When on the first day of this Session I gave notice of this motion I did not anticipate that within a week I would get support and encouragement from the Prime Minister himself. The underlyingreason for the introduction of this motion is the feeling of uneasiness which is being voiced in respect of the increase in Communistic propaganda in South Africa, and on the question of what more particularly is going to be the effect of that propaganda on the non-European population of our country. About a week after I had given notice of this motion, a deputation of members of the English Church waited on the Prime Minister to discuss with him matters in regard to the native population. The Prime Minister, in reply, referred to certain developments which had taken place and, inter alia, referred to the question of native trade unions, and the Prime Minister then, according to the “Cape Times” report, expressed himself as follows—

Here the Prime Minister also expressed his uneasiness about the growth of the Communistic propaganda in South Africa, more particularly among the native population. I therefore want to express the hope that as the Prime Minister has voiced his opinions in that way we shall have his sympathetic support for this motion. The Prime Minister, inter alia, said: “Things are inconvenient just now.” Yes, the Prime Minister has our sympathy in the difficult and awkward position in which he finds himself today. Things are indeed inconvenient for him at the moment. On the one hand he is aware of the dangers of Communism in South Africa, but on the other hand he has the chief protagonist of world Communism, Joseph Stalin, as his Ally, and as his gallant Ally. Not only is Joseph Stalin the Prime Minister’s gallant Ally but he is also fighting England’s war for England. To use the English expression: “Joseph Stalin is fighting the Battle of Britain.” We can well understand that things are very inconvenient for the Prime Minister. Not only is Joseph Stalin the chief protagonist of Communism, an Ally of the Prime Minister’s, but we also know that Joseph Stalin has been troublesome for some considerable time in respect of the Prime Minister’s neglect, and the neglect of his friends to start a second front in Europe. Stalin has good reason for not being so well disposed because he is now making progress, in spite of not having received any help from England or America.

But you people warned us against Stalin.

There is a third reason for the Prime Minister finding himself in an inconvenient position. We must assume that Joseph Stalin has been acquainted by the Communistic Party here of the unfriendly expressions about him by the Prime Minister and his Press only three years ago. The position, therefore, is most inconvenient so far as the Prime Minister is concerned. On the one hand he realises the dangers of this Communistic propaganda, and on the other hand he cannot take any action because he dare not annoy Joseph Stalin. And this feeling of uneasiness at the growth of Communism in South Africa does not exist only in the Prime Minister’s mind, according to his own statement to the deputation of representatives of the Church. That same feeling of uneasiness prevails among his followers behind him, and also among his supporters outside. May I be allowed to remind the Prime Minister of an article which appeared in the “South African Mining Journal,” in which there was a reference to the danger of Communism? The Prime Minister was told there that he should never have armed natives, and as far as I remember—unfortunately I have not got that particular article here—it was also stated there that it was undesirable to allow the Soviet representation in South Africa. Consequently, it is not only the Prime Minister, but his supporters also who feel ill at ease. During the past few weeks I have been receiving-many letters about this motion, all of them from English-speaking people. I have one of these letters here which arrived yesterday afternoon; it was written by a well-known man in Cape Town. He asked me not to publish his name, but I want to bring this to the Prime Minister’s notice, that this is a well-known man and one of his own staunch supporters, and this is what he writes—

He goes on to say that the Press has been muzzled and is not allowed to say anything, and then he suggests certain questions which he says should be put at a time like the present, and, in conclusion, he says this—

That is where the writer of this letter is mistaken, apparently because he never reads the Afrikaans Press. He is not aware of the fact that we have for years been busy warning the public against the Communistic menace in South Africa. He says that no voice is raised against the danger, but we have raised our voice against it, and we are doing so again today on the introduction of this motion. This is not a private member’s motion in the ordinary sense of the word, because I have introduced this on behalf of the official Opposition in Parliament. But I want to say this to hon. members opposite, who also feel concerned about the whole matter, that they can console themselves with the thought that in England, too, an ever-growing feeling of uneasiness is to be noticed at the growth of Communism. If I am not mistaken, a warning appeared only yesterday in the newspapers in connection with the growth of Communism in England. May I be allowed to refer to something which happened a month or two ago, and which in my opinion is a fairly clear indication of the feeling of the public in England? I am referring to the dismissal of Sir Stafford Cripps as Leader of the House of Commons, and also as a member of the War Cabinet. He was not kicked out because he was incompetent—possibly he was the ablest man in that Cabinet—he was kicked out for other reasons. As a rule, when they want to get rid of a man like him in England he is “kicked upstairs”, as happened, for instance, to our former Minister of Native Affairs, who was also kicked upstairs to London, but that did not happen to Sir Stafford Cripps. He was transferred to another department to a position of a more administrative character. He was kicked out as Leader of the House and as a member of the War Cabinet, because among the thinking people of England there was a feeling that Sir Stafford Cripps was becoming too strong in the country, and it is a well-known fact that he is three-quarters Communist.

Nonsense!

The hon. member should know that Sir Stafford Cripps is the man who stood for a united front of the Communists and the Socialists, and because that was not put through at the time he resigned as Chairman of the Socialist Party. He is three-quarters Communist. It is also a well-known fact that Mr. Churchill has no real love for Communism, and undoubtedly strongpressure was brought to bear on Mr. Churchill to get rid of Sir Stafford Cripps because he was getting too strong. Consequently, hon. members opposite who feel uneasy are not alone. Now, what is our position on this side of the House? We have no reason to worry about Stalin’s favours; what we are concerned about is the shadow of Joseph Stalin which is extending more and more over Europe, which eventually will reach England, and which will not leave us untouched here in South Africa in the long run. That is why we have introduced this motion. With us it is not a case of a sudden awakening, as is apparently the case with the Prime Minister. We have been warning the country for years. In introducing this motion today I hope I shall be permitted to say that when I returned from Europe, in the course of a Press interview, I uttered a word of warning in regard to communistic propaganda, as I had personally seen what had happened in France and in Paris. In 1938 I introduced the Aliens Bill in this House on behalf of the Opposition, and one of the clauses of that Bill contained a provision that no immigrants would be allowed to enter South Africa if they were communists, or if it was known that they had communistic leanings. Last year a motion was introduced here which asked for a Commission of Enquiry into communistic activities. On behalf of the Opposition I moved an amendment in favour of active steps being taken. It will be noticed therefore that we have consistently warned against this menace. People say that we are always trying to raise a scare—that this is merely a bogey. That is what the Government side says. Well, here we have the Prime Minister’s own words, in which he himself admits that the position in regard to communism is unsatisfactory. The Opposition has years ago realised the necessity of guarding against the danger and of taking steps. During the past year communistic propaganda has grown tremendously, especially since Russia’s entry into the war and since Russia has become an Ally of the Prime Minister’s. This motion is furthermore justified because of the troubles which have occurred in the Transvaal and Natal, and it is also justified by the admission made by the Prime Minister himself. Before I proceed to the further discussion of this motion I just want to say that it will be necessary for me in the course of this debate and in the course of my speech to refer to the Soviet Government. I want to say very clearly that in a discussion of communism and the actions of communists one necessarily has to refer to the actions and the attitude of the Soviet Government, because there is not the slightest doubt that the Soviet Government and the communistic party are linked together. Snowden, the well known Labour Leader in England, who was afterwards raised to the Peerage, expressed himself in these words, that the communistic party, the trade unions in Russia, and the Soviet Government formed a tripartite, three in one and one in three. But if any further evidence is needed I want to refer hon. members to what the “London Times” said about it. I assume that hon. members opposite have great respect for the opinion of the “London Times.”

The “London Times” of which date?

I am glad that that question has been out. It was of the 8th January 1936.

That is seven years ago.

Those interjections are very interesting, because one of the arguments which we are continually hearing since Russia has entered the war is that suddenly it is no longer the same Russia as it was before. Russia, so we are given to understand, no longer stands for the same principles. I propose later on to dispose of that argument. The “London Times” of the 8th January, 1936, referred to a large communistic conference held in Moscow and they said this—

But it is not only the “London Times” which I am quoting in testimony. Let me also quote what Joseph Stalin himself said about this matter at the congress of the Russian Communist Party in 1925. I am quoting in English because the books from which I am quoting are obtainable in our library and in the Cape Town Public Library, and many of those books have been published by the Communist Party of Great Britain. Stalin said this—

There is no doubt that that is the true position, that Snowden rightly said that it was a tripartite, that the Communist Party and the Soviet Government were linked together. And there is a further fact that Joseph Stalin is the Dictator of Russia, because of the fact that he is Secretary-General of the Communistic Party. There is the further fact that all the propaganda abroad is directed and controlled by the E.C.C.I., in other words the Executive Committee of the Komintern, of which Joseph Stalin and several members of his Government are also members. Since giving notice of this motion I have been treated to an unsympathetic reception by the Government Press. It is understandable that my motion should have met with an unsympathetic reception because, as the Prime Minister rightly said when he met those members of the Church, “Things are inconvenient just now.” During the last year, or even longer, the Prime Minister and his Press have been consistently engaged in paying tributes to and singing the praises of Russia, and especially of Joseph Stalin. The Prime Minister takes a very active part in this, and only the other day he said, “I take off my hat to Joseph Stalin.”

Hear, hear!

Yes, I welcome those “hear, hears.”

You take off your hat to Hitler.

I think it is necessary, especially in view of those “hear, hears,” to take hon. members back a little, not ten or fifteen or twenty years, because they have been telling us that we are dealing with a different Russia. I need only take them back three years. A thief and a murderer does not change his character just because he has become your Ally. I need only take those hon. members who shouted “hear, hear” so loudly back three years. I have taken the trouble to study the two local English newspapers, and I want to remind hon. members over there of what they said about Joseph Stalin only three years ago. The “Cape Times,” in September, 1939, in the course of a leading article, used the following words—

Where are all those “hear, hears” now?—

Say “hear, hear” now! I proceed to quote—

Say “hear, hear” now! And on the 1st December, 1939, the “Cape Times” attacked Communism and wrote this about Communism—

On that same date there was a leading article under the heading of “Stalin’s Crime,” reading as follows—

And the Prime Minister says that he raises his hat to Joseph Stalin! But the “Cape Argus” did not want to take a back seat. On the 29th September, 1939, the “Argus” said this—

There the “Cape Argus” describes Russia as “a totalitarian State,” but during the last year the radio has been telling us that Russia is one of the democracies! And here is something else which the “Cape Argus” said on that same day—

Later on in my speech I propose referring to the part which the Jews have played in the Communistic movement in Russia, and also in South Africa. Here we have an admission by the “Argus” that Jewry has been actively associated with Bolshevism. On the 2nd December the “Argus” expressed itself as follows—

And on the 12th December the “Cape Argus” contained the following—

I hope that hon. members opposite will be a little bit more careful before they shout “hear, hear,” when the Prime Minister states that he raises his hat to Joseph Stalin. And now I come to the motion. This motion expresses its disquiet at the growth of Communistic propaganda, and refers in particular to its effect on the non-European population of South Africa. Certain means are suggested and a request is made to the Government to take active steps. Hon. members will notice that the motion refers particularly to the effect of Communistic propaganda on the non-Europeans, and I am glad to notice that the Prime Minister himself, when the churchmen met him, referred to that. Before we proceed to a discussion of Communism in South Africa, it is necessary to pause for a few moments at the question of what Communism really is, and what its doctrines and its aims and objects are. In regard to its economic foundation, the cardinal principles of Communism are very clearly set out in the writings of the founders of Communism, Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and also in the publications of contemporary writers about Communism. The first object is the communal ownership of land, the second object is the communal ownership of the means of production and distribution, and the third is the abolition of private ownership. Those still remain the principles of Communism. Years ago certain amendments were introduced, when the so-called “new economic plan” was instituted, but in broad lines those three principles remain the cardinal principles of Communism. But now the question arises, by what methods do they intend achieving their objects? Right throughout every article on Communism we find these words—

The ultimate aim and object is a Communistic world revolution, world Communism, and world dictatorship. In discussing these aims and objects I do not propose quoting what some author outside the Movement may have to say about it, because it is more satisfactory to quote the statements made by Communists themselves. Consequently, I am going to take my quotations as far as possible from publications by Communists themselves, and I start with a quotation from the well-known Communistic newspaper “Pravda” of the 9th September, 1928—

That declaration in “Pravda” was repeated in 1935 in the form of a resolution by the Seventh World Congress of the Komintern in the presence of Stalin. Delegates from South Africa were also present there. The steps which they were taking to achieve their object were announced there. Their method of work was the establishment of a Central Organisation to conduct propaganda which was controlled from Moscow. I shall quote from the “Handbook of Marxism”, page 1032—

The constitution of the Komintern declares that the Komintern is a Union of Communistic parties in different countries. A formal declaration of the Komintern was made at the World Congress of 1935, and I particularly want to direct the attention of hon. members opposite to it—

I ask hon. members to note that mention is made not only of the Communistic Party but also of the Soviet Union, that is of the Russian Government—

I want to point out that the Red Army is also referred to here, that self same Red Army which is now being so heartily cheered by hon. members opposite because it is fighting the battle of England. That same Red Army will also fight for the world revolution, and for the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. It will also fight for that in the Union of South Africa. We are therefore dealing here with an international organisation which has as its aim to throw over by violent means the existing systems with a view to the establishment of a Soviet World Union. Propaganda is under the direct control of the Communists in Moscow, and every Communistic party, including that in South Africa, is looked upon as a “section.” That is the word which they use. Every few years a world congress of the Komintern is held, and in the meantime the E.C.C.I. is there to direct the propaganda in all the countries in the world. May I be allowed in this connection to quote what Stalin himself said? This is taken from his biography by Isaac Levine—

There can be no doubt of it therefore. Hon. members cannot deny those facts. The Communist Party in South Africa falls under the command of the Komintern and of the E.C.C.I. in Moscow.

What about the Nazis?

It amounts to this, that the Communist Party in South Africa is part of a powerful international organisation which has tremendous financial resources at its disposal. That has been proved in England. Our minds go back to what happened, especially during the general strike of 1926. The revelations came after England had broken off diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government. It then came out that hundreds of thousands of pounds had been sent from Moscow for the purpose of making propaganda among the working classes in England. In South Africa they are trying to do the very same thing. Stalin’s attitude in this regard is clearly shewn in his own book, “Theory and Practice of Leninism.” He says that every “section” in every country co-operates in the preparation of the dictatorship of the proletariat for what he calls “the new Round of Wars and Revolutions.” Right throughout all Communistic publications there is one outstanding thought, and it is this, that they are preparing for the establishment of a Communistic world dictatorship, as a result of what they call, “Capitalistic wars.” In other words, the war which is now being waged is looked upon by them as a capitalistic war. They say they are going to build up the world Communistic state, that they are going to spread Communism right throughout the world as a result of the exhaustive wars which occur between other countries. In view of what is happening today these are very significant words. Now let us discuss the question of how the Communistic Party sets about its work if it wants to operate in a particular country. Let me mention the steps which are taken. Hon. members will find that the technique everywhere is the same; whether it be in the Argentine, England, China or South Africa the technique is the same in all countries. The first step is the establishment of the Party, and if a particular government should not allow such a Party to be established, the Party has to be established in contravention of the laws of the particular country. Then comes an important portion of their activities, and that is the establishment of “cells”, in the first place inside the Trade Unions, and also inside the Labour Party, if there is such a Party, but more particularly in the Trade Unions. These cells of two or three persons or more are to serve as propaganda sources, or if I may put it that way, as sources of infection in the particular trade union. And then they go further and they establish what are called “street cells,” cells in streets, especially in those parts of the town where the working men live. Those cells are expected to make active propaganda in their areas. May I be allowed in this connection to quote what is stated in regard to propaganda?

