraid to face the country in a general election. What has take place here since the start of the Session proves that it is not this side of the House which is afraid of an election. We put the question to the Prime Minister whether there was going to be an election and it should not have been difficult for him to have told us:—“Unless something abnormal should happen in this country there will be an election.” But we cannot even get that from him in reply to the questions put by us. No, it is not this side of the House which is afraid of an election. We want the Prime Minister to have a general election—let him tell us that he is prepared to face an election. I hope he is not going to tell this side of the House again that when we have an election the public will settle with us. Let the Prime Minister take the country into his confidence and let him tell us that he going to have an election so that we may know where we stand. Now the Prime Minister comes here and he tells us that he has made no promise to the effect that no people would be sent overseas. If ever there has been a distortion—I don’t say that it has been a deliberate distortion—then that statement of the Prime Minister’s is one. On the 4th September more than one member was persuaded to vote in favour of the motion of the present Prime Minister, because of the promise that nobody would be sent overseas. Well, if we study the words which the Prime Minister used on that occasion and we then see that he came to this House today and stated that he had never made that promise we can do no more than say that there has been a breach of faith. On the 4th September the present Minister of Agriculture seconded the Prime Minister’s amendment, and he also pledged his word. He pledged his word to this House and to the country, that no people would be sent overseas. Surely he must have known what the Prime Minister’s motion signified. As a seconder of the motion he took the country into his confidence and he said, “I, the Minister of Agriculture, as a seconder of the Prime Minister’s motion, say that no man will be sent overseas.” I have the Hansard report before me. The Minister of Agriculture seconded the motion of the present Prime Minister, and among other things he said this:—

Those were the words used by the Minister in seconding the motion, yet immediately afterwards the Prime Minister went along and sent Afrikaners across the seas. Now he comes here and he wants to make us believe that he had never made such a promise. If that is so what then did the Minister of Agriculture mean when he told us here in this House and when he told the country that not a single man would be sent overseas? Was it a case of deception and distortion? No, I am prepared to take it that at that time the Minister of Agriculture had no intention of deceiving anybody. He accepted the Prime Minister’s word. But he too has learnt that we cannot always rely on people’s words. The Prime Minister at Standerton the other day again pledged his word to the public. He said that he was not going to introduce conscription. Well, if we are going to have the same experience in regard to conscription as we have had in regard to this promise, then I am sorry for the people of South Africa, because then we have commandeering awaiting us. Rumours are already current that conscription is going to come about, and if the Prime Minister after all this gets up here and says that he has no intention of introducing conscription, then he must not take it amiss from us if we say that we cannot rely upon his promises, because he gave this House the assurance that he was not going to send a solitary man overseas, and yet we find that he has sent people overseas, and he tells us that he is going to send more of them overseas. We are very sorry but bearing that in mind we can just as little accept his promises in regard to the commandeering of people as we could accept his word on the 4th September because it has now been proved that he has not kept the pledge he gave on that occasion.

Mr. Chairman, one by one the members of the Opposition have stood up in their places and in direct and unequivocal terms have accused the Prime Minister of this country and the Minister of Defence, of a gross breach of faith towards the House and towards the people of this country. I propose, if hon. gentlemen opposite will give me the opportunity and allow me to do so, to reply to their arguments. In the first place, who does this charge come from? Does it come from any of the soldiers themselves who have played their part in this war?

Yes, yes.

I have not seen or heard of a single soldier who has made such a charge. It comes, sir, from the gentlemen who opposed this resolution and voted against it on September 4th, 1939, and have ever since consistently voted against the Government and the country’s war policy.

[inaudible.]

The hon. gentleman had a good innings this afternoon, and I hope he will allow me …

I asked you a question.

I want to answer the arguments from the opposite side. Any stranger coming to this House this afternoon and listening to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) would have thought that he, the guileless and trusting-member for Humansdorp, had been beguiled by promises and assurances from the Prime Minister into voting money for this war, which he would never have voted but for those assurances. The truth is this, that the hon. gentleman and his friends have consistently voted against every penny of war expenditure ever since the war begun. They cannot say that they have been deceived; they would never send a soldier either to defend this country in the country or out of it. When it was obviously a question of defending this country from the Italians on the plains of Kenya, did they then give the war their blessing? No, their attitude was the same. The appeal I made in this House last year on my return from the East fell on deaf ears. I then said, with perhaps some realisation of what the Japanese peril to this country could be, “Let us drop our quarrels, let us pull together and defend this country.” What was the reception I got? It is fresh in the minds of all members of this House. If there be an accusation of bad faith, it certainly does not lie in the mouths of any hon. gentlemen opposite, who in no circumstances were prepared to go themselves, or to allow anyone to follow advice to go. Now I come to the terms of the resolution. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has read it in Afrikaans. I will read the relative portion of the Prime Minister’s amendment in English. It is on page 31:

What should the Union take measures for? “The defence of its territories and South African interests.” In the last war where did this country send forces oversea? To one place only. (Interruptions and laughter). I will say this quite definitely, that Madagascar is just as much a part of Africa as Rhode Island is a part of the United States, as the Isle of Wight is part of England, and Tasmania is part of Australia. Let me take the case of Tasmania. Tasmania is one of the Federal States of the Australian Commonwealth, a Tasmanian is just as much an Australian as a citizen of New South Wales or Queensland, yet Tasmania from the mainland of Australia is a full overnight voyage by a fast ship. The nearest point of Madagascar is, I believe, only 40 or 50 miles from the African continent, and in the eyes of any geographer, any fair-minded public man, Madagascar is just as much a part of Africa as Robben Island or Kenya or Libya. Can my hon. friends not see how ridiculous they are? In their view it is legitimate for us to send troops to Kenya, and to Cairo, which is 6,000 miles away from here, it is legitimate for our men to be fighting the great battles they fought in the sands of Libya, but it is not legitimate to send them to the neighbouring island of Madagascar. That shows to what lengths party strife and party prejudice can bring these people. I come back to the governing words of the amendment: “For the defence of South Africa, for the defence of its territory and South African interests.” Here you have the Minister of Defence standing up and saying: “From my knowledge I conceived it to be my duty as Minister of Defence to get into Madagascar ahead of the Japanese.” Is there a single honest gentleman opposite who will deny that that is a correct statement? But, sir, they stand on this quibble, that the Prime Minister should rather have stood back and allowed the Japanese to come in, because he might incur the displeasure of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). I ask hon. members opposite to have a sense of reality. Did they think the Prime Minister should call Parliament together, and say solemnly, “I intend attacking Madagascar, I believe the Japanese are coming there, I hope to go there first. But because I may offend the ethical feelings of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, I shall call Parliament together and ask them in a week’s time to pass a resolution”; and then having done that, advise the whole world that we were going to take Madagascar. I ask hon. members to approach this from a sense of reality. South Africa was in a position of the greatest danger twelve months ago. The hon. member for Humansdorp has made merry this afternoon at the expense of the Japanese—

At your expense.

If I could see into their minds, there is not one among hon. members opposite who is not just as happy as we are that that Japanese menace seems to be receding from South Africa. Twelve months ago it was a very real menace, and no amount of talk and party politics will get away from that. Do hon. gentlemen opposite say we should have allowed British troops alone to take Madagascar. We had the troops ready to go there, and do they think the Prime Minister should have stood back and said: “I may incur the wrath of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and his friends.” Sir, we have written them off for the last three and a half years, and we have got on with the business of running the war without them. The day when we took any notice of their fulminations has long disappeared.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) who spoke here this afternoon used these words: “Hon. members opposite have made themselves very ridiculous.” I just want to tell him this, that it is a long time ago that I last heard such absolute nonsense from a King’s Counsel as I heard from him this afternoon when he tried to prove that Madagascar was part of South Africa.

No, Africa.

Yes, of Africa. I hope my hon. friend will never have the temerity to appear with such nonsense before a court. Madagascar part of Africa, merely because it is only 100 or 200 miles away from Africa? Well, the next country nearest to Madagascar is just about as far away from Madagascar again, so that that Island might also be regarded as part of Africa, and so we can go on. According to the hon. member’s logic we shall gradually get so far that we shall land in Australia.

And if we listen to you then we imagine that Waterberg is part of Germany.

If the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) who is so noisy in this House would rather go and fire a few shots up North it would be much better. But I want to deal with the hon. member for Kensington. If Madagascar is part of Africa, well, then Egypt is not overseas either, and then the troops which go to Egypt don’t go out of this country, or don’t go overseas. According to the argument used by the hon. member for Kensington Palestine must also be in Africa because our troops can go to Palestine over land, and from Palestine they can go further over land to Iraq and Iran. And yet they would not be going overseas. From there they can go to Russia and still they would not be going overseas. And so they can go on until eventually they get back to Flanders. That is the type of logic employed by the hon. member. I want to come to another point, however, and that is the new political morality which was proclaimed in this House this afternoon, among others by the hon. member for Kensington. The Prime Minister said that we were not going to send troops overseas but, so the hon. member asked, what right have we to object if troops are sent overseas? The only people who have any right to object are the soldiers themselves and they have raised no objections. In other words, a lie is not a lie. Breach of faith is not breach of faith. It all depends on the people who object. Let me tell the hon. member so as to disillusion him a bit—and if I cannot disillusion him, his disillusionment will come when we have an election—let me tell him that there are thousands of soldiers in the Prime Minister’s Army who object to and resent this sort of thing as much as we do, and if he wants to test it let him hold an election.

And meanwhile you are hoping that we shall not hold an election.

No, let me say this to the hon. member if he is still in darkness, that we on this side of the House hope with all our hearts that an election will be proclaimed. Even if the hon. member is still in darkness I don’t think that the Prime Minister has any doubts as to what the real feelings of the soldiers in the Army are. But the hon. member said this to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp): “We have written you off for the last three years. That is the self same member who, when last year he got scared of Japan, crawled on the floor of this House with a voice which trembled and shook with affection, to beg us please to come and help,” and do you know what the price was? Do you know what the price was for those members who were written off three and a half years ago—the price he offered was: “Then your internees will be let out.”

No.

I spoke of the new political morality which the hon. member for Kensington has proclaimed in this House. His conscience is worrying him now. He knows that large numbers of innocent people are detained in the interment camps today. He offers on behalf of the Prime Minister that those internees will be released from the interment camps if only we will agree to fight. If I were in the position of the hon. member for Kensington I would be ashamed of myself. I don’t know whether he can still feel ashamed. Now I want to say a few words on the Prime Minister’s remarks regarding this fact, that there are numerous people on his side of the House who should not be here, but who should be up North, and in regard to them he said this: “I—and he stressed the I—forbade them to go. They are my legions to fight on the home front”. Let me put this question to the Prime Minister: Has he not got other people who are able to take the places of these brave and courageous men in this House? They talk so big of their power, and they tell us how strong they are in their constituencies. If they are so inspired by patriotism as the Prime Minister has given us to understand then they should resign their seats and go up North to fight, and other people will then be able to take their places to fight here on the home front. There are numerous young men—they sit on the other side of the House—and each of them glories in the fact that his seat is so safe, and so strongly in favour of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister really needs people for the home front he can easily get them, and he can release these courageous members of his Legion and allow them to go and fight up North. But there is one other aspect of this matter which I want to say a few words about. I want to say a few words about the denial by the Prime Minister that pressure has been brought to bear in various Government Departments on members of the Police Force, and members of the Defence Force, to take the Red Oath. He knows that that is not so, and I want to say this,—when this side of the House comes into power a proper investigation will be made into the actions of those people who have forced those men to take the Red Oath. The conditions which have prevailed in various departments, the Defence Department and the Police Department—will be enquired into, an enquiry will be made into the position of compulsion having been exercised to force people to take the Red Oath. We repeat it—all those people who have been treated in a most unjust manner will be reinstated—justice will be done to those people. The Prime Minister must not take it amiss if we say that those people who have transgressed the law in order to do harm to others and to cause sorrow to others will be dealt with, and that a thorough investigation will be made into their actions. There is only one other aspect of the Prime Minister’s war effort which I want to deal with and that is the arming of Native and Coloured troops. I again want to remind the Prime Minister of something which I have reminded him of on previous occasions, and that is that he is the man who in 1901 sent a report to President Kruger in regard to the actions of the English forces when they armed native and coloured troops; on that occasion he stigmatised the actions of the English as the greatest crime ever perpetrated against white civilisation. Let him now draw his own conclusions. I want to say this to him: that apart from all other problems in South Africa the main problem with which the white race has to contend is the problem of maintaining itself against the overwhelming numbers of the non-European races. That is all I want to say to him.

It is noteworthy that people who live in glass houses are most apt to throw stones. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) said that the Prime Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. Does it become the hon. member to make such a statement? Has he forgotten his own past so conveniently? If his memory is so short, allow me to remind him of a speech which was made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), with whom he is now on such friendly terms, concerning himself. I think that that speech was made in this House on the 15th March, 1938, shortly before the general election.

What has that to do with the war?

If he reads that speech, he will see himself depicted in his true colours. I am not going to quote that speech—it will only stain the atmosphere in this House. It will, however, compel the hon. member to put his hand in his own bosom, and then he will have to admit that he is the person who should cover his head in shame, and that he is the last person who can dare to accuse the right hon. the Prime Minister of a breach of faith. Hon. members deny the fact that our security was ever threatened through Madagascar. They cannot or simply will not appreciate the reality of the danger, but that will not influence the right hon. the Prime Minister in the least. He has been so richly endowed by Providence with such a wonderful brain that he is enabled to see far into the future. If, therefore, he sees dangers to which other hon. members are blind, it is his natural and sacred duty to protect us against such dangers. If he had neglected to take the necessary steps to protect us from these dangers, then it would have been a breach of faith not only towards this section of the people but also towards the other section which forms a part of South Africa just as we do, because the safety of all of us was at stake.

You do not know what you are saying.

Let us now ask them straight out. Do they desire a Japanese and a German victory, and do they still seek their salvation in such a victory as the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) described some time ago? If they desire a Japanese and German victory, let them tell the country why they desire it. Is this desire the reason why they do not want to vote funds for the Defence Vote? Let us know once and for all where they stand. The hon. member for Humansdorp passed a remark that at one time we sought an alliance with Japan. That may have been true 25 years ago, but times change. Take as an example Germany’s attitude towards Holland. There was a time when these countries were good friends, but after the rape of the Netherlands nation by the German might, that friendship disappeared, and Holland saw the Germans in their true colours. Japan has also revealed herself in her true colours now, and we see in her our greatest enemy. Yes, it does not only happen to nations, but even to hon. members on the other side. In 1938 when the hon. member for Humansdorp made that devastating attack on the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, to which I referred just now, they were bitter enemies. Now political exigencies have tied them together with bonds of love and mutual admiration.

Yes, I prefer to sit with white people.

Yes, I repeat that the right hon. the Prime Minister deserves the thanks not only of our small nation, but also the thanks of the whole of the civilised world for the great deed he accomplished in warding off the dangers from our coasts. The hon. member for Humansdorp may yawn. They talk of an election, and he and his colleague, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), will have to tax their brains.

They have no brains to tax.

Well, then they will have to tax the place where their brains ought to be. They will be only too thankful if the election is not held, because they are faced with the impossible task of dividing six sheep into seven herds. They cannot increase their numerical strength, nor can they reduce the herds, and so the division and disintegration continues. No, they do not desire any election, even though they suddenly pretend that they are so concerned about the welfare of the soldiers, those same soldiers whom they so grossly insulted a short while ago. But if they are at all concerned about the soldiers, why then do they desire that Japan be allowed to get a foothold in Madagascar, enabling her to torpedo our troop movements along the East Coast, and perhaps destroy the lives of thousands of our soldiers. That reveals no true interest. No, they ought to know better. They know well enough that our great cause will triumph, because the other day their leader introduced a motion in this House to make provision for social security. It will not avail them to talk of a better world if the Germans and the Japanese should be victorious. They know that our only salvation lies in a victory for the Allies, but they dare not admit that. We can entrust the safety and the future of this country with the greatest confidence to the able leadership of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.

I should like to take the Prime Minister back to the 11th March of last year, when we discussed our relations with France and Madagascar. The question was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and it was especially in reference to the appeal that was made by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). On that occasion the Prime Minister went out of his way to deny that he had any plans in connection with Madagascar. He went on to say—he used these words in connection with our relations with France, that it was his intention to maintain friendly relations with the Vichy Government, as he called it, and he went on to say. “We do not propose to have anything but friendly relations with the French.”

On what date was that?

That was on the 11th March of last year, and he went on to say, with regard to Madagascar: “There is no intention on our part and no question of committing any act of hostility against Madagascar. But this is the position in which we find ourselves, and we are keeping our eyes open.” In connection with our relations with the French Government, the Prime Minister gave us the assurance at that time that he had no designs against the French Government and that he wanted to maintain the most friendly relations with the French Government. Scarcely six weeks later, shortly after the prorogation of Parliament, he sent the French Ambassador out of South Africa and severed diplomatic relations with the French Government. It was just at that time that the story was spread that the Germans had done certain things at Dakar in West Africa. And now we get the admission of the Governor of Dakar that these were just stories. This is what Boisson said, that there was never anything of the kind, and he is on the side of the Allies today. Well, diplomatic relations were severed, and the operations against Madagascar were commenced. As yet we have had no details of the danger to which the hon. member for Kensington referred, and the Prime Minister has given us no details to support his opinion that Madagascar had suddenly become a source of danger. But the result of the whole affair is that today there are Frenchmen in the internment camps at Koffiefontein, and I am informed that the Governor of Madagascar is also interned there. The hon. member for Kensington has made a very interesting admission. He said this: “We went into Madagascar to prevent the Japanese from getting there first.” Well, I was under the impression that we were waging this war because Germany had attacked Holland and Belgium. Why did Germany invade Holland and Belgium? They went there “to prevent the English from getting there first.” It is precisely for the same reason that we invaded Madagascar. We are supposed to be fighting against aggression, but today the hon. member for Kensington is quite prepared to commit an act of aggression against a nation with whom, as the Prime Minister said on the 11th March, we enjoyed excellent relations.

Your premises are wrong.

No, my premises are right. We had the same position in connection with Iran and Iraq. There were many people who enlisted because an act of aggression had been committed, but now we are also committing an act of aggression for the same reason that Germany did.

