I move—

I may say, if you will allow me to do so, that I am moving this simply as a matter of courtesy towards the Select Committee on Public Accounts and not to prevent in any way a discussion on these reports on the floor of the House.

I second.

I would like to ask your ruling. The Minister has laid the reports upon the Table and he proposes that they must be formally referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Are the reports now the property of the House and can they be immediately discussed by the members of this House?

There is nothing to prevent it.

I move—

I trust that this motion will be passed unanimously by the House. The object is to retain Mr. Smit in office as Controller and Auditor-General on his reaching the age of retirement. Under the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1911, Mr. Smit would have to retire this year on attaining the age of 60, unless both Houses of Parliament decide that it is in the public interest that he should be retained after reaching the retiring age. I now ask the House to express the opinion that it is in the public interest that Mr. Smit’s services should be retained, so that he can continue in office. Mr. Smit has filled the post of Auditor-General with distinction and quite impartially for a period of over seven years. He has been in the Public Service for more than 40 years. During that time he has held very high offices as head of departments here, and also as Secretary for South-West. In all these offices he has served with great distinction and in such a manner as to give satisfaction to all he came into contact with. His appointment seven years ago as Auditor-General was considered well deserved and richly merited in view of his past services, and I think he fully justified the expectations. Mr. Smit will attain the age of 60 in July this year, and would have to retire, but in the opinion of the Government he should be retained in office for at least another year, not only on personal grounds, but also in view of the circumstances. We are at present engaged in a war, and a very important part of the work of the Auditor-General is in relation to Defence Accounts. The Government feels that it would be a pity at this stage, in view of the importance of the auditing of these accounts, to make a change in the office of Auditor-General. In view of this fact, and in view of the admirable way he has carried out his duties, the Government desires Mr. Smit to continue in office, and is asking the approval of Parliament. I think I am correct in saying that this motion will meet with the approval of members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts of both sides. Mr. Smit has shown that he deserves the confidence of all sections of the House. His impartiality has always been above reproach. I think I should also say that during the previous war period, similar action was taken. During the last war Mr. Walter Gurney’s period of office was also extended, possibly for the same reasons as those I am advancing now for the retention of Mr. Smit’s services after his attaining the age of retirement. I hope the House will approve of this step.

I would like to second the motion of the hon. Minister of Finance heartily. Thereby this side of the House wants to testify that we also have full confidence in Mr. Smit as Auditor-General, and that we heartily welcome this motion to prolong his period of office. It has become known that Mr. Smit has reached pensionable age, and we have felt that it would not be in the public interest if he retires just at this moment. We have felt that precisely today the country and this Parliament has more need than ever of his ripe experience and sharp perspicuity, and, I can also say, of the fearless manner in which the Auditor-General does his work. From this side of the House a friendly request has therefore been directed to the Minister not to make a change, and we are glad that the Minister has decided accordingly, and it reflects credit on the Minister that he has done so. Personally, I may just say that I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Smit in South-West Africa for a number of years, and I would testify here to his eminent character and his ability. Later we had an opportunity of making acquaintance on the Select Committee on Public Accounts in respect of his work as Auditor-General, and we know that he has done his work without fear and without regard to persons. From this side we cordially second the motion.