That also applies to South Africa. The Communistic Party of South Africa is one of the “sections,” and then they further say that the “sections” in accordance with the instructions of the E.C.C.I. have to conduct the propaganda. The position is that the Communistic Party in South Africa is not allowed to do anything except after consulting the E.C.C.I. in Moscow. In connection with these Communistic cells I also want to quote from the “Internasionale Press Correspondence,” which is generally known as “Imprecor.” It is a well-known Communistic Propaganda Organisation:—

I also have here an extract from a speech by George Hardy, a well-known British Communist. This is an extract from a speech which he made at a Communist meeting in Moscow—

Hon. members will notice that they have to disguise, they have to hide their activities. The tactics followed by these people are that the Communistic idea must not be placed too much in the forefront, but everything has to be covered up. Later on in my remarks I shall say something on this point about the Springbok Legion, which has been established among the soldiers of the Minister of Defence. They penetrate into trade unions, they get in under false pretences, and then propaganda is made. There is hardly a trade union in the Union, according to information at our disposal, where there are no Communistic cells. They have met with most success in the Garment Workers’ Union under the control of Solly Sacks. Large numbers of Afrikaans girls are members of his trade unions. Furthermore, propaganda is made by means of speeches, preparation of reading material, films, and the radio, too, is used. I notice that the radio in South Africa is now also being inspanned here for the promotion of Communism. Another method is to establish organisations under innocent names. That also happens in South Africa. There is one organisation which is openly Communistic, it is a strong organisation, and if I am not mistaken the Minister of Justice is one of its patrons—I am referring to the “Friends of the Soviet Union.” Then we have here in South Africa the “Left Club,” the “Left Book Club,” the “Democratic League,” and the “League Against Imperialism.” We can quite understand that Nationalists who are fighting against British Imperialism might be disposed to join such an organisation, under the impression that they were joining a National organisation, but all the while they would be involved in a Communistic body. Then there is the antiwar committee, the “Youth League,” and quite a number of others. These associations are established for the purpose of inveigling people by the use of innocent-sounding names. Before Russia entered the war Communistic literature was prohibited, even by the present Government, but after Russia had entered the war the ban was lifted. Here in Cape Town, in Adderley Street, dozens of different pamphlets and books can be bought containing communistic propaganda. I have three of them here, but in a shop in Adderley Street dozens of others can be obtained. Now, we come to the third step for the promotion of communism, and that is the establishment of a so called united front. This is a typical communistic device which is used in all countries. In France they had the “Front Populair” and in Spain there was the “Frute Popular.” It was also tried in England but there it was a failure. I have the “Guardian” here which is an out and out communistic publication which is sold in Cape Town every week. I have yesterday’s edition here and in that the expectation is voiced that the large majority of labour party members in England will now be in favour of the establishment of a united front of the Communistic Party and the Socialist Party. In connection with the establishment of the united front I want to quote what the man to whom the Prime Minister raises his hat, Stalin, has said—

And at the Seventh World Congress of the Communistic Internasionale Dimitrov, the Secretary General for the Communistic Internasionale, said—

Here in South Africa, too, in 1936 an attempt was made for the establishment of a united front. The man who did the preparatory work in this connection was Solly Sacks. On that occasion a telegram was received from Moscow to wish them all success on the foundation of a united front of the Labour Party and the Communists. In mentioning Solly Sacks’ name I wish to divert for a moment to say a few words about the role played by Jews in the establishment of Communism in Russia, in other countries, and also here in South Africa. If we study the names of those who started the Russian revolution and who started Bolshevism, we find that the large majority of those names are those of Jews; 51 out of the 59 Kommissars in Russia a few years ago were Jews, and in this connection I should like to quote what a Jewish author, M. Cohen, wrote. This is what he said—

But I also want to quote from a very interesting book, “How Odd of God,” by Lewis Brown. In this book the author points to the part which Jews have played in the establishment of the revolutions and of communism. I don’t propose reading the whole of the extract, only this part—

This was written by a Jew. That is not the position overseas only but here in South Africa, too, the Jews play an important part in the promotion of Communism. If we study the Press reports of Communistic gatherings and meetings we find the names of Solly Sacks, Harry Snitcher, Ikey Wolfson, Joffee, Issy Diamond, Eli Weinberg, Weinbrenn, Harmel, and Kahn. And then we also have one in our midst here in Parliament, namely one Basner. There are also English and Afrikaans speaking among them, but the men who play the leading part are Jews. In connection with the establishment of a United Front I want to quote from this month’s “Guardian”. A conference of the Communist Party was held in Johannesburg, and at that conference the Chief Secretary of the party, Moses Kotane—a Native—reported that the membership of the Communist Party had during the past year more than three times doubled itself, and the following resolution was passed:

I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs is not here, because he should be interested in what the Communist Party had to say about him. Their words were rather strange—

Now, I come to the final step, namely, the preparation for the revolution. Now, what I am saying here are not simply things that I have imagined, nor are they things which were preached many years ago in 1918, but this is the policy which is proclaimed in modern Communistic articles and speeches. The procedure is to start operating in factories and workshops, and to stir up the workers there. If there is no trouble, then trouble must be stirred up, and even the smallest little difference must be exploited to such an extent that it may afterwards lead to a strike. Strikes must be deliberately organised. I quote from the programme of the Communistic Internasionale of 1932—

Another book, “The Role of the Communist Party”, which was issued by the Communist Party of Great Britain, contains this—

Here in South Africa it may perhaps be said that there is no danger of an armed uprising on the part of the Europeans. But I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech and what I shall prove later on, that the major part of the Communist propaganda in our country is aimed at the natives. First, there is the organising of strikes, and disturbances by the Communists, and finally—and that has been the experience in Germany, China and Spain—after the strike has been organised, bloodshed and disorders result. And then they result in revolution and in the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the aim and object of the Communist Party in all countries in the world, and here in South Africa as well. Now, I wish to deal with one or two other aspects of Communism which are of particular importance to us here in South Africa, especially in view of their effect on the coloured population, and on the natives. The Communist does not differentiate as between race. There is no such thing as a colour bar politically or economically, nor is there any social colour bar. We have already noticed what is happening in our country in Cape Town, Johannesburg, and elsewhere—we have noticed that when the Communists meet, white, yellow and black are all mixed up. Not only do they hold meetings together, but if any dancing takes place at those gatherings, then they dance together. White girls dance with natives and coloured men. The selfsame thing happens in the United States. I have the evidence here which was given before the Fish Commission in the United States of America, and one of the witnesses made this statement—

It’s not difficult to realise what the effect of such a policy is going to be on the non-European in South Africa. It’s not difficult to realise what it is going to mean to us if we are going to have social equality in this country. I am not going to elaborate that point. The time at my disposal does not allow me to do so, and there are some other points I want to deal with. We also have the question of the attitude of the Communists towards religion. Latterly, especially since Russia has come into the war on the side of England, we have often been told that Russia has now suddenly become religious. I have here one of the Communist pamphlets which is being sold in this town. It seems a very nice little book. It is partly red because it deals with Communism, and there is also a blue line across—that must be because it represents the line of true blue British. This is the report of the journey of the Dean of Canterbury. He is also being used now for the promotion of Communism. They took him to Russia, on one of those “personally conducted tours,” of course, so that afterwards he could go and tell the world that the statements that Communism was opposed to religion was nothing but a children’s story. We are nowadays being told that the Russians are allowed to go to church, and that the churches are open and free. Quite right. They no longer destroy the churches to the same extent as they did after the Revolution of 1918, but there is a reason for it. It is no longer necessary to do so because the children are taught from their earliest days to hate religion. The only religious people who are left are the older people. A certain percentage of the people of 50 years and older still go to church. The point at issue is not whether there are any churches left, and whether the people are allowed to go to church, the point is that there is in Russia an organised propaganda against religion, and the same in every country where there are Communistic activities. I have here a Communistic booklet which is circulated in South Africa. I bought it last week in a shop in Adderley Street, and it shows how feelings against religion are stirred up under Communism. The title of this booklet is “Lenin and Stalin on Youth.” It is meant for young people, and in it we find Lenin saying this—

That is the Communistic attitude, and that is spread throughout South Africa. Hon. members opposite must not come and tell us that that was the attitude which was adopted in 1918 and that it is no longer so today. This is a booklet which is circulated among the young people of today, and this is what they are being told. This is the kind of propaganda which is being carried on in all countries where there is Communistic activity. In South Africa there are Atheists, there are free thinkers, and unbelievers, but they do not make active propaganda. In Russia, however, they have what they call “Militant Atheism.” They have to be active in their campaign against God and His Commandments. I want to quote from a book, “Religion in the U.S.S.R.,” by Yaroslavsky. He says this—

And on another occasion Lenin said this—

What they have in Russia is militant Atheism. Everywhere where propaganda is made for Communism hostility towards religion is looked upon as a weapon which they can use in what they call the class war. In Russia they have “Godless” associations. The Communistic Atheistic Nasionale has its branches in every country where Communism is preached. In South Africa, too, there is organised propaganda against religion. I shall quote from the articles of Lenin’s widow, Krupskaya—

In 1932—not in 1918, a big Communistic exhibition was held in London and all sorts of articles were displayed there. Among other things there was a display in connection with Communistic education. One of the displays had the following heading—

That is what the children are taught. The Cross is held up to ridicule. Christ is ridiculed. I have already shewn this House this cartoon—and I want to show it again, which appeared in the well known Russian paper “Pravda” shewing the Russian soldiers breaking down the Cross. Here, also, I have a caricature of Christ. These are the things that are taught wherever Communistic propaganda is proclaimed—and here in South Africa as well. English and Afrikaans speaking people in South Africa have always had a great respect for religion. It still has a significance to us, and it is a serious thing when the Prime Minister and the Government allow this kind of propaganda to be made in South Africa. In the journal of the Garmentworkers Union an article was published against religion. In support of my argument I want to mention this interesting fact. A census was taken in Russia and it was found that in regard to children up to the age of 22 years—that is those who could read—only 2.7 per cent. still had any faith, any belief in religion. In regard to those between 22 and 26 the percentage was 4.6. Among the old people, those over 60 years of age, the percentage was between 40 and 50. The policy is to make the children irreligious. But there is another matter, and that is that Communism attaches no value to moral and ethical standards. The moral and ethical standards which we recognise are condemned by Communism. In this booklet “Lenin and Stalin on Youth” we find this—

And then it goes on—

These are the things for which propaganda is made here in South Africa. Now let me mention something else. In South Africa, the same as in other civilised countries, we have always held that the family constitutes the basic unit of the community. The family basis must be preserved. The Communist, however, wants to break it down. The Director of Education in Soviet Russia, S. Lenina, said this—

And then he goes on to say—

How can the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the people behind him sit still when things of that kind are proclaimed in this country? And those things are proclaimed here. That is the price which we are now made to pay for the alliance which has been concluded between the Prime Minister and Joe Stalin. And now I come to the Communistic propaganda among the natives in South Africa. If there is one aspect of Communistic activity which is of the greatest importance to us, and which is most serious so far as we are concerned, it is the fact that they concentrate on the non-European section of the population. We must remember that in South Africa we have only 2,000,000 Europeans, as against six million nonEuropeans, and we must not lose sight of the fact that this Communistic propaganda is particularly concentrated on the nonEuropeans. That is due to the instructions from Moscow. Let me read to the House the instructions which have been issued by the Komintern to the South African Federation of Native Councils—

When was that issued?

I cannot give you the date just now. I have another pamphlet; I believe that was issued in 1933, but I am not sure—the Minister can get that in the Public Library. It was issued by the Communistic Party of South Africa. The box number is also given, and the party’s address is somewhere in Hanover Street. In this pamphlet the Communistic Party of South Africa states—

These are the kind of documents which have been issued in South Africa and which indicate very clearly what the object of Communistic propaganda in this country is. They concentrate on natives for specific reasons. The first reason is that the natives in South Africa are more essentially the masses. Right throughout the Communistic doctrines we find the idea of the masses. The 6,000,000 natives in South Africa are the masses and that is why the propaganda is concentrated particularly on them. But there is another reason as well, and it is that the native from his earliest days is accustomed to the communal system, and he is therefore most susceptible to this kind of propaganda. In addition to that the Communistic propaganda is particularly attractive to him because it stands for equality of people of all colours. Then there is also the promise made to him that by means of Communism he will achieve victory over the British and Boer oppressors. It is quite easy for us to imagine the fertile ground presented by the native population of South Africa for the seed of Communistic propaganda. That is why it is growing, that is why it will grow i luxuriously and why it will spread among the natives. In days gone by there still was a certain degree of control, even under the Government opposite, but since Russia has come into the war there is not the slightest doubt that the Communists in South Africa have been given free rein. I want to quote from a speech made by a native, a certain Dr. Dube, a speech, which was published in the “Daily News” of Durban on the 7th October, 1937. That paper writes as follows—

May I particularly draw the Prime Minister’s attention to these words used by this native—

When it appeared that the Government, as a result of the alliance with Soviet Russia was going to be more considerate, and was going to relax certain restrictions, the Communists were very quick in taking advantage of the position. Right throughout the country they suddenly came to the fore. Everywhere Communistic meetings were held of the nonEuropean sections. I have a number of newspaper reports before me. I don’t want to quote all of them. But there is one which I want to refer to, shewing the demands that are being made of the Europeans. It said this—

That is the kind of language which is being used, but no steps are taken. Recently, Moses Kotane, the general secretary of the Communist Party was arrested for having made statements of that kind, but the Minister of Justice released him even before he appeared in court.

He is a mischief maker.

All this is not merely due to the fact that Russia is in the war today. We also have the unfortunate resolution taken by the Government to recruit and arm coloured people and natives on a large scale. If there is one thing which is responsible for the arrogance and the defiant attitude on the part of the coloured people and the natives it is this unfortunate decision of the Government’s. They take up the attitude that they are fighting for the Empire. They wear the same uniforms as the Europeans. They are also carrying rifles, and we can quite understand what the effect must be on their minds. The result of all this is not only this defiant attitude which I have spoken about, but a very serious result is to be found in the disorders which have taken place in Pretoria and Durban. There is not the slightest doubt that those disorders were stirred up by the Communist propagandists. I have before me the evidence given by a certain M. A. Muller, the secretary of the Joint Council of Non-European Trade Unions in Pretoria. In reply to a question by Adv. Findlay, Muller stated that he was a member of the Communist Party. Muller in his evidence admitted that the Joint Council of the Non-European Trade Unions got its funds from the Communist Party, and his salary was also paid out of those funds. That goes to show the extent to which the Communists in South Africa are carrying out the system which I have already spoken about, namely, to get people into key positions in the trade unions. Disorders have also taken place in Natal, and I have before me evidence given by Detective Head Constable J. E. Muller in regard to people who had stirred up the natives. He was cross-examined by a certain Mr. Wartski, who appeared for the defence. Wartski put this question—

Hon. members will see the object of this question. He wanted to protect the Communists. Detective Head Constable Muller, in reply, said—

That is the kind of thing that is going on, and I ask hon. members whether it is to be wondered at that disorders such as we have experienced in Johannesburg and in Natal, occur among the natives. If no action is taken and if the Prime Minister, because of his respect for and his fear of Joe Stalin, allows this sort of agitation to go on, it will not stop at disorders, but it will result in bloodshed and eventually in a welter of blood in South Africa. And not only that. If this type of propaganda is allowed to continue undisturbed, conditions will arise in South. Africa which will make it difficult for white civilisation to maintain itself in this country in days to come. And now I want to refer to a very important recent development, and this is the Communist propaganda which is being carried on among the Prime Minister’s own soldiers. Here again we are face to face with a well-known Communist method of carrying on the fight. I want to quote from the report of the ninth congress of the Communist Party in Great Britain. The report states—

And when we find that a prominent Communistic paper in England, the “Daily Worker” contains the following declaration which was also made at the Communist Congress—

That is the policy laid down, that they must reach the soldiers. They must get the man who bears the arms; and now they are also engaged on doing this in South Africa. During the past few months a certain organisation, called the “Springbok Legion,” has been established. It is worthy of note that it should be the “Guardian” which gives great prominence to the establishment of the “Springbok Legion.” The “Guardian” is a Communistic paper. The Minister of Justice will not deny that this publication is an out and out Communistic one.

It is his paper.

Yes, I understand that he has given this paper an interview and I want to draw attention to the fact that while the “Guardian” is making bitter attacks on the Minister of Native Affairs, it has in many of its issues referred in terms of praise to the Minister of Justice. He is a friend of the “Guardian.” He is also a friend of the Communists and I make this charge, that it is as a result of this friendship of the Minister’s and as a result of his failure to take action that we have the conditions which we have today in this country in regard to Communistic propaganda.

Comrade Colin.

Recently a large meeting of the “Springbok Legion” was held in Johannesburg which was attended by 2,000 people the great majority of whom were soldiers. According to the newspaper report Communistic battle cries were repeatedly applauded and criticism of Field-Marshal Smuts often called forth the approval of the audience. And that comes from the Prime Minister’s own soldiers. One would have expected that they would have applauded their Field-Marshal and that they would not have criticised them. The newspaper report goes on to say this—

Hon. members will see what the object is. The object is to convert the Legion into a kind of trade union which can then be incorporated into the “United Front.” It is in accordance with the recognised policy of the Communist party, and the report goes on to say this—

That statement was made by several speakers but let us see what the report goes on to say—

Subsequently, a certain sergeant, B. Gordon, who had been on active service up North, spoke of the support which the Legion received from the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). After that a soldier who was introduced as a private from up North declared—

It was a noteworthy fact that the two principal speakers that evening were well-known Communists. The one was Adv. A. Fisher, and the other Adv. F. Boshoff. I hope the Prime Minister realises that we are faced here with a very serious phenomenon, namely, that the Communist Party is working among the Prime Minister’s own soldiers. I hope the Prime Minister will take part in this debate, and I hope he will tell us what steps he is taking to put a stop to this Communistic agitation among his own soldiers. Now I also want to deal with another contributory factor which is mentioned in my motion, namely, the recognition of Consular representation of Soviet Russia in the Union of South Africa. In the past, the Union Government has always set its face against diplomatic recognition of Soviet Russia. In that regard the Union Government was in the same position as Canada, and my information is to the effect that Canada does not yet recognise the Soviet Government. Holland, Portugal, Switzerland are all countries which have refused to recognise the Soviet Government. Now, the Prime Minister steps in and reverses the policy which he and previous Union Governments had followed so far. He recognises the Soviet Government, which means that he has allowed a Consulate of the Soviet Union to be established in South Africa. I put a question to the Minister of the Interior as to the number of people who were Russian subjects who came to South Africa during 1942. Unfortunately I was not here during question time and I do not know whether my question was answered. I should like to know whether the Minister can give us any figures because I have a suspicion that we are having the same experience here that other countries have had in regard to the Consulates of Soviet Russia, namely that those Consulates are used as propaganda centres of the Communist Party. I asked the Minister of the Interior how many subjects of Soviet Russia had entered the Union in 1942.

I have the answer here, I shall send it to you.

The answer is as follows—

Read a little further.

It goes on to say—

We have nothing to do with what is probable, we are only concerned with the facts. 116 persons have entered the Union who were classified as Russians, and then it goes on to say this—

That is exactly what I had expected. The information I had came from a good source and it was to the effect that a large number of people had come into the country in the service of the Soviet Consulate in South Africa. That confirms the experience of other countries, and it was for that reason that America broke diplomatic relations with Russia. It was for that self same reason that Mexico severed its diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. It is also for that self same reason that England many years ago took a similar action, because it was not only a Soviet Embassy which had come to England but attached to that was a so called business organisation, named “Arcos”. It turned out that this organisation was used as a source of Communistic propaganda. If the Prime Minister wants to fight on the side of Stalin, by all means let him do so, but we ask whether it was necessary to satisfy Stalin to such an extent that we had to allow him to send his agents to South Africa? In yesterday’s “Guardian” we read about a conference which the Friends of the Soviet Union held in Johannesburg, and it is stated there that the Consul and the Commercial Attache of the Consulate of Soviet Russia were present at that conference. Those people are here simply to serve as a source of Communistic propaganda in our country.