Where is Madagascar situated?

In so far as the geographical situation of Madagascar is concerned, the Prime Minister got a conclusive reply from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). With regard to the other remark of the hon. member for Kensington, I want to ask him whether Ireland forms a part of England. He spoke of Rhode Island—but Rhode Island is a portion of the continent of America. If we argue that Madagascar is only a few hundred miles from the Union and that therefore it forms part of South Africa, where would we draw the line? As regards the arming of coloured people, I object particularly to the fact that European prisoners are guarded by natives and coloured people. Unfortunately I was not in the House when the Prime Minister dealt with this question. The point has been raised, but I understand that the Prime Minister did not really reply to it. Let me give the Prime Minister the assurance that there is a strong feeling in the country, even amongst his own supporters with whom I spoke, and amongst the English-speaking section, in regard to the present arrangement—it is bad enough that such a position exists in North Africa—under which Europeans in South Africa have to be guarded by coloured persons and natives. I have seen it with my own eyes. Does the Prime Minister want to tell us that he has not enough soldiers to guard a train conveying Italian prisoners? Is the Prime Minister aware of the effect which this has already had on the coloured people and natives in our country? Is he aware of the contempt which is already shown by native and coloured soldiers towards the Europeans in South Africa? Let me tell the Prime Minister that at the Beaufort West station, whenever trains arrive, there are two Europeans who have to stand guard, and every time a train arrives, one finds that coloured soldiers pass disdainful and filthy remarks about these two decent Afrikaners who are standing there. All this is the outcome of the Prime Minister’s action. I want to ask the Prime Minister why he is going out of his way to cause trouble in South Africa by using coloured people and natives to guard Europeans. Are there not enough Europeans? Can he not set aside 40 or 50 out of the 80,000 to 100,000 men who are being kept in our country for the purpose of guarding the prisoners? The Prime Minister is playing with fire in appointing coloured people to guard Europeans. Why does he do this type of thing? The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has already raised this point, and the Prime Minister treated it disdainfully; but he will have to pay for this when the election comes. If the Prime Minister thinks that he is going to get the vote of the soldiers at the election, then I want to tell him that he is sorely mistaken. Two weeks ago when I spoke to an English officer who had just returned from the North, he told me this: “If Smuts thinks that he is going to get the soldiers’ vote, then he is in for a rude awakening.”

I do not know why members of this House should attempt to justify the action which was taken in regard to Madagascar in the eyes of members of the opposite side of the House. Those hon. members have opposed the war here from its very inception. They have approved of all the attempts to sabotage our efforts to make South Africa safe. Why then should we justify the attempts which we have made, which most people of this country know to be right and approve of? But it is rather amusing to hear some of the arguments used by hon. members opposite. For instance, we have the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) pointing out that our action in Madagascar is exactly the same as the action which Germany took against Holland, Belgium and France in the earlier stages of the war.

I did not mention France.

Very well, cut France out. Let us confine ourselves to Holland and Belgium. Things are bad enough so far as those countries are concerned. Fancy making a comparison between our action in Madagascar and Germany’s actions in those other two countries.

Yes, how monstrous!

When we think of how Germany occupied Holland and what she did in Holland …

How do you know?

And when we think of the humane manner in which we occupied Madagascar …

Well, you had no resistance.

To think that any hon. member can come to this House and make such an odious comparison. And another which the hon. member for Beaufort West quite forgot to mention, the fact that we have handed Madagascar back to its rightful owners.

How can you say that?

And Holland and Belgium are still under the heel of the oppressor, they are still having their citizens slaughtered and put into concentration camps. They are still having their women and children treated worse than the natives in this part of the world were treated when they went to war against the European races. When hon. members come here and try to make comparisons like that one feels that indeed they are very hard up to make party capital and I do feel very much afraid myself that had the hon. member for Beaufort West stayed in America until war broke out there he might not have had quite as much freedom as he has today, and he would have been very much more silent than he is in this country.

What nonsense!

I bow to hon. members opposite in their superior knowledge of what nonsense is—they are talking it all day long. Perhaps they have a monopoly of talking nonsense. Now, there is another point I want to deal with. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) took the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) to task for being inconsistent. He said that three and a half years ago the Government had wiped the Opposition off the slate as far as receiving any help from them was concerned, but at a later stage the hon. member for Kensington appealed to the Opposition to throw in their lot with the Government, to prosecute the war to a successful issue. Incidentally, we are prosecuting a successful war without their help. But where was the inconsistency, or where was there any lack of sense in the appeal of the hon. member for Kensington to the Opposition to throw in their weight? Circumstances have changed very considerably. Since the start of the war the Japanese menace has entered into the position and hon. members opposite must surely realise that last year there was such a thing as a Japanese menace. They know full well that the great majority of the people of this country were very nervous about the position in regard to Japan.

Who told you that? Who was nervous?

And the hon. member for Kensington was also justified in the circumstances in appealing to the Opposition in view of the fact that he had recently been visiting other countries. He had come into contact with the class of people who were throwing the whole of their weight into the war, who were united in the prosecution of the war for their country and he came back to this country feeling, I suppose, that under the changed conditions we might expect a different attitude from members of the Opposition. I said at the time that it was wishful thinking on the part of the hon. member for Kensington, and it was wishful thinking, but he was justified in trying it, but had he been in the country for the whole period he would have known that it was hopeless to appeal to hon. members opposite for their assistance because they are determined not to allow reason to enter into their judgment on this matter. They are determined that they will make all the party capital which they can out of this position, and I wish them well of their labours, because they have not gained very much ground in this country, and when we get hon. members of this House getting up and telling us what the soldiers think—well, it is impossible for people with the outlook and the minds of hon. members over there to understand what the soldiers do think. They may get into conversation with some of these lads from the back blocks and try to put into their minds what they want to put there, but I say that the army is loyal and solid behind Gen. Smuts, and these people will find it to their cost when the elections come.

I do not think it is necessary to take any notice of the hon. member on the other side who has just spoken. I feel sorry for him. I know that he is an Englishman, and he will do everything in his power to plunge the whole world into misery in order to help England. I do not blame him. I feel sorry for him. But I put two specific questions to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and I received no reply. I do not know why he cannot give me a direct reply to these questions. I asked the Prime Minister whether armed coloured people had been sent to Madagascar, and whether those soldiers came back armed. Is that the case or is it not? Now the Right Hon. the Prime Minister says that they were armed. He says “Surely, I could not send them unarmed.” That is all I want to know. I was in the House at the time, and I know what the Prime Minister promised and what he said at the time. Mention was made of attendants (agterryers) who are alleged to have been used in the Second War of Independence, and these attendants, it is alleged, were coloured people. We know what an attendant (agterryer) is. But those people did not go to Madagascar as attendants, but as soldiers. If hon. members on the other side approve of this, then it is a sad state of affairs. But they have the necessary power and they can do as they please. I just want to state this fact, and I should like the country to know what the position is. We have now attacked Madagascar, and my second question was why we had attacked Madagascar. I can well understand that the bigger nations do not care who they attack, nor do they care anything about us. They do whatever suits them, and they do not care who they trample upon. But since the yellow peril has been referred to, I want to point out that our soldiers did not fight against the Japanese in Madagascar but against French subjects. We fought against France, a nation with which we live in peace. We are a small nation, and today we are making enemies for the future. The war will be over tomorrow or the next day, but the French will not forget this. It is true that the Germans overwhelmed Holland and Belgium in the same way as England overwhelmed Iraq and other countries, and in the same way that America attacked North Africa. These are big countries, and they do not care. But South Africa is a small country, and we are making enemies today. Why? Hon. members on the other side say that we are in danger. Why is South Africa in danger? Who brought us into danger? Who declared war?

Were we in danger?

No. It would be better for hon. members to leave those stories alone. I put these questions and I expected a reply from the Prime Minister. I expect him to say why coloured people were armed in conflict with his promise. Of course, he is not concerned about promises. He has his majority and he can do as he pleases. I should also like to know why we attacked Madagascar. He says that Japan was a threat to us. He cannot expect me to accept, that as an excuse, because he did not fight with the Japanese but with the French. With regard to the arming of coloured persons, even if he does it in other parts of the country, in Heaven’s name do not do it in the Western Province. Do not use coloured people and natives to guard these European prisoners of war. In Worcester we had a number of Italian prisoners. A prominent farmer, Mr. Dan Rossouw, went to fetch them. When he got there, there was a coloured person at the gate. He did not ask what the master wanted, but when Mr. Rossouw came to the gate he said “Go in.” That is the tone they adopt. He does not say to the European “Master may go in,” but simply “Go in.” That coloured person will come back after the war.

And slaughter sheep.

I do not know whether he will slaughter sheep, but he will return after the war. What attitude can we then expect from this coloured person, if that is the tone he adopts now? I want to tell the Minister this, that even Government supporters object most strongly to the use of coloured soldiers for this purpose. As the Minister knows, there is a feeling of enmity between the Europeans and the coloured people here, a feeling which does not exist in other parts of the country. There are very few Europeans who understand the mentality of the coloured person. The Minister ought to understand them because he was born here. The present state of affairs cannot continue. Recently a man came to me, a well-known farmer, and told me that he is now being treated like a Hottentot by a coloured person who was employed by him before the war at 3s. per day. I should like to know why the Minister cannot get Europeans to guard these prisoners of war. Why does he send coloured people to do this work? Are there not enough Europeans to do it? I want to ask the Minister, if possible, to remove the coloured soldiers from these camps. Surely he cannot approve of the fact that Europeans are treated in this manner by coloured persons? If the Minister approves of the fact that coloured people are armed and sent away to go and fight, then that is his affair. I just want to know whether that is the case. I have been told, not by personal friends but by other people whom I met, that when the coloured soldiers left here for Madagascar they were armed, and that they returned armed. I should like to know from the Minister whether that is the case. The question of the yellow peril has nothing to do with the matter. I just want to know whether my information is correct, that coloured soldiers were armed when they left here, and that they returned armed.

One continually hears in the country to what extent one can take the word of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and to what extent one cannot do so. Everyone of us on this side of the House has his private opinion in regard to how far the Prime Minister’s word can be taken. The Prime Minister got up here today and said that he had never said that he would not send troops overseas. I want to quote the Right Hon. the Prime Minister’s own words to him. I want to quote what he said on the 26th March, 1941, in reply to a question by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or rather in the course of a debate in which the Leader of the Opposition put a question to him. The Prime Minister used the following words in reply to this question, namely, how far we would go: “My reply is this: we are adhering strictly to the resolution taken by Parliament. (That is the war resolution. The resolution is that the Government would take its part in the war for the defence of the country, and the interest of the country, but that the Government would not undertake overseas expeditions as it did in the previous war.” And the Prime Minister went on to say—

And now we have the “blue oath.” I do not think this calls for comment at all. He went on to say—

The Continent of Africa?

Yes, the Continent.

But that was of course before the “great cleavage”.

The Prime Minister told us today that he would have been entirely deprived of his senses if he had sent coloured people to Madagascar without arming them. Let me quote what he said on the 26th March, 1941—

He went on to say—

In that case I can only say this; that this does not call for comment on my part. At that time I took the Prime Minister’s word, but I can only say that I must have been deprived of my senses on the day when I believed him.

I do not intend speaking on all the aspects of this matter, but I do want to make an appeal to the Right Hon. the Minister of Defence with regard to these guards who are placed at prisoner-of-war camps. When these people arrived at Worcester I immediately sent a telegram to the Adjutant General and asked him whether it was not possible to have these people guarded by Europeans. After waiting eight days I received a telegram from the Adjutant-General saying that my suggestion was not practical. Now I should like to ask the Right Hon. the Prime Minister why it is not practical to have these people guarded by Europeans? Inland we have thousands of people who will never be sent to the war zone, Europeans who are engaged in guarding bridges and roads and such things. It stands to reason that it is degrading for these prisoners, even though they are our enemies, to be guarded by coloureds. But it is not that only. There is also the position which it creates amongst the coloureds in the densely populated part of Worcester. We see every day how these coloured soldiers walk about, with rifles on their shoulders, and how they treat these European prisoners of war with the greatest disdain. People who were on the platform told me that at a certain station one of the prisoners of war glanced out of the window, and a soldier, a coloured soldier smacked his face. On the station at Worcester, coloured soldiers addressed the prisoners in a rude manner, and roughly said: “Come on, come on, take your stuff.” They adopted a scandalous attitude towards the European people, and these people are now adopting an attitude of disdain not only towards these prisoners of war, but they are adopting an attitude of disdain towards Europeans for whom they work, and with whom they live side by side in South Africa. They did not adopt this attitude before they were armed. The arming of these coloureds, apart from the promise which was made that they would not be armed, has a dangerous effect on the natives and coloureds. It has become so bad that not only members on this side of the House object, but even supporters of the Government do not like the idea that such things take place. A few weeks ago the Mine Journal wrote that the time was not ripe to arm coloureds and natives, and they advanced various reasons why this should not be done, and one of the reasons was that the coloureds and the natives have become impregnated with communism, that they have been incited by Europeans to become communistic, and that these people cannot possibly be armed now. Once again I make this appeal to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister “In heaven’s name use Europeans to guard prisoners of war, and keep the coloureds away from them so that we can at least retain the respect of the coloured people for the Europeans.”

A number of matters have been raised here by hon. members on this side of the House, which have been simply ignored by the Minister of Defence. I think that this is not reasonable. We are asked to vote £3,500,000 for defence, and he says that he cannot tell us for what purpose that amount is used. It therefore stands to reason that this discussion touches upon a number of aspects on the war policy and the policy of the Government. Questions were repeatedly put, but the Prime Minister does not want to reply to them, and then one still finds that hon. members on the other side talk to him and do not give him a chance to reply. In these circumstances I would like to move — “That progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.”—We hope that the hon. members on the other side will at least have the decency not to talk to the Prime Minister while we discuss this vote. I withdraw my motion. The Minister of Defence does not say anything in connection with his policy of arming natives. I listened to this debate to-day and the manner in which it was replied to by hon. members on the other side. A difinite accusation was levelled at the Government that it had committed a breach of faith towards this House, and that it had committed a breach of faith towards the people by not fulfilling the promise which he made in Parliament, namely, that no troops would be sent overseas. If the hon. members on the other side want to be honest, and say “Yes, there has been a breach of faith, but we regarded it in the interest of the country to send troops to Madagascar and to attack Madagascar for this, that or the other reason,” then at least they would have been honest in their attitude. Only two arguments were advanced to justify the attack on Madagascar. The argument is that there has been no breach of faith for two reasons. One reason is the “great cleavage” argument, which was advanced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward). I must say that that is the most ridiculous argument which has ever been used in this House. The hon. member says that because in primeval times Madagascar was a portion of Africa, it still forms portion of Africa, and that therefore it is not overseas.

One might as well say that we are a portion of South America.

Because his forbears were monkeys, he is still a monkey to-day.

Madagascar is 800 miles from South Africa, but the hon. member thinks that Madagascar is not overseas because it was a portion of Africa in primeval times. I hope the House will realise what futile efforts are made on the other side to justify this attack. Madagascar is not overseas, because in olden times it was attached to Africa. Then we have a serious argument advanced by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). That is the second argument which was advanced in justification of the attack. He quotes and stresses that the promise was that troops would not be sent overseas as in the last war. He emphasises that—not as in the last war. He says that the Government has never sent troops to Flanders, and his argument is to amount to this, that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister only promised not to send troops to Flanders, but that the Government could send troops to Pearl Harbour or to the Solomon Islands, or to Iceland, because no troops were sent there during the last war. That is what his argument amounts to.

“Overseas” has a definite connotation in our minds.

The hon. member now says that “overseas” has a definite connotation in his mind. In other words in his opinion, 800 miles from South Africa is not overseas. The hon. member reminds me of a certain individual who told his friends that he was being sent overseas by the Government. He said farewell to his friends, and they gave him a lovely farewell. When they asked him when he would return, he replied “Tomorrow”. It then appeared that he was being sent to Robben Island. Does the hon. member for Kensington think that this argument does him credit, when he says that 800 miles from South Africa is not overseas? He says that overseas has a definite connotation in his mind. Does he think that only Europe can be regarded as overseas? He nods affirmatively. He therefore admits that if the Government had sent troops to Pearl Harbour or to Iceland it would not have been overseas. If ever an argument has been streched then it is this argument. I would like the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to hear what the hon. member for Kensington says, namely, that this promise meant that troops would not be sent to Flanders, but that they could be sent to Pearl Harbour. I want to ask hon. members on the other side why they cannot be honest and advance the excuse that it was in the interests of the country to send troops to Madagascar. Instead of that they come here with this fallacious reasoning and talk about “the great cleavage”. I want to ask the Hon. the Prime Minister to tell me whether the hon. member for Kensington is correct in saying that this promise only referred to Europe or Flanders. Let the Ringh Hon. member tell us what his intention was; did he really deceive the House on that day when he said that troops would not be sent overseas, meaning thereby any other place except Europe or Flanders. I think the Minister of Defence owes us an explanation. He has only to say yes or no. I predict that he will not make that statement because he will either present himself or the hon. member for Kensington in a ridiculous light. We repeat that this side of the House and the country has the right to say that the Minister of Defence made that promise in this House. He adopted the attitude here that troops would not be sent overseas; on the strength of that he got votes, and thereafter he simply broke his promise to the people.

Vote put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—76

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson. H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradis, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson. R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—49:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg. J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A, P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

I just want to ask the Minister of Native Affairs a few questions in connection with this £7,000 for emergency relief. In respect of what districts was this money spent, and in what form was the money given. I ask this because I notice that nothing was expended by the Secretary for Social Welfare, whilst he made the statement a little while ago that half the children of the Cape Peninsula suffered from malnutrition; and here we vote £7,000 in respect of emergency relief for natives, although I see nothing for Europeans. I would just like to have this information from the Minister of Native Affairs. I do not want to delay the Government in its work, but I should like to have this information.

It was given in the form of mealies in the Transvaal.

Will the Minister accept a motion to report progress?

Let us finish this vote, there is not much in it.