I move—

This is the Bill usually introduced at this stage of the session. The reason for its introduction is that it is impossible to get the estimates for the year that lies ahead adopted before the end of the financial year. In other words, although the new estimates provide for the services of the ensuing financial year, those estamites will not receive approval before 1 April of this year, and it is therefore necessary to make temporary financial provision for the period until the new estimates have received final approval and are in operation. It is therefore customary to submit to this House a Part Appropriation Bill every year, and it merely gives the Government the right, pending the adoption of the budget, to proceed with the services of the country on the basis approved in the budget for the current financial year. It gives us no right to institute new services, but only to act on the basis of the budget applying for the year 1942-43, and on that basis this Bill is submitted to the House. The amount that is asked for is virtually calculated on the basis of a sum of money that we may need for a period of two months. That brings us to the end of May. It is uncertain how long this session will last. It will not be possible to prolong the sitting hours at the end of the session, as has been done in the past, and perhaps for that reason the session will last longer than before, and we must keep count of that fact when we make this financial provision. April is also the month in which particularly high demands are made on the Treasury. The Provinces generally draw a great part of their subsidy in that month, and for that reason we must keep count of the exceptional demands as well as with the usual demands as regards the first portion of the financial year. I do not think it is necessary to make a statement in connection with the general financial position of the country. I made such a statement in general lines when I dealt with the additional estimates a month ago. I shall go more comprehensively into the position regarding this current year, and also as regards the following financial year, when the budget for the following year is introduced. I cannot now say precisely when it will be possible to do this. Perhaps it will be Wednesday week, but in any case it will be not later than the Wednesday following on that, viz. 3 March. I hope, however, that I shall be able to do so on 24 February, but I cannot yet bind myself to a fixed date. Meanwhile, in view of the fact that the budget for the following financial year will be introduced to the House within so short a time, it will not be expected of me to anticipate my Budget speech, and I therefore move.

I wish to propose an amendment to the motion of the hon. Minister of Finance. My amendment reads as follows—

1. (a) to take immediate steps to put a stop to the malpractices in the administration of the country; and
2. (b) to appoint a Commission, consisting of members of this House, the Commission to have power to investigate all war expenditure, to take evidence and call for papers.”