When business was suspended I had almost concluded my speech. There are a few points I wish to touch upon still, but before I proceed, I first of all want to mention something else, so that the Prime Minister may be able to consider it before I formally make a request later on. According to the Rules of the House for this Session the work of private members is interrupted at 4.15 p.m. When that motion was introduced by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that it interfered with the opportunities which private members had, especially in connection with important motions. The Prime Minister on that occasion said that the rule would be in ordinary circumstances that the House would proceed at 4.15 p.m. to deal with Government business, but he added that in the event of important matters being discussed an exception would be made, so that the discussions could continue. I want to say this to the Prime Minister, that if ever an important matter has come before this House during this Session, it is this question which we are discussing today. It is a matter in which even his own army is involved, and I want to express the hope that when we get to 4.15 this afternoon the Prime Minister will allow the debate to continue.

It is technically impossible to do so.

The Minister says that it is technically impossible to do so. I should like to refer him to the reply which the Prime Minister gave at the time. The Leader of the Opposition said this—

And the Prime Minister thereupon said this—

But it has to be arranged for beforehand, or precedence must be given on some other day.

That does not appear from the Prime Minister’s answer because the debate concerned the question of the interruption at 4.15 p.m. If it were a question of another day, why then was 4.15 mentioned?

It should be arranged in advance.

The Minister of Finance should not try and dispose of the matter in that way. We are dealing here with a most important question and members behind him also take an interest in it. If ever there is a case where the Prime Minister should be willing to grant an opportunity for a discussion whether it has been arranged in advance or not, this is such an occasion. I did not consider it necessary to consult the Government whips on the matter, because I relied on the assurance given by the Prime Minister. When I interrupted my speech I was dealing with the question of diplomatic representation of the Soviet Government in South Africa. I have now had the opportunity during the lunch hour to study the reply which the Minister of the Interior gave this morning in regard to the number of Russians who have come into the Union. It appears from that answer that during 1942 74 people from Soviet Russia, including the fourteen people who had been shipwrecked, entered the country. That means that 60 people came in on diplomatic passports, and that number includes women and children. These people have come here for the Consulate of Soviet Russia and we may assume that on every staff of an Embassy or a Consulate there is a fairly large proportion of single men. I believe that I am taking it fairly liberally if I say that 30 of these people are adult male persons. Then, there are the other 116 people who have come into this country, who are classified as Russians. It is stated here that they are probably tourists or business men from other African territories. No proof of that contention is given here, but it is simply stated that that is probably the case. When we are dealing with such a serious matter we cannot go on anything that is probable. Now, I want to put the question to the Prime Minister, why it is necessary to have such a large number of people on the staff of a Consulate? What are these people doing here? There are no trade relations between Russia and South Africa. Why then is such a large staff necessary? I think I am right when I say that there is no other Legation or Consulate in South Africa which has such a large number of people on its staff. We have a repetition here of the experience of other countries, that those men who are alleged to be members of the staff of the Consulate are here for only one purpose and no other, namely to be the source of Communistic agitation in South Africa. I contend that this representation in any case is unnecessary. The Prime Minister has gone out of his way, despite the fact that we have never in the past had Russian representation in this country, to now admit this Russian representation into the country, and in view of the facts which I have mentioned here, and of which the Prime Minister is personally aware, and in view of the fact that we realise the danger of Communistic agitation in South Africa, we are entitled to ask in this motion that Consular representation of the Soviet should not be allowed here, and that Consular relations with Soviet Russia be severed. In America many years ago they had the same difficulty, and in the evidence which was given before the Commission appointed in America to go into the question of Communistic propaganda, one of the American Congress members made the following remarks—

There we have the reason—the fear, the well-founded fear—born from experience, that those Legations, Embassies and Consulates are used for Communistic propaganda purposes. I want to revert for a moment to what I said in regard to the Springbok Legion. In my motion I particularly refer to the danger of Communistic propaganda among the natives and the coloured people. When this motion was put on the paper I was not yet aware of the seriousness of the propaganda which is taking place among the military forces of the Union. This information has now come to my notice. I received a letter in connection with this matter a few days ago. I don’t know the people or the organisation, it is the South African Comrades Association, an association of old soldiers. This letter comes from the secretary of the organisation and he complains bitterly of the Communistic propaganda which is going on among the soldiers and he concludes by saying—

I have here the latest issue of the “Guardian” and I have already pointed out that this is an out and out Communistic paper. On the first page there is a long article about the Springbok Legion and it is made clear there in what way they are trying to act. The tactics are the same as those applied everywhere by the Communist. They first of all say in this article that the membership can now be estimated at 25,000 and that it is intended for all soldiers wearing the red tab. But then we get this—

In order to get over the difficulty, they decided in a typically Communistic manner to establish another organisation which they called the Home Front League and this is what they say—

And then they go on—

On that same page greetings are published to the First Division, and among other things they say this—

In the course of my speech I have pointed out that this is one of the well-known ways in which the Russian Communists act in forming what they call a united front. Hence the effort to get the Springbok Legion into the united front. This is characteristic of the Communist way of doing things. In that self same issue I find a list of Communistic societies. They go under many names: “Young Communist League,” “People’s Club,” “Social Security Action Committee,” “Guardian League,” and others, and we notice here among two of the Communistic assocations the “Home Front League of the Springbok Legion.” There is also an advertisement here in regard to a Springbok Legion meeting to be held, and who are the speakers? Mr. E. Glynn Thomas who, so I understand, is a prominent Communist in the Transvaal; Mrs. J. McPherson, about whom I know nothing, and then Adv. F. Truter Boshoff, also a well-known Communist. The Springbok Legion is nothing new in South Africa. So far the Communists have confined their activities to Trade Unions, coloured people and natives, but they are now going in a different direction and to my mind a particularly dangerous direction, and they are setting to work among the soldiers returning from up North. They want to avail themselves of the dissatisfaction among those soldiers—on a previous occasion we have referred to the reasons for this dissatisfaction—and they want to attract the dissatisfied ones among the soldiers, they want to exploit their dissatisfaction for Communistic purposes. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has been listening to the debate so far, and I hope that in view of the seriousness of the new developments in South Africa he will avail himself of the opportunity offered by this debate to tell us what he is going to do or what he has already done in regard to Communistic propaganda, even among his own soldiers. What is he going to do? Is the Prime Minister going to do the same thing as he did on a previous occasion when there was trouble and when there were strikes on the Rand? Is he again going to take up the attitude of allowing things to develop? He saw what happened last time when he allowed things to develop. 250 people lost their lives as a result of the Prime Minister’s policy to allow matters to develop. Today, again, he is allowing things to develop and as was rightly stated in the letter by the prominent inhabitants of Cape Town which I read here he allows things to develop because he is afraid to do anything which may annoy the Soviet Government and Stalin. Is he going to sit still and allow the danger to spread? He recognised the danger in his reply to the deputation of members of the English Church, and he said: “I am speaking with a full knowledge of the facts.” Is he going to take action in accordance with his own convictions, in accordance with the convictions of many of the members behind him, and of many of his supporters throughout this country? It is his duty to take action, and I also say that he must not delay. If he wants to take action he must do so at once. We are continually told of the dangers which threaten us. During the past three years we have been told of the dangers threatening South Africa from the side of the Germans, the Italians and others. I say that unfortunately there are many people who fail to realise what the real danger is. There are however, many of them who are beginning to realise it, and who, while the Russian army is fighting England’s battle, are beginning to see the dangers ahead, because the Russian Red Army is fighting, as I have shown, to bring about a world revolution. I wonder whether those who applaud the successes of the Russians realise what it really means, whether they realise its danger to Europe and to England? They do not realise that if the war is won by the Allies, it will be won as a result of Russia’s action. Do they realise that if the war is over it will be Soviet Russia which will exercise the greatest influence in England and no longer England. England went into the war in order to maintain its influence and prestige in Europe. But if this war is brought to an end as a result of a Russian victory, nobody will be able to deny that the country which will have a say and which will have influence on the Continent of Europe will be Russia and not England. I go further and say this, Communism was strong in England before the war, and it is clear that as a result of the alliance with Russia Communism has grown tremendously in England. That fact is clearly demonstrated in the English and American newspapers. There is an ever growing feeling for Communism. Communism will build on the aftermath of the war. I have quoted from Stalin’s publications that as a result of the so called capitalistic wars, they, the Communists, will achieve their object. There are many people in England today who are very worried and who are asking themselves, whether they are not going to pay too dear a price for Russia’s help in this war, and what about us in South Africa? We also have the right to ask whether we are not going to pay too dear a price for Russia’s help to England, especially if we think of the result of that help, if we think of the Communistic propaganda in the country. I say to this House and to the country that we shall have to pay a very high price, too high a price. If Communistic propaganda among the Europeans and among the soldiers, but particularly among the coloured people and the natives, is allowed to go on in the way it is doing, I say we shall be paying a very high price. Are the Prime Minister and his followers prepared to pay that price? If not, they must follow the course indicated in this motion.

I will try in the first place to reply to the motion before the House in a calm and practical way. The motion is a drastic motion; it asks for drastic steps on the part of the Government and the Government has the right to ask on the ground of what offences and in regard to what practical problems we are asked to take these steps.

Do you not know that yet?

To begin with I do not want to deal with the propaganda aspect, because the speech was, I fear, used very much for general propaganda and an attack on the Communists in Russia, than an attack on the Communist Party in South Africa. But the basis of the motion is that certain steps should be taken against the Communist Party of South Africa, and with that I will deal first. Now I ask where the Communist Party has contravened the law here; what have they done against law and order? Because we must deal with facts.

What about the Native strikes?

I am coming to that. What evidence has been given by the hon. member that the Native strikes were organised by Communists? There are only vague accusations.

What about the case in Natal?

I am dealing with what the hon. member has put forward here. I am going to assume from the beginning that he has drawn up an indictment rather than made a propaganda speech. I took careful note of what he based his case on. With his other points I can deal later. The first point was that he said something about what the “South African Mining Journal” is said to have written, but he did not have the journal here, and did not substantiate the alleged facts therein as being correct. On such vague things an accusation he surely cannot seriously ask us to take drastic action. Least of all, an hon. member who has complained that the Government has acted too drastically in other matters. His second point was that a letter had been written to him in which mention was made of a book by Douglas Reed. Does he want us, on the ground of what Douglas Reed writes about what has happened in England, to take steps in South Africa of such a drastice nature? It is too ridiculous. I do not know that Douglas Reed is an authority on anything. One thing is certain; that he is very prejudiced and that he writes in a very prejudiced manner. But what has happened in England, and what the Communists are doing there, to do with our conditions here? The hon. member referred to what has happened to Sir Stafford Cripps. What on earth has the Communist Party in South Africa to do with what has happened to Sir Stafford Cripps in England? Nothing. The facts of what happened to him are not even correct. Now we come a little nearer home and to something that looks a little more practical, “the shadow of Joseph Stalin.” Must we now, because of the shadow of Joseph Stalin, break the law here and commit an injustice and take undemocratic action? That is what it amounts to. The shadow of Joseph Stalin, the ghost stories about Communism that are brought up, are not so much intended for the purpose of maintaining law and order but rather to give the members of his party an opportunity to make propaganda about the Native problem. The next point was that the hon. member said that ten years ago when he came back from Europe he issued a warning against Communism. Further, he referred to riots in the Transvaal and Natal. In that respect nothing has yet been proved. Of the riots in the Transvaal I cannot speak, because a judicial enquiry is taking place today, but in the case of Natal there is not the slightest evidence, and not the slightest evidence was laid before the court that it was the Communists that were the cause. There was no evidence of this kind, and hon. members on the other side who want to support this motion will hardly be able to agree with the hon. member, because he has not produced any evidence that the Communists were responsible. The evidence that was led there did not even mention Communists. It was not alleged that there were Communists who had a hand in the game. Further, the hon. member ended with the London “Times” of 1936. That is now, if I may call it so, the indictment. Does the hon. member want us to act on that? Must people be banned and deported on those grounds? It is asked that they should be deported.

You are excelling yourself in weakness.

I am not going to concern myself with the hon. member. The member always hits below the belt. But I am not afraid of him. He can no longer hit me below the belt, because when I fight him, I put my belt below my ankles. Those are the practical reasons he has given, those now are the facts. I shall come later to the vague propaganda. But what government can take such action on such facts? No fact has been proved, no single fact proved where the Communist Party of South Africa has contravened the law and do hon. members want this Government to deprive people of their rights in a reckless fashion? In no single instance has unlawful action been taken against any party, although we have been very patient with some parties. I just want to mention the Stormjaers and the Ossewa-Brandwag. I want to express my thanks to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I do not do it to derive party capital therefrom but I think he took the right action towards the public, and I think that it was nothing more than his duty for him to have issued a warning at that time, which actually assisted in the maintenance of law and order in our country. It was very necessary. But I am dealing now with the hon. member for Beaufort West. I ask him if these are the facts. If these are the practical facts of what his happened in the country on what facts does he ask us to take steps.

He spoke about doctrines.

For the rest I want to say immediately that the Government is busy keeping a watch on all organisations in time of war and to see that we are kept informed of what is happening. This applies to all parties, and the Government is aware that just as other organisations might have their undermining agents here—although they might make use of a smoke screen—that it is possible that also the Communist Party has its agents, not with the purpose of furthering the Communist policy, but to work in league with a policy of undermining in South Africa. We found agents even amongst the police, and as hon. members know, they have already been arrested. A watch is being kept on all aspects of the matter. But to speak of deportation! The Government will not hesitate where the law is broken and bad feelings engendered, or where there is incitement to irresponsible actions, to intern such people or bring them before the courts—no matter to what party they belong, to the Communist Party or the United Party or even the Nationalist Party. The Government will not hesitate to act. I wish in all seriousness to give the House the assurance that all organisations are being carefully investigated and watched. But the Government will not act in a reckless manner, and certainly not take action in an unjust manner against any section in this country, in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves. There were other matters which influenced the hon. member. For example he spoke about a Russian victory and told us ghost stories. That was again the shadow of Joseph Stalin. But we have a real danger in this country. A lot of Nazi-propaganda is being made, and that is not a vague allegation, but propaganda that is working in a very sinister fashion. The hon. members there, without even looking for Communistic propaganda, can be very much more useful by helping the Government to combat sabotage organisation in this country. Much more. Our young people are being used. We know of a tragic case where one of the boys was even sentenced to death.

We are talking of Communism now. What has that to do with the case?

It is a much more practical danger than Communism. There is a much more practical danger in a German victory than in a Russian victory and the sabotage is connected with this, because it has only one aim, namely to bring about division and bitterness in the country, in order to assist a German victory. If sabotage is not being used for this purpose, for what is it being used? I know the hon. members on the other side do not approve, and I do not want to score debating points here, but I say that if the hon. member for Beaufort West who has investigated the matter sc thoroughly, had given more attention to another matter, he would have found more facts, practical facts, and he would have been of much more assistance to the country in keeping law and order. If he concerns himself with Nazi-activities and he comes here and asks for stronger measures, he will serve a more useful purpose.

The debate is about Communism.

A section of the people are being misled. I know that hon. members there warn them and we appreciate it. Recently there have again been acts of sabotage in the country. I am glad to say that the people have been arrested and the evidence against them in some cases is absolutely conclusive, and I am sure that the whole matter has been cleared up, but it brings misery and discord, and rather than come here with ghost stories, I hope that hon. members will give us practical assistance in the maintenance of law and order. I mention this because the hon. member spoke about a British victory and tried to frighten the people with the Russians. It will not help. Everyone knows that if the free nations win in this war, then our freedom will be maintained, and everyone knows that if we lose the war then it is the end of our freedom.

And the Russians?

The hon. member who now speaks of democracy was once attacked by Zeesen. I want to give him the assurance that the Russians in the first place are fighting so bravely for their existence, but also so that we shall be free [Laughter]. Honourable members laugh, but they have been converted to democracy. There was a time when practically all of them belonged to the Ossewa-Brandwag. Some of them were generals. The hon. member for Beaufort West was one.

You are a corporal of the Communists.

I believe that the hon. member for Beaufort West was also a general.

I am afraid the hon. Minister is now wandering too far from the subject.

I mention it only in connection with what the hon. member for Beaufort West said about a Russian victory. One thing is certain, that if the Germans win ….

Then it is the end of you.

No, not only of me but also of you. The hon. member who made the interjection was also a general in the Ossewa-Brandwag and he was kicked out later. The hon. member for Beaufort West is a democrat today and rightly so, because when he departed from democracy, he was court martialled by the Ossewa-Brandwag ….

Order! The hon. Minister must confine himself to the subject.

Further there were all kinds of gibes about the Red Army. It was said that a Russian victory would promote Communism in this country. But how did Russia come to be in this war? I merely mention it. The hon. member was a member of this Parliament for quite a number of years and we never heard anything about Communism while the Russians had an understanding with the Germans.

You did not allow Communist propaganda here then.

And there is no evidence that it is allowed now.

You said just now then that you would not stop it.

Then the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) himself says that the case has been brought forward on their behalf very badly. But gibes have been made here about the Russian army and about the British; that if Britain wins, it will be exclusively due to the Russians. It Britain wins, then it will be due only to the Britain’s brave stand when she stood alone.

Colin Steyn!

Yes, Colin Steyn appreciates what has been done. I am proud to say here that I am pleased with the decision that was taken on 4 September, 1939, just as there are many others who are sorry that they did not take the decision with us. I notice that they are no longer pro-German as at that time. It is due to Britain and British airmen, that our freedom was saved and the freedom of the whole world. Gibes are made here all day; a bad feeling is created here. I want to say that this motion is being used to do it. Why must hon. members on the other side belittle the British; why must they belittle Britain; why do they belittle the Jews? I do not want to go into this again. I just want to say this to the hon. member: Has he noticed how many Jewish citizens have done their duty to the bitter end? I want to ask the hon. members who come with these reproaches whether it is fair. Was it not they who said that England is the mother of our freedom?