I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture one or two questions upon this item, because I do not think the Minister of Native Affairs is to blame for the necessity of providing relief, but it seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture in his capacity of Food Controller is bound to answer to the country for the state of affairs which has been brought about. It is not merely that there is distress among the natives, it is much worse than that. There is the inability among those who have money, to obtain food, and that has not occurred for many long years. It is to my mind a subject for shame on the part of the body responsible for the supply of food to the native. Maize is the staple food of the natives. I have recently been engaged in travelling long distances in the Native Areas, it is a Native Area which I have been familiar with for twenty years, and I have never known such a state of distress as there exists today among the natives in Zululand. The position is that those men, women and children cannot get food for love or money. It is true that in some cases they have fainted on the premises of the traders who were looked to to provide them with food and who were deprived of any supplies by the Mealie Supply Board. If there is any means of dealing with this extraordinary Board, I think the Minister’s duty lies in the introduction of an Emergency Measure. Let us have a war emergency regulation to provide suitable punishment for these gentlemen—and up to five years imprisonment with hard labour will not be too much for them. I say this in all seriousness. The state of affairs among the natives is most distressing. It means that even the native who has the money to buy food is denied that privilege. He has to see his children and his family enduring distress because of the mismanagement of the Mealie Control Board. There is no doubt that the Board allowed 200,000 bags of mealies to be sold to Rhodesia. 200,000 bags of mealies were sold to Rhodesia last year on the understanding that they would be returned this year, but that understanding has not been carried out. Those 200,000 bags would be very useful. They would have prevented deep-seated resentment on the part of the native people of this country against their treatment by this unknown Mealie Control Board.

Too well known, you mean.

Yes, too well known indeed. If you go to meetings of farmers in my district and you mention the name of the Mealie Control Board it is greeted with derision.

All control boards.

And a good deal of hatred. I have a letter in my possession from one of the members of this Control Board, and he says it is the elements of nature which are to blame and not the Mealie Control Board. Have you ever heard anything like that.

I am afraid I have allowed the hon. member to go very far but he must confine himself to the reasons for the increase in the Vote.

May I suggest to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) that the point which he is raising and which he wishes to discuss further and which other members may wish to discuss could perhaps better be raised on the Loan Vote for Agriculture where the activities of the Food Controller come under discussion. The reasons for the increase which we are voting here are as follows: We made provision on the Main Estimates for a small amount of money, I think £3,000, to meet conditions in certain drought stricken areas as existed at the time partly to provide relief works for those able to work, and partly to supply mealies for the use of these natives not able to work. It was purely to meet the conditions of that time. Now, that work had to be continued for a longer period than was allowed for. On that account this additional amount has now to be voted. That is the reason for the increase. The expenditure has already been incurred. My hon. friend is trying to raise a different question, and I think he can do so on the Loan Vote for Agriculture.

Yes, I shall gladly do so.

I am very sorry but I cannot agree with the Minister. Certain attacks were directed against the Mealie Control Board. The Minister says that this money is being voted in respect of natives. But I just want to say that the Mealie Control Board is a control board in name only today. It has no power. The Minister of Agriculture is the controller today. In the Transkei, as one hon. member said, natives almost perish of hunger because they cannot obtain food. Can he not, with all his power erect depots where these people can obtain food? We cannot blame the Mealie Control Board because that body has no power. The Food Controller does everything, and the Mealie Control Board simply has to carry out instructions. The person who is really guilty is the Minister of Agriculture, the Food Controller. I had hoped that the position would improve, but there is dire want and chaos. It is the Minister of Agriculture who has all the powers and who determines what will happen. We had hoped that there would be an improvement but I am sorry to say that no improvement has come about, and the Mealie Board is not the guilty body. The Food Controller is the guilty person who is responsible for the fact that the natives of the Transkei are perishing of hunger, because there are no facilities. If the Minister can erect a few depots in the territory where these natives could get food, then he would be doing something useful. But so long as he carries on in the way he is doing now, those natives will not be able to obtain food. The natives are dependent on mealies, and at the moment they cannot get mealies, but only mealie products. Well, we can understand it; if the miller sells mealies, he gets 18s. 6d. per bag. If he sells it is as mealie product, per bucket, then he gets 24s. per bag. The miller therefore prefers to sell mealie products. We and the Government gave the Minister of Agriculture full authority, and the result is that today, in a country which has the necessary food, we have to witness people dying of hunger. I hope that the Minister will take definite steps in this matter, even though he may have to pay a little more attention to the Mealie Board. I hope that there will be greater co-operation, and that he will create distribution depots where mealies can be sold, so that we can get more facilities in the country.

I would associate myself with the request made by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I would remind the House that last year we raised this question of the supply of mealies in a very concrete form and we were given certain assurances by the hon. the Minister. The position today is very serious indeed, and I want to assure the House that so far as the Transkei is concerned there is not enough food in the Transkei to meet the needs of the natives until the new crop comes in. We are not very much concerned whether it is the Minister or the Board which is responsible, we only emphasise the fact that this position has only occurred since we have had this Board. Everywhere you go in the Transkei you find wholehearted condemnation by Europeans and Africans of the Mealie Control Board. It moves too slowly and it seems to ignore the recommendations of local people, and because of this in some parts of the country in spite of good rains people cannot even sow their lands. We are asking for a definite statement from the Minister and we want to know what is going to be done to meet the situation. We feel that the confidence of the people of the Transkei in the Government has been badly shaken, and we feel that today the Mealie Control Board is a definite menace to the safety of the people. We feel too that some emergency regulation should be issued to enable the Minister to function where the Mealie Control Board has completely failed to function. The situation is this, the traders call for supplies of mealies in quantity which they know will be required. But the figures they put forward are always cut down by the Board. People who want 700 bags are sometimes cut down to seventy bags. There is much delay in issuing permits which often expire before they can be used. These are facts which can be borne out by anyone on the spot. May I ask for some definite assurance from the Government, may I know what the intention of the Government is? Unless something is done there is going to be a condition of starvation among the natives. We have been told that the Board has fixed the price of mealies, but what is the good of fixing the price of mealies if you cannot buy mealies, and that is actually the position in the Transkei today.

After the explanation which the hon. Minister has given, I think that it will be desirable to postpone this discussion until Loan Vote No. 4 is dealt with. The House will therefore get a further opportunity of discussing the control boards. We are concerned here only with the increase in expenditure in this vote.

I should like to raise another point. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture knows that there is a big surplus of potatoes. In my part of the country large quantities of potatoes are planted.

That is something which falls under the Agricultural Vote.

My point is that there is a shortage of mealies, and I want to ask whether potatoes cannot be used instead of mealies for the sustenance of natives.

I want to say a few words in connection with this vote. I am on the border of a native territory, and the traders have approached me in connection with this matter. A trader in Herschel, who got 10,000 bags of mealies per month to sell to natives, could not get more than 2,000 bags. There is something radically wrong. I was there, and I know that the natives really starve. They have the money or the purchasing power, but they cannot obtain the food. Something must be done. I cannot now go into the question of whose responsibility it is. On my representations the Mealie Board gave a few thousand bags more to certain dealers, but there is still something radically wrong. I do think that something should be done to bring about a greater circulation of food for these natives.

The Minister of Finance has suggested that the sins of the Control Board might better be discussed under the Agricultural Vote, on the Additional Loan Estimates. I think that we are all prepared to accept and save up what we have to say on that subject for that occasion. There is just one point I wish to raise on this Vote. We are voting £7,000 here for additional relief of distress. The Minister has explained that the distress has not arisen since last Session. He has suggested that it is a continuation of the distress for which we had already voted some relief last year. He was not very explicit on that and I want to know whether this additional £7,000 and the continuation of the distress for which we voted a small amount last Session is not in fact due to the Food Controller fixing the price of maize at such a point that the people who were poor last Session had no chance of recovery, and a great many who were just keeping their heads above water are now below water and have to be rescued.

No, it was due to the drought.

Was it merely the drought—did it have nothing to do with the price of mealies?

The primary factor was the drought.

What I feel strongly is that the effect of the drought in creating distress has been gravely aggravated since we met here last year by the fixing of prices of maize by the Food Controller. The Food Controller in fixing the price for the grower so far as we know took no cognisance of the capacity of the consumer to pay. I read with horror some time ago the announcement that the Minister had agreed that the farmer should get 15s. per bag as against 12s. 6d. which he had agreed was a good price. I am not quarrelling with the proposal to give the farmer 15s. I am prepared to agree that the farmer should get 15s. if the rise in his costs justify this price, but I want to put it to the Government that we expect them to consider the consumer as well as the producer. If the producers’ prices are fixed then the Government must either face the problem of how the consumer is going to pay the price or how he is going to get the food which he requires, but to fix the price at a level which puts e.g. maize further out of the range of the population than it has been for years, seems to be going in a totally wrong direction. This rise in the price of maize means that it becomes more impossible for the native population to buy this basic food. We want some kind of guarantee from the Government that prices are not going to be dealt with in that way. We want some kind of guarantee that the native consumers will be considered when their basic foods come under price control. We must either make it possible for the native population to buy maize, which constitutes between 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of their food or we must subsidise their consumption out of revenue. I notice that we are about to vote over half a million pounds to keep down the price of bread. We have now put down £7,000 for the relief of distress of people who are not within sight of the breadline. These are very vital facts. I for one would like something done so that we shall fix the price to producers with a view to enabling our native people to survive, for that is really what is at stake. I feel that prices of foodstuff generally should be pegged on a basis which will enable consumers to buy what they require, just in the same way as we have pegged the price of bread and I hope that the Government will consider this.

Since we deal with emergency relief amongst the natives year after year, and since we are faced with a great scarcity of labour, I would just like to give the Minister the assurance that a feeling exists in the country that this relief reaches people who are in a position to work.

I can definitely assure the hon. member that that is not the case.

I do not know whether on the debate on the Agricultural Loan Vote I shall be allowed to refer to the effect on the natives of the present conditions of supplies. I rather think that a letter which I have here, which throws a great deal of light on the matter, should be read so that the Minister of Native Affairs may appreciate the great danger which is facing the natives. If I may read this letter I am sure it will show a clear light on the actual conditions of the country and the deleterious effect on the native morale and outlook. This letter was written to me on December 14th, and it says this—

I wonder how much longer that letter is. I have allowed the hon. member a lot of latitude in reading it.

There is a little more of it. The letter goes on—

Now that is a spontaneous letter from the wife of a storekeeper from the South Coast of Natal. The natives will blame the Government for the conditions in which they find themselves.

I understood that the Minister was prepared to report progress after the acceptance of the previous vote?

If the hon. members want that, I shall be prepared te meet them by moving that progress be reported, but I want to express the hope that, if possible, we will dispose of the other votes tomorrow. It is essential that this budget, together with the Estimates, be passed by both Houses before the end of the month, and in view of the fact that the Government has only three days at its disposal, it is essential that the other votes be disposed of tomorrow. With that expectation, I now move—

I want to ask the Minister a question in order to get a point cleared up, namely, to what extent is the Mint being used for war purposes? I notice here that the vote deals with extra administrative expenses and supplies. I can quite understand that the Mint requires supplies, but as a business man I fail to understand how it is that administrative expenses have increased by £7,000 while supplies have only risen to the extent of £3,000. Does the Minister think that that is a sound business policy.

The Mint has an Ammunition Factory attached to it today, but the expenditure in connection with that factory is kept separate and is accounted for under the war account. The additional amount which is asked for here is only in connection with minting activities of the Mint, and has nothing to do with war activities. The increase of this amount is principally the result of the expansion of the minting activities of the Mint. The work which has been expanded particularly is in connection with types of minting where the metal costs comparatively little and that is why the increase in the cost of supplies is comparatively small in relation to the increase in administration expenses.

I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us who are the members of the Committee which is referred to here, and what really is the work of that Committee?

The Committee consists of representatives of the Departments which primarily have to deal with social work, that is the Departments of Education, Public Health and Social Welfare, and the Department of Agriculture is also concerned to a certain extent. It was found that there was a certain amount of overlapping in regard to the Department’s propaganda work, and as the work of all the departments is of a similar nature it was decided to co-ordinate it in this way. In regard to social welfare work particularly it is necessary to do a great deal of propaganda work by means of advertisements, pamphlets and films, and all that work is controlled by this Committee. It does not mean an extension of the work, but it means the co-ordination of existing activities.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture various things associated with this Vote, and I have no doubt he will give me satisfaction. I want to ask these questions because there is tremendous dissatisfaction in regard to the position of bread, and there is tremendous disappointment throughout the country at the way in which this matter is handled. In the first place there is the increase in the cost of stabilisation. It is almost a new feature and it has got this year to the amount of £1,190,000. Well, there are different kinds of stabilisation. You may stabilise something in a way that is to the benefit of the public, or you may stabilise something that should not be stabilised. The stabilisation which has taken place here is to the greatest disadvantage of the people of the country, and it is totally unfair. We see increases everywhere. There is an increase so far as the producer is concerned, an increase so far as the miller is concerned, and an increase so far as the baker is concerned.

You leave the producer alone.

I say that the position is most unsatisfactory. There is the question of the price of wheat. We must take it that this increased price has been arrived at by a process of bargaining, so as to give fair prices to the producers, the millers and the bakers. Well, who are the people who are going to profit by this new condition that has been created? There are a number of large and important milling companies in the country who will benefit—two of them are quoted on the Stock Exchange. The highly increased dividends which these companies will pay and the excess profits tax which they will pay will gladden the heart of the Minister of Finance. But these increased profits are very striking.

Can you give us the figures?

When I look at the position of these companies I find there is something wrong, and I must come to the conclusion that the Department does not know what is going on. Take the Premier Milling Company. In 1938 their shares were 32/-, then they went up to 40/- and now they stand at 80/-. These big prices do not come about unless inordinate profits are made somewhere. I must say that the Minister and his Board in bargaining for the increased prices have not done very well for the country. Then take another milling company—the Union Flour Mills. Their shares were 27/-, they went up to 30/-, then to 46/- and then to 57/6d. There must be some very good reason for this increase in the price of those shares. I think I have the right to ask the Minister to tell us what the position is, and to tell us what is the reason for the increase in the price of bread. I shall tell the House what the reason is—it is because too much has been given to these milling companies. Let us look at the price of bread. The Minister will know that the best and the largest bakers in the country desired the loaf to remain at a maximum price of 6d. The Minister of Finance yesterday told us that they paid this big amount which we had on the Estimates in order to stabilise the price of bread at 6d. last year. But they did not stabilise it.

Of the two items here on the Vote, the item against the original Estimates of £381,100 was in respect of last year’s crop, 1941-1942, and was for the stabilisation of the price at 6d. The second amount of £579,000 which is to be supplemented by a further amount on the Main Estimates, will be in connection with this year’s crop, 1942-1943, and is for the present stabilisation of bread at 6½d. The two items therefore are different.

I thank the Minister, but that does not affect my statement in regard to the excessive payment made to these companies. In regard to the price of bread we know that there are people in trade — not of the very best class, perhaps — who will always get whatever they can without giving fair consideration to anyone, but the Minister knows that our best bakers said “No, the price of bread should not exceed 6d.” and the people of the country were pleased with that attitude. As a matter of fact I am told that the price of this bread—you call it bread, don’t you—can be fixed at 5d. and that it would still give a good profit at that price. That could be borne out by a close investigation. Well, why did the Department bully our best people into raising the price from 6d. to 6½d.? Some of our friends say “what is a ½d.?” but let me remind them that this ½d. is 8 persent on the present price of the article, and if you take a million halfpennies per day it is a very tidy sum. So the halfpennies need not be so much despised. Anyhow, I think that is is clear that it cannot remain at that. You cannot continue to charge 6½d. for your bread. It is against everyone’s better judgment; it is against the judgment of the bakers themselves who are quite satisfied with the price of bread at 6d. I say now to the Minister that whatever happens we have to do the right thing and that is reduce the price of this bread now.

I am very pleased that I am able this afternoon to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Henderson). I am glad that at last somebody on the other side of the House has taken up the attitude which he has taken up, and I want to express the hope that now that one of the front benchers on the other side has put forward the figures in the way he has done in regard to the wheat position and the bread position, the Minister will take more notice of matters than he has done so far, more notice than he took when similar arguments were adduced from this side of the House. We on this side, not only during the last session but during the last four or five sessions, have been drawing attention to the large profits which millers have been allowed to make. We adduced arguments only last year, arguments which we had often used in the past, that bread was sold at a lower price than now, although the price of wheat in those days was considerably higher than it is today. I quoted the figures last year, just as I did in previous years, and I pointed out that when wheat was sold at £1 15s. 0d. per bag bread was sold at 6d. per 2 lb. loaf. We repeatedly ask the Minister in Heaven’s name to explain this contradictory phenomenon. If bread could be sold cheaper in those years than it could be sold last year, in spite of the fact that wheat was very much more expensive than what farmers are getting for it today, there must be a mistake somewhere. We ask the Minister to tell us where the fault lay. Now, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has drawn attention to the increase which has taken place in the shares of the large milling companies, and we should like the Minister to explain to us what the position is. I say that this amount of £1,100,000 which appears on this Vote is made available by this Parliament, and the major portion of that money goes in large profits to the millers, with the result that their shares go up as was shewn by the hon. member. I want to repeat that the time will come when we shall be putting that same pertinent question again to the Minister. He has to prove to us how it was possible for bread to be cheaper in the past, although the producer was getting more for his product than last year, or more than he was getting during the past five or six years. We don’t blame the Government in any way for protecting the consumer. The consumer has just as much right to demand protection from the State against exploitation as the farmer has to demand a fair price for his product, and as the farmer has to demand protection against exploitation, but we want to emphasise that as a result of some error which has been made—the Minister will have to tell us where the fault lies—we find today that we are in the position that the farmer does not get what he is entitled to get, and on the other hand the consumer is being definitely exploited. I want to repeat what I have said before in the hope that now that the hon. member for Hospital has pertinently brought this matter to the Minister’s notice the Minister will be willing to give greater attention to this question than he has done so far, and I hope he will be prepared to do something. The Minister may say that the millers are faced with additional expenditure. If that is so let him give us the facts so that we can bring those facts to the notice of the farmers when they ask us why it is that bread was cheaper in the days when the price of wheat was higher. In any case we shall then have an explanation to put before those people. So far, although we have urged the Minister to give us an explanation every year, he has not given us that explanation, and for that reason I want to make a strong appeal to him to make a statement and to give us an explanation, if any explanation can be given.