I want to confine myself principally to paragraph 2 of the amendment, viz., that a Commission of this House be nominated with full power to investigate all war expenditure, to take evidence and to call for documents. I move this motion particularly on the grounds of the fruits, if I may call them so, yielded by the committee appointed by the Government last year, the report of which has just been laid on the Table of the House. It has appeared that the mere appointment of the Cost-Plus-Committee of last year has had a very sound reaction on the whole Defence Service. The committee found, just when it commenced its work, that there is a tendency with the whole Defence Department to spruce up its work, and to smarten up its organisation, to try to remove misunderstandings and to improve the whole organisation. But I base it particularly on this, that when the committee brought out its report last year, the Government adopted the recommendations of that committee practically in toto. Where there was difference of opinion in the committee—there was difference of opinion in the committee, with the result that a majority report and a minority report were brought out—I am glad to be able to say that where I differed from the majority, there the Government agreed with me, and gave effect to my recommendation instead of that of the majority. Because that committee did good work, but worked only in a limited sphere, we feel that it is in the interest of the country to have a commitee that can cover the whole sphere of war expenditure, and I hope that I shall succeed in convincing the Prime Minister that it is in his interest and the interest of the country that this should happen. Before I go further, I want to say. It can be said that a Select Committee of this House is busy investigating war expenditure, but my reply to that is that the Select Committee on Public Accounts, particularly with the change in sitting hours, has no time to do thorough work. In the second place, the investigation of that Select Committee is limited to what the Auditor-General reports. It is only when he Auditor-General reports an irregularity that the Select Committee goes into it. The Select Committee has not the right under the ruling of the Chairman to go into all war expenditure. Now, I would like to deal with the report which the Minister of Finance laid on the Table this morning, viz., the report of the Cost-Plus-Committee. Let me say this, in the first place, that I think that when the Minister again appoints such a committee or commission, then he must try to put on the committee persons who are completely impartial and objective as regards the investigation. The committee consisted of six members. Three of them were members of Parliament, and three were persons from outside. Of the three persons from outside, two were deeply compromised. I do not want to reflect on the honesty or impartiality of those members, but throughout they were in a difficult position. When building contracts were investigated, Mr. Prentis, of the Department of Public Works, the Chief Quantity Surveyor of the Department of Public Works, was perpetually on the defence; and when we were investigating engineers’ contracts, Mr. Osborne was in the position that he is one of the chief suppliers of war materials to the Department of Defence. The Government put those persons in an unenviable position. If the Government decides to appoint a Commission from this House—I do not know if the Minister wants to add persons from outside to such a Commission—then it must not again happen that persons who are in such a position are nominated. I would like to explain to the House, first of all, the nature of the investigation. We were asked to investigate all contracts entered into by the Department of Defence on the basis of cost-plus. There were three kinds of contracts under this head. The first was contracts for the erection of military buildings. The second was contracts for the supply of war materials to the Department of Defence, and the third was in respect of reparations to ships and in connection with the converting of ships. The committee decided to divide its work under those three heads and to submit a separate report under each head. For that reason there were three different reports. The first concerned building contracts. The second concerned engineers’ contracts and the supply of war materials to the Department of Defence, and the third concerned repairs to ships and the converting of ships. I just want to say that I was in a position to sign the second and third reports. I signed these not because I thought that the Director-General of War Supplies is perfect. That I cannot say, and it certainly is not the case that his organisation is perfect. It is clear that in the beginning mistakes and reprehensible mistakes were made, but the impression I got, as member of the committee was that the Director of War Supplies has gradually learned from costly experience and has tried to improve the organisation. The impression I got was that the organisation is good at the moment, that there is a system of perpetual costs investigation in progress, and this is what struck me most, that a perpetual system of costs investigation is being followed. When a firm gets a big order to execute for the Defence Department then a provisional price is fixed for the his price was subject to this costs investigation will follow almost immediately, that a certain profit will be permitted, and if it is found that the firm makes too big a profit, if it appears that its profits are too great in respect of the prices it gets provisionally, then the Director General of War Supplies retains the right to receive back a rebate. It emerged from the evidence before the committee that this is actually happening. Let us take the case of the tobacco manufacturer who gets an order to the value of £64,000. He had to deliver cigarettes at a fixed price, but his price was subject to this cost investigation. After the costs investigation had taken place, it came to light that the factory had made too high a profit, and the factory had to repay £16,000 to the state. On an order of £64,000 the manufacturer had to repay a rebate of £16,000 to the state. This shows on the one hand how effectively the costs investigation works, and on the other hand proves simultaneously the profiteering that is still going on in the country today. That tobacco was delivered to the Government at a price even lower than the wholesale price. The cigarettes were supplied to the Department of Defence at a price lower than the wholesale price, and yet it was found that such an irregular profit was made on them that the factory had to repay £16,000 to the Government. That being so, what then are the improper profits made today on cigarettes sold