On what motion are you speaking now?

Communism.

Yes, I think it hurts. And rightly it hurts. I want to go further. I am dealing here with accusations, but I will deal with them one at a time. With a great deal of fuss it was said here that the general secretary of the Communists was a native. Hon. members on the other side have condemned this. But I want to ask them this. Did the old Nationalist Party not have coloured organisers? And that does not go back to 1926. It was in 1935 when the Nationalist Party still had coloured organisers.

Your facts are not correct about the coloured organisers.

It makes no difference to him.

The last speech I made in Cape Town for the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province ….

I say it was stopped long before that time. Long before 1935.

You were kicked out.

Yes, that is right; why? That hon. member wanted so much to co-operate with Gen. Smuts. The hon. members on the other side are uttering warnings today against all these dangers, but they forget their old career. They forget that they took part in everything against which they are uttering warnings. They now speak of the danger of Communism but I want to ask them, did we not collaborate with the Labour Party which was full of Communists at a time when they were more drastic than today, in order to come into power in South Africa.

You do not know your facts. The Communists were excluded.

Previously the Communists were admitted in the Labour Party. To-day they are no longer admitted in that Party. I can give you the names of Communists with whom we collaborated and with whom we held meetings. The hon. member did not speak today of the modern Russia. The closest he came to modern Russia was 1936. He surely must have read the book “Mission to Moscow” by an American ambassador.

Yes, I have read it.

Why did you not quote from it.

Why don’t you quote it?

We have to do here with a state of affairs that has passed already. It is something of the past. The propaganda that has been made here refers to the Russia of 1925 to 1933. All my hon. friend spoke of Russia today, was about the shadow of Joe Stalin.

When was the revolution?

I have done my best. I have done my best to examine and see whether I can find anything that justifies what the hon. member has said here. I am convinced that there is not the slightest justification for what he has said. I am convinced that there is not the slightest justification for the steps he wants the Government to take. I therefore move the following amendment—

seconded.

Any sober-thinking person who was present at the exhibition we had here this afternoon, would not for a moment hesitate to draw one conclusion from it. At the beginning I said by way of interjection that the hon. the Minister of Justice excelled himself in feebleness and I do not think we have ever heard a poorer defence of a feeble case. The fact that the Chair had to call him to order three times …

The hon. member should not pass remarks in regard to rulings from the Chair.

I only wanted to say that the fact that the Minister of Justice wandered hopelessly away from the subject of the debate, is proved by the fact that he had to be called to order three times. He dealt here with matters which were not at all to the point. He spoke about the great danger of bogeys. I want to ask the hon. Minister, however, whether he has forgotten that the Prime Minister is now afraid of bogeys, the Prime Minister who emphasised the seriousness of the position, the Prime Minister who spoke about the increase in Communist propaganda in South Africa? Here the Minister of Justice tells us that these are bogeys, although his own leader spoke about the increase of Communist propaganda in South Africa. Did we ever in this House hear a more foolish argumentation about a more serious matter? I must say that I really did not expect the Minister to go so far in his defence of Communism, if I may say so, as to divest himself of his nether garments. He said that he would be prepared to let his belt slip as far as his ankles in his defence of Communism. In only want to ask him what would become of his trousers. A further proof of this Government not being able to make out a case is, in my opinion, the following. If this were a case which had to be submitted to any court of law for decision, such a court would demand that time be given to hear both sides of the case in full. It is said that this is technically impossible.

As the hon. member mentions this point, I wish to point out that this is the decision of the House. It may be just as well that hon. members should know the actual position. The House has decided that the provisions of Section 26 of the Standing Rules and Orders, i.e. the eleven o’clock rule, should apply to this sitting. The eleven o’clock rule as applied to this sitting, provides that if there is any intention to proceed with the debate after 4.15 p.m., a motion to that effect should be proposed at the very beginning of the proceedings. In that case the debate may be extended but not otherwise.

The excuse the hon. member made here was that this motion asks that drastic steps be taken. Did not the Minister himself take the most drastic steps, not against the dangerous Communists, but against innocent Afrikaners who have been thrown in scores into prisons and internment camps. And then he wants to talk about drastic measures, whilst these Afrikaners were not even given the right to stand a proper trial. But when we come here and ask that measures be taken by the courts of law of the country to put an end to these things, the Minister is the one who tells us that we cannot do so because these are drastic measures. I want to remind the hon. Minister of the example of Johannes van der Walt, in which case he was prepared to give the order to shoot him. This pride of South Africa’s sons is today tied down to his bed as an invalid.

Order! The hon. member is now going beyond the scope of the discussion.

I only point to the drastic measures which the Government applied in the case of Afrikaners, but when we come to the Communists, the Minister is not prepared to apply drastic steps. I want to ask that we should now come back to the serious subject of this debate, and I want to put and deal with the following question: What are the nature, essence and aims of Communism? The first essential is, as already laid down by Lenin, the precursor of Communism whose teachings are still adhered to today, as follows: The first aim is the conquest of Russia, the conquest of Russia by means of a reign of terror and a bloodbath which cost the lives of some 30,000,000 persons, 30,000,000 of the best people which Russia and its history produced. This was their first aim contained in the teachings of Lenin. Their second aim was: The dictatorship of the proletariat, a regime which is the fruit of the struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie (the possessing class), founded on force and not subject to any law in the world. Its root and essence are therefore revolutionary. It is founded on force and aims at the dictatorship of the proletariat, solely along a trail of blood and through the destruction of the possessing class. If this aim were realised, what would be the position in South Africa? I shall quote extracts to prove what the direction is in which they are aiming. If applied to South Africa it would mean in essence and reality the regime of the non-European proletariat, the rule of the Natives, if necessary under the leadership of Europeans who might be prepared to do so, accompanied by the extermination of the European bourgeoisie. We then can ask ourselves: What was the most opportune moment to realise the achievement of these aims in Russia itself. The most opportune time for the conquest of Russia was shortly after the last war, when a condition of a terrible economic depression was created in the world and particularly in Russia. Shortly after the war the Red Revolution took place and the blood flowed in streams. I say this to utter a warning that the aim of Communism is to use this war as a lever to bring about such a revolution elsewhere. I shall not be surprised, especially in view of the fact that Russia is now the ally of England, if the former will use this war as a lever for further revolutions. One can quote scores of examples to show that this Communism is international in its ramifications. I just want to quote here the song which the Communists sing and in the singing of which the Minister probably joins them when he attends their meetings. After the conquest of Russia the war cry of Communism became the following:

This unification of the workers of the world will supply the material for the new world revolution of the “Third International.” Just as at the time in Russia there were certain obstacles in the way of a Communist victory, the world today also has its obstacles for that new revolution. Those obstacles have first to be removed, and to that end the slogan is: Destroy the Christian church, destroy Christian society, destroy all States with a Christian orientation; destroy all this, for these are obstacles in the way of Communism. Should it therefore surprise us to hear that it was declared in authoritative circles of the Communists themselves that—

After the conquest of Russia it had to spread its tentacles over the entire world. It had to get hold in the colonies, semi-colonies and dependent States. There it wants to make its influence felt and to expand its sphere of influence. That this policy is put into practice as far as South Africa is concerned, need not be proved again after the evidence submitted this morning by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). We all know that year after year delegates are sent direct to Moscow from here, to return to South Africa in order to undermine the position here and to look for the destruction of Afrikanerdom and everything that it holds dear. We know that international meetings are held regularly in Moscow. We now want to come nearer home, and prove that the Communist movement in South Africa is a direct branch of the tree in Moscow, and that it is being nourished, inspired and supported from there. I want to ask the hon. Minister to listen to this evidence and to tell us, after having listened to it, whether he is still prepared to tell an intelligent audience that these are mere bogeys. I shall read out now the evidence given by Col. I. P. de Villiers in the case of Sachs vs. Pirow in 1932. This evidence was given by Col. De Villiers at the time he was Commissioner of Police. He was a commissioner and not a commissar like other people are. He had at his disposal the evidence which had been collected all over the country and he said in his evidence—

The Minister now tries to tell us that there is no contact whatsoever; that Communism exists only in Russia or not even in Russia and that they have no contacts in South Africa. But this is the evidence we have from the chief of the department of which the hon. Minister is the head. He went on to state—

They give both financial and other assistance. This is the black on white statement of the then Commissioner of Police. I just want to read out part of the statement by E. S. Sachs, himself a Communist. He admitted—

The aims of the Communist organisation “Friends of the Soviet Union” were outlined as follows—

At a meeting in Cape Town which was addressed by a prominent Communist, Adv. Snitcher, it was declared inter alia—

We now want to come nearer home again and ask what the real aims, the actual goal of Communism in South Africa is, and I again wish to quote from the evidence of the Minister’s own Department. We have already noticed the evidence of the Minister’s predecessor in connection with this matter, the evidence of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) in the case of Sachs vs. Pirow.

This has also been shown from evidence from Communistic organisations outside this country. I want to quote inter alia from an article written by a certain Levine in “L’Afrique Francois.” It appears in the book “African Observer,” published in February 1935. This article deals with “Communism and South African Natives.”

But now comes the barb—

They should take an active part in all strikes in this country. I just want to quote the following instruction to show what the aims of Communism are in South Africa—

We could go on and pile up evidence of similar proofs to show that the goal of Communism in South Africa is to establish this kind of a Communistic regime here. At the sixth world congress of the Communist International in Moscow the Communist Party in South Africa was instructed that—

And furthermore—

The same aim is to be found in the tenor of agitator’s speeches which are legion in this country, which are now more numerous than ever before. Most of such meetings are held in public; inflammatory speeches are held seeking to destroy the form of government we have today. The following words appear in speeches by native orators, according to Press reports—

The following was reported in “Die Burger” of the 25th April, 1938—

That is what we listen to in public places. In a summary about their future dreams it is said—

The Union of the Native proletariat was established in order to unite the black people—also in the rural areas. The Natives of the platteland thereby intend to strengthen the driving force of the revolution. And their final aim is—

These are authoritative statements which we quote in order to show what the ultimate goal of that Communism in South Africa is and I therefore tell the Minister that he is busy shifting off from himself all these things until the danger is there and it is too late to mend. I just want to tell him that the Afrikanerdom of South Africa is not prepared to enter that tyranny with him. There is a tremendous amount of propaganda being carried on in this country which aims at the abolition of colour bars. The colour bar is an obstacle in the way to the realisation of such a black Communistic state, and a tremendous amount of propaganda is being made in order to abolish it. At a meeting of the “Friends of the Soviet Union” in Johannesburg Adv. Boshoff declared as follows—

This was published in the “Guardian” of 13th November, 1941. The Minister tried to joke about it and said here that the latest date we would be able to mention was 1935. Here I give him a quotation from his own paper, from the paper of the Communists. It says here—

On 20th November, 1941, the “Pageant and Rally” of the “Liberal Group” was held in Durban and a certain Communistic group advocated there—

At the Congress where the formation of the people’s front, to which the hon. member for Beaufort West also referred, was decided upon, the following motion was proposed which tried to unite all forces to reach that goal—

This sort of language is not exclusively used by agitators; we now get it from an authoritative source, the office of the Minister himself. On the 26th November, 1942, the following statement, coming from Mr. Smit, of the Department of Native Affairs, appeared in the Press—

Above it was printed in big black type—

The report furthermore states—

Who is the person making such statements? It is Mr. Smit, the Secretary for Native Affairs. He is now their handy man who assists in spreading this idea of equal rights in the country. He said this in November, 1942, and not in 1935. Did they ever lift a finger to oppose it? The Minister of Justice, however, comes here with the silly excuse that the latest date mentioned was 1938. I have here in my hand the programme of the non-European conference which met in June, 1942. It was a non-European conference of 98 organisations representing a quarter million non-Europeans. What did this conference decide unanimously? I shall read it to the House—

It is not so long ago that these things happened. This happened on 22nd June, 1942. I also want to give the following information to the Minister. I have here a notice of the Communist Party of South Africa of a meeting which was held at Kimberley on 20th August, 1942. At this meeting the speakers would be Mrs. J. Findlay and Moses M. Kotane, the chief secretary of the Communist Party. A white woman and a black nigger appear on the same platform in our beautiful Kimberley. That did not happen in 1938; it happened on 20th August, 1942. What did they do at this meeting? Here we have their slogans for that meeting—

A mass army of ten million people has to be called into being. Who are the ten million who have to be armed? Are they Europeans? No, there are not so many Europeans in South Africa. It means the arming of coloureds and natives. They should be armed for one day they will have to be used by Russia to deliver the deathblow to the Europeans in South Africa. There was still another war cry at this meeting—

All this appears on the notice of this meeting which was to be held. I possess furthermore a large number of these announcements of Communistic meetings, but there is only one I still want to refer to. I want to mention one which appeared in a Communistic newspaper which is published in all the native languages of South Africa as well as in English, and I refer the Minister of Justice not to an issue of 1938, but to the issue of April 1942. This paper is called Inkululeko. In this paper the most pernicious Communistic propaganda is published. The Minister of Justice ought to know about it and why doesn’t he give attention to this matter? In this newspaper an attack is made on the nationally inclined people in South Africa, and at the end of the article it says—

We can only say that to us South Africa is not a bad country; to us it is the most beautiful country which God created, for it is our homeland. I want to quote something else from the same Communist newspaper—

Soviet Russia and China are the criteria they accept in respect of political, economic and social conditions. They even go further and maintain that when the war is finished, peace negotiations should be started and who will then have to represent South Africa. Apparently the Communists want a representative there and if we look at the present trend of things that representative will most likely be the Minister of Justice. After his speech of today I shall not be surprised if he should be the representative the Communists will send thither. At any rate, this is what they say in this newspaper—

I believe I have given enough quotations to show how this enormous Communistic propaganda is spreading through our country today. I still want to say that the headlines in this paper, and it is a newspaper for nonEuropeans, were—

On the 28th November, 1943—the Minister of Justice should notice that it was not in 1938—a great Communist rally was held in Johannesburg. Europeans and non-Europeans gathered there and a dramatic Communist programme was staged there. Among others a certain Miss Hilda Watts stated there how the Communist Party in South Africa had grown. Her slogan was: Abolish the colour bar, the pass laws and the police vans. Give the natives arms and political equality. It is not long ago that these things happened; these are things happening now. I should now like to come back to a very important matter in connection with this matter. In South Africa there are people whose duty it is to guard the sacred possessions of Afrikanerdom, and one of these sacred things the Afrikaner possesses is the church of our fathers to which we still belong and to which we hope to be able to belong to the end of our days. The church did not remain idle in the midst of all these happenings. From time to time the church raised its warning voice against these things. The Synod of the Reformed Church of the Transvaal did so. In the Free State we have—I do not know whether the Minister of Justice still knows it—but in the Free State we have a Dutch Reformed Church with a Synod which comes together periodically and then discusses the evils in the life of our people so as to guard the sacred possessions of Afrikanerdom. The Minister of Justice comes here and pleads ignorance in regard to these matters. A worse exhibition we have never before witnessed in the history of this House. Allow me slightly to refresh the memory of the Minister by informing him what the churches have done in regard to this question. He comes here and tells us that he does not know what are all these things which happen in our country. But if the Minister is not prepared to listen to what we tell him here, we in any case expect him to listen to the pastoral voice. I want to refer to a memorandum which was submitted to the Minister personally—not in 1938 but in 1942. That memorandum was handed to him on behalf of all the Dutch churches of South Africa. The actions of the churches culminated in a deputation of eight parsons, representing all the Dutch churches in South Africa—and I can state here that these churches represent 530,000 church members—handing a memorandum to the Minister. The voice of 530,000 members of the Afrikaans churches asked the Minister whether he could not see the dangers arising within South Africa; they called out to him and asked whether he could not see that things are happening which are destroying everything that is sacred and dear to us in our country. I cannot discuss the memorandum at length, but still I want to point out that this memorandum submitted to the Minister on behalf of the Afrikaans churches, summarised the position as follows: (1) Communism in South Africa is a branch of Russian Communism and aims at a red revolution. That is the position as the church sees it and the church is the guardian of the spiritual values of our people. The memorandum furthermore states: (2) Communism is the arch-enemy of the Christian religion and a menace to the Christian civilisation; (3) Communism is definitely aiming at the undermining of the church, the State and society; (4) Communism is entirely materialistic and acknowledges no spiritual values. In other words, Communism seeks to destroy everything which cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. The memorandum establishes fifthly that Communism is avowedly atheistic and denies God and God’s guidance. (6) Communism knows no colour bars, and this is contrary to the most sacred traditions of the Afrikaner people. The Afrikaner people wants to maintain a European civilisation here in South Africa; and in spite of this appeal by the churches and our attempts today to bring this matter again urgently and seriously to the notice of the Minister, what did he give us? Only those silly replies and arguments to which we had to listen this afternoon. What are the requests made by the church to the Government? I shall mention those requests. They first of all requested that the sending of deputations to Russia should be stopped. Secondly, they pointed to the damage which has already been caused as a result thereof in our trade unions, so that an un-Afrikaans spirit has permeated these unions and also our labour problems. The church asks that the things which are at present going on in our trade unions be stopped. Thirdly, they ask the cancellation, by means of legislation, of propaganda in our schools, in our Press, in articles, in literature and in study circles. This refers to the propaganda in connection with which the Minister declared today that he knew nothing about it. Do the Dutch churches in South Africa not know what they are talking about? Are they such senseless people that they would come with this respectful request to the Government and ask that a stop should be put to these things, if they did not see that these things are happening in the country, if the church did not realise the danger which this entails for everything that is dear and sacred to us? Would the church weekly, “The Kerkbode”, write about these things if they did not happen? But no, the Minister comes here and declares airily that he knows nothing about these things happening in the country. In the fourth place the churches request that a stop should be put to all this mixing of Europeans and non-Europeans. This mixing is the thing which is allowed by the Government in South Africa at present. These are the requests directed to the Government by the churches. This is information which the Minister had at his disposal and what has been the reply of the Minister to these representatives of the Dutch churches? According to the information I have received it must have been the same kind of reply he gave us here today. Of course he simply told them too: No, those things do not exist in this country. The 530,000 members of the Dutch churches, all the Synods, all the church ministers are wrong—the Minister of Justice knows better. There is no such thing as a Communistic danger in the country. I just want to tell the Minister this. The Dutch churches in South Africa guard the sacred and dear treasures of our people. The Dutch churches in South Africa want to preserve the spiritual values of our people for posterity. The Dutch church keeps a watchful eye on our people, and for that reason they came to the Minister to ask him to help them to ward off that danger to our people, because the churches realise that it can destroy everything which possesses spiritual value for us. The Minister dare not fail in his duty to help to ward off this danger. If the Minister does neglect his duty, forces will spring up, inspired by the traditions of our people, which will sweep away the Minister if he does not fulfil his duties towards the people. As at Bloed River our people will again win the victory and just as it saved itself from the barbarism of those days, it will again be victorious and save itself from this new barbarism which is threatening us. Finally I want to refer the Minister of Justice to the following. If he does not care what we say and if he does not care what the voice of the church is, then I want to refer him to the call of a person who was a bosom friend of his father, the late President Steyn. I want to remind him of the words of the late Dr. Kestell—

I want to remind the Minister that rhe church we have in South Africa is to us something sacred which we have dearly paid for with the blood of our ancestors who sacrificed themselves and suffered on the stake for their freedom and their church. That is the heritage we received from them, and that church is now coming to the Minister and in the hour of danger it appeals to him and the Government and asks: Save at least the church of your fathers, that institution which has meant so much for the Afrikaner nation. What is the Minister’s reply to all these pleadings? No, he does not know that these things are happening in the country. I want to end here. The Minister should obey the words which are every day read out in the praper here in this House, that we have come together to see that right and justice shall prevail in South Africa, and that we shall look after the interests of our people with which Providence has entrusted us as his servants. Let the Minister help us to take care that that propaganda does not continue in our country as it seeks to destroy all the things which we hold sacred and dear. If he does not want to take notice of the appeal of the churches; if he does not want to give attention to what we tell him here in this House, then I finally want to remind him of the last words of Dr. Kestell, of that last call which rang to the four corners of South Africa—if he still has the slightest feeling for South Africa, let him respond to that call of the bosom friend of his father—Awake, South Africa, Awake!