The hon. member who has just sat down has made an attack on the millers and he has told the House that the millers make large profits. He ought to be better informed.

You should rather reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson).

No, the hon. member for Hospital is not familiar with the interests of the wheat farmers in the same way as the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) should be. His constituents largely consist of wheat farmers, and yet it seems that he knows nothing about the interests of the wheat farmers. The hon. member surely knows that a Wheat Commission was appointed some time ago to go into the question of the price of flour and to go into the whole question of the milling industry. That Commission has brought out its report and from that report it appears that the Commission examined the books of eleven of the big millers in this country. The hon. member also knows that in 1940 the price of wheat paid to the farmer was 22/- per bag; as against that the price to the miller was 29/-. The hon. member may say that that means a profit of 7/-, but let the hon. member read the Report. Surely he should be interested because he represents wheat farmers. It was made clear from the Report of the Commission which, as I have said, had examined the books of eleven of the big millers in the country, that the milling costs for a bag of wheat amounted to 2/6. That includes profits, reserves, bad debts, etc. In addition to that it cost 1/- per bag railage to get the wheat to the mill. The hon. member knows that his constituents at Brits put the wheat on the train and the miller pays the railage, and not the farmer. He should at least know that. According to the Commission’s report this costs the millers 1/- per bag. Then the hon. member should also know that a levy of 1/- per bag has been placed on wheat and the millers have to pay that.

And they deduct that from the price of wheat.

That is a different argument again. The miller has to pay that. He has to buy the wheat at 22/- per bag and then he has to pay the levy out of his own pocket. I admit that if the levy were not there the wheat farmers could have got 1/- per bag more. But the millers pay it now. According to the report costs of administration amount to 6d. per bag. Then there are selling costs. We know that the millers have big expenses in connection with selling costs and those expenses are put at 1/- per bag. Then there is distribution. They have to deliver the flour on the train in order to get it to the consumer. That costs 1/6. That brings their expense to 7/6, so where do those large profits come in? Now the hon. member asks why the shares have gone up. Will he tell me which shares, of which mill, have gone up? The shares of the Premier Milling Company and of the Union Flour Company have gone up, but have the shares of any other mills gone up? Those companies have very large activities of a different kind as well. They control factories and a large number of other things. There are some millers who are also traders on a large scale. The hon. member should know, as a representative of wheat farmers, that the Government only allows profits to be made up to 7½%. That is 1/6 per bag. Now, are the shares going to rise because of a profit like that? No, I don’t doubt that the millers make pretty good money. They are well off. 1/6 per bag is not too little but it is not too much either.

What about the bran?

The hon. member who has just interrupted me knows nothing about bran. I think he should give the public some information about matters of this kind, because we also find that there are a number of papers which have a lot to say about the shares of milling companies having gone up so tremendously, just as the hon. member has told us here, but they don’t tell us that those are shares in milling companies which do other business as well as milling.

I am very pleased at the attitude which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has adopted here, and it seems to me that he is the real friend of the farmer and of the consumer. But the man I am really surprised at is the hon. member who has just sat down. He used to be a great champion of the wheat farmers in the past, but during the last few years we have never heard him plead the cause of the wheat farmers in this House. During the last few years he has always got up here as a champion of the millers. We have no objection to the hon. member standing up for the millers. But my friend, what we want to have … …

The hon. member must address the Chair.

What we want, Mr. Chairman, is that the hon. member who has undergone such a terrific change, should tell us why his whole attitude has changed so completely. I always understood that he was a wheat farmer so why does he now plead the cause of the millers? He admits that large profits are made by the millers. He has told us who those millers are, but we want to tell him this, that if the shares have gone up, as the hon. member for Hospital has shewn us, then it means that large profits must have been made in the milling business. I am a wheat farmer, and many of us on this side of the House are wheat farmers, and naturally we look after the interests of the wheat industry. Another thing I feel is that this amount is appearing on this Vote under a wrong heading. In what way are the wheat farmers concerned with this service to fix the price of bread? This should appear under the Vote of Social Welfare. It is brought up here with no other object but to mislead the public. This is a matter which concerns general Social Welfare and is not intended to promote the cause of the farmers. I protest against it being raised here. Another matter which we went into very carefully in the past was that during the last war when the price of wheat was £3 per bag, the price of bread was exactly the same as it is now. Why then should we spend all this money now when the price is only 30/- per bag and the price of bread 6½d. per 2 lb. loaf? There is something wrong somewhere, and it is with the big millers that the fault lies. In my area small millers had to get out of business because the big millers have the monopoly now. Here we are face to face again with the capitalistic system which wants to destroy everything that is small, and my hon. friend who has just spoken is one of those who are depriving all the small people of their livelihood. I cannot understand him. I remember the days when he was a champion, when he championed the cause of the farmer, but today he is quite prepared to champion the cause of the capitalist and of the big miller. I protest against the way in which this amount is being placed on the Estimates. I think it is misleading, and the public should know that the money does not go into the pockets of the farmers but into somebody else’s pockets.

I make no apology for raising the grievances of the farmers in my constituency in regard to the question of maize.

That comes on the Loan Vote.

I think the whole system is hopelessly inadequate.

The Committee is considering Vote No. 23, the controlled price of bread, and the hon. member must confine his remarks to that subject.

Very well, I shall raise the matter at the appropriate time.

The more I look at this vote No. 23 the more I feel that money is being unnecessarily wasted here. We must feel at once that it is absolutely incomprehensible that the control of the price of bread in this country should cost £1,195,000. If we cast our minds back and look at what we voted last year on this vote for the control of the price of bread and we find then that we are asked to vote an additional amount of £500,000 the question immediately arises “Who is going to get the additional halfpenny which has been added to the price of bread—to the 6d.?” No, we cannot possibly be satisfied with the explanation which the Minister of Finance has given these huge amounts which are being spent, merely for the purpose of controlling the price of bread. But this matter also has another aspect, and there I feel that I must agree with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) and it is this, that the bread which we get in this country is unnecessarily expensive. The hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) of course, is directly interested in this matter, but he forgets to tell us what goes on in the mills. The miller mills the wheat just as it comes in, and he extracts a small percentage of bran and we have to accept the meal as we get it. We who have experience of buying meal to bake our own bread know that we hardly ever get a bag of meal which has not got rope in it. It is thready. This is a bad state of affairs. We don’t know what the meal has been mixed with. All we know is that bad wheat, wheat suffering from blight, wheat which has sprouted and all other things are milled together, and we who know how to bake our own bread, feel that our millers mill an inferior wheat and the public have to accept that meal which is milled from inferior grain. We cannot distinguish today between various types of meal as we were able to do in the days when we got first class sifted meal. The millers mill bad wheat with the result that there are large quantities of bran in the meal and yet the poor people have to pay ½d. more for their bread. I am quite convinced that when the hon. member for Kimberely District (Mr. Steytler) reads over his speech in Hansard he will find that he has proved the very opposite of what he wanted to prove. The figure he gave worked out at 7/8d. so he wants to contend that the miller loses 8d., and yet they make large profits and their shares go up. It is a pity that the hon. member did not tell us how much profit the mills in which he is interested have made. We have been feeling for a long time that the difference between what the producers get and what the consumers have to pay is out of all proportion, and that the sooner the Government intervenes the better. Give the miller a decent living, but make it impossible for the miller to enrich himself at the expense of the poor consumer, the man who has to pay an unheard of price for this conglomerate bread. As we, as producers, expect to produce close on 8,000,000 bags of wheat this year, we trust that the Minister of Agriculture will see his way to put an end to what in this country is known as Khaki bread, and that we shall be able to get decent flour again. Once we get that back we shall be healthy again, and we shall get rid of our bad digestion.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the following amendment:

The amendment is not in order, the hon. member can only move a reduction in the vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am not moving a reduction.

That is all the hon. member is entitled to do.

If that is the case, sir, may I comment on the description? When the Minister submitted draft estimates last year, he described this item or a cognate item, as assistance to wheat farmers, and in that he was perfectly correct. By what process of logic the hon. Minister has now arrived at the conclusion that he was wrong, and that he should describe it as expenditure in stabilising the price of bread, I do not know. But it appears to me, and it will appeal to most people, that if there is an increase in the price of bread, there must have been either an increase in the price of wheat to the producer, or an increase to the miller or the baker. When the price of bread was stabilised at 6d. I quite realise that the Minister considered that we were getting an inferior bread to what we had before, and that the price to the consumer had been increased. As a matter of fact, we were paying for bran exactly what we were paying for wheat flour when we bought the loaf of standard bread. I cannot think why the price of bread, having been increased to 6½d. we should be called upon to pay an extra £500,000, but this amount is being spent, and I hope the Minister will enlighten us. The mere fact that there is an increase of something like £500,000 in the expenditure gives us grounds for thinking that somebody other than the consumer is getting that money. The fact that we are called upon to spend this money to stabilise the price of bread, and the fact that the price of bread has been increased ½d. per loaf, does not seem to me to dovetail. Someone is getting nearly £500,000. Who is getting it? We know that the Minister, at the beginning of last year guaranteed 30/6d. per bag of Grade A wheat. In October we got a statement published in the Press that an amount of £2,000,000 is required for the wheat farmer, £1,000,000 of which had to be found by the Government, and the other £1,000,000 by the increase of ½d. in the price of bread from November 1st, 1942. Now if the producer is not getting it, who is getting it, and why does he get it? I consider if the producer is getting it, and this expenditure is not incurred in stabilising the price of bread, it is absolutely wrong to call it anything else but assistance to wheat farmers. I hope the Minister will consider this, and substitute the description “assistance to wheat farmers.”

I really fail to understand why this item comes under the Agricultural Vote. I asked the Minister last year why it was put there, and it was thereupon changed. Now he comes here again and says that this amount is required to fix the price of bread. That is what this £579,000 is needed for. I merely want to say that the price of wheat is not profitable to the farmer today, because the farmer has to incur all kinds of exorbitant expenses in connection with the industry. The Wheat Board is a fifth wheel to the wagon. We agitated for £1/10/- per bag, but the Wheat Board could do nothing. Thereupon the Prime Minister in his private capacity came along and fixed the price over the heads of the Wheat Board. So the Board is a fifth wheel to the wagon. But recently we saw in the Press that Mr. Fotheringham, one of the biggest bakers in Johannesburg, stated that he was able to sell bread cheaper than at the fixed price. If a big baker like Mr. Fotheringham says that he can sell more cheaply then what is the position?

There is nothing to prevent him from doing so.

I quite understand that, but after all he is a business man and he is not going to run his business at a loss, but he is going to make the profit he can make. The fact of the matter still is that one of the biggest bakers tells us that bread can be sold more cheaply. Why then must a price be fixed to the detriment of the producer? Why is not the consumer taxed by a ½d. more? The Minister told the wheat farmer that they must produce more and that he would come to their assistance. All the producers have been told to produce more. We have produced more but what do we get today?

30/-.

Who gets 30/-?

The Minister of Agriculture has done nothing. He has been asleep all the time, just as he is now. He is not a farmer but a lawyer.

Come and look me up and I shall teach you how to farm.

The Minister of Agriculture did not have the courage to fix the price of wheat. He said to the Wheat Board, “You want to fix it at £1/10/-, but I cannot approve of that, I do not see my way to approve of it.”

But you have been saying that the wheat farmers do get £1/10/-.

It is the Prime Minister who has fixed the price over your head.

That was the year before.

Please! The hon. member for Kimberley District is a constituent of mine and I must ask him to behave. The hon. member today no longer only represents wheat producers but he represents the millers and he is between Heaven and Earth. He does not know where he is. But here—because this comes under the Agricultural Department—the producers are taxed in order to fix the price of bread, although the bakers themselves say that the bread can be sold more cheaply. For that reason I say that it is an injustice and that a change must be effected. The Minister of Agriculture insisted that we should produce more wheat and more potatoes. I am not talking about potatoes just now but about wheat. We have produced more, and now he wants to tax us in spite of the warning which we gave him. I must ask the Minister please to listen because he cannot carry on in the way he is doing. I must ask you please to listen.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

But I am looking you in the face. Am I not addressing you then? If I don’t look at the Minister of Agriculture, if I don’t face him, he cannot hear me, and even if I face him he finds it difficult to hear me. We know what the position in the country is. We have produced more and we don’t want to get a price which is too high, we want a price which will pay us, that is all. Today we don’t get such a price. Ask the Boland, the grain sheds, whether they can come out on £1/10/-. They cannot do it. In spite of that, however, the farmers are taxed. It is bad policy. This vote should be deleted. The same mistake was made last year when it was also placed under the Agricultural vote. One would have thought that the Minister of Agriculture as he gets older would learn but he makes the same mistakes every time.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to this fact, that while a change was made last year in connection with the prices of wheat we have two kinds of consumers. The one in the towns and the other on the platteland. The Minister is only benefiting the consumer in the towns. I don’t know whether he is aware of the fact but in the past the poor man could buy his bag of wheat for £1/2/6. and he could have it milled for 2/6d. so that his flour cost him £1/5/0. With the change in the price of wheat, the price went up to £1/7/6, and the miller got a refund of 5/- on every bag. The wheat still costs the miller £1/2/6, but the poor man has to pay £1/7/6, so the poor man’s cost has gone up by 5/- per bag. It is an injustice to the consumer on the platteland, the poor man who does not produce wheat himself, but who always buys a little wheat. Last year the price of wheat was fixed at £1/10/0. A subsidy has been employed to stabilise the price of bread, but what happend thereafter? And what is still happening every day? The wheat is sent to the various agents throughout the country. They send it away at once athough as I understand the Wheat Board imposes a certain obligation on those people to keep certain quantities locally. The position, however, is that the miller or the agent sends the wheat away, he sends it away thirty, forty or fifty miles perhaps to the Railway line, and from there it is carried by train and the railage amounts to 4/- or perhaps 5/-. After two or three months the wheat which is unavailable locally has been used up and now the local people have to order their wheat from elsewhere. It comes back over the same Railway line and has to be transported again from the station to a particular central area and the costs of transport incurred in that way are tremendous. Let the hon. the Minister visit the small towns on the platteland. He will find that the price of flour is £1/19/6 per bag, and 5/6d. per bucket. I regard this as a terrible injustice to the consumer on the platteland, and I say that steps should be taken to compel the agents or the millers to hold back sufficient wheat so that it will not be necessary to bring back meal from elsewhere and to incur extra costs of transport. In the third place I notice from a statement which the Minister made a few days ago that the millers are allowed to mix 5 per cent. soya beans and mealie meal with the wheat and they are also allowed to mix rye into the four from the wheat, so long as the bread is not marked as containing a hundred per cent. flour. Now I want to know from the Minister whether that bread is cheaper?

No, it is the same price.

If it is not cheaper, and the millers are allowed to mix in 5 per cent. of other ingredients, then they make an extra profit again. The millers who mix up their meal in that way put an extra profit in their pockets. I therefore feel that it should be laid down either that all of them must mix their meal or that none of them will be allowed to do so. Surely the Minister will agree that the other things which are mixed with the wheat are cheaper than the wheat itself, because if they were not cheaper, why then would the stuff be mixed? There is another point which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, that on the platteland one finds many mills where wheat is milled, but where it cannot be sifted. That immediately deprives the ordinary farmer of the opportunity of obtaining fine meal. He never gets it. His shopkeeper does not supply it, because he cannot get it himself. Owing to the fact that the mill cannot sift the meal the farmer cannot get the 10 lbs. on every 200 lbs. which he is entitled to, with the result that the farmer never gets any sifted meal.

The hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) asked me to behave myself because I was one of his constituents. I must ask him, seeing that he represents me in Parliament and should set me a good example, not to distort things here. I don’t say that he did so deliberately, but he stated that the Minister of Agriculture had refused to fix the price of wheat at £1/10/, and that it was thereupon done by the Prime Minister over his head.

You know that that is so.

You know that that is not so, or at any rate you should know it. The hon. member used to be a member of the Wheat Board and this happened a year before. The Wheat Board wanted to fix the price of wheat at £1/10/- and the Minister of Agriculture said that he could not go beyond 26/3d. and that was the price at which it was fixed. Afterwards, during the session of Parliament, there was a Conference of Wheat Farmers and they sent a deputation to the Minister. The Minister asked what the price was which they wanted, and the wheat farmers said £1/10/-. The Government thereupon agreed to that price. Those are the facts. Surely my member of Parliament should stick to the truth. Now, in regard to Mr. Fotheringham, he is one of the biggest bakers in the country and I noticed that he made that remark after the price of bread had been fixed.

What was the price recommended by the Wheat Board?

Last year?

Yes.

It was £1/10/- and £1/10/6 for A grade wheat. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) knows that there is a Bakers Association in this country. We also have a baker on the Wheat Board, and the bakers come to the Wheat Board with all their data and all their returns, together with the Government experts who investigate these matters, and then they say that this or that is a reason able price. The Wheat Board then makes its recommendation as to the price that should be fixed for bread. Mr. Fotheringham is a member of the Bakers Association, and a very prominent member, and if he differed from them it is a pity that he did not approach the Wheat Board and that he failed to tell them that they had fixed the price of bread at too high a figure.

Will that question be investigated now?

It has been investigated. The Government has appointed a Commission to enquire into the baking industry and to examine the books. That Commission has reported, and acting on that Report the Wheat Board, on the advice of the Government experts and of the bakers themselves, has fixed the price.

I don’t want to speak about the Wheat Control Board. That Board will never be a success until such time as only wheat farmers are members of it. So long as bakers and millers are on the Board and the one tries to knock out the other it will not prove a success. We know what has been happening there and we know that the small millers have been knocked out, the small millers who used to help the farmers to get their wheat milled. I am convinced that the Wheat Board will never be a success so long as it is constituted in the way it is today. What I should like to know is how this £381,000 which is being asked for this so called stabilisation of the price of bread, is going to be spent. Whom is it going to be paid to? Is it being paid so that the bakers will get the wheat cheaply or is it to be paid in order to enable the millers to get the wheat more cheaply?