to the public? It is not only in that connection that this is happening. We found this throughout the country, that the Director-General of War Supplies is causing this investigation and that such things are coming to light. Take the supply of motor-car tyres to the Government. There again it came to light in the evidence we had that motor tyres were supplied to the Government at prices lower than the wholesale price, but after a period of twelve months it was found that the price was nevertheless so high that one company alone had to repay £68,000 to the Government. If it is found that as a result of a thorough costs investigation a company makes a reasonable profit on the supply of goods to the Government, then a strong case can be made out also for a thorough investigation into prices and profits demanded from the public. Profiteering is taking place in the country, and this has come clearly to light as a result of the investigation of this committee. I signed the report in connection with the Director-General of War Supplies because I got the impression that he is trying to do good work for South Africa, and to eliminate the evils of cost-plus. The system has taught our factories to work on the unity basis. It was strange to them, and they have learnt to work it, and this is a wholesome reaction in view of the organisation of production in South Africa. The fact that I could sign that report, shows that as a member of that Committee I was not prejudiced. If I thought that there was an attempt on the part of the organisation to do good work, then I was prepared to say so. I could not sign the first report in connection with building contracts, however, because I arrived at the conviction that particularly one section of the Department of Defence is hopelessly incompetent for its work, that consequently a reprehensible wastage of money took place and that it is in the public interest that that state of affairs be done away with, and that the work undertaken by that section shall be given to the Department of Public Works. That is the conclusion at which I arrived, and I am prepared to argue it out here on the floor of the House. There are two organisations that undertake this building work. The first is the Department of Public Works, and the second is the Director of Fortifications. The Department of Public Works undertook work particularly in the hinterland. At the beginning the Department also undertook work along the coast, when the Director of Fortifications only erected fortification works in the harbours. That at the beginning a separate organisation was established for fortifications, that I am prepared to admit is fair. But I hope to express criticism later on the way in which the Director of Fortifications carried out that work. But after the work of fortifications was concluded, the head of the Fortifications section went to East Africa. He remained there a considerable time. Then he came back, and it was then decided to call the section of the Director of Fortifications into life again and to appoint Col. Craig again as the head of it, and to give him all the work along the coast to carry out. There was no proper organisation to do this, and a great volume of work was entrusted to this section. The head of the section did not have the necessary experience. He did not have the necessary staff. He went into it head over heels, and the impression I got is that hundreds of thousands of public money was wasted. We were anxious to find out why the Department of Fortifications was again suddenly called into life and why work was entrusted to this section that could have been done by the Department of Public Works. The Quartermaster-General in Pretoria told us that he was not quite in favour of entrusting the work to the section Fortifications. We tried to find out, and ultimately this emerged—and therefore I must hold the Prime Minister responsible for everything that has happened in that section Fortifications: That an instruction simply came from above that Col. Craig must be appointed and that Fortifications must receive that work. The result was that this work was taken away from the Department of Public Works, and given to Col. Craig. Since it has appeared from the evidence that the instruction came from above, from the Prime Minister himself, the Prime Minister must personally bear the responsibility for all the irregularities that appeared in the section Fortifications. About the work of the Department of Public Works, I do not want to say much this morning. I just want to say this, that it is an old-established organisation in the country, with a long tradition and great experience, and the impression I got is that although mistakes have been made, the Department has throughout tried to maintain the departmental tradition which this Department has created for itself here in this country. That was my impression. There were mistakes, irregularities took place, but in general the work has been carried out according to the tradition of the Department of Public Works. The work is costly, it is slow, but we got the impression that everything is honest. But of Fortifications I cannot say this. I want to reveal a few things this morning in connection with the section Fortifications. In the first place it came out clearly that the section Fortifications from the very start permitted too high prices to the people who worked for it, to the contractors who did the work. In the first year the section Fortifications erected only fortification works. This was done in the principal harbours of the Union, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban. I think the total cost of these fortification works amounted to about £1,000,000 to £1,200,000. All the work was done by only five firms. One firm had everything in Durban, and four others had all the other work. The four firms, particularly here in Cape Town, formed one syndicate. The work they carried out in the harbours did not take longer than six months. The work carried out by these four firms cost approximately £800,000, and their profits for the six months was £80,000. We tried to make a comparison with profits made by contractors in Australia and England on such work. From the evidence received by the committee it appeared that in Australia the profit allowed on such great works is never more than 3 per cent. If this work had been carried out in Australia the profit would have been £24,000. In England, we found, a profit of only 2¾ per cent. is allowed on such great contracts, and on such a contract contractors in England would therefore make a profit of approximately £20,000. In England the profit would have been £20,000; in Australia it would have been £24,000; in South Africa the profit of the four contractors was £80,000 over a period of six months.