I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and also to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Serfontein). And if I were to analyse their speeches, then the only two points which they have made are these. The one is that they have a grievance that Russia is our ally, and the other point is that we should stop speeches made here in favour of Communism.

Why don’t you speak your own language.

I prefer to exercise the freedom I have of speaking in the language in which I want to speak. Now, if I may deal with that one point first of Russia being our ally—although the Minister of Justice has really disposed of it—I want to say this. That of course hon. members opposite want to draw as many red herrings across the trail as they possibly can find, because they want the public to forget the mistakes they have made in the past and the attitude they have taken up. But the public are not fools and they will not forget the attitude of hon. members over there during the last few years. Russia is now suddenly held up as a great sinner. Russia is an Ally of ours—that is perfectly true, but Russia did not become our Ally by choice, she was forced to come in, she was attacked by Germany.

Yes, we know all about that.

We went into this war to fight for our freedom against Germany, we wanted to fight for our right as a democracy, and we are fighting against the domination of dictatorships. Now, Germany attacked Russia so Russia has become our Ally. Does the hon. member for Beaufort West want to say that because Russia has come into the war—mind you, on being attacked by Germany—we must now turn round and join Germany and welcome a dictatorship here. There is no logic in it. If the hon. member says that a danger has been created because Russia happens to be our ally, and that therefore we must now welcome Germany with open arms, I am afraid we cannot follow him along that road. We have other allies too. Holland, Belgium, America and other countries. Are we to turn against those countries? And are those countries also to declare Russia their enemy? Does not the hon. member want us to be in the good company of these countries? No, for election purposes the hon. member now raises this bogey and because Russia has now become our ally Communism is endangering South Africa. I cannot see the logic of it. The extracts which hon. members have read are extracts from speeches by people who are in favour of a Communistic policy. Well, does the hon. member want the Government to suppress everything—which they, the Opposition are not in favour of, or which the Government are not in favour of—do they want the Government to suppress every agitation or every speech for a different form of government. I don’t think they do, because if we were to follow that to its logical conclusion the Government would also have to suppress hon. members’ speeches in favour of a Republic. No, if their policy were carried out the Opposition would have no existence at all. We stand for democracy and it is the democratic right of anyone to say what he likes so long as he does not endanger the safety of the State and so long as what he says does not lead to acts of violence. If people want to make speeches to try and convince others that a different system of Government is better than a democratic system of government, does the hon. member want the Government to suppress those people? Surely hon. members don’t want that. The hon. member over there says that the natives want certain rights, and because the natives ask for those rights he says that that is Communism. Hon. members over there claim a Republic for this country. Yet they come here today and they take exception to the Government having refused to take any action when people make speeches which they—hon. members opposite, do not approve of. Similarly, hon. members decline to people the right to give expression to their views. Hon. members opposite have been holding out and proclaiming their right to have a Republic in this country. Others have held forth for a dictatorship. Well, all that agitation has died a natural death, and so will all this other agitation die a natural death. But I want to emphasise another point. I want hon. members to realise that these oppressive measures which they stand for if they are carried out, will tend to bring Communism to this country far sooner than the attitude which the Government is adopting. To deny the natives the right to say what they think they are entitled to, is the very thing to engender that feeling of Communism, and to lead to acts of violence. It is that form of oppression which may have the very effect which hon. members opposite say they want to avoid. The hon. member who has just sat down wants a form of oppression to be exercised by the Government. Well, let me tell him this. The policy of the Opposition is to be anti-everything—they are anti-everything who does not speak to their liking, and who does not follow their policy. That is not what we on this side stand for. We want to steer clear of strikes and other troubles, and we say that so long as people do not contravene the law and do not commit acts of violence they can say what they like. But hon. members over there are simply trying to blindfold the public; they want the people to forget what they have done in the last few years. The native in this country I say has up to now not been adequately paid for his services. We have had strikes in this country in the past in which the natives were not involved at all. That was due to the fact that up to now the natives did not feel the need to urge their case as strongly as they do today. But the working man in the past felt that he required better conditions, so he urged and agitated, and strikes followed, and he formed his Trade Unions. And as a result the working man achieved a great many of the things he needed. The working man availed himself of his democratic rights, and so long as he committed no acts of violence he could not be prevented from doing so. The natives in many cases today feel that they are underpaid and the fears expressed by hon. members opposite only exist in their minds because in their minds they feel that they have not always given these people a square deal.

What about the Prime Minister’s statement to the churches when they came to see him?

I say that the churches have lost their influence because they have become political bodies; it is because hon. members over there have brought pressure to bear on the churches for political purposes.

What about the English churches which came to see the Prime Minister?

I maintain that we must treat the workers in this country liberally and well and if we do so there will be no danger of Communistic agitation, there will be no strikes and no acts of violence. Let me give an instance of what hon. members over there are doing. The party on the Opposition benches today is actually opposing the formation of Trade Unions, which we on this side of the House have always felt to be to the benefit of the workers. We have always recognised the rights of the workers to form Trade Unions. Is it not a fact that we have in the past neglected the social side of our workers’ lives? Let me say this—that while this Government is in power, Communism will not gain strength here and there will be no strikes because we are going in for the Social Security Policy which will tend to the happiness of every section of the community in this country; we shall carry on along democratic lines. People can say what they wish to say and only by following that course can one have peace. But if we follow the course indicated by the hon. member for Beaufort West we shall have strife and discord. We cannot call ourselves a democratic country and deny people the right of free speech. But hon. members can be quite sure that the people of this country realise that this motion is nothing but an attempt to blindfold them and make them forget the mistakes they have made since the beginning of the war. Hon. members over there call themselves the Re-United Party—the only thing they have done is to hate everyone who is not with them and I am afraid they have caused many people to hate what they stand for. They are up against everyone and everything. I say that unfortunately very many of the followers of the Re-United Party are people who are not sufficiently educated to think for themselves. They are led astray by temperament or historical prejudice, and I say that the party over there is the only one to suffer if Communist doctrines are preached—because they fear that their own followers will join the Communist Party and that is why they want to suppress what they call Communist activity. I say again that so long as people who are alleged to preach Communism do nothing to contravene the laws of the country and do not commit acts which lead to violence, the Government has no right to interfere. The position today is no different from what it was when the hon. member’s party was in power. What was the Ossewa-Brandwag movement in the beginning? Today they say it is a criminal movement, but in the beginning the Leader of the Opposition warned the Government not to interfere with it. Today hon. members say that the Ossewa-Brandwag movement is a criminal movement—and judging by what they say they should know that it is. Surely if Natives come together and pass resolutions by way of an appeal for their social or political rights, that does not mean that they are doing anything illegal; it does not mean that those rights will be given them straight away, and why should we stop them? Why should not the Natives have their own views in regard to the future of South Africa as they see it? If they ask for things it does not necessarily mean that the Government must grant their request. But the Government can listen to their representations. I say again that the hon. member for Beaufort West has only brought this motion in as a blind, just to make the people forget the past and the principles which those hon. members stand for.

I think both sides of this House will some day thank the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) for having introduced this motion, and for the manner in which he has presented it. Hon. members opposite, as well as on this side, feel that something, should be done in connection with this menace. We are concerned here with Communism, a foreign movement which has also been transplanted to our country, and the hon. member for Beaufort West has made a special study of the matter, and he has submitted the matter to the House in an able manner, supported by quotations. I do not wish to add anything to what he has said about the international position, but I should like to refer briefly to what is happening in our country. There is no hon. member who will accuse me of saying what is not so, and of telling stories, because what I am saying here is what I have seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears. You, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members come from the borders of the Native territories, and you know that the mentality of the Native differs from ours. In Europe conditions are different; but here in South Africa, we have to bear in mind that in the whole of Africa there are 143,000,000 Natives and coloureds, and only three million Europeans. What hope has the European to make a living say in 50 years’ time, if the Communistic movement spreads to the Natives? And the danger is very great. The Natives receive letters from Johannesburg which have been inspired from Moscow. Instructions are given to them which they have to carry out. The other day my foreman on my farm came to me and said: “Look at the letter I have received from Johannesburg.” What did the letter say? That they should demand higher wages, that they are the bosses, that it is their country and not that of the Europeans. Here we are concerned with Natives who have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The Native does not view matters from our point of view, and the hon. Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite know that. They also know what the Prime Minister told the deputation of the English Churches. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) now says that we want to use the Dutch churches for propaganda purposes, but it was the English churches. A couple of days ago the Minister of Agriculture said: “Had you only given me the advice in time.” We are again giving advice in time. We are warning the country of the danger. The hon. member for Beaufort West has warned the country. We ask the Government to heed it. If they wish to see the war through, very well! We do not want the Nazis here. Every member of this House knows that I am opposed to every foreign movement, but this danger will destroy us as a European country. Not only this side will suffer on account of that, but also hon. members over there. What is happening? I frequently come into contact with soldiers, and I know with what ideas they have become imbued. The Communists are active. You find the same thing among the Natives. They are demanding this and that, and Communism is a policy of violence. There must be a change, and we are sounding a warning. We know that after the war the world will not be what it was before the war. Changes are being demanded from all directions, but we in South Africa should be careful. Take the South African women who have been in Russia. I do not wish to mention names, but note what they say. Take the Conference of the Garment Workers and what the lady, who was chairlady, said. Next to her there was sitting a Native, and he said he was as good as, if not better, than she, although his colour was black. Can we continue with that policy in South Africa? Will hon. members opposite want to sit next to Natives and coloureds as comrades, and be associated with them in every way? If we want to be honest, we will admit that we dare not and may not do so, for then the European civilisation in South Africa will be doomed. Communism is gaining ground rapidly of late. In the Native territories it is spreading like a burning fire which you will be unable to extinguish in a short while. I employ a large number of Natives. They refuse to work on Saturday afternoons, any longer. I have called them and asked them, “Why do you refuse to work?” The foreman, a Native who has grown up in front of me, said: “Look, master; you are well-disposed towards us, but now we are masters; we now want so much every day and every month 1s. more, and if you refuse to give it, the great Russia is coming; they are being victorious and will give it to us.” That is what is going on in the minds of the Natives. Within a week, it has spread to all the Natives. I treat my Native farm labourers well, and have asked them why they now want more. The Native boy said to me: “Look, you still give us the same food, and you still look after us, but now the big people in Johannesburg are telling us that we should receive more; it is our country.” Do not let us view the matter from the political point of view, but let us take as our starting point the maintenance of the European civilisation in South Africa. If we adopt that point of view, we dare not cast aspersions upon one another in this cheap manner. The Minister of Justice knows, or ought to know, that the quotations of the hon. member for Beaufort West are irrefutable. We have been sounding warnings for many years that we should be careful that Communism does not gain the upper-hand. We do not want it any more than we want Nazism, but Nazism is not active in our country today. We utter a warning against any foreign movement that wants to come in and destroy us. We come forward with facts you cannot ignore. Look what the hon. member for Vereeniging says. He was insulting. He says we want to be unilingual, and he accused us of this, that and the other thing, and used words which we do not deserve and which are not worthy of him. Nobody can swallow that kind of reply. Note how little interest is taken in this matter which is of the greatest importance. The House is empty. But the time will come when all of us will have to realise the importance of the motion before us today. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh and they will perhaps negative this motion, but their children and our children will have occasion to cry. They will be suppressed together with us. They may not take the matter so lightly. I see what is going on in the mind of the Native. I am acquainted with their circumstances; I have been living close to them for years, just like you, Mr. Speaker, and you know what is going on among them. Let us take the matter seriously, and put an end to the activities of the Communists. If we don’t do that, we shall no longer be the masters in South Africa, but the Native will come and forcibly take it.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) with great respect for the amount of work that he has put into it. I know the hon. member feels strongly on this subject, and it was quite evident to all of us that he had taken the very greatest care in preparing the sources from which he spoke this morning. If I may say so, I think he would have done more good to his motion if he had been able to keep his speech to a little less lengthy scope, because it is quite obvious, the clock being now at ten minutes past four, that we are not going to finish this afternoon.

I do not wish to add much more to what I said yesterday, just before the adjournment of the debate. Nor do I wish to repeat what has already been said; besides, this side has gone into the matter very fully. One so often hears that the farmers are being spoonfed. With regard to this measure, it should be remembered that the farmers have landed in this position through circumstances over which they have had no control. We find that a similar position prevailed throughout the world at the time, and in other countries the farmers had about as hard a time of it as we did. We recall for instance what America at that time did to save the farmers from ruin. They even went much further than we did. Where the Government at that time realised the seriousness of the position here, and also at the time intervened, they did not go far enough, and the question remains unsolved, and the farmers will once again revert to the same position they were in at that time. We should bear in mind that the Farm Mortgage Interest Subsidy Act has been in force for ten years already, and last year, or the year before, the Minister laid upon the Table the report of the Committee appointed to go into the matter. I have read the report carefully, and the report says that although the farmers have had the interest subsidy for all those years, they are not yet out of danger by a long way, and that the Committee is convinced that they cannot do without the interest subsidy. I would just say that we had a Committee there consisting of men in whom we had the greatest faith, men who were acquainted with the circumstances. I think one of the members was the Chairman of the Farmers’ Assistance Board, who had been most concerned with these matters, and their report was that they were convinced that the farmers could not, by a long way, do without that assistance yet. That does not mean that the farmers are not prepared to carry out their obligations. On the contrary, I think the Minister announced a couple of days ago, that the farmers had repaid to the Land Bank and to the State Advances Recovery Office, no less an amount than about £3,000,000.

It will be more this year. We expect it to be £3,600,000 this year.

The Minister is therefore dealing with people who are prepared to meet their obligations. They have landed in this position due to things over which they have no control. For that reason I feel that the Minister should act once and for all now and settle the whole question. As we are dealing with people who are desirous of meeting their obligations, and who have got into difficulties without fault of their own, is it not possible now to solve this question once and for all by means of a mortgage redemption scheme? I do not suggest that it should be applied to all mortgages. We realise that it is a difficult question, but when one is dealing with people who have got into difficulties through circumstances beyond their control, one should try to place them on a permanently sound footing. Now the Minister proposes that the interest subsidy should continue in existence for eight years longer, but in a different form. That is no solution. We ask the Minister in all modesty, to face the matter squarely once and for all, and to meet the people in order to enable them to stand on their own legs and have a future. We all know that when the farmers are prosperous, the country fares well. I think the Minister has also experienced that during his term of office. For that reason we ask the Minister to tackle the question thoroughly for once.