It is paid to the wheat farmers.

The Minister must not try to avoid the issue. To whom is this £381,000 paid? The position, so it seems to me, is that the money is not only used to stabilise the price of bread but it is also being used in respect of meal for other purposes so that those people will get it cheaply. We cannot find out what the exact position is. If a baker like Mr. Fotheringham says that bread can be sold more cheaply, if he gets his meal at the price now fixed by the Government, then there must be something wrong. Let us remember that it is not the Wheat Board which fixes the price but the Minister. The Wheat Board recommends but the Minister has final say. The Board is only advisory and has no executive powers. The Minister has to decide what the price is going to be. I assume that he gets advice from the Control Board but if Mr. Fotheringham makes a statement like that we have to take note of him. He is better able to say at what price bread can be sold, than experts. I don’t want to decry the experts; we all use them, but they are only human and they make mistakes, and I very often come across mistakes made by the experts. Consequently, if Mr. Fotheringham says that he can sell his bread more cheaply the Government should listen to him and investigate the position. We know what the position is in regard to these Control Boards. Take the Dried Fruit Board. We have the same position there. On the Wheat Board we have millers and others. On the Fruit Control Board we have packers. One of those packers told me the other day that he wished the Control Board had been in existence for a long time because he has now been able to buy a house and he is making money, which he could not do before. These business men who are on those Boards know far too much, they are far too astute for the farmer. He says that the costs of transport are very high and so on, but all the time it is the farmer who carries the stuff to the baker. These business people always get the best of things. In the last war the price of bread was no higher than it is today, although the farmers received a very much higher price for their wheat. Why is that? Is it because we have a Control Board today? It is no use either just fixing a maximum price, because if you fix the maximum price, the maximum price becomes the general price. Why should I sell my bread more cheaply than John or Jack? Surely I am a business man, and I sell at as high a price as I possibly can. We cannot expect Mr. Fotheringham to sell more cheaply than others. There is something radically wrong and it is no use trying to argue it away. The misfortune of the whole business is that we have the wrong people on the Board of Control and that is why we get all these failures. The Minister is given bad advice and the farmers suffer. The farmer has to pay exorbitant prices for everything he needs, and that fact is lost sight of. The farmer cannot add his additional expenses to his prices. The farmer cannot do that. If it costs the farmer 30/- per bag to produce wheat he cannot raise the price if it has been fixed at 30/-. He has to sell it at that price because if he does not sell it he is finished, and if he does sell it he still loses money. The farmer not only has the market against him but he also has the weather against him. He has to plough and he has to sow. He spends money and he takes the risk of having bad crops and if he does have a good crop then he has to sell it at this fixed price, even if it means losing money. That is why it is our duty to look after the farmer. The other people can afford to pay. If it is necessary to give more money for this purpose then we must give it, but don’t let us put it on to the farmers. There are people in the towns who know as much about farming as the man in the Moon—and we had instances of that from members opposite this afternoon, when they said that this amount was intended to give the wheat farmer a better price. In the last war when there was no control the price of wheat went up to £5 per bag, and the poor people had to eat potatoes. The poor can hardly afford to buy meal. I fail to see why the millers should have the right to mix beans and such things into the meal if the price remains the same. If the beans cost more than wheat then why should they mix them with the meal? We want clean meal, If there are people who like to have soya bean meal and baboon bean meal mixed with their meal, by all means let them put it in themselves. We have no objection to their doing so, but why should the millers do it? The millers have all sorts of ways of making money which we know nothing about. They take inferior wheat and they have machinery to get flour out of it. The miller will look after himself; he is quite able to do so, and he has shewn in regard to the Control Board that he can look after himself. It is no use telling me that if shares go up from 60/- to 80/- no greater profits have been made as a result of the Control Board system. It is no use saying that the millers have other business activities as well. It is perfectly true that they are perhaps doing more business through having destroyed the small millers, but the fact remains that the rise in the price of their shares shows that they must have made profits, and the poor man who eats bread has to pay for all that. I can assure the Minister of Agriculture that there are many poor people who are suffering great hardships. They come to me and to other members of Parliament with their complaints. But we have this fact in this country, that meat and bread constitutes a large proportion of our food. They are our principal items of diet, and the poor people have to have flour. It is the duty of the Minister to see that the poor people are protected and this is a matter which he cannot afford to play with.

This issue is being somewhat complicated by the discussion this afternoon, because it would seem as if different claims are being made. We now hear about the poor farmer. We hear on the one hand that the miller is quite justified in the price he charges, and we have been told that the bakers are justified in the prices they are charging. On the other hand, a big monopoly holder (Mr. Fotheringham) is alleged to have said that he would sell bread at 6d. per loaf if he were allowed to, and still make a profit on it. I think we are entitled to know—the public wants to know—how much of this money that is being paid by way of subsidy, is paying for an increase in the price of wheat, how much of that is going by way of an increase to the miller and how much of it is going to the baker, and I think the Minister should tell us firstly whether, in increasing the price of wheat, the government has satisfied itself that the cost of production of wheat justified that increase, whether the cost of the additional price to the miller has justified the increased charge of the miller or baker, and whether the increased cost of the flour is justified in the increase in the cost of bread. These are the three factors, and I think the Minister should give us full details so as to satisfy the public that not a fraction of a penny of this increase in the price of bread and not a fraction of the subsidy that is now being paid, is going in the form of profits to the farmer, the miller or the baker. I think we should further be told, in view of Mr. Fotheringham’s statement that he could sell bread at 6d. instead of 6½d. per loaf, whether the Wheat Control Board in making its recommendations put forward a unanimous resolution or whether there were dissentions. I have an idea that some of the members were dissatisfied with the recommendations of the Board and a statement from the Minister will be appreciated.

I only want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. According to this year’s estimates there is going to be a surplus of wheat. There is a very large shortage of mealies. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether he intends going back to the old type of bread so that we can get white bread again? In putting this question I am particularly thinking of the poor people. I am told that the same quantity of flour which in the past used to give people six loaves of bread, now only gives them five loaves of bread. That is the information which I have been given by many a poor person. The price of meat is so high that it has even gone up to 2/ld. per lb., and the result is that the poor people have to eat bread. They can only afford to eat meat on two or three days every week, consequently they have to depend on bread. I contend that those people pay too much for their bread, and as there is going to be a surplus of wheat and a shortage of mealies I want to ask the Minister to consider going back to the old type of flour.

I want to say something in support of what was said by the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Henderson) this afternoon. People on the Witwatersrand got a very nasty shock when the price of bread was increased from 6d. to 6½d. per standard loaf. They are asking why they should be asked to eat food that is normally fed to cows and chickens, while the cows and chickens starve. We are told that we cannot import white flour because of lack of shipping space. But I want to ask the hon. Minister why it is that in Rhodesia they seem to have no difficulty in getting white flour. I want to ask the Minister why—recently several shipments of flour have been landed at Delagoa Bay—if it is possible to get white flour in these neighbouring territories, why it is that we should not be able to get flour in the Union when it forms such an important part of our diet. I also want to ask the Minister why it is that wheat should cost so much more in South Africa than it does in other countries. My information is that a bushel of wheat in Canada costs 3/7d.

That is incorrect.

My information is that in Australia it costs 8/9d. per bushel, in the United States it costs 4/10d. and in South Africa it is costing 10/6d., more than three times the price per bushel.

Where did you get that information?

You can tell me if I am wrong.

You are wrong.

He knows everything.

In the Wheat Market today, as I understand the position, in the United States and in Canada, I believe, there was a big carry-over from last season, and I understand that this year they have planted the smallest acreage for the past 17 years, and they are expecting a bumper crop.

And there is plenty of shipping!

I am not satisfied that that is the answer. In Great Britain too, there is a bumper crop. In Australia they have reduced the sowing by between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. I think it may be said that at the present time the world is glutted with wheat. In South Africa poultry farmers are experiencing great difficulty in feeding their chickens, and in consequence we are not getting eggs. The cows are being-starved, and we are paying more for our milk. I understand the people are today sifting their meal, and the result is that the bran is going waste. These are a few points on which the people of South Africa would like to be informed. With regard to the increased price of bread, I would like to ask the Minsiter why it was necessary to increase the price of a standard loaf from 6d. to 6½d. The standard loaf at 6d. produced to the baker a bigger profit than he has previously got. If I may say so, I think the trouble has not been so much in increasing the maximum price from 6d. to 6½d., as it has been in increasing the minimum price from 5¼d. to 5¾d. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister that if he will revert to the minimum price of 5¼d., the problem will solve itself because bread will then be sold at 6d. retail. There will still be a margin of profit. The bakers will still be able to pay Income Tax, and the public will be satisfied with the position. The price of 6d. per standard loaf was so high that it is common knowledge that many bakers were underselling, and the Wheat Control Board, I believe, has insufficient staff to handle the matter from the point of view of inspectors. The price is so high that many of the bakers who are not prepared to adhere to the fixed price are undercutting the price of bread, and that is done to the detriment of the bakers who are endeavouring to adhere to the fixed price. I hope the hon. Minister will give a reply on these points.

I only want to say a few words to the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), the new champion of the millers. He said that apparently I knew nothing about the wheat industry although I represent a wheat district. Anyhow, I don’t know whether the hon. member knows more about wheat farming than I do, but what I do know is that in his own opinion he knows more about the milling industry than I do. He tried to avoid the issue by saying that the millers made their large profits out of other business activities. That may be so, he knows more about the millers than I do, but let me give him these figures, which I have quoted in this House on previous occasions. I want to ask him to explain those figures to me, and I shall promise him faithfully that if he gives me a satisfactory explanation I shall not worry him again. The Minister did not reply but perhaps the hon. member for Kimberley, District can make a statement on the matter. I contend, and other hon. members have done the same, that when wheat in the past was sold at a higher price than it is sold now, bread used to be cheaper. Did the millers make any losses in those days? Were they forced to shut up shop? The hon. member is not going to tell us that the millers run their businesses for charity. They would not carry on their business if they did not make a profit. Now let me give them the figures. In 1915 the price of wheat was 29s. 11d. and the price of bread was 3.2d. per lb. That is about ¼d. cheaper than it is today. In 1916 the price of wheat was 33s. 2d. more than 3s. more than it is now, and yet the price of bread was lower than it was last year. In 1917 the price of wheat was 35s. 8d. and even then the price of bread was only l/5th of a penny more than it was last year. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Kimberley, District to explain to me how it was possible that the millers in those days did not make a loss. Or rather let me put the question this way: Where does the difference go between the higher price they now get for their bread and the amount they pay less for wheat? The increase in the price of their shares, which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has referred to, is an indication to show where the difference goes. The hon. member for Kimberley, District further said that I should have studied the report of the Wheat Commission. I did study it. The hon. member will recollect that I dealt with that report in this House last year, and he himself said to me that it would be better for me to talk about that report than about other matters. Let me remind him of one thing. There are members on his side of the House who declared here that the wheat farmers were flourishing. If the hon. member will look at page 42 of the Report of the Wheat Commission he will find that in the year 1938—’39 the farmers of the South Western District produced wheat at a profit of 5d. per bag; in the Western Sand Veld District at a loss of 7d. per bag; in Lydenburg at a loss of 3s. 8d. per bag, and at Brits—the part which according to the hon. member I know nothing about—at a loss of 5s. 4d. per bag. But the hon. member only reads those parts of the report which suit him in his milling purposes, and he does not read those parts which suit the farmers. There is something wrong in this matter as members on both sides of the House have shewn and we hope the Minister will give it his serious attention, and that he will create conditions where such anomalies such as those which we have pointed out will be removed.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the serious effect of certain arrangements which seem to have been approved by the Food Control Department working under his control. I had a telegram this afternoon from a prominent maize dealer in Pietermaritzburg. He says—

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the vote. It is vote 23, dealing with the control of the price of bread.

I have another telegram here which deals with the wheat question in relation to that particular subject. It deals with that phase of the subject. A suggestion is telegraphed to me from Pietermaritzburg to this effect—

There is a suggestion here that we should have white bread instead of the meal that we get nowadays, so that cattle and poultry feed may be made available. It is a suggestion that ought to appeal to the good sense of the Minister, and I only wish to say that the Minister has always been very curteous in receiving our representations. I am sure that he will investigate this matter. It is a matter of considerable importance in view of the serious position created through our having no bran or the byproducts of flour for the feeding of cattle and poultry.

In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) I have no great grouse against the matter which he brought before the House. Of course, it is an advertisement we have seen in the paper, but I would suggest this to him. It is argued on the other side of the House that most of the small millers are being killed, and even this advertisement that he relies on says that the small man has gone out of business, meaning that the small miller has gone out of business. I am not so sure that he has considered the question that they get the same price for grinding. Whether it is a small miller or a large miller, he gets the same price for grinding. If the large miller has made such tremendous profits as has been alleged—and I am not sure that it is all out of grinding because I think it is quite well known that some millers make quite large profits out of speculation in maize—so there must be something else wrong. The prices are the same.

But there are restrictive regulations.

No, every miller gets his quota of wheat, and ordinarily the small miller in a rural town should work more cheaply than the big miller.

Oh, no.

In any case, I wish to make this statement. The first matter that I dealt with when I became Minister of Agriculture was to determine the price of wheat for that year. I put to the head of the department two questions. I said to him, “Why this tremendous commission of 9d. for a bag of wheat? Surely people should be able to handle wheat at a smaller commission.” That was the first question. The second question was this: “It seemed to me that the difference in the price of wheat and meal was very much too large.” The reply was: “That is the price that the cost accountants have agreed to. That is the price that different committees on costing have suggested as the correct price for the miller.” I admit that I was not yet happy with this explanation, but since then we have appointed more committees to go into this question of the margin of profit to the millers. The Marketing Council appointed their Cost Accountants. I was not satisfied with that. I then approached my colleague the Minister of Commerce and Industries and asked him whether we could not get a joint committee to go into the matter. This was done and the reply was that the margin is not outrageous, the margin is not out of the way, that it cannot be said that they are making undue profits. That is my reply to the hon. member as far as millers are concerned.

Why is the price so high if they are only making a small margin of profit?

Well, the price of wheat is extraordinarily high in this country. The price of bread must naturally be higher if you allow millers and bakers the ordinary margin of cost. Most of this discussion arises out of the fact that Mr. Fotheringham alleged that he would be able to sell at 6d. per loaf if he were allowed to do so. Well, he was informed that he could sell at 6d„ but he did not do so. He is free to sell wholesale at 5¾d.

And retail, at how much?

He is free to sell at any price between 5¾d. and 6½d. per loaf.

It is not practical.

My suggestion is this. If I can make bread and sell it at a 6d. per loaf and still make a profit, I would sell at that price. I had a report from the Master Bakers’ Association on this, and they say that the price allowed to bakers is the correct price. I say that if Mr. Fotheringham can sell bread at 6d. and still show a profit, it seems to me to be very bad business on his part if he does not sell at that price. I would like to ask my hon. friends whether they know what the price of bread is in Australia.

About half of the price in South Africa.

The price of bread in Australia is 6½d. for cash and 7d. for credit. And that is for white bread, brown bread, or wholemeal. That is the price. I can give my hon. friend the latest figures. We must not forget that Australia is a wheat exporting country. The little wheat that we have been able to get in, we have got from Australia. Australia is a wheat exporting country and their wheat is two-thirds of our price. There the price is fixed at 6½d. for cash and 7d. for credit, so it seems to me that we cannot be so far out. Perhaps I had better just deal with a few of the matters which have been raised. The hon. member for Troyeville asked me to tell him exactly what the increases are. The increase of price from last year to the producer is 3/9d. per bag, to the miller it is 5d. and to the baker it is 3d. per bag. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) has asked me why not import flour. Well, the hon. member must realise the difficulty. I am not satisfied yet that standard bread was not the correct thing. If you get the proper meal and bake it properly you have a very wholesome bread.

You cannot mix beans with flour.

My hon. friend should make some enquiries into these things.

I have enquired.

His enquiries cannot have been too good

Why should it be mixed? Why cannot he mix it himself?

If you go to a miller today and ask for a bag of meal you get wheaten meal. The amount of mixed meal and mixed bread sold in this country is altogether negligible.

Why not let the people mix it themselves?

What does it matter, it seems such a trifle?

It is only a loophole for dishonesty.

No, there is no loophole; some people prefer to have meal mixed with Soya meal and the miller is allowed to put in 2 per cent. of Soya meal but he must mark it as mixed meal. The profit which can be made on mixed bread and mixed meal is altogether negligible. He is not allowed to put in more than 2 per cent. of Soya meal and 5 per cent. of Rye, which is almost as expensive as wheat, and 5 per cent. of Maize, which is also almost as expensive as wheat The profit he can make is negligible. The hon. member for Orange Grove has also asked me why we do not import more wheat, and why we do not produce more wheat. Well, this is not, such a very good country to produce wheat. You cannot produce so very much at the price, but I say that rather than let the people go short of bread I would prefer to put the price up to £2.

The world is full of wheat.

Oh, yes, and the world is also full of ships. I wish I could get the surplus commodities which are availbale in other parts of the world. If the hon. member would give me the ships I would be very pleased to get all these things.

†*The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and other hon. members are very much concerned over the fact that this vote appears here under Agriculture. I fail to see what difference it makes. Anyhow, I am responsible for this item. I am responsible for the price which the Wheat Board has fixed for flour and wheat, and it has to be found somewhere. I have to account for the money and that it why it comes under Agriculture, but the vote says clearly that it is an amount for the stabilisation of the price of bread. Last year we changed the heading of the item but the fact remains that I have to account for it.

To whom does the money go?

To the wheat farmers; they get 30/- per bag. The State finds the money and it is handed to the Wheat Board to pay for the wheat.

Does the Wheat Board get the money? To whom does the Government pay it?

To the Wheat Board, and the Wheat Board buys the wheat from the farmers at 30/- per bag. In regard to the other points I shall continue my reply in English.