“Pots and pots of money.”

The Auditor-General supplied the committee with certain figures. When we learned what the profits of these contractors in South Africa were, we were anxious to know what profits were made by certain big firms over a period of twelve months. Figures were supplied to the committee by the Auditor-General, and I think it is in the public interest that I should give the House these figures supplied to us. I quote from the evidence put before the committee in connection with cost-plus agreements. The Lewis Construction Coy, made a profit of £35,158 11s. 0d. over a period of ten months. Norman Kennedy made a profit of £36,438 over a period of ten months. Murray and Stewart over the same period made a profit of £32,412. R. H. Morris made less—£15,000. All this is over a period of ten months. Now, one can understand why the Government receives such wholehearted support for its war effort from certain classes of the population. I would like the House and the country to know that in respect of these contracts there is not one iota of financial risk. As regards all these firms, the section fortifications bought all the materials they required. The contractor had no responsibility in that connection. He did not have the trouble, nor did he have to have the necessary staff for the purchase of material. No, the Department of Defence buys everything for him, and also delivers it on the spot. If he has no labour, then there is a Controller of Man-Power who ensures that labour is collected from all parts of the country, and as the work progresses, payments are made, so that he does not have to bear too great a bank overdraft. There is not the least risk attached to the work. And yet we find that in a period of less than 12 months—in ten months—these contractors made profits of £35,000, £36,000, £31,000 and £15,000. I just want to repeat—I personally received a letter from the Prime Minister of Australia—that in Australia a profit of only 3 per cent. is permitted on such contracts, and on that basis there would have been a profit on these contracts of £24,000. In England the maximum allowed on big contracts is 2¾ per cent., and there the profit would have been £20,000. But here in South Africa the profit was £80,000. The worst of it is that the Director of Fortifications, when he selected men to do that work, did not consult the Association of Building Contractors. The question was put to him as to how he came by the four building contractors to whom the work was entrusted; the question was further put whether he consulted the Association of Building Contractors, or whether he just selected the four building contractors on his own initiative. It appeared in the end that he simply chose the four men arbitrarily to do the work, and not necessarily the biggest in Cape Town. He just arbitrarily chose four and allotted all the work to them, and to them alone, and permitted them a profit that is a scandal in war conditions. I just say this, that a man who in this time of distress and difficulty over the whole country permits improper profits of that nature to be made oh Government contracts—well, it is nothing less than a scandal. It appeared from the evidence that there is much dissatisfaction among the building contractors that they have no chance whatever to compete for the contracts. We have before us the Vice-Chairman of the Cape Association of Contractors, and he told us clearly that he had carried out big works in Cape Town. He was prepared to do work on the cost-plus basis, but he was never asked to do one piece of work for the section Fortifications, with the result that he subsequently had no work, and he considered it necessary to dispense with his equipment, because only the four big firms—the Big Four—got the work. We now have the profits they have made over a period of ten months. I would like to know, and I think it would be worth the trouble, if the Minister of Finance tells us what profits these firms made since 4th September, 1939, until today. Now, I come closer to the section Fortifications. I have said that they did not give the building contractors an opportunity of competing for the work. Four were selected, and to those four all the work was given. Do you know what happened then? To shed light on the position, I want to mention it. The Department of Public Works was busy with the erection of a great airport at East London—the Colindale Flying School. Then the Prime Minister came and said: Give it to Col. Craig, and let him in future do all that work. While the Department of Public Works was busy carrying out that work, Col. Craig came and took over the work from the Department of Public Works, and he took one of the “Big Four” in Cape Town to do the work there. All the workers and material, all the equipment, had to be transported there. The people of East London were indignant that local contractors did not get the chance to do the work. What was the result? The moment the workers got there, they came to ask for a “living-away allowance”. This worked out at about £7 10s. per month per worker. Hundreds of workers were used, and the costs per month in any case were £7,000. That was the amount by which the costs rose as a result of this grant. This is added to the costs of the workers, and on that the contractor is entitled to a profit of 10 per cent. This was paid to all the persons transported from Cape Town to the places where the work was carried out. When the workers came to ask for the allowance, the contractor readily granted it, and the result was that he immediately made a few thousands more on the transaction. This was the result simply because all the work in the hands of the “Big Four” was stopped. They carried out works in Grahamstown, in Queenstown they also carried out works, and the local people were not used. The Department of Public Works used the local people, but as soon as Fortifications took over the work no use was made of local labour. The “Big Four” got the work and everything was despatched over a great distance. This drove up the costs, and enhanced the profits of the contractors. What struck me most painfully in connection with the whole matter, is this. I do not want to go so far as to speak of dishonesty. I do not want to go so far as to do that. But the members of the Committee later felt that they could not rely on a