The Minister by his action in connection with the farm mortgage interest subsidy revealed a great lack of courage and of frankness. We know that the Minister is actually opposed to the Interest Subsidies Act and wants to be rid of it. Already last year he tried to do that. Where that is the case, we are not surprised to see the hon. members on the opposite side standing up and congratulating the Minister on what he intends doing for the farmers. Well, if congratulations are to be handed out then this side of the House must be congratulated because the Minister already last year wanted to abolish the necessary assistance to the farming community, but we opposed it. This year he comes along and makes a further concession in connection therewith and he introduces an entirely different Bill, and if this Bill is a big improvement on the position in comparison with last year, then hon. members there ought to congratulate us who were responsible therefor that the measure was withdrawn last year. When the legislation was introduced for the first time 10 years ago I stated that the Act was good as far as it went, but that it was only good as a palliative measure and that it was not a remedy. Experience has demonstrated that that point of view was correct. After 10 years of interest subsidies the farmers are still in the same position. After 10 years of farmers’ assistance they are still overburdened with mortgages. We at that time wanted to go rather further and have a remedial measure applied, a scheme coupled with rent relief, which would also have been a redemption scheme. Then perhaps we may have been in a different position today. I think that the Minister himself realises that the Bill as such does not take us far enough. Instead of his coming along and tackling the question at the root and solving the problem thoroughly, he comes along with a further palliative measure, and it is a palliative measure which means that what has been done for the past 10 years will be done for a further period of 8 years only. We on this side of the House say that it is not yet too late to bring in a measure which has been planned and which will be thorough enough to tackle the question at its roots and solve it. Therefore we propose that the Government should tackle the question de novo and should come forward with a well-considered scheme and that it must regard farm mortgages as a brake on the economic life of our country in general and on the farmers in particular, and that it must take steps to get away from the interest. In other words, we ask him to regard the matter anew and our amendment asks that not only mortgages effected before 1933, but also mortgages effected since 1933, should Le taken into consideration. When we come and plead for the farmers in connection with their mortgage burden, there we say that we do not ask for charity and subsidies. The farmer is just as opposed to subsidies being paid as anybody else, and in that connection I wish to point out that it is not the farmer who receives the subsidy which is paid by the Government—it is not the farmer but the mortgage holder who receives it. I have already on previous occasions said that the appellation “interest subsidy” is altogether wrong. It should have been “farm mortgage holder subsidy” because the interest subsidy which the Government now pays is to the benefit of the bond holder. The interest rate for farm mortgages is now fixed at 5 per cent. although we know that money is cheaper today and is plentiful. We see how the Minister of Finance goes out of his way to raise loans so that the great amount of money which is in circulation is utilised. And what does he do with it? No constructive work to strengthen the economic position of South Africa, but he borrows it in the first place to wage war. Well, the Minister knows that we are opposed to the war. But secondly, he borrows it in order to pay off loans which were negotiated overseas. Now we say that where he is in a position to do that that there is a much greater work which he can perform in the interests of the country. He can place the farmers in the position to make use of the cheap money which he can raise and to reduce the interest rate on mortgages. That is why we have pleaded in the past that the Government must tackle a comprehensive scheme, well-considered, to place the farmers in a position to make use of the cheap money which is available. If the Minister does not want to devise such a scheme, then he can place the Land Bank in a position to take over the indebtedness of the farmers and to assist the farmers in that manner. But today the Land Bank has not got the funds. If he puts the Land Bank in a position to obtain sufficient funds at a low rate of interest then the Land Bank can take over many bonds and that at a cheap rate of interest. Why does he not do it? Why does he not-provide the Land Bank with more funds? Why does he not permit the Land Bank to issue Land Bank debentures so that the Land Bank can obtain funds practically independent of the Government to function properly as a Land Bank? That is a very good way in which to alleviate the position of the farmers. Permit them to make use of the opportunity to acquire cheap money to the advantage of the farming community. If the Minister really wants to tackle the matter he can assist the farmers in this way to obtain cheap money and then it would not be necessary to pay subsidies. In addition, the farmers who do not receive subsidies and who also are not assisted under this Bill will be assisted. That will reduce the rate of interest and the farmers will enjoy the benefit of that. Today money is obtainable in the open market at 3 per cent. and 3½ per cent. In that way the rate of interest can be reduced. The Minister in the past showed that he was opposed to the Interest Subsidy Act and therefore we are glad that he has now come, not with a drastic measure which he wanted to introduce in the first instance, but with a Bill in which the principle which we have always advocated is laid down, the fundamental principle of assisted redemption. It was a deficiency in the previous legislation that assistance was only rendered by way of subsidy. That is not enough and I pointed that out in the past. Coupled with the assistance which an interest subsidy provides there must be a scheme of actual redemption. I am therefore pleased that the Minister accepts the principle in the new proposal, but I regret that he applies the principle so half-heartedly. Why does he not come along with a well-devised, well-considered and complete scheme? Why does he not grant assistance to bring down mortgages to an economic level? Then further assistance will not be necessary and I am convinced that the taxpayers will find no fault with it. The taxpayers are opposed to the type of help which means that they must pay off the mortgages in toto. That is the impression which existed but it was never the intention. We want to see the mortgages brought down to a sound economic level. And then we say, once that has happened, that a stop must be put to it, then the farmer must be forbidden to again overburden himself with debts as in the past. Where the individual farmer receives assistance in relief of his debts, there he will also not raise objection that the State take steps to forbid him to incur debts which he cannot bear. The farmer will take delight, if he is assisted in reducing his debt, to be prohibited from taking further heavy burdens on himself. He does not want to come into the difficulty again in which he was. Therefore we hope that the Minister will still in this Session come forward with a scheme which will tackle the problem on a reasonable basis. Let him link with the assistance which he is prepared to give mortgage redemption to an economic level under a well-considered scheme. This Bill will not give any assistance in many very needy cases, while there are undeserving cases which will be assisted and which will be able to make use of this legislation. There will be well-to-do people who will receive assistance which they do not require. I know of cases where people gave big bonds on other farms while they retained their debt on their own ground in order to draw the interest subsidy. And those people can receive assistance according to the provisions of the previous Act and also under the provisions of this Act. What reasons can such a man adduce for receiving assistance? One would have expected the Minister to eliminate this anomaly and to exclude these undeserving cases. If the Minister had gone to the trouble of investigating the matter he would have found that large amounts are being paid out to undeserving cases and this is money which might have been used to meet deserving cases. We also feel that this principle of amortising farm bonds should be accepted. We suggest that the Land Bank should be empowered to take over all farm bonds at a rate of interest of 3½ per cent. and that the Government should contribute 1½ per cent. towards the amortisation of the bonds until the capital amount has been reduced to 60 per cent. of the value of the farm, as determined by the Bank. We moreover maintain that the Minister should take steps now to exempt the people from income tax in respect of that part of their income which has been used to reduce by an amount of £3,000 or less a bond existing at present. I think that is a very reasonable suggestion and if the Minister should accept it, he would do much to assist the poor farmers. The ’Minister did not put before us an actual remedy; and as he is only tampering with that principle we must say that we are greatly disappointed in the Minister. We want to tell the Minister that the farmers outside are not satisfied and that they regret that he is allowing to slip through his hands this golden opportunity while there is plenty of money in the country and while the money is cheap. We noticed what happened during the last war. It was followed by a depression and we should expect a depression after this war. Money will be scarce after this war and then the Minister of Finance may perhaps feel that something of this nature should be done, but he will no longer be able to do it. The golden opportunity will have been there but the Minister will have failed to make use of that opportunity. We cannot but be disappointed in the Minister.

I should like to give my hearty support to the amendment by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. I submit that this Act is an improvement on the Act of last year and the previous years. The Minister made the point here that where a man is able to deposit 10 per cent., the Government will also deposit 10 per cent. I would point out to the Minister that the poor man might not be able, during the first year, to come forward with a capital sum. I should like to ask the hon. Minister, if he is not prepared to accept the amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, whether he will not meet the poor farmer in order to enable him to make that capital payment in the second or the third year. Supposing the man has £100 to deposit, the Minister also will contribute £100. But the man who does not have the money during the first year, will not be able to avail himself of this provision during the next year. I would therefore ask the Minister whether a man who is unable to come forward with a capital amount one year, will be able to do so the following year.

That may be done. I shall explain that point.

This Act was enacted as an emergency measure at the time, and we know that the rate of interest at the time was 9 per cent., 10 per cent. and even 12 per cent. I should like to ask the Minister, if he is unwilling to refer the Bill to a Select Committe, whether he will not be prepared to reduce the rate of interest from 5 per cent. to 4 per cent. The farmer who has a Land Bank Mortgage pays only 4½ per cent. Could the Government not make enough money available to the Land Bank to enable the Land Bank to take over all farm mortgages? All the farmers falling under this scheme, pay 5 per cent., and a’ man with a Land Bank Mortgage pays 4 per cent., and he is given 33 years in which to redeem the mortgage. In terms of this Act, the farmer will have only eight years. I shall be glad if the Minister will make an alteration in this connection. There is one point in the Opposition motion with which I am unable to agree, and that is that the mortgages entered into after 1933 should also fall within the provisions of this Act. I am entirely opposed to any further assistance before all the poor people, all the “bywoners,” have first been provided with land, before we advance money to people who already owe the Government £15,000 or £20,000. Personally I know of a man who has received £19,000 from the Government and he pays only 3½ per cent. on that. He has now purchased another farm. I know of four or five such cases where the parties concerned have cash money in the bank. They receive their interest, and then they pay only 3½ per cent. to the Government. I fail to see how we can go along and give further assistance to those people, before we have enabled the “bywoners” of those people, who have never had a piece of ground to acquire a small piece of land also, before we assist the other man who possesses cash money and who invests it on a profitable basis.

I want to thank the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) for the moderate and practical attitude be adopted here this afternoon. He admits that there are many good things in this proposed legislation. I do not agree with everything he said, but that hon. member at least adopted a moderate attitude and I think the Minister can deal with the points he made during the Committee stage without referring this Bill to a Select Committee. But I want to discuss what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) said. He accused the Government that it introduced a Bill here which had not received proper consideration. I understand that he is the shadow Minister of Agriculture on the Opposition side, and we would at least have expected him to come here today with a well thought out scheme and that he would say to the Government: Here is a scheme which will satisfy the farmers. I need not enlarge on the merits of this Bill. The hon. Minister has already done so in an able manner. I want to confine myself to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen). Does that hon. member have any idea about the magnitude of the proposal he made? We know ourselves that farming is in a precarious position, that the farmers have up till now not had any say in the fixing of the prices of their products. We know what the disastrous results were when the previous Government stuck to the gold standard. I do admit that improvements can still be effected, but even though there may be weak patches, is is nothing in comparison to the disaster which befell the farming industry when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was our Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad recently came to Ermelo and there he criticised the Government’s price fixing scheme. Today he finds fault with that scheme, but we want to ask him how it was that he allowed mealies to be sold for 3s. and 4s. a bag when he was Minister of Agriculture? No, their deeds, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, belie their words. I now come back to the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Victoria West. He wants first of all that bonds be given at an interest of 3½ per cent. We like to see the farmer get his bond as cheaply as possible, but hon. members on the other side know as well as we do that this Government borrows money from time to time for a fixed period. When the Government issues a loan for a period of 10 or 20 years, it has a contractual obligation towards the public to keep that money for the minimum period laid down. It cannot convert the money any time it likes to do so. It has to keep the money for the period laid down and it has to stick to its obligations. It is in this respect that we find the difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Government fulfils its obligations. There is no doubt that today money is plentiful and cheap in our country, but what are we going to do with all the money which we have so far borrowed at a higher rate of interest than the present one? We know that the Land Bank receives funds from the Government at 3½ per cent. The administration expenses of the Land Bank are 1 per cent., from which it has to create a reserve fund, and it lends its money at 4½ per cent. If money is so cheap, surely there must be plenty of private moneylenders who will be prepared to take over the bond indebtedness of the farmers at 3½ per cent. The hon. members on the other side complain that money is so cheap that one cannot even get 2 per cent. interest on it. If that were the case, there should not be the slightest difficulty in finding some monetary institution or other prepared to take over the bond debts as a profitable investment at 34 per cent. No, that is our difficulty; we cannot evade our obligations towards the investors. We are going to remain faithful to the agreement we made with them. Hon. members on the other side said that the Government should decrease the bond debts of the farmers until it reached 60 per cent. of the value of his land, as determined by the Land Bank. But what basis are they going to adopt? These bonds have mostly been taken out before 1933. Their motion is of such magnitude that they also want to include all bonds which have been taken after that period. When a man buys land today at £10 or £15 per morgen, whereas the price was from £4 to £6 ten years ago, do they then expect the Government to repay that man’s bond until it reaches 60 per cent. of the present value of the land? Do they want to confine themselves to the value of the land as it was in 1933? I maintain that in that case there will be very few farms today bonded for more than 60 per cent. of that value. The Land Bank usually advances 60 per cent. of the value of the land. Under Section 20, the Land Bank can advance 100 per cent. of the value of money. The difference between the 60 per cent. and 100 per cent. is then guaranteed by the State Advances Office. As far as we know it very infrequently happened that State advances had to pay up on account of that guarantee. We therefore declare that the position of bond indebtedness is very sound in general at the present moment, and this is proved by the redemptions which have been effected by the farmers in recent years. If we hon. members think that the bond indebtedness is still too high, then we can tell them that if they should have a mandate from their friends who support them to buy their land at 100 per cent. of the bonded value, they will be able to find dozens of people who will buy such land. If the Government were to buy all that land at the price which the farmers paid for it before 1933, it would be able to sell the land again with a profit of at least 30 per cent. Hon. members on the other side know just as well as I do that they are now proposing something which is impracticable. They can never do it. If they had the opportunity to do so, they would not do it themselves. They think that this Government is able to do something which they cannot execute themselves. They make us this compliment, that this is the strongest Government we have ever had in this country, a Government which has shown the greatest sympathy for the farmers, for they expect something from this Government which they could never do themselves. There are many members on the other side who made a success of farming, and I make bold to say that the farmers on that side of the House who spoke against this legislation are all farmers who made a success of their farms. I want to put this question to them: How many of them will be prepared to sell their land at the price they paid for it in 1933? I want to dwell a moment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). When he advocated this amendment he confined himself more in particular to the marketing scheme; therein lies the salvation for the farmer. Even if we wrote off all the bonds today, it would in another ten or fifteen years again be necessary to introduce a bond redemption scheme. In ten or more years’ time the farmers may be in trouble again. Many farmers told me that the final salvation of the farming industry does not lie in favours and charity. They do not want that; they only want a stabilisation of the market. They only want to have the assurance that they can sell their products at an economic price. I say that the Farm Mortgage Interest Act is one of the best pieces of legislation ever introduced in this House for the assistance of farmers. As the hon. member for Kroonstad pointed out, there have been periods in the past when the interest on bonds was 8 per cent., 9 per cent., 10 per cent. and even 12 per cent. This Act brought down the interest on farm bonds to 3½ per cent. and it is still standing there today. Hon. members on the other side are only spoiling their own case; if possible we want to assist everybody. I want to ask those hon. members to be honest and straightforward. They know just as well as I do that the proposal they are making here is vague and impracticable. We want to ask them this question: Do they have a mandate from the farming industry to the the farmers down to making no further debts in case we agree to pay off the bond indebtedness down to 60 per cent. Will the farming community be prepared to enter into no further debt obligations? I still have to meet the farmer who will sell his freedom of action in that manner. We cannot demand this charity from the Government unless we place a life-long obligation on the farmers. If we pay the farmer’s bond, we shall be entitled to say to him: we have now paid your debt; we are now going to dictate to you how you should handle matters and you will not be allowed to mortgage your farm to more than 60 per cent. of the value of the land. No, I am positive that they cannot show us a mandate from the farmers authorising them to make this proposal. If their motion were accepted, they would thereby impede the freedom and the credit of the farmer, and the farmers will not thank them for that. That is all this proposal can mean. The hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) in his maiden speech, referred, and the hon. Minister also referred to it, to the fact that the Agricultural Union of South Africa approved of the principle of this Bill. There we have a body able to speak with authority on behalf of the farming industry of South Africa. I believe the Minister will be much safer in appreciating, and accepting their point of view than in taking any notice of the irresponsible proposals put forward by the Opposition. I ask those hon. members: if they are against this Bill, will they vote this afternoon for the total rejection of this Bill? Do they not want the farmer to have this security for the next eight years? Do they want to exchange this security for the insecurity of the past? Then there is still one point, namely in regard to the exemption from income tax. I do not believe that the farmer who is able to sell a few thousand pounds worth of cattle will object to paying his ordinary income tax out of it, but if the Minister will meet the farmers who want to sell cattle in order to pay off their bond indebtedness and will exempt them from excess profits tax, we shall be grateful.

The hon. member who has just sat down submitted an argument here which amounts to this, viz. that we on this side of the House are moving a motion of which the farmers outside are not in favour. He made some charge or other here. I should just like to tell the hon. member what my personal experience has been in my constituency. At each meeting and in every town my voters instructed me to oppose this Bill tooth and nail. I have therefore the fullest right to state that this Bill is undesirable and unasked for. I would like to ascertain from the Minister of Finance where the farmers instructed him to introduce this Bill. The hon. member who has just spoken said that the South African Agricultural Union had declared that they approved of the principle of this Bill. That is in connection with the mortgage redemption scheme. I can well understand that; we also approve that the principle of a mortgage redemption scheme should be included in the Bill, but I do believe that the Minister of Finance can declare that the Agricultural Union approves of this Bill.

The South African Agricultural Union said that they approved of the proposals in the Bill.