†You see the position is this. Last year the price of wheat was put up to 26s. 3d. and 25s. 9d. per bag. That meant that the Government had to subsidise to the extent of £1,000,000. Well, the Government either had to do that or put up the price of bread by ½d., to cover the price of wheat, so the Government decided to subsidise. Last year the Government decided to increase the price of wheat to 30/- and 30/6d. That meant that it would take £2,000,000 to compensate the farmer if the price of bread remained stationary. Well, the Government decided then to continue paying £1,000,000 in subsidy but to let the other £1,000,000 be borne by the consumer in raising the price of bread. I am not going into the arguments why that was done unless hon. members specially want me to do so. But that is the position, and that is why the price is fixed at 6½d. I would remind the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) that the price of bread today is still lower than it was at the beginning of the war.

It is different bread.

The Health Department says it is better bread.

You cannot even get 1 lb. of flour today.

That is a different question and the hon. member knows why that is. I have explained to the House why the description of this Vote is correct and why it is given as stabilisation of price. I have tried to explain that the miller has to pay more. The miller this year gets more than he got last year when, of course, wheat was cheaper, and I have explained that position.

My question was how we can prevent the people on the platteland having to pay £1 19s. 6d.

Last year the price was far below 30/-, now it is 30/-. Last year it was 26s. 3d. and the year before 23s. 6d.

But now the flour is mixed up together with soya beans and the farmer cannot get flour, the people on the platteland cannot get fine meal.

He can buy the wheat.

Do you start from the assumption that they all get 30/-? But on the average farmers only get 26/-.

There are naturally various grades, but the fact remains that that is the price which the farmers themselves proposed at the Conference. They argued that if they got that price they would be satisfied and then they would co all in their power to produce.

The Minister’s speech was very disappointing. Unfortunately he failed to reply to the objections raised by all sides of the House. What he should have replied to was the question why the price of bread is 6½d. today? He should have replied to that question, both from the point of view of the consumer and the point of view of the producer. He did not even try to reply to it. There must have been something radically wrong with the Government in the last war or there is something wrong now. When the farmers got £3 for wheat in the last war the consumers had to pay 6½d. for bread. Now the wheat farmers on an average get 26s.

No.

Very well. They get a maximum of 30s. and the price of bread is 6½d. The difference is so tremendous that there must be something radically wrong.

The quality of the bread in those days was poor.

That does not explain the tremendous difference. Today the wheat farmers get an average of 26s. and in those days they got £3. There is a tremendous gap and the Minister cannot give us an explanation. We say that, the millers are now charging exorbitant prices. The difference between the price which the wheat farmer gets for his wheat and what the consumer has to pay for bread is quite inexplicable. There is something wrong. The millers are protected here by people like the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) and by similar turncoats. They are the supporters of monopolies, and one cannot say anything in this House against the millers. They also get protection from the Minister. It is quite inexplicable how the millers in the last war were able to pay £3 and supply bread for 6½d. and yet make a living while the wheat farmers today get a maximum of 30s. and the bread still costs 6½d. And yet the millers still come to the Government and say, “In Heaven’s name, do something, we cannot make a living.” One thing is certain, and that is that the millers will never vote against the Government. They will never vote for this side of the House. Why not? Because this side will say that if the consumer has to pay 6½d. for his bread then the wheat farmer can be paid a better price for his wheat. The wheat farmers are passing through very difficult times. Fertilisers are very expensive and hardly obtainable. Implements are terribly expensive, and practically unobtainable, but they have to produce. They get no help from the Government, but the Government expects them to produce. Everything they need is expensive but the utmost they can get for their wheat is £1 10s. and no more. Why does not the Minister study the price at which wheat is being imported today? It is a great deal more than 30s. Let him look at that, and here we are spending almost £600,000, and what for? To stabilise the price of wheat. The country is laughing at it. The price has been stabilised at the expense of the wheat farmers and the Minister simply refuses to answer our questions.

What the Minister has said is perfectly correct. And he is quite correct that Mr. Fotheringham is entitled to sell his bread at 5¾d., but what he does not quite appreciate is that it is impossible for him to sell his bread at 5¾d. wholesale and at 5¾d. retail, and the reason for fixing the price at 6½d. retail is to allow the retail margin of profit. If the minimum price is reduced to 5¼d. Mr. Fotheringham will sell his bread at 6d. retail. I may say for the information of the Minister that Mr. Fotheringham is selling at 6d. retail subject to the bread being sold on coupon. The difficulty is that it is the minimum price which has been increased. The difficulty does not arise from the increase in the maximum price. If the minimum price were reduced to 5¼d. no bread would be sold for more than 6d. Time will prove the test. I don’t think the Minister appreciates the strong feeling that has been aroused on the Rand on this matter. I would suggest that he should reduce the minimum price to 5¾d. and if he wishes to leave the maximum price at 6½d. he can do so.

The hon. the Minister gave us a reply here which cannot possibly satisfy even his own side of the House. The Minister by means of evasions tries to give the House the impression that the position is quite sound, but as the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has shown, he has not answered the questions that have been put to him. He tries to avoid giving any answers by pointing out that the price of wheat last year was fixed at 26/3d. and that the price of bread thereupon went up by ½d. per lb. An amount of £1,000,000 had to be provided for that purpose out of the pockets of the taxpayer. He tells us that the maximum price this year is 30/- and that the price of bread as a result has gone up by 1d. The consumer now has to pay ½d. more and the balance has to be made up by the State. We contend that it is unnecessary that the consumer should have to pay ½d. more and in support of this contention we point out that the price of bread during the last war was lower while the price of wheat was almost double what it is today. The Minister does not even try to reply to our statements. Is it so difficult to ask the millers to explain the position? Why does not the Minister say to them, “Look here, charges are being made that the bread is being sold at the same price as it was sold during the last war, when a great deal more was paid for the wheat. What is your explanation?” The Minister can ask them that question, and if the millers have a satisfactory answer they will no doubt vouchsafe it, because surely they don’t like to have all these charges continualy made against them. Year after year these charges are made and the Minister declines to go into them properly. The Minister in an interjection a little while ago remarked that the bread was worse in the last war. I know that in those days we had to eat the so-called Burton bread, but today with soya beans and mealies mixed in the flour the bread cannot be much better than it was then. Anyhow, in those days the farmers got £3 for a bag of wheat and today they get more than half less, while the price of bread is still the same. And now the price of bread has been put up and what is the result? The result is that the people of the towns who are not properly informed are inclined to blame the producers, and they take up the attitude that the farmers are being protected and that they have to pay. Is that fair? The Government is responsible for the fact that the consumers in the towns are under the impression that the farmers are being spoonfed. The millers did not go bankrupt when the price of wheat stood at £3. Are they likely to go bankrupt now if the price is 30/- without there being an increase in the price of bread? What evidence is there that there is any need for the raising of the price of bread? The Minister says that an investigation has been made. Well, one can prove a lot with figures but I don’t think that he will be able to explain this difference by quoting figures. He receives certain statistics which are so confused that nobody can make anything out of them. Until such time as the Minister has produced reasons why the wheat farmers could get £3 for their wheat in 1914—’18 without the price of bread being higher than it is today, we cannot possibly be satisfied.

There is another aspect of this matter which I want to deal with. It has repeatedly been stated that the farmers get £1 10s. for their wheat. The man in the street who does not produce wheat himself imagines that wheat throughout is sold at £1 10s. per bag. But that price is only paid for the best grade of wheat. Now I want to ask the Minister where this wheat of inferior quality gets to, this wheat for which a lower price is paid? As soon as wheat contains a certain percentage of foreign matter such as rye, wild oats, barley etc., the price goes down. What becomes of that wheat? It is thrown holus bolus into the mill and as it comes out so the consumer has to eat it. What becomes of the wheat for which a lower price is paid, the wheat for instance which has sprouted, not in the stack, but before we could cut it, as happened this year? What becomes of the wheat which is alleged to have developed blight in the stack? For thousands of bags a lower price is paid. That is where the miller makes his big profits. We remember that in the Free State a few years ago we were alleged to have had blight in our wheat, and that tremendous quantities of wheat had to be sold for 10s. and 12s. 6d. I am not at all satisfied yet in spite of the investigation that was made that we should have suffered such a heavy loss there. And then one also gets the bleached wheat, that is to say wheat which had to be dried and which bleached a little bit. What has become of that? How is the producer protected under the system by which milling takes place today without any sifting? One hardly dare risk buying meal today because one gets this tough stuff in the meal. I only mention rope. After three days it is so thready that one cannot eat the bread. That is the crux of the whole matter. The millers make profits through buying inferior wheat. What guarantee have we got about the quantity of first class flour that has to be in the bread? The pollard is in the stuff, practically all the bran is there, but how much first grade flour does the consumer get? How can the consumer be sure that the bread he buys consists one hundred per cent. of wheat which costs £1 10s. per bag, and that it is not made of wheat which has been bought at 12s., 13s. and 14s., because there was blight in it, or because it has suffered from some other disease. How is the public protected? My experience as a consumer, who although I am a wheat farmer, finds it convenient sometimes to buy meal, is that we sometimes buy inferior meal. It is no use sending wheat to a mill. The mill mills on a large scale and we practically exchange our wheat for meal. It suits our convenience because we don’t have to wait and that is why we sell our wheat and buy meal, but what guarantee has the consumer got? He eats inferior bread which does not contain the percentage of first class flour which it should contain. An enquiry should be instituted into the contents the meal should have, so that the consumer will not get bread containing hardly anything but bran, all the pollard and all kinds of bad stuff, which should not be there. I started off by saying that a certain percentage of foreign matter was allowed in the wheat, but if that foreign matter exceeds that certain percentage then it means a reduction in the grade of the wheat. It means that the miller buys the wheat more cheaply. If he mills that wheat he does not remove the foreign matter, he simply mills it in, and the consumer who buys the meal gets a large percentage of this foreign matter instead of the proper percentage of flour.

I wish to associate myself with the complaints raised by this side of the House because I feel that we are playing into the hands of the millers today, and we are doing so to such an extent that the country is suffering as a result. If there is something wrong with wheat, if it contains little kernel burn, it has to be sold as being below grade and we know that the price is very low then. I know of cases where the miller was prepared to make a trivial reduction of 6d. per bag, thus paying 6d. less than the fixed grade price of Al wheat. He was prepared to buy wheat suffering from this disease at that price. The miller was quite satisfied to pay 30/- per bag for that wheat instead of 30/6d. But he is not allowed to do so, and that wheat has to be marketed as being below grade, and the millers probably buy it at 13/3, 14/- or 15/- per bag. That wheat is milled and is sold to the public and the bread costs 6½d. as it is calculated on the basis of 30/6d. for the wheat. In other words, the wheat from which they make the bread does not by any means cost the millers 30/6d. The average price of wheat is now fixed at 26/- per bag but then we get years such as the present one when we have minor defects in our wheat. People have a little “kernel” burn or some of the wheat has sprouted and wheat from which first grade bread is produced is bought by the millers at a low price with the result that they make a profit which is totally out of proportion. Those profits on the large quantities of wheat bought by the millers were not taken into account when the profits which the millers should be entitled to make were fixed. I feel that there is a serious anomaly here, and the whole matter should be gone into. If we look at the huge profits which the millers make on the wheat they buy the public has a right to demand that a proper investigation shall be made into this whole question. The huge rise in the shares of milling companies has already been referred to. There must have been tremendous profits, especially in years like the present, otherwise the shares would not have gone up in the way they have done. I say that that applies particularly to years like the present, because we have had a considerable amount of rain this year and the farmers have found it difficult to get their crops in. This year more than other years we find small defects in our wheat with the result that our wheat is classified at a lower grade and is classified as below grade, but it makes no difference to the consumer. He does not benefit from it. And that is where the millers make their huge profits. Then there is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) declared that the wheat farmers were in clover because they got a fixed price, and then he told us that wheat could be imported more cheaply. Wheat has been imported into this country, but we find that the average price at which that wheat could be sold was 32/- per bag. The price was higher than the average price in our own country, so there is absolutely no truth in the contention that the country would have had cheaper bread if wheat had been imported. Another matter which should be borne in mind is this, would we have had as much bread as we need if the wheat farmers had not done their utmost to produce wheat. It should also be remembered that the costs of production have gone up tremendously. Our costs of production have gone up to a greater extent than people imagine. It is impossible for us to obtain the necessary fertilisers and there are only small parts of this country which can produce wheat without fertiliser. Don’t people realise the difference it makes in the production of wheat if we are unable to secure the requisite fertilisers. If the production of wheat drops by one bag per morgen it means that the costs of production go up by 3/- per bag. If that fact is taken into account it must be clear that our costs of production have gone up tremendously. It has also been stated that the wheat farmers have been benefited by this so-called subsidy which is paid out under this vote. That is not so. The profits which the wheat farmer is able to make on wheat have been fixed years ago, and no additional profits are allowed. It is only the increased costs of production which have been added to the price. No, I feel this, that the debate which has been carried on in this House can only lead to the consumer and the producer being put up against each other, and as hon. members opposite have raised a discussion in that spirit they have certainly rendered a disservice to this country. If ever there was a time when the producer and the consumer should co-operate because their interests are identical, this is the time. This side of the House is in favour of commodities, products, being supplied to the consumer as cheaply as possible. To me it is very clear however, where the fault lies in regard to this matter, and I say again that the unlawful profits which the millers make through their buying good wheat in abnormal circumstances at a low price should be gone into very carefully.

What is so striking is that the Minister has tried to reply to all the points raised here with the exception of the point in regard to the large profits which the millers are making. What is behind this business, that the Minister refused to answer this question concerning the large profits which the millers are making? I do believe that there is something behind it all. We have had this position, that he individual who is responsible for the report was more concerned with the protection of the report than the treatment of those who gave evidence, and it is clear to us that there must be something behind it all. When we proved to the Wheat Commission how much profit the millers had made I was told that I was making unfounded political allegations. That brings me to the point that I have very good reasons to be suspicious of what is behind the report. We had a body there which went very thoroughly into the whole question and which had its evidence all ship-shape. They gave the Lydenburg Cooperative Mill as an instance. They got 2s. 6d. per bag as milling fees and when the year was over it was proved that they had made a profit of 1s. on every bag. If that large mill which is run on strict business lines, and which has everything recorded in its books, shows that it gets 2s. 6d. per bag for milling, and if it makes a profit of 1s., then what about the other mills? That is the reason why I am suspicious. The report which the Minister hides himself behind is not worth the paper it is written on. I feel that I am entitled to say this, judging by the treatment meted out to us. As we on this side of the House have been insisting on an answer all afternoon, we now want to know why the Minister does not reply. I am not going to say any more. I only want the Minister once and for all to answer the point which we want a reply to.

There is another matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice and I want to put a question to him. I want to know whether British Basutoland, which is also a wheat producing country, comes under the control of the Union Government so far as this matter is concerned?

Which country is that, Basutoland?

Basutoland is protected by and comes under the British Government. Let us call it Basutoland so long as the Minister knows where it is. It is a wheat producing country and my question is whether it comes under the control of the Union Government in regard to the manufacture of bread. I say that in Basutoland white No. 1 meal is obtainable. It can be obtained there for sale to the natives but our white people are obliged to eat the bread which the Minister puts before us. Bread is a staple food of the workers and of the less privileged classes. Bread and a bit of meat, and also mealie meal. On a later occasion I shall speak about mealie meal. The cow meal which I give to my cows is better than the mealie meal which white people have to buy now to eat at table. That is the result of the control exercised by the Minister. In my home the bread which we eat is baked at home ever since I was a baby. But with the best will in the world it is impossible to make decent bread, edible bread, of this mixed meal unless it is baked fresh every day. And we know there are large families which have to bake large quantities at the same time, and who cannot do it every day. I can confirm what another member on this side of the House has said, that a family today gets less bread out of the same quantity of meal than they used to get in the past out of pure flour. And then they get this useless bread. The Minister must give his attention to this matter. He should be impressed by what we have said because we are dealing here with a staple food of a large section of the community. The Minister must see to it that those people get bread which is edible.

I do not know whether the Minister realises that the whole trouble in connection with the fixation of prices is due to the fact that the composition of the Wheat Control Board is altogether wrong. For that reason I think that the Government should go into this matter, with a view to seeing whether a change cannot be brought about in this respect. In the first place the Minister will agree with me that the respresentation of wheat farmers on the Wheat Control Board is of such a nature that they have no decisive influence on the Control Board. There are the millers and the capitalists. They have the say. Their say is of such a nature that one might say they have practically the sole say, and I say that the time has arrived for us to bring about a change.

But you are now insulting the other members of the Wheat Board.

No, I do not insult them. But I want to say this, that in comparison with the interests which they represent, the millers have much greater representation on the Wheat Control Board than the wheat farmers.

Do you know what the representation is?

Of course I know it, otherwise I would not say this. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he wants to deny this, since he is now taking the part of the millers.

No, I am not doing it.

You are trying to defend them. Why are you shaking your head now?

The hon. member must address the Chair.

The interjection made by the Minister of Agriculture clearly gave me the impression that he represents the millers or, at any rate, that he is engaged in representing them, and I want to ask him explicitly whether he is doing that. He dare not deny it. Then I also want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he knows that all the small millers who did very good work in the past and who assisted the wheat farmers, especially in the sparsely populated parts of the country, are now facing ruin, and I should like to know from him why the Government put a stop to the activities of the small millers. The Minister says that he is aware of the position, and in that case he ought to be aware of the fact that a small miller cannot obtain a licence. Why is that? In my constituency on the settlements, wheat is produced on a fairly large scale and whenever application is made for a licence to erect a mill, these people cannot get the licence. I should very much like to have a reply from the Minister on this point. I should just like to say this to the Minister, that in my opinion it is scandalous that the big millers should have all those powers and rights in their hands and that they are enabled to kill the small millers. Let me tell him that those people are rendering an important service to the farmers in that area, especially in the North-West, and that the people in those areas have to suffer a great deal of inconvenience as a result of the action of the Government. No, the Minister may try to defend the big millers, but I want to tell him that he is responsible for the fact that the people in those areas have to suffer inconvenience. Members on the other side, who supported the Minister, told us that we could import wheat at a much cheaper price than that obtained by our farmers. Let me point out to them that imported wheat, which previously came from Canada usually, and which was imported because the millers intimated that they must have th? wheat for the purpose of blending it with our wheat so as to get the right mixture—that was their excuse—that that wheat is produced in the North-West. I do not know whether the Minister is deliberately ignorant and whether he pretends to be ignorant, but let me tell him that the same wheat which they imported for certain purposes, can be obtained in the North Western parts where the same wheat is produced which is necessary for the blending. If that is the case, why do you give a bigger price for that imported wheat than that which is given to the farmers who can produce the same wheat in the North Western parts? Since that is the case, you will agree with me that the Minister is either ignorant or that he is reckless in connection with the interests of wheat farmers. No, the time has arrived for us to see to it that justice is done to the people of our own country, and that we do not provide better facilities to other countries than those we provide to our own people. That is precisely where I find fault with the Minister. He pretends that he knows so much, but when it comes to realities in this House, then he knows nothing in connection with those matters which he must control. I want to put this further question to the Minister, whether he knows that there is a certain section of the country which can obtain white flour even today, whilst the rest of the population is debarred from obtaining white flour. I want to protest against the fact that preference is given to a certain section of the population, that section which does not work very hard but which nevertheless succeeds in living on the fat of the land, as against the majority of the people. We know who that section is.