single word of the evidence placed before the Committee. To me that is the worst of the whole history, and not only what they told the Committee. But supposing the Minister of Finance or the Chairman of the Authorities Committee, the hon. Minister of Railways, asks Fortifications for certain information; it is important information that is asked, and it appears that the information supplied to the Authorities Committee is totally incorrect! And that does not happen only on one point, but one can almost say that it happened on one point after another. When we asked a question, an answer was given, and when we went into it we found that it was incorrect. Let me give an example to explain what happened. The Department of Fortifications was a new organisation and we admit that it had much difficulty in getting sufficient staff from approved by Defence in Pretoria. What did it do then? It then appointed persons to the staff of Fortifications, but their salaries were placed on the books of the contractor. Supposing it needed an official at Wingfield or Pollsmoor, or at Port Elizabeth or East London; it could not persuade Defence to approve the staff; and it thus simply appointed the staff and put the salaries on the books of the contractor. Now the contractor paid for it and it was calculated with the costs. When we discovered this, we asked whether the contractor also got 10 per cent. on the salaries of those people, and the answer was: No, decidedly not. The Chairman of the Authorities Committee put the same question to Col. Craig, and what was his answer? I want to deal with this in the light of the evidence we have. On 2 December 1941 the Authorities Committee sent a telegram to him to ask who sanctioned the appointment. The question was whether they were appointed by Defence. We knew that what happened here was irregular in the Public Service. In the telegram the further request was put that the names of the officials be given; also the names of the contractors who had to pay their salaries; the scale of payment; the date of their appointment; against what particular works the expenses were brought into account, and then came the question whether that expenditure was included when the profit was calculated on the basis of the cost-plus-a-percentage profit. In other words, the question was whether the contractor also gets 10 per cent. profit on those salaries. Now what was the reply of Fortifications? The reply was that those salaries are not added when the percentage is calculated. The Authorities Committee was still not satisfied. It therefore again asked specific information from the Director of Fortifications whether the salaries were included in the amount on which the percentage profit was calculated in Grahamstown, and the answer was “No.” It put the same question in connection with Port Alfred, and the answer was again “No.” That also was said to us very clearly. A week before the session of Parliament commenced, we went into the matter here in Cape Town, and we found out that all this was untrue. We then requested the representative of the Lewis Construction Coy, to appear before us, and we asked him whether the Director of Fortifications had the least reason to think this was not done, and his reply was that he had discussed the matter with the head official of Fortifications, and had told him that those salaries appeared on their books, that they paid out the money and that they wanted the 10 per cent. on it. At the moment when the Lewis Construction Coy, was saying that to a head official of Fortifications, that they insisted on getting the 10 per cent. on those salaries, the Committee was being told that this was not done, and the Chairman of the Authorities Committee was being told that this was not done. If that is not dishonest, then I would like to know what dishonesty is. So I can go on. I must honestly say that the Department of Fortifications has made a very painful impression on me. It is an augean stable that ought to be cleaned. [Time limit etxended.] I will not keep the House much longer, but I would like to say a few things more. Let me give another example. Under the fortification system the contractor does not buy the materials. Fortifications buy them. And throughout our investigation Fortifications said that this is the best part of their system. They buy themselves, and pay the lowest prices at which they can obtain the goods, there is no such thing as discount and they get the best material at the lowest prices, and they deliver it to the contractor. What happened? We did not have time to investigate everything thoroughly, but I can give one example. The Auditor-General suddenly reported to us that there are cases where Fortifications did not buy, but where the contractors supplied themselves, and we then found out that in the case of galvanised iron sheets, even though the price at which Defence could get it at the time was 8d. inclusive, the contractor was busy supplying sheets to himself at 1s. 4d. He was busy delivering to himself at that price. We merely give this as an example to show what happens under the cost-plus system, and how much more expensive the material becomes if the people are permitted to buy it in that manner. The price was 1s. 4d., while Defence could buy it at 8d. This naturally drives up the cost price, and thereby the profit becomes greater. You can realise that the Committee did not have time to investigate everything. Only when we come on the track of certain things, can we investigate them. It was later admitted, it came out, that in this case of the sheets, that if the Cost-Plus Committee had not gone into it, it would never have come to light and the price would have been 1s. 4d. But as a result of our investigation, and for that I take a little credit, it came to light. The majority of the Committee who brought out the majority report seemed to me were anxious to cover the position rather than to bring matters to light. I considered it my duty to report the matter of the sheets to Parliament. I must say that the Government, when it was informed, immediately requested that the matter be further investigated. We did it in Cape Town, and I know that the contractor is being compelled to pay back to the Government a very great portion of the money he got for the sheets. But this shows the evils inherent in cost-plus.