I shall be glad if the hon. Minister will read it to me, because I will tell him that the Agricultural Union was not satisfied. I want to tell the hon. Minister this afternoon that where he came to this decision, to this abolition of the interest subsidy—you will not allow me to say that it was done under false pretences, but you will allow me to say that it was done “with disguised intentions.” I now want to tell the Minister how it gradually came about that this measure was introduced. A motion had been introduced in this House, and then the Minister said, in connection with the redemption of farm mortgages, that he would appoint a Commission. That Commission submitted a report, but it reported in connection with the interest subsidies of 1933. In the report they then submitted, they insisted that the existing assistance should remain, i.e. that the Act of 1933 should remain; that the Farmers’ Assistance Act of 1935 should remain; that the 1936 Act should remain. I can read it to the Minister. He himself read it in this House. But they said that should the price not rise as one would expect after this war, they recommend a certain scheme. It will be interesting to those members on the opposite side to know what the Farmers’ Assistance Commission recommended, namely that the farmer should pay 2 per cent. interest and the State should contribute 3 per cent. Surely the Farmers’ Assistance Commission knows what they are talking about; where does the Minister’s argument come in that the value of land will rise under these circumstances? What did the Minister then say? He then said to the Farmers’ Assistance Commission: I do not instruct you to inquire into the question of interest subsidy. I instructed you to inquire into the mortgage redemption scheme. He said—

This is what the Minister said and he again referred it to the Farmers’ Assistance Board, and he advised them to enquire into the mortgage redemption scheme, and they brought to light the insurance scheme. The insurance scheme was then referred to the Board of the Land Bank and the Board of the Land Bank found that scheme to be impracticable. They declared that they had a scheme of a general nature; this could be better tackled after the war because one does not know now how prices are going to rise and fall again later on. You must listen carefully now; the Minister advises the Farmers’ Assistance Commission to inquire into a Mortgage Redemption Scheme, and the Minister thereupon uses these words:—

Just before that the Minister said:—

Then follows the quotation which I have just read. It is not the report on the mortgage redemption scheme. The Minister says it is not his last word, and on a subsequent occasion in this House he said he had again referred the matter to a Committee. He also read out the names of the members he had appointed to that Committee. But this afternoon I should like to ask the Minister this: When you appointed that Committee, did you direct that Committee to enquire into a mortgage redemption scheme? No, the hon. Minister of Finance did not do so, for I have here before me instructions he gave that Committee, and it is not included among them. At the beginning of the report, it is said:

The Committee comes along and says the following:

The Minister of Finance gives the House the impression that he has appointed the Committee in connection with a mortgage redemption scheme, and when he gave his directions to the Committee, it was not in connection with a mortgage redemption scheme, but what the future policy of the Government should be in the matter of the interest subsidy, and whether that interest subsidy could be utilised for a redemption scheme. That is why at the outset I said that the Minister comes to this House with a cleverly disguised intention of abolishing the interest subsidy. That has always been his real object. As his newspapers outside were urging that the farmers should no longer be spoon-fed, he wished to abolish the interest subsidy, and that is why he has come forward with this Bill. The Minister has stated that the Cape Agricultural Union had said that they welcomed the Bill.

The South African Agricultural Union.

I should like to go back a little. When the Farmers’ Assistance Committee submitted their first report on the interest subsidy, the Minister referred it back and said they should investigate a mortgage redemption scheme, and they again submitted a report which the Minister imparted to us here in the House as follows:

That is the announcement by the Minister that he did not direct the interest subsidy but a mortgage redemption scheme to be enquired into—

How can the Minister come along this afternoon and tell us that the South African Agricultural Union wanted this Bill? Here they come along in 1941 and expressly state that they wish the existing assistance to remain intact, but that they desire additional assistance. For that reason I said that this measure is unacceptable. The Minister’s Committee, appointed by him, in the first instance, said that the interest subsidy should remain; the South African Agricultural Union said it should remain; and my constituents said the existing assistance should remain. It was only when the Minister put an accomplished fact before the last Committee, and asked them what he should do with the interest subsidy, that he received that report. I cannot imagine that that Committee would have said, in 1941, that this State assistance should remain, and then in 1942 that it should be abolished. I cannot assume that a responsible Committee such as the Farmers’ Assistance Committee—with members whose names I need not mention here—could have accepted the existing assistance as something that should remain, and then in 1942 could have recommended that it should be taken away. The Minister came to light with that report, and he expressed the terms of reference in this manner, to evolve a scheme for discontinuing the interest subsidy. For this reason I say that this Bill, although it does embody the principle of a redemption scheme, is not in itself meant for that but to get rid of the interest subsidy. It does not bring additional assistance in any shape or form to the farmer. The Minister cannot tell us that the farmers will be better off during the next ten years than they would have been had the law remained as it stands today. On the contrary, there are farmers who fall within the first alternative, who will be worse off. I say emphatically that farmers in parts of the North-West, in the Eastern parts of the Cape Province and in the Southern parts of the Free State, will prefer the law to remain as it stands today. And if they do desire something in addition to that, then it is that they should have the certainty that the law will remain as it is for eight or ten years. That is what they would have preferred. This Bill brings not the slightest stability. The people now know that the interest subsidy expires within eight years, and then they will once again be left to the mercy of the financiers. I have always lauded the Fusion Government for this Act. I believe that we have to criticise a Government in order to get the best out of it, but there are two measures for which I have always given the Fusion Government credit. The first was the Interest Subsidy Act, and the second was the building of dams on the farms. The Government comes along now and one of the best measures of the Smuts Government is being frustrated. The position now is that we find people over there such as the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus), the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) and the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) who come along and congratulate the Minister here for having brought certainty. They congratulate the Minister with the splendid measure he has brought into being. I say that when they do that, they only do so from a sense of loyalty to their party, but when they have done so, they always come forward with the “but” The “but” is always that the price the farmers receive for their produce, is not satisfactory. The measures existing for the control of prices are not effective, and the farmer sweats and struggles and deserves assistance. When they do that, they speak in the interests of their constituents. I have noticed that each of those hon. members came forward here with a gynandrous speech. They support the Minister from a sense of loyalty to their party, but when they come along with the “but,” we can see that they know what is going on outside. I am sorry the hon. member for Kimberley, District, is not here now, because while he was speaking, I was thinking of the appeal made here by the hon. member for Kimberley, District, in January, 1942, for a mortgage redemption scheme. I should like to read from the Hansard Report what the said. He said this—

Then the hon. member continues and says that we now have control boards, with the result that the farmers are not receiving the prices today which they received during the previous war. The hon. member for Kimberley, District, continuing, said this also—

And what has the hon. member for Kimberley, District, said here now, in the course of this debate? He really surprised me when he stated here the other day that the farmers now have received £3 for a wether and £50 for a slaughter ox. I have never heard greater nonsense. I was shocked by that statement. Oxen have been sold by auction for the war funds, and have been knocked down at that price. The other day there was a sale at Excelsior of two fattened oxen which fetched £50. I know the hon. member is engaged in sheep and cattle farming, and let him tell us what he receives for his wethers and oxen on an average. The hon. member knows as well as I do what the average price is. No, those hon. members know what the position of the farmer is, but now that the Minister of Finance has confronted them with an accomplised fact, now they have turned right about and come out with this nonsense in order to be loyal to their party.

The hon. member is wandering somewhat from the motion before the House.

The position is that it is said here that the farmers are in a flourishing position, and that the interest subsidy could for that reason be abolished over a period of eight years. For that reason I have read out this statement by the hon. member over there, made by him in 1942. At that time he explained to us that the position of the farmer was not rosy, and that a mortgage redemption scheme was needed. But now the Minister of. Finance has introduce this Bill, now we have to hear that the farmer is prospering. That shows how those members are enslaved to the party. Let us now take the argument used by the hon. member last year, which still applies. The Government fixes prices for farm produce, so that the prices cannot rise, cannot rise to as high a level as they would have reached if the control boards had not been there. The farmer is now in this position that the interest subsidy which was a support for him, is being removed from under him by this Government, and on the other hand, where he would have had an opportunity of receiving high prices for his products, the Government comes along with maximum prices and frustrates the farmer’s opportunities. He cannot go higher, as regards prices, and his support is removed from under him. No, the Minister of Finance may argue as he likes; he may call this legislation whatever he pleases, but the farmers outside will understand one thing clearly, and that is that this Bill has been introduced into this House for one purpose only, and that is to get rid of the interest subsidy, for the sake of or as a result of the insistence of the financiers on that side, in order that the farmers may in future again be left to their mercy. The object is that the interest subsidy should disappear, and there is in no sense an intention that there should be a mortgage redemption scheme. I have received several letters since the introduction of this Bill. Some of the letters demand that this Bill should include mortgages entered into after April, 1933. I was surprised to hear that the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) was not in favour of those farmers being assisted, but that those who do not have land yet, should first be assisted. Two wrongs do not make a right. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. P. M. K. le Roux) said the other day that he was taught at school that two negatives make a positive, but in public life two wrongs do not make one right. I know the hon. member for Kroonstad feels very strongly for those who do not yet possess land, but for that reason he now wants to penalise those farmers who purchased land subsequently to 1933 only.

On a point of explanation, may I say that my point was that farmers, who do need it, are being assisted with an interest subsidy. In my constituency there are farmers who have been drawing the interest subsidy, and have bought an additional farm and paid £9,000 cash for it. I am not prepared to render further assistance to those people until their “bywoners,” who have never had land, have first been assisted.

I accept the hon. member’s explanation. I say that I have received several letters from people who ask that this Bill should be made applicable to mortgages entered into subsequent to 1933. And in this connection I should like to remind the hon. Minister of Finance that the Farmers’ Assistance Committee, when making its first recommendation, said in the scheme they proposed that if a general scheme were adopted in terms of which the Government pays 2 per cent. and the farmer 3 per cent., that it should also be made applicable in respect of mortgage indebtedness incurred prior to 1st July, 1935. Even the Assistance Committee took the view that the mortgages up to June, 1935, should be included. The Minister stated the other day that he has introduced this Bill because he wants to encourage the farmers to redeem their mortgages. One cannot challenge the Minister’s object. But let me say this. If the Minister wishes to encourage the farmers to redeem their mortgages, he could do no better than to do what is asked of us in this amendment, and that is that he should not make taxable the amount of capital redemption on his mortgage, paid by the farmer. The Minister apparently thinks it is a product of our imagination. I would point out to the Minister that the Farmers’ Association of Naauwpoort have passed a Resolution recommending that. I want to read the whole Resolution to the Minister. It is a Resolution proposed as a point for discussion for the Congress to be held in Cape Town, and the Naauwpoort branch of the National Wool Growers’ Association makes this proposal:

We see therefore that this scheme we propose in our amendment, is something the farmers want. I may tell the Minister that the Farmers’ Association of Naauwpoort consists to the extent of nearly 80 per cent. of supporters of the Minister of Finance. They say the State should institute a mortgage redemption scheme, in order that the mortgages may be reduced to 70 per cent. of the value of the farm. I also have received a letter from the Farmers’ Association of Hanover, and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) could tell the Minister that that Farmers’ Association consists almost entirely of supporters of the Government, and they ask me to fight this measure tooth and nail. Therefore I say I am opposed to this measure proposed by the Minister of Finance, for he has introduced it with only one object, and that is to get rid of this State assistance that had been given to the farmer.

The help which was given through the Act of 1933 was of a twofold nature. The first was that the interest on those mortgages was limited to 5 per cent. That was the most important part of the Act of 1933, and I think that in the course of this debate we have so far lost sight of that point, because it has been so repeatedly intimated that the most important point in the Act of 1933 was the interest subsidy. That was the second part of that Act, namely, that the Government paid an interest subsidy to reduce the interest of the farmer in reality to 3½ per cent. With regard to the second point in the Act, the Minister of Finance meets the farmers to a fair extent. But with regard to the first part, namely the limitation of the interest to 5 per cent., there the Minister makes no provision whatever. We must remember that most of those mortgages which came under the Act in 1933 were mortgages with private mortgage holders, and the interest was higher than 5 per cent. It was 6 per cent., 7 per cent., and in some cases even higher. If we now accept this legislation, and the Minister is not prepared to make provision in the new legislation for meeting those people, then it will mean that as soon as the legislation of 1933 is withdrawn, the mortgage holders will immediately raise the interest again to 6 per cent. and 7 per cent., because owing to the high prices of products which were in vogue when those loans were concluded to which the Act of 1933 was applicable, those loans were on an economic basis. The result will be that instead of their getting that help, the Minister will saddle them with an interest burden which they cannot pay. And I wish earnestly to urge the Minister that, if he cannot give further help, he should at least make this provision in the Act that for the loans for which provision is made in this legislation—namely, the loans of before 1933 to which the interest subsidy was applicable—the interest may not be higher than 5 per cent., so that the mortgage holders cannot put the interest up to 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. I hope the Minister will at least make provision for that. That was the first and most important object of that legislation. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that that position will be maintained in the new legislation. With regard to the second question, the position is that the subsidy is given on a new basis. I do not agree by any means; but I wish to emphasise one point, and that is that the Minister comes now and admits for the first time that he is prepared and he lays down the general principle that he is prepared where a loan is made by a farmer to buy land, partly to pay that debt—namely, he admits now the principle of mortgage redemption with State assistance. That is the one point in this legislation which the Government now concedes, which is such a little part with which I agree. Although it is not at all adequate and although the assistance is going to be very weak and mean nothing in reality, this legislation does in principle accept a mortgage redemption scheme. The Minister now opens this question. I am convinced that in the future the Minister, now that he is starting this wheel rolling, will not be able to prevent that the Government will go further with a mortgage redemption scheme, to which the farmers are in a large measure entitled, especially where they bought land on an uneconomic basis, that the Government must in those cases help to redeem a part of the capital debt.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced a similar measure last Session, I said in this House that I did not think that that measure went far enough, and that it would not materially benefit the farming community. The present Bill is certainly an improvement on the one introduced last year, and although in certain respects it still does not go far enough, I realise that any suggestions which must now be made must be of a practical nature. It is just in this respect that the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) breaks down, because the terms of his amendment are so remote from being practical. The further amendment by the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, practically means killing the measure for this Session, and that is certainly not advisable. It has been argued by certain members opposite that this measure is intended to kill the present Act as far as the interest subsidy is concerned, but I feel that with an unknown financial situation which may arise after the war, it serves this good purpose, that those who have received the interest subsidy heretofore, will have any question of uncertainty removed, i.e., the uncertainty of knowing definitely whether the Act would be renewed from year to year, and in place of that uncertainty it is now quite definite that the subsidy would be continued for another eight years. It is true that those who draw the subsidy in cash would receive a diminishing amount each year, but as the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) has pointed out correctly, at least 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of mortgagees can pay their bond interest in full, and thus they, the large majority, will be able to benefit by the redemption scheme of the capital amounts of their bonds, by electing the one alternative, namely, by allowing the 1½ per cent. to accumulate for the period of eight years, and then that accumulated amount, plus the interest earned thereon, to be applied in reduction of the capital amounts of their bonds. In this connection, however, I would have liked the period for those who choose such alternative to be extended to ten years as an incentive to farmers rather to accept the reduction scheme than draw the subsidy in cash. Then I also urge that the period of election allowed under the Act should be extended to at least two years. I submit that both these suggestions are reasonable and, above all, practical. It is true that the fixing of the interest rate at 5 per cent. will disappear under this Bill in due course, but I feel sure that should it be considered necessary in the “march of time” that some measure of a similar nature be introduced, this will be done; and I leave the matter there, confidently, until that time arises. Now, Mr. Speaker, dealing briefly with the wider aspect of the rehabilitation of the farming community, I do not claim that the present Bill will do so, but I do feel that it is an instalment in the right direction, and as such the gesture of the Minister must, as it ought to be, accepted with thanks by those who genuinely seek to further the interests of the farming community. I discussed the Minister’s present proposals with a large number of farmers, irrespective of their political adherence, and I have heard only appreciative thanks expressed for the proposals under the present Bill, and although I agree that this matter should, as indeed all farming matters, be kept away from party politics in this House, I cannot help feeling that the amendment from the Herenigde Party side of the House is one which savours more of a political stunt than a genuine attempt to assist the farming community. As regards the exemption from Income Tax as proposed by them, the farming community as a whole, including even those who support the opposition, are a proud and independent class, and I feel certain that they would not desire to escape from contributing their just and reasonable contributions towards the efficient running of the Ship of State. There is not the slightest doubt that the real crux of the rehabilitation of the agricultural farming community lies in the securing of assured stabilised prices, and surely it should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Government to devise ways and means whereby the stabilising of prices for agricultural products could be achieved, and the Minister should set every machinery in motion to achieve this desirable end. I, therefore, support the present Bill as an instalment towards the efforts of the Government to rehabilitate and assist those who wish to assist themselves.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) who has just sat down, welcomes the Bill because the farmers will now know exactly where they stand if this Bill is passed. Yes, the farmers will know where they stand. They will then know that after eight years they will no longer get the interest subsidy. From year to year it will be decreased until they reach the bottom and come to the end of the interest subsidy. In the meantime the amount paid off on the mortgage bond with the assistance of this measure will be so small that it will be scarcely worthy of mentioning—it will be a drop in a bucket. In the meantime a man will pay the full 5 per cent. and not get back the 1½ per cent. and the question is whether he will be able to make up the 5 per cent. every year. I agree with the previous speakers that one of the most valuable things in connection with the interest subsidy scheme was that interest was fixed at 5 per cent. and not higher. We have found in the past that moneylenders have abused the opportunity which they had to exploit people who were in difficulties. They advanced money and took mortgage bonds on farms and in some cases charged as much as 10 per cent. Because a man was in a little difficulty and could not get it elsewhere, because the price he paid for the land was too high, he had to make use of dear money. Therefore the measure served a good purpose in fixing the interest at 5 per cent. under this Bill after five years, the moneylenders—the Chambers and the banks—will again have the opportunity to charge the farmers a rate of interest that is too high. The rate of interest can again be pushed up so high that the farmers will not be able to pay it. There are still many farmers who are burdened with over-capitalisation of their land, and for this reason must pay interest that is too high. Today the Chambers and banks are prepared to invest their money for less than 5 per cent., and if the farmers take refuge in the Chambers and banks and accept money at 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent. they take the risk that when the war is over, and there is a time of depression again, that these institutions will again put up their interest to 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. or 8 per cent., and the poor farmer will again be on the short side. Therefore if this legislation is adopted as proposed by the Minister, the farmers for the next seven years will have a measure of security, and after that find themselves in the greatest difficulties. Hon. members on the other side commend this legislation. Especially the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) did so. I do not take him amiss. In view of his profession he and his colleagues in his profession are going to make money out of this. The Minister lays down here that if a man pays 10 per cent. on a mortgage bond, he will also contribute 10 per cent. That is £100 on £1,000. There still remains £800 of the mortgage bond. The mortgage holder is perhaps not prepared to leave the mortgage bond at £800, and call up the mortgage. Then the farmer must go to the hon. member for Ermelo to take out a new mortgage bond for £800. That means £20 which the farmer must pay in fees and commission. The farmer loses £20 immediately in this way, and then he must still pay £10 or £15 to the same people because they put the mortgage through for him. The farmers will be in a worse position than to-day. Therefore we ask the Minister: In the name of heaven, if you want to help the farmers, do not push them from the frying pan into the fire. Mortgage bonds will be called up. New mortgage bonds will have to be taken, and it is that class of people who will be ready to make money out of it. Do you know what is happening? I know of a case of a certain man who was prepared to help a business friend to get a mortgage bond. The Chamber was so friendly and set out the case so nicely, and he gets £1,000 or £2,000 and the business man gets his 2½ per cent. After two years the Chamber comes along and says: “Look you must now pay the money back again.” Then he must take the £2,000 somewhere else and again the business man gets 24 per cent. commission. This happens often and the farmer is always the party that suffers. When the interest was fixed at 5 per cent. the Government did a valuable thing. The day when we cancel it, the farmers will again land in difficulties, because there is no alternative scheme, no redemption scheme. If measures are taken now so that the Land Bank can take over the mortgage bonds at a reasonable rate of interest, then the Minister will le doing something for the farmers. Money is plentiful and the Chamber and banking institutions and moneylenders have much more money than they can invest today. If the interest subsidy scheme disappears, those moneylenders will again flourish. They can immediately put the money out as in the past, and we farmers will have to pay for it. No, by this legislation the Minister is not doing the farmers a service. It will not be in the interest of the poor farmers. Give sufficient money to the Land Bank so that the Land Bank can make provision to take over the mortgage bonds of the farmers at a reasonable rate of interest. The hon. member for Ermelo said that they could get money at 34 per cent. I think they can get it at 3 per cent. He says the administrative costs will be 1 per cent. I do not know why is should be so high. But even if we take this figure then the interest amounts to per cent, which is still lower than the interest is today on farm mortgage bonds. Then the farmers will endeavour every year to reduce their mortgage bonds, especially if the Government adopts legislation giving the farmers the opportunity of reducing their mortgage bonds by small amounts of £10 or £20. If the opportunity is there, and it ?s deducted from their interest from year to year, then it will encourage them to save their sovereigns and half-sovereigns so as to be able to pay off £20 or £30. But otherwise the farmer feels that it is no use saving £20, because he still has to pay the same interest. There should be an opportunity for reducing mortgage bonds by smaller amounts than a few hundred pounds. I do not believe that this measure will benefit the farmers. After eight years we farmers will be in a worse position than before.