Why don’t you say it is the Jews?

I say that certain people obtain white flour in our country, while others cannot get it. That is not just, nor is it reasonable, and that type of thing-must come to an end, that certain people in the country should be afforded preferential treatment and that they should receive commodities to which they are not entitled. Let us all be placed on an equal footing at least; why should they have privileges which others do not enjoy? I hope that the Minister will come to the conclusion that the composition of the Wheat Control Board is altogether wrong, and that something ought to de done to bring about a change in the future.

This is the first time that this House has an opportunity of discussing this question of the control of buildings, and I think that after everything which has taken place since the restriction was imposed on building, we are entitled to demand a statement from the Minister. The Minister suddenly imposed restrictions on building in the middle of last year. No one could erect a building costing more than £100 without special leave from the Minister. All buildingmaterials were frozen, some of them 100 per cent., others 75 per cent. etc. It was extremely difficult for anyone to obtain the necessary building materials. It is, of course, possible for the Minister to say that this step was necessary because all the employees and all the building materials were required for war purposes. It was necessary to erect defence works, hospitals, camps, etc., everywhere in the country. The Minister can say that all the materials and labour were required in connection with that, and that they were required urgently.

The hon. member cannot discuss Public Works in general, at this juncture. He may only discuss the increase in the Vote.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that this is the first time that control of building has been introduced. In the previous Budget there was no Controller of Building Materials, and this is the first opportunity we have of discussing the matter. You will observe that nothing appears in column 1.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to say that the Minister can say that all the labour and building materials were required for war purposes; but a feeling has arisen in the country, and this is something in connection with which the Minister owes us a statement, that in those cases where permits were issued, favouritism was shown. People who urgently required a building, a building not only for their personal interests, made application because the building was also in the public interests, but their application was refused. But when a certain section of the population makes application, then the permits simply stream in. That is the impression which prevails in the country.

Are you making an accusation that there is favouritism?

I say that that is the impression which has been created in the country and for that reason I want the Minister to explain to us today on which principle he determined the importance of buildings. What, in his opinion, were the important buildings in respect of which permits were issued? I should like the Minister to tell us that clearly. In the second place, I want to put this question to the Minister. As far as one can ascertain the largest number of buildings in connection with the war and defence have now been completed. The greatest portion of the programme has been completed, and there is not the same necessity to concentrate all materials and labour on that. For that reason I should like to know from the Minister whether the time has not arrived for him to relax a little in so far as this matter is concerned. As a result of building restrictions since June, an enormous need for housing accommodation has arisen in the country. Wherever one goes, in big places and in small places, one finds a need for housing accommodation and people cannot obtain houses. Well, the most urgent portion of the defence programme has been completed and now I want to know from the Minister whether he contemplates giving a little rope in the future, and whether he will be prepared to give favourable consideration to applications for permits in the future. I shall be glad to have this reply from the Minister.

The speech of the hon. member is a perfectly reasonable one. This is the first time this has appeared on the Estimates, and it is right, proper and fitting that the House should have some knowledge of the work of the Building Controller, who happens to be myself. I assumed control at the beginning of July. Prior to that many permits had been granted by the Controller of Man Power for buildings, and it was necessary, in order to ascertain the position, to insert an advertisement in the Press cancelling the permits granted by the Controller if building had not started by the 15th August. And the many complaints are due to the fact that many of those buildings had been started just prior to the 15th August-buildings which had never been passed by me. I brought into existence a Building Council, representative of all parties and persons interested in building, the architects, the Labour Department, the Defence Department, the Public Works Department, Municipalities and master builders, and we discussed the position as we understood it to be at that date, and had we taken the step, that probably should have been taken, an embargo would have been placed on all building, I realised that that would have been fatal so far as the industry generally is concerned, and so far as the Government is concerned, and we agreed to allow certain classes of building to proceed. As the hon. member pointed out, at that time the Defence Department was employing large numbers of builders, nearly all the artisans in the various places of South Africa, but particularly on the coast, in Durban, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. That position has eased considerably.

On what principle do you grant permits?

On this principle, if application is made for the building of a house under £1,500 or £1,600 that application is granted. Hon. members have seen me with regard to houses of £2,500 and £3,000. In that case permission has been given to enable people to spend £1,500 or £1,600 on a house to get it started. I as Building Controller am anxious that the position should be restored as speedily as possible, but there are certain classes of buildings which are taboo—bioscopes and theatres and places of that description, but what we encourage is buildings of the type I have described. Municipalities have been asked to get on with their sub-economic housing and economic housing schemes. These figures which I am going to quote will show that we have not been holding up anything more than we could help. 1,940 permits have been granted since the 9th July, 1942, involving a total amount of £3,500,000. The permits passed are at the rate of approximately £619,000 per month or about £7,500,000 per annum.

Are these entirely private buildings?

Oh no, there are Government buildings for which 23 permits have been granted, involving £170,000. The Transvaal Provincial Administration has had 74 permits granted including permits for two large hospital schemes, involving over £500,000, the Cape Provincial Administration 20 permits, Natal 23, the Free State 4, the Railways and Harbours 7. Fourteen permits for sub-economic houses have been granted involving an amount of £277,000 and 243 permits for Municipal and Public Utilities involving £1,200,000. All that has been done. I am as anxious as possible to grant permits and if hon. members have any complaints I would like to hear of them.

The Defence Department does not come into it.

No, I have no control over Defence, but Defence building is declining and it will enable us to grant further releases of permits. We have not refused any permits for buildings of £1,500 or £1,600, but what we have done is to alter the design of architects, we have made them substitute South African material for imported material where we felt that they had too much imported material in their designs. And if hon. members will look at this vote they will see an amount of £500 for the work of the Investigating Committee. That Committee is brought into being for the purpose of finding substitute materials for imported materials, and I can assure the House that that Committee has done very valuable work. Many of the things which we depended on so far as housing was concerned, such as sewerage and sanitary ware, which formerly used to be imported, are now manufactured in South Africa Advertisements in respect of a competition have been published in the Press to try and get a concrete roof to take the place of wood. This Committee has succeeded to a certain extent, but it is possible that others may be able to put forward a better proposition, and I hope at the beginning of next month to have a house erected in Johannesburg built wholly of South African material carrying a tile or slate roof. If any hon. members have any complaints about people not having received a fair deal I shall be pleased if the matter is brought to my notice to try and rectify it. But the complaints have been few and far between.

It was very interesting to listen to the Minister, and I just want to touch upon his last remark. He said that an amount of £5,000 was being made available for investigation into the possibility of manufacturing building materials locally. He was mistaken, the amount was only £500. He says that defence is not included in this vote, because he has no control over defence. I know that “defence” controls all of us. For that very reason I want to say something in regard to this vote. A number of public works in respect of which money was voted were discontinued, and control of building materials was introduced, not only control over the importation of building materials but everything which existed here was placed under control by the body over which the Minister has no control and over which we have no control either. I protest against that state of affairs. Housing is one of the biggest problems today and ten times as many houses should have been built in order to meet the needs. That is essential. But everything is spent on so called defence. All our materials were attached for that purpose. Now the Minister wants to investigate the question of manufacturing local materials. One of the necessary items in connection with housing is cement. There again nearly everything is swallowed by defence. The people of South Africa get what they require little by little. I know what takes place in my home town because I take a great deal of interest in its development. People cannot obtain employment because everything has been brought to a standstill and then they have no alternative but to enlist. I protest against this system. The first requirement of the people is housing.

One realises that control is a necessity and one understands that all material is frozen. Now, if one sends in an application for a single door or a single window or for any material one has to fill in a form and one has to say where and from whom one wants to buy that article. The controllers are busy people and we are told that they are understaffed and overworked. These are the reasons given as to why they are so slow in replying; when you have received a permit it is quite possible that the particular storekeeper from whom you want to buy has sold out. Now you cannot under your permit go to another dealer; you have to go back to the controller and make a fresh application and say everything all over again—whom you want to buy from and all the rest of it, and at the end of a few months you may get a reply, and the same thing happens all over again. That seems unnesessarily annoying. Surely the controller has a full list of all the frozen articles and he must know how many doors and windows there are in the country, and he can at once say “You can get what you need”. The present method seems unnecessary, and if there are any reasons for it, perhaps the Minister will tell us what they are, because control is unpopular, it is intensely unpopular, and to aggravate that unpopularity by methods of this sort is wrong. I am interested to hear that permits are being given for people to build wherever possible. I have a case which was brought to my notice the other day. It was the case of a farmer living under the Drakensberg. He wanted no material—the material was all on the farm. He wanted to put up a building. The building was to be thatched, but the bricks were to be made on the farm, and all the material was there, but the controller refused to give him a permit. No reason was given. Why aggravate people in this manner? It does not seem to me that the spirit of control is affected in any way by putting up a house on a farm and yet the application was refused. I shall give the Minister the name of the man concerned outside the House, but these are points which he should take up with the controller. I am apropos of this very much reminded of an old story where the great painter Millet was asked how he got his wonderful colours in his pictures and how he mixed his paints. And his reply was “My friend, I mix my paint with brain”. If some of these controllers could mix their work with brains we would get on very much better.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) mentioned a case here just now which it is difficult to understand. I would also like to quote a case and ask the Minister to say on which grounds the application was refused. This occurred in the main town of my constituency, George. You know that recently the headquarters of the South-Western Defence Force was transferred from Oudtshoorn to George. That caused a large additional population. There is a big Air School Camp. This also brought about an increase in the population. Refugees from other countries were sent there and that resulted in an increased population. There is no accommodation for people who pass through George and who want to stay overnight; there is no accommodation to be had at an hotel. One cannot obtain a house, nor a room at the hotel. Then one of the hotels burned down and the person who then took over the building applied for a permit to repair it. There is no boarding to be had at all. He gave the Minister the assurance that he required no building materials because he had them. The Minister could have granted a permit on condition that he would not apply for materials. Why was that permit refused? That is one of the things which passes all understanding. This control is exercised unwisely. I personally saw the Minister in Pretoria in regard to the matter, and he said that I should wait for a little while. I hope he will now tell us why this permit was refused.

I would like to have a little information from the Minister of Public Works, because I notice that an additional amount is being asked for under Vote T for committee members who are not civil servants. Can he give us the assurance that none of the civil servants receives an allowance under this Vote? With regard to the appointment of additional staff, I think the time has arrived for the Minister to change the position in his department. Can he give me the name of one Afrikaner whom he appointed as Chief Controller for the purpose of controlling building materials? As far as my knowledge goes, only English-speaking civil servants who retired were appointed temporarily again. Are they the only people with brains who can control such matters? It is remarkable, but the Minister is known for it that he’ obstructs and retards the progress of Afrikaners in his department, and that he has no time for them. At a later date, in connection with the Post Office, we shall again bring this matter before the House and ask for reasons, but it is a shame that the Minister should carry on in this way. We shall not tolerate it in the future that he promotes the interests of only one section of the population and does not take into consideration the other section. With regard to the permit system, I want to ask him whether he really knows on what basis these permits are granted. I should like to hear from him why certain members of the public can obtain permits while others cannot and why in certain cases materials were refused which the Department of Defence does not require. Dealers are in a position to sell these goods, and the Department of Defence does not require them, but permits are nevertheless refused to certain persons. It is not just and fair. The time has arrived for the Minister to look into these matters and not only to listen to officials who are unsympathetic towards a certain section of the people. What allowances are paid to these retired officials who are re-appointed now? It is not stated here that they are in receipt of an allowance, but I should like to know what allowances are paid to them. There are a large number of these officials who have the sole say in connection with building materials. Then I want to ask him why the platteland is neglected and why people in the platteland cannot obtain permits for the construction of buildings? Cannot arrangements be made so that materials will be available not only to the building contractors of the large cities, but so that a portion will be made available for building contractors in the smaller towns? These smaller towns and the platteland districts can no longer be treated in this way by a Minister who has no sympathy for the platteland and who knows nothing about the conditions there. He harms the platteland as much as he can, and continually demonstrates that he has no sympathy for the platteland. I have already invited him to visit the platteland and to convince himself that these people are also entitled to certain privileges which other people enjoy. He has not done this.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that Municipalities had been told that they could go ahead with their sub-economic housing schemes, and I assume that that would not have been done if there were not sufficient material available for the purpose. I want therefore to take this opportunity of putting a specific question to the Minister. I want to ask whether there is sufficient timber for flooring material for sub-economic housing schemes. I ask that on account of the following experience of mine. The Worcester Municipality has for some time been engaged on a sub-economic housing scheme for its Native population, and the houses they are erecting have cement floors which are strongly objected to by the people who will have to live in the houses. I know that some time ago it was the deliberate policy to put cement floors into this type of house, but that is not the case in this instance, because at the instance of the local community I approached the municipality and the engineer and put to him a specific request whether wooden floors could not be provided for these houses. The reply was that the Engineer and the Council had no objection, but that the timber was absolutely unobtainable. In view of the Minister’s statement that Municipalities have been told that they can go ahead with their sub-economic housing schemes, and the obvious implication that carries with it that the necessary materials are available, I want to ask whether or not the timber for flooring in sub-economic housing schemes is available in the country?

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) he asks whether there is flooring available for sub-economic housing. He objects to cement flooring. The Central Housing Board, in consultation with the buiding control, framed plans suitable for sub-economic housing. Unfortunately those plans provided cement floors, and in Cape Town and coastal towns cement floors are useless. We are anxious to find something that will be a substitute for ordinary flooring, and they are turning out a material in Durban which will be just as effective as ordinary flooring, it is made from a composition of wattle bark after the tanning has been extracted. I cannot give hon. members any further information, but I hope this is going to solve the question for sub-economic and also ordinary houses.

Has that been used anywhere?

Experiments have been satisfactory, the material has been sent to the University of Witwatersrand, where tests are being carried out. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), if he will listen to me, complained bitterly that no Afrikaansspeaking person has been appointed a controller. He confined the whole of his remarks against the Controller of Building Material. Now, the man in charge of that is Mnr. Borckenhagen.

No, he is not the head of the Building Control, you know it as well as I do.

Since when has Borckenhagen …

been controller? Practically from the inception. Mr. Holgate was Controller of Building Material till about November, and Mr. Borckenhagen was appointed when Mr. Hoigate became Deputy-Controller of Building. I suppose Mr. Keet is not Afrikaans-speaking either?

He cannot speak Afrikaans, I mean a man who can speak Afrikaans properly.

Can he speak better Afrikaans than you can?

Then the hon. member talks about favouritism. I don’t know anything at all about favouritism.

Don’t you?

No, I don’t, I wan’t you to give me a case or cases that have been turned down.

It is not cases that are turned down, but cases that are turned up.

These people have nothing to complain about, because when they get permission to build that implies that they can get the materials to build with. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) referred to two specific cases, and I know about both of them. In the policy that we adopted we excluded hotels and guest houses, and both these come under that category. They were not turned down, they were asked to make application in six months time. At that particular time we did not know how far we could go with houses up to £1,400 or £1,500. We wanted to encourage that class of building. The hon. member for East Griqualand referred to the difficulties in regard to material. I have nothing to do with building material, I am merely Controller of Building, but a permit granted by the Controller of Building enables a man to carry out the building that has been passed with the necessary materials.

What we complain of is that there is differentiation between one applicant and another. I will quote a case in point. I wanted to build cotages for workmen on my farm. I applied and after considerable time I got permission to build them, but the permission given to me was so circumscribed in regard to a tremendous amount of necessities in these houses which I was not allowed to put in. I could not put in wooden floors; I could not put in electric light and half-a-dozen other things. Then, Mr. Chairman, a short time ago a friend of mine built a house, and after about a year, something went wrong with the floors. It is quite a nice house, it cost about £2,000, but you could not walk on the floors because they had rotted underneath. He applied for permission to put in new floors, but they would not grant him permission. Now, here was a house in every way satisfactory, but nobody could live in it because the floors had given way, and the Minister will not allow new floors to be put in.

There is no timber.

I would like the hon. Minister to go to Hermanus and see the palaces there that Cape Town’s idle rich are putting up along the seashore. Many of them were started only a few months ago, or at any rate within the last year, and many are now completed or practically completed. These are not tenements or houses under a sub-economic housing scheme, but palaces for the idle rich, the play boys of Cape Town and their friends who go and spend those well-earned and necessary week-ends which the late Minister of Commerce and Industries advised us all to take. That is what we call differentiation.

Is there timber in those houses?

I do not know, but there is a lot of very good bricks in those houses. That is the differentiation we object to, and I would like the Minister to enquire into that. These palaces are being put up there. Where a man has a house and the floors give in, and it is absolutely necessary to put in new floors, he is not allowed to do so. If a man wants to build houses for his workmen, he is circumscribed as to what he is allowed to put in. Then there is another point, this is a dictatorial department, and many of the officials in this dictatorial department are acquiring very dictatorial manners, and I think if the Minister were to send a circular round that department to the effect that they should at any rate show a certain amount of courtesy to people who come to see them about business, it would be very beneficial indeed. It is a general complaint that if you go into an office in this department you are treated as mud. The Opposition are accustomed to be treated as mud, whether we deserve it or not. If the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) were to go in there, he would also be treated as mud.

Well, that is all right.