Does he remain a contractor?

He is one of the “Big Four.” One wonders to what extent this has gone on. Other things occurred, but I think that I have mentioned enough this morning to prove that we cannot have the least confidence in Fortifications as it exists today. About one thing I am glad, viz., that as a result of the investigations the Government has decided to take away a large portion of the work of Fortifications, such as the calling of tenders for the purchase of materials, as also its pay section, and a few other things. But I must say to the Minister that my impression is that the sooner the whole Department disappears and the work given, for instance, to the Public Works Department, the better. The impression I got is that there is not the least discipline in Fortifications. There is the case where Pretoria notified Fortifications not to put people on Fortifications’ staff in the books of the contractors. The instruction comes from the Quartermaster-General on the authority of the Sanctions Committee, and the authority of the Secretary for Finance. But do you think they take the least notice of it? Although the instruction was given, Fortifications simply went on as before. But the worst of it is that Fortifications subsequently tried to hide it. That appeared in the evidence before us. I would just like to read out a letter that came into our possession. It was an exchange of correspondence between Lewis Construction Company and Fortifications—

In reply to this letter, Maj. Jordaan addressed the following letter to the Fortifications Officer at Pollsmoor. We would specially focus attention on the postscript—

As regards the placing of Fortifications staff on the books of contractors, it certainly does not appear from the postscript that honest and open-hearted action was taken. That is to say, it must not appear from the books that they are proceeding with the system of making members of the staff of Fortifications appear in the books of the contractors. They must try to keep it dark. Just imagine, that such things are happening.

Deceit!

They get instructions not to proceed with it; they do proceed with it, and try to keep it dark. We found out that they are continuing with it. We got to Cape Town and asked the Engineer Officer how many of the people were on his staff, and the answer was: Three. Later we found out that he did not have three, but eight at that moment.

A pig-sty.

I would call it an Augean stable, a terrible condition. I think I have explained the matter fairly. It is clear, in view of what I have said, that the Cost-Plus Committee was necessary. It has done good work. It has saved the country thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds. But our work was limited to a small section of war expenditure, only work that falls under cost-plus. There are other purchases of commodities for defence purposes that do not fall on the cost-plus basis. The country is full of stories in connection with transactions. There are certain aspects we wanted to investigate, the supply of shirts and other goods to the Defence Force. We are told that we cannot do this because these things are not supplied on the cost-plus basis, and therefore they fall outside the scope of our investigations. We wanted to investigate the purchase of meat and all sorts of other food requirements to military camps, to prisoners-of-war camps, etc. We were told that we could not investigate this, because it does not fall under cost-plus. But I can tell you that the country would welcome such an investigation, and it is necessary if the Government really feels that the administration of our Defence Department must be honest and upright.

I second. The first part of the amendment reads as follows—

My hon. friend who introduced the motion discussed malpractices existing in the Department of Defence. I shall confine myself to the malpractices in the administration of the country with regard to labour and social welfare. During the previous debate the spokesman of the Government informed the House and the country how much this Government had actually done in the sphere of social welfare for the people of South Africa. That spokesman claimed they were rehabilitating those at the bottom of the economic scale; he claimed that they were assisting those who were destitute and in want; he claimed that they were raising the standard of living of the wage earner, and he claimed that they were putting into effect a policy of social and economic justice for all. At that time we did not have an opportunity of showing the hollowness of the claims of the Government, and the hypocrisy revealed by members of the Government when they make claims such as these. Now we are going to show that the Government is actually not concerned about social and economic justice for the people of this country. We are going to show that they are not concerned about the prevalent want and destitution amongst the people of South Africa, but that they are prepared, under the leadership of the right hon. the Prime Minister, to mislead the people, to hold out to them a better life, merely in an endeavour to get the support of those people in the prosecution of their war. Now I want to take the House back to 3rd December, 1940. It was on that occasion that the Prime Minister made one of those famous, one of those immortal speeches of his. He made that speech in Bloemfontein, where he promised the people of South Africa a new heaven on earth in this country. It was the first time that the Prime Minister revealed himself as the new social reformer. He summed up his speech by saying this, that he and his Government were determined to bring about a state of affairs where there would be employment for everyone willing to work at decent wage standards consistent with white civilisation. That was the summing up of the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister. That was what he held out to the people of South Africa, and there are many ardent supporters of his party who naively considered that speech to be a new Magna Charter for the people of South Africa; but during the year following that speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister, we found that in Johannesburg alone more than 40,000 cases of men, women and children received poor relief. We found during the year following that speech that in Cape Town alone more than 12 per cent. of the European manual workers were living below the bread line. We found that during the year immediately following that speech more than half of the school children in South Africa were under-nourished and underfed. We found in the year following that speech that thousands of plums and oranges were deliberately destroyed to maintain the price at an artificial level. During that year there were 37 industrial disputes leading to strikes, workers striking for better wages and improved working conditions. During that year we find that 40,000. European workers in Government employ were in receipt of wages ranging from 3s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. a day. That was the year immediately following that notable speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister where he announced that Magna Charter for South Africa. A year later he made another of his immortal speeches again at Bloemfontein. On that occasion the right hon. gentleman announced the Government’s policy of social reform in these words—