I wish also briefly to make a last appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment which has been proposed by us, namely, to appoint a select committee which can thrash the matter out to a hair’s breadth in all respects. We have had a long debate over the Interest Subsidy Act and the contribution which has come from the other side of the House in support of the Bill one must honestly say, was not worth much. The last speaker on the other side, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) said at the beginning that the measure does not go far enough, but after that he defended the measure. His reasons why he is in favour of the Bill were, however, by no means strong. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) said that a strong government is necessary to show the farmers that they are being honest with the farmers, and to give help to the farmers on a sound basis. If a Select Committee is appointed, the Minister has the fullest right, as he will do, to appoint a majority of his supporters on the Select Committee. We expect that he is surely not afraid of his own supporters in this case. It came out clearly in the debate that many hon. members eagerly want a change in the measure. Therefore, we feel strongly in favour of a Select Committee. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort says that our proposal is intended to shelve the Bill. By no means. The Session will still last to the end of April, and there is quite time enough for the Select Committee to present a report, and to incorporate its recommendations in a new Bill and get it through Parliament. We wish to derive no political benefit advantage from the proposal at all, but since there is so much misunderstanding and so many diverse opinions, even on the Government side, in connection with the application of assistance to farmers, it is necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The system of paying off, for example, must be thoroughly studied. Therefore I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to refer the matter to a Select Committee, which can probably consider all sides and make recommendations in the interest of the farmers.

I wish to be brief, but since I took part in the debate when this measure was adopted ten years ago, I feel that I must say a few words here. On that occasion I said inter alia—we were then in the heart of the depression—that advantage could be gain from the measure, but also disadvantage. The advantage is that every case must be dealt with on its merits. But I pointed out that capital was on the point of losing enormous sums at that time, and that through the guarantee of the Government in connection with the interest subsidy, that capital would be reassured. Loss did come indeed, but not on the side of the mortgage-holder, but on the side of the mortgagee. In this case now, the Minister makes no provision for the fixing of the interest rate on farm mortgages. That is why I feel so strongly in favour of the amendment which has been moved on behalf of your party, that provision must be made for the redemption of mortgages, also after 1933. Most mortgages contracted after 1933 were transfers of mortgages, sometimes of the same persons, who had to renew the mortgage, but who can obtain no relief under the Act, even though they are bowed down under the same burden. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) said that there are people in his constituency who abuse the Act. There are such people, but many are not fairly affected by the measure, many who need the help cannot make use of it. We also want to make provision that help be given to those who need it, but not to those who do not need it. We know that there are people who draw an interest subsidy but who do not need it. They must not get the benefit of the Government assistance. But we must help those who need the assistance to come on to an economic basis. We also propose then that adequate funds shall be supplied to the Land Bank to take over mortgages at 3½ per cent., and that the Government shall contribute 11 per cent. for the redemption of such mortgages until they are reduced to 60 per cent. of the value of the farm. That I wish strongly to support. There are many people in my constituency who have farm mortgages and who try hard to reduce the mortgages. If the Land Bank is placed in position to take over mortgages in the manner proposed by us, it will be a great step in the right direction. Otherwise we incur the danger of destroying many farmers through this measure in the end. We must not leave them to the mercy of other moneylenders. With regard to the third part of our amendment, namely, the exemption from income tax of that part of the amount which a farmer uses to reduce his mortgage, I want to say that the supertax can work very unfairly. You get a man who has 50 cows, which he has gradually built up; he brings them to the market and gets £20 or £30 apiece, and then he suddenly has income which causes him to fall under the super-tax, because he never had so much income. Why should such a man be punished with super-tax? Where the money is used to redeem mortgages, we ought to encourage such a man.

The hon. Minister with his proposal is giving up a principle that he accepted ten years ago, namely, the limiting of interest. It was a new principle, something new, and it has now existed for ten years, and we have learned in those ten years that the limiting of the rate of interest for those who could make use of it, was of the greatest value. Consequently we can only regret that the Minister proposes in this Bill to take away the limitation of interest on farm mortgage bonds. The amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to do something valuable, namely, in these times, when money is plentiful, to give the farmer the opportunity of getting money at the Land Bank at a fixed rate of interest. The opportunity exists today, but how long it will exist, we do not know. We can make use of this opportunity to supply the farmer with money at a cheap rate of interest. Further, our amendment aims at encouraging the farmer to reduce his capital debts to an economic level—here 60 per cent. is suggested. It might be argued whether it should be 50 per cent. or 60 per cent., but it is a sound principle we advocate, namely, that an end should be made to over-capitalisation. There are farm mortgage bonds that are altogether too high, and I personally think that the Government is now in a position to find money to give effect to the second part of our amendment, namely, to give the farmer an opportunity of getting money at a reduced rate of interest. I regard it as a very valuable suggestion. I admit that there is a percentage, perhaps 30 per cent. or 40 per cent., of those who receive the interest subsidy today who can manage without it, but the majority will get into difficulty if the interest subsidy disappears. I am convinced that by giving up the principle of limiting rates of interest we shall fall back to the position that when times change and money is dear again, the farmer will have to pay a rate of interest higher than 5 per cent. We know how disastrous that has been in the past, and we will again become involved in the dangerous circle of higher and higher mortgage bonds and higher and higher rates of interest, and a future Government will again be placed in the same difficult position. We can, now in these times, place the farmers on a better footing, so that they can remain on the land and so that their burden is not too heavy to bear. In another debate we have already made another proposal, and it is not necessary to refer to it. All that we want to prevent today is that the Government should not give up the principle of limiting the rates of interest on farm mortgage bonds, by which the farmers in the future will again get into a dangerous position. In this manner we shall go back to the bad old days when farmers were encouraged to take up big mortgage bonds, while they were not in a position to pay the high interest. We protest against this. We want to retain that principle and we want to ask the Government to accede to our request not to continue in the matter until the Government has worked out a really good scheme, a better scheme than that which they now propose. I would very much like to see the assistance given to farmers put on a better footing, even better than in the past, and that every individual case is dealt with on its own merits. The farmer must not bear a burden that is too heavy for him. All we wish to do today is to prevent the Government from continuing with the proposal, as embodied in the Bill, in connection with the limiting of rates of interest. We want to prevent the going back to the bad old days when the farmer was encouraged to take out mortgage bonds that were too big and on which the rate of interest was too high. We must protest against this measure and endeavour to prevent this happening today. I hope that the Minister will accede to the requests of this side of the House and that he will not continue in the matter before the Government comes forward with a better scheme.

I think I can say that this Bill has been met with general approval. Even those who moved amendments did indeed let it be shown that they were not altogether dissatisfied with the Bill, and if I must judge from the speech of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), then it seems that even the Opposition, partly at any rate, wishes to appropriate for itself the fatherhood of this Act.

You are misrepresenting what I said.

That was what appeared from what the hon. member said. Let me just make a few general remarks. But in the first place let me just put one point very clearly. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) casts doubt on my attitude with regard to the South African Agricultural Union. I said that the South African Agricultural Union approved the Bill. I have here a note which I made on August 13, 1942. The hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) was present, and he can substantiate it. Here are the words which were used then:

The hon. member for Hottentots Holland can bear this out. Indeed, he has already said it. The representatives of the Agricultural Union accepted the proposals in the Bill with gratitude. Those were the proposals in the previous Bill, and this Bill differs only from that Bill in so far as we have incorporated here the suggestion which that deputation made to me. There were several members who talked here in connection with this Bill as if it were a very half-hearted effort to solve the mortgage redemption problem. They talked of patchwork; they talked of lack of courage; and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) even went so far as to say that I gave an undertaking that I would come before this House with a general mortgage redemption scheme. My hon. friend is entirely wrong, and where those allegations have been made here, it is essential just to present briefly what did indeed take place in this connection. In 1940, during discussion of the State Advances Vote, I said that I had asked the Farmers’ Assistance Board to investigate the question of mortgage redemption. Immediately my hon. friends deduced from that that I had undertaken to come before the House with a mortgage redemption scheme, and I then replied very clearly that this could not be accepted, that all that I had done had been to ask that the Assistance Board should consider the question, and that if that Board made a proposal, then the Government would further consider whether it would submit something to this House. The Board investigated the question; the Land Bank also investigated the question, and eventually we came to this point, that the Land Bank Board told us that it was not advisable to continue provisionally with any permanent scheme of assistance to farmers. In addition, they said this: How the position will develop next year or what it will be after the war cannot be predicted now, and for that reason the Land Bank Board feels that it would be more sensible to leave the consideration of a permanent scheme on one side until after the cessation of hostilities. That was the position, but then I made a statement to the House which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg only partly read. I said—

And I mentioned what that aspect of the matter was. In other words, the question of the over-capitalisation of farms where mortgages were contracted before 1933; in other words, this precise question with which we are dealing now. With that one aspect of the matter I was still busy, and because I was still busy with it, I referred that one aspect to a special committee of inquiry, and it was on the basis of that committee’s report that this matter is now being tackled here. The second point which they mention is this: There are several hon. members who have questioned here whether this scheme is in fact in the interests of the farmer. It has been said that I have no heart for the farmer. It has been said that this Bill will mean the death of the farmer as a whole. Why must my hon. friends always exaggerate so? They do not improve their case; they make it worse. This Act is indeed in the interests of the farmer. In the first place, it gives the farmer a fixed assurance for eight years, where at the moment he has no assurance after March 31, 1942. Who will say that this is not in the interests of the farmer? In the second place, this Bill gives the farmers who fall under it an opportunity to redeem their mortgages partially, and who will say that this is not in the interests of the farmer? The third general point is this: Several hon. members said the farmer is today still in the same position as in 1933. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said that. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn said it this afternoon. They say the farmer is in the same position as in 1933. How can any person say that? Last year the farmer reduced his debt to his greatest creditor, the State, by 8 per cent.; this year he is reducing his debt further by 10 per cent. How can anyone say that the farmer is today in the same position as he was in 1933? Now I come to the amendments which were moved here. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) moved a threefold amendment here, but he first began by criticising the existing interest subsidy on the ground that undeserving cases are helped. I concede that; there are undeserving cases, but certainly not as many as is sometimes represented. The number of those cases is comparatively small.

How do you know that?

I think we have a fair measure of information about that. I would be eager to see how anyone would establish machinery which, on a proper and all-satisfying basis, would eliminate those undeserving cases. You would cause more dissatisfaction thereby than exists today. My hon. friend began with that objection against the existing scheme, that it also helps rich farmers as well as poor farmers, and afterwards he moved this amendment—

Just for poor farmers? No, for all. The number of undeserving cases in 1933 would have been much greater as the proportion of undeserving cases before 1933. Until 1933 you had a reason why farmers got into difficulties; after 1933 there was considerably less reason.

Is that the objection to the amendment?

No, I am now taking one point after the other. My hon. friend fixed no date. All mortgages after 1933 and in the future would have to fall under that. No date is defined, not even 1943; all mortgages, also in the future, must fall under that. Now I come to the second part of the amendment, which reads as follows—

Again no date. Rich farmers as well as poor farmers fall under it. The Government must take over all these mortgages through the Land Bank. The Land Bank must demand 3½ per cent. interest from them. The Land Bank’s administration costs are 1 per cent., and the Government can thus obtain only 2½ per cent. The Government cannot borrow money at 2½ per cent., and if the Government must go into the market for enough money to take over all the farmers’ mortgages, we will not get money at 3 per cent. like today, but it will go up further. All the farmers, poor and rich, mortgages in the past and mortgages in the future—we must be prepared to take them over on such a basis that we lose at least 1 per cent. on them, and then we must say to the farmer: If you contract mortgages at more than 60 per cent. of the value of your land, we are also going to give you a redemption subsidy. What does that mean? The farmer has today perhaps a mortgage of the value of 50 per cent. on his land. We have to take it over now. The farmer can go tomorrow to someone else and obtain a mortgage on the other 50 per cent., and we must take that over then and give another redemption subsidy. What does that mean? means. Or do hon. members think this: that if it is applied, it will not be applicable to the future; in other words, the farmer will then be the debtor of the State, and the State will forbid him to contract further debts. It is either the one or the other, and the farmer will not thank my hon. friends for it if it becomes known that they wish to take the farmer’s freedom away from him. The third part of the amendment reads as follows—

My hon. friends are so concerned that we should not help the rich farmer, but what does this proposal mean? It means that you help both the rich farmer and the poor farmer, but it also means that you help the rich farmer at a higher scale than you help the poor farmer. Take two farmers now. The one has an income of £5,000 and the other has an income of £1,000. Both pay off £500 of their mortgages. That £500 means much more with regard to rebate of income tax for the farmer with £5,000 than for the farmer with £1,000. The farmer with £5,000 pays his income tax on a higher scale than the farmer with £1,000. Thus, if you meet both those farmers by exempting the £500 in both cases, then it means incalculably more for the rich farmer than for the poor farmer. These friends on the other side come forward with a proposal which will help the rich farmer more than the poor farmer. Then there is further the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy). He wishes to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. I am sorry I cannot accept that. I see no chance of harmonising the point of view embraced in this Bill with the point of view which is at the basis of this amendment from the other side. You simply have this position, that the tendency always exists to indicate to the farmer: I am your friend, and those people are not. Well, I cannot see that it will serve any useful purpose to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. This matter has already been investigated for three years by the Government, by the Land Bank and by a special committee which I appointed. This matter was discussed with the Agricultural Union. Where will the Select Committee bring us further? Now just a few details. The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), raised the question of changing over from one alternative to another, and he said the farmer should have more than six months to choose. I do not think he understood the Bill well on that point, and that applies also in the case of other hon. members. The position is this: The farmer has six months to choose whether he wishes to fall under the second scheme; in other words, where he will still receive 1½ per cent. in the first year as an interest subsidy—he has six months to choose this. If he does not do it, he falls under the first scheme, but if he has chosen the second scheme, then he can at any time afterwards let his choice fall away, and then he comes under the first scheme. But something else in addition—and here I come to the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard); he asked: What now of the position of the farmer who cannot come in the first year with a capital amount, but who can in fact come the second or third year with a capital amount, on which he will receive a supplement on a pound for pound basis. He can do it at any time. There is nothing to hinder him. I hope that will satisfy my hon. friend on that point. Then a good deal was said about the limitation of interest to 5 per cent.; what will the position be in 1951? I think we can in all safety leave that matter until the time when it will come under discussion. With regard to today, it is virtually not necessary to have that interest limitation, and it is certainly not necessary to fix a limitation with regard to the position as it will exist in eight years’ time. Then there is still one further point. Reference was made during the debate to the fact that in the calculation of the immediate value of the amount which would be payable under that scheme, the Bill makes provision for interest at 5 per cent. I have considered that aspect of the matter and I am prepared as a concession to reduce that rate of interest to 3½ per cent. As a result, the farmer who makes use of that scheme will get more from the State than he would have got otherwise. On the 5 per cent. basis the farmer would have been entitled to an amount of £97 on £1,000. If the calculation is made on a 3½ per cent. basis, then he would be entitled to an amount of about £103. I am prepared to move that amendment at the Committee stage. It will mean then that a farmer with a thousandpound mortgage who can pay £103, will receive a further £103 from the State. I will move that amendment at the committee stage. There is nothing further to say now. I trust that the House will now be prepared to adopt the second reading.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—59:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Hare, W. D.

Haywood, J. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—28:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and P. O. Sauer.