That would be perfectly correct. But Mr. Chairman, we complain of this differentiation; why should I be treated as mud, who do not deserve it, and the hon. member for Kensington, be treated in the same manner as I am? But, Mr. Chairman, there is a genuine ground of complaint that they are in this department adopting a dictatorial attitude. There is a great lack of courtesy in that department, and I hope a word from the Minister will be able to put that matter right.

There is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Senator.

No, no, not yet.

He talks about palaces at Hermanus. I went out to Hermanus and I saw some of them, but as I explained before, this control only came into existence at the beginning of July. On the 15th August I caused an advertisement to be inserted cancelling all permits that had been issued for buildings which had not started by the 15th August. We only gave them three days notice. These buildings that are complained of started before that date. With regard to the dictatorial attitude of officials in the department, I myself have taken up that matter with some of these people, and I am hoping that we will have no repetition of it. Unfortunately I have to agree with what the hon. member says, some instances have occurred, I have had them brought to my notice, and I have taken the necessary action. He complains about not getting floor boards. Well, Mr. Chairman, I told hon. members that when a permit is granted for buildings that includes all the necessary things to carry on those buildings. But they have no timber to give you, that is the trouble. I have already mentioned that an investigating committee is pushing on enquiries with regard to some substitute for flooring, and I hope they will be successful. With regard to these palaces at Hermanus, I do not suppose hon. members would like me to take up the attitude that buildings partially erected must be stopped. All you have to do is to go to Muizenberg. There hotels and a cinema are being put up, and there is a road house just before you get to Muizenberg, these started before the 15th August. That is the trouble, I have inherited this. I want to make it quite clear that that class of building has no hope of being permitted under present conditions.

The hon. Minister says that flooring boards cannot be obtained, but I know of cases where permission was refused although they had boards. They still have the boards today, but these people are not allowed to build. The Minister also referred to sub-economic housing. I want to tell him that in our area the poor people say that the Government has now discovered a solution to the poor white problem. They say that the Government permits people to build houses which are of such a nature that the people who live in them will all die, and that the poor white problem will then be solved for the Government. I want the Minister to understand that houses are being built in which Europeans have to live, houses with sand or mud floors, without doors, without inside doors, with a galvanised iron roof, and without a ceiling. If a permit is granted to build under those circumstances, it does not help at all, because these people who have to live in these houses will all die. It is the poor people who require these houses, because they cannot afford to pay rent. Surely steps can be taken to see to it that these people are provided with flooring boards. They can make some plan, because the municipality is prevented from making flooring boards, even though they can get them secondhand. Then these poor people also have to live in a house which has a sand or mud floor. I should like to see, if permits are granted to these people to build, that care is taken that they can obtain the necessary material. It is no use issuing permits if the materials are not available. As the houses have to be built at present, the people living in them will all die.

The Minister wanted to mislead this House.

Order, order.

It is out of order to say that the Minister is misleading the House.

Withdraw.

In that case I will say that the Minister tried to tell this House something which is not correct.

Order.

He knew very well what I was talking about. The discussion concerned building materials, and he wanted to make this House believe that what I had said was wrong. He wanted to give us to understand that the Controller in the Cape Province is an Afrikaans-speaking person and that therefore my facts were not correct. I think that this is not only unreasonable on the part of the Minister, but it is unfair. The Minister ought to know that Mr. Harvey is not the sub-controller, but that he has the sole say in connection with permits and building materials in the Cape Province. He ought to know that unless Mr. Harvey gives his consent, one cannot obtain building materials. He knows that the Controller in Pretoria has no say in the Cape Province. I notice that the Minister of Justice is trying to pass on information to the Minister. I think it will be much better if the Minister of Justice confines himself to his own department. I think it will be very much better if he fully acquaints himself with matters concerning his own department, instead of sitting here and eating peppermints and then not being able to give a proper reply because he has a peppermint in his mouth. Mr. Harvey is an ex-civil servant. I should like to hear from the Minister what such an ex-civil servant receives. The Minister tries to make out that ex-civil servants are the only people who are prepared to do something for the State free of charge. I should like to know what such an ex-civil servant is paid. I am entitled to this information, because an additional amount is being asked for here. I have nothing against Mr. Harvey personally, but my argument was that there was not a single Afrikaansspeaking controller in the Cape Province. What happened then? Instead of the Minister telling us what the position is, he wanted to sidetrack me and refer me to the Transvaal although he knew very well that that Controller in the Transvaal has no say in the Cape Province. I hope that the Minister will not from time to time try to take in the House in this manner.

Order!

Yes, that hon. member must wait until the day he becomes a Minister, and then he can express his opinion.

I think the hon. Minister of his own accord ought tp try and explain to us why it is necessary for him at this particular time suddenly to spend this large sum on motor transport. I think the Minister of Finance will agree with me when I say that nothing ought to appear in a Supplementary Budget which can be postponed at all in the new year. That is a sound principle. Only such items as cannot be postponed under any circumstances should appear in a Supplementary Budget. That is number one. The Minister must satisfy us that the world would have come to an end if these motor cars had not been provided to the officials. Were these motor cars so urgently required that they could not wait until the money was voted in the new year?

No further motor cars are being imported.

Why must they be bought before the new year?

It is no reply to say that motor cars are no longer being imported.

Were these motor cars bought out of charitable motives towards those people who require them? I think the House will agree with me that it is a principle on which we must insist that nothing of a supplementary nature must figure in a Budget if it can be postponed at all until the next year. We know that these motor cars were not purchased for military purposes, otherwise we would be told that this is something which is necessary in connection with war services, and that it was so important that it could not be postponed. But these motor cars were bought for ordinary officials. We live in times when every person is compelled to use a motor car as little as possible. Here, it would seem, that the Government is encouraging people to buy motor cars. I think it is the first time in the history of Parliament that we ask for £46,000 for the purchase of motor cars in a Supplementary Budget.

There is an increase of about 120 per cent.

Yes, there is an increase of more than 100 per cent., and I think that we are entitled to a statement from the Minister.

I should like to know on what basis the hon. Minister proposes to buy these motor cars. He will remember that last year the Auditor-General objected to the fact that motor cars were bought through the Government garages. The Auditor-General drew our attention to the fact that these purchases went through one big motor firm in Pretoria, and that this firm then received commission on all the purchases made by the Government. I should like to know whether in this case effect is given to the recommendation of the Auditor-General, namely, that these purchases must take place not only through one person but by means of open competition. This is an important matter. If the Minister places all the purchases in the hands of one person, then that person makes an enormous profit. We should like to know whether the Minister is carrying out the suggestions of the Auditor-General.

I am not going into the question raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) but the number of cars at present in use are getting to the end of their life, and other cars have to take their place, and moreover there has been a tremendous increase in the work of the Government garage, and these cars are essential.

Are the drivers careless now?

It is not a question of careless drivers. It is the extra work in connection with the war. Take social welfare. In 1940—’41, the monthly account for social welfare was £338, this month (April, 1942) it was £473. The Mint account has gone up about 400 per cent.

You should have anticipated that.

I think you are right, but the point is that the Government require these cars. We have to satisfy the Treasury.

They seem to be easily satisfied.

They were far from satisfied. With regard to the other point the hon. member referred to, there is a board which deals with that as the result of the Auditor-General’s report.

I do not think it is reasonable on the part of the Minister not to reply to this question properly. I know that there were complaints in the Defence Department when the first batch of motor cars were purchased. Thousands of pounds of profit were made in that transaction, and today they buy their motor cars direct from the factory, and I should like to know why the Government cannot do this as well. It is said that these motor cars are bought through agents who receive big profits. That is surely unnecessary. Why must they be bought through one person?

They are bought through the Tender Board.

Then the Tender Board should buy the cars direct from the factory. Why must they be bought through agents? The other day I saw a beautiful car belonging to the Government. It was marked GG and the person who drove the car came round a bend so quickly that there is probably nothing left of the car today. If the Government is so anxious or concerned about the position, then they should at least see to it that this sort of thing does not take place. They themselves must exercise care. The original estimate was £34,000, Now an additional £46,000 is being asked for; in other words, there is an increase of more than 100 per cent. If the Minister is not competent enough to draw up his estimates, then he must come and tell us. In this case the Minister is 136 per cent out of his figures. I think that there is definitely something wrong. There is something behind this thing, and we should like to know what it is.

I really do not think that the hon. Minister can expect us to be satisfied with his reply, when he says that a large number of cars became unfit for the road just at this particular time. We can understand that there is the usual depreciation on motor cars, and that officials who used their own motor cars in the past can no longer do so, or that the Government is now short of supplies, but surely we cannot accept it as a fact that such a large number of motor cars became unfit for the road just at this particular time, so that the Minister is forced to come here with additional estimates, in which he asks for an additional £46,000. If the Minister cannot give us another explanation, we cannot accept this amount under any circumstances, and I suggest that the sum of £46,000 should be deleted.

It is very difficult to follow the mental processes of some hon. members opposite. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) gets up and says it is a horrible thing, it is a financial sin of the first order to put down so large an amount on the Additional Estimates, talking, sir, as if we were living in normal times. We have been listening the whole afternoon to a debate in which it was stressed that you cannot even put a new wooden floor in a house today. Why? Because there are no wooden floors to put in. The hon. gentleman knows that the supply of rubber in this country is not 10 per cent. of the demand; he knows, or he ought to know, that when America switched off from the manufacture of cars to munition production twelve months ago, and ceased to make a single motor car, there were 8,000 new motor cars only in this country, this country had a stock only of 8,000 new motor cars to meet private needs and the needs of the Government. These very same gentlemen who are now moving to delete this item and who criticise the Government because it stepped in and bought these cars, are the very same gentlemen who, if the Government had not done so, if the Government had missed the chance of doing this, would have got up and would have wagged their fingers at the Government from the Opposition benches and they would have said “You are absolutely unbusinesslike. You missed a chance and the Government cannot function because they did not get those cars.” And they would say, “And why cannot it function?—because when you have a chance of buying cars you fail to do so.” The task of trying to get any sort of agreement from the Opposition is really an impossible one. Whatever you do is wrong and therefore it is just as well to go ahead and let the Opposition say what they like. Now the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) has moved the deletion of this without knowing anything about the matter. Supposing the Minister said, “Very well, I am sorry I have upset the Opposition. I shall accept your motion for the deletion of this item.” What would it mean? I suppose that these cars are needed for the use of the Government Garage, one must assume that they have reported that they need those cars and that they have convinced the Treasury, the very vigilant Treasury, of their needs. I hope next time the hon. member goes to Pretoria and has to use an official car he will be able to get one. Or let us assume that there is a change of Government and he becomes a Minister and he has need of a car, and he cannot get one—I hope he will realise in that event, which is very unlikely—that the fact of his being unable to get a car is due to his having queered the Government’s pitch. It is unreasonable and the atitude of the hon. member is unreasonable. Now, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) raised a point here. This is a hardy annual at the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee. It concerns not the purchase of cars for the Government Garage. If the hon. member will cast his mind back, these purchases in respect of which commission was paid to a certain firm in Pretoria, were purchases for the Police and the Defence Department, not purchases for the Government Garage, because those purchases are made by public tender under the authority of the Treasury.

Vote put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—64:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Egeland, L.

Friedlander, A

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P. V. G

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—50:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst. B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

I just want to put a few questions to the Minister in connection with the expenditure on this vote. I notice that there is an amount here of £640 for the purchase of a motor boat. I do not know whether the Minister now proposes to deport the Asiatics by means of a motor boat, because this in connection with immigration. I should like to know on what this amount is being spent. I do not know what the position is, and I put this question only with a view of obtaining information.

In connection with these votes on the Additional Estimates, I think that it will be very desirable if, when the vote in question is discussed, the Minister concerned can give the House some information. This will save time. The Minister of Finance gives an outline, when he proposes that the House should go into Committee, but he does not give the details of these votes. Here we are dealing with a new vote, and I think that the Minister ought to get up and give us the information. I am thinking especially of the second item, namely an amount of £420 for overseas publicity which has not been voted hitherto. It is described as follows in the estimates: “Publicity outside the Union (including subscription to the United Nations’ Information Office, New York).” We do not know what this relates to, but we should very much like to know what type of nonsense this is. There is enough absurd publicity in South Africa in connection with the war, and also in other countries, and it is not necessary for us to contribute this further money in respect of publicity in the United States. I must say that the name United Nations has been ill-chosen in connection with New York, if one looks at the quarrel which is going on in the North between the Americans and the English.

This refers to publicity in New York and not in Hollywood.

There I did, at any rate, make a success of one thing, which is more than that hon. member can say. I wonder whether this matter has any connection with the propaganda which comes from New York to this country. I want to object to the fact that the consular official of another country should furnish information in our country which is nothing but political propaganda. I have no objection to a country advertising itself in another country, but in this case brochures, which contain nothing but pure political propaganda, are sent to members by the consular official of the United States. The Minister ought to look at it. It is beyond the pale of ordinary etiquette that one country should do this to another country. These brochures contain lovely pictures, but they are nothing but political propaganda. It is war propaganda and if it is necessary to make war propaganda, then let the Government of the country do it, but it is unheard of that another government should make all sorts of propaganda through the medium of its consular officials. I hope that the Government will put a stop to this, and will point out to the American Consulate that this may not be done. There is sufficient distasteful propaganda on the part of our own Government, and we do not need the propaganda of another government as well. This emanates officially from the American Consulate, and I hope that the Minister will put a stop to this and that he will tell us why this £420 has to be voted for an information office in New York.

Perhaps it would save discussion if I explained this item of £420 under the heading “Publicity.” This amount has been provided in order to enable the Union to subscribe to the United Nations Information Office which has been set up in America, membership of which has been take up by all other members of the United Nations. The purpose of this Information Bureau is to give information in America concerning all nations comprising the United Nations, information on matters of international importance, affecting these Nations, and this office set up in America will give the widest publicity to the information through the medium of the Press, the Radio and the Cinema.

What about?

I think my hon. friend will agree that there is not much difference between New York and Hollywood as far as publicity value is concerned!

Oh, there is a lot of difference.

My hon. friend as an experienced man knowing American conditions, knows what value is attached to publicity in America, and I think he should welcome the opportunity of letting the American people know a good deal more about South Africa, letting them know what we are doing in South Africa, letting them know about our industrial efforts, and matters akin thereto. My hon. friend realises that these things are of value in letting the American people learn something about South Africa. The vast majority of them know very little about South Africa, about the developments which have taken place in our country in recent years, and we have a golden opportunity now of opening up our country, and of letting the people of America know what is going on in this country.

What is Father Close doing there?

I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Railways, through his Administration, has also for a long time past been doing a certain amount of publicity work in regard to travel and tourists, and this work may quite possibly in the future be co-ordinated by the Information Office in New York and may have very valuable results as far as the future is concerned.

Why does it come under your vote, under “Interior?”

It it under Interior because the information will be forwarded by the Bureau of Information, which is a sub-department of the Department of the Interior. The information will be co-ordinated at this end—that is information for dispersal in America. Now the amount of the vote consists partly of subscriptions for December to March and the balance is made up of items which will be spent on the exhibition of posters and other publicity material. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (General Kemp) who asked for an explanation regarding the purchase of a motor launch—I admit that the item is perhaps somewhat misleading, bearing in mind that this motor launch has been purchased for use in Durban Harbour. Well, it is not for pleasure trips or for the transport of Asiatics. It has been purchased to enable the Immigration Authorities to deal more expeditiously with the inspection of ships in the Harbour.

I am afraid that the explanation which the Minister of the Interior gave in regard to this sum of £420 is not at all satisfactory. For many years large sums of money have been spent by the Department of Railways in connection with publicity in America. The Minister referred to it, and the Minister of Railways knows it. Those advertisements still appear in American journals. To say now that this £420 is being spent in order to advertise South Africa, to advertise South Africa’s products in America—unless the Minister can furnish supporting proof, I am not prepared to accept that. It is clear that it is being spent for one purpose only, and that is to make war propaganda, to tell America what South Africa is engaged in doing in connection with its “war effort. If the Minister had admitted that.

I did say it.

No, you did not do so. The Minister said that it was in connection with the ignorance in America in regard to the conditions in South Africa, that it was necessary to tell America what takes place in South Africa, and to give general publicity to South Africa. Now the Minister admits—now that I have challenged him—that this money is for no other purpose than to make war propaganda. Are we not spending more than enough money on the war? We are already spending £96,000,000 in one year. We must remember that this amount is for four months. The Minister said that the subscription was in respect of three months of the year. That would mean, on this basis, that we would pay £1,600 for the whole year out of the pocket of the taxpayer in order to tell America about South Africa’s war effort. No, this is improper expenditure. I am surprised that the Minister was not honest about the matter, and that he tried to create the impression that this money was voted for general publicity purposes.

No, I did not say what it was intended for.

He said that this publicity was necessary because the Americans knew so little about South Africa. Now that I, who did that work there myself, draw his attention to it, he realises that he cannot say this, and now he admits that it is for war propaganda. This is improper expenditure. We are spending quite enough on the war, and I therefore move—

I second the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). In his reply the Minister gave an evasive answer in regard to an international matter. Whatever he may say and whatever his object may be in joining hands with the United Nations, this expenditure is nothing but war expenditure. We are not concerned with advertising a “war effort” in America, nor is it necessary for us to advertise South Africa in America. America is engaged in appropriating Africa, and I do not want to contribute a single penny in order to help America in doing that. As the hon. member for Beaufort West has already said, America is not a client of ours, but an exploiter, and I do not want to contribute a single penny towards our further exploitation by America for war purposes.

The Minister concerned is not in his seat, but perhaps the Minister of Finance will give us the necessary information in connection with this vote.

The position is this. The Chamber of Mines agreed to make provision at its own expense for a cost of living allowance to pensioners under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. As hon. members know, the Chamber of Mines is responsible for the sum which is paid by way of pension and other awards. But our Government is responsible for the administration. They were prepared to pay a cost of living allowance, but this entailed additional administrative costs, for which we are responsible, and the object in asking for this £1,590 is to cover those costs.

Can you tell us what the scale is?

No, I am sorry, I cannot furnish that information. It is not at Government expense that this is done. We are only responsible for the administrative charges.

This is a most important vote and it invites discussion, and I want to ask the Minister to report progress.

I move—