How wonderful it sounds, but what happened in the year following that speech, which was made on the 21st October, 1941? That year we found that still over half the children in South Africa were undernourished and underfed. We found that one-third of the children examined were found to be below the requisite standard of physical development for their age. In spite of that, towards the end of that year, the authorities decided to discontinue the supply of free milk to school children. In spite of that, we find that over 30,000,000 oranges were destroyed during the year. That is the proud record of achievement of this Government after these two immortal speeches by the right hon. the Prime Minister. We found that in the year following the second speech, over 400 families applied to the Johannesburg Social Welfare Department for assistance. An analysis was made, and it was found that the largest group affected by poverty was composed of children of school-going age, between the ages of 7 and 16. It was found that 18 months after the right hon. the Prime Minister made his first speech, that on an analysis the average cash income of the poor families in one city in the Union alone—families of four to five people—was £6 6s. 5d. per month. Of this amount £3 0s. 2d. was spent on rent, and the balance was spent on food and clothing. Four to five people had to buy food and clothing for 30 days with only £3 6s. That means 3s. per person per week, or 13s. per person per month. Those were the social conditions which existed 18 months after that speech by the right hon. gentleman at Bloemfontein. During that year, 18 months after that speech, there were still thousands of European workers in Government employ who were receiving wages ranging from 3s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. per day. During August last year, the right hon. the Prime Minister sent a message to the Social Security Congress in these terms—

That was the message which the right hon. gentleman sent to the Social Security Congress in August last, almost two years after that first notable utterance on his part. But I have shown what the conditions were which existed at that time. At that time there were numerous strikes amongst European workers throughout the country, where they demanded better working conditions and better wages. During that month there were 34 native strikes alone. A month later the right hon. the Prime Minister, in a speech at a luncheon in Pretoria stated—

I have just outlined the conditions which prevailed in this country. I have stated that there is want and destitution; I have shown that the Government allowed 30,000,000 oranges to be destroyed in one year alone. Then the right hon. the Prime Minister states—

At that time when the right hon. gentleman made this statement, over 400 families had applied in one city in one month for social relief. During that time when he made this speech, a large number of families were in receipt of wages of £6 per month and less. During the previous month, when the right hon. gentleman made this speech, 1,480 European unemployed were registered in Johannesburg alone. Then the right hon. gentleman stated at that luncheon—

Almost two years after that wonderful speech at Bloemfontein we have these conditions existing in South Africa. But after that speech the political stage in South Africa became too cramped for the hon. the Prime Minister, and he betook himself to London. There he had the opportunity of addressing the world, and on the 22nd October the right hon. the Prime Minister had that wonderful honour of addressing his own people in the Mother of Parliaments, and of paying homage to his own leaders. He spoke to his own people, and it was an utterance that was awaited by the whole world with bated breath. We thought that the right hon. the Prime Minister would make one of those immortal speeches for which he is so famous. He stood up in the Parliament of his people and addressed his people and the whole world. He spoke and the world listened and wondered. They are still wondering what he said. It was a great speech—according to the English press. In that significant speech he said—

He said that, knowing the conditions which existed in South Africa, knowing that he left behind a South Africa where there was want and destitution; knowing that he had left behind a South Africa where half the schoolgoing children were under-nourished and underfed, and then he mouthed those pious platitudes in the Mother Parliament of the world. He said those things and returned to South Africa, to the regret of those who were once his people. On the 8th of last month he made another speech, and on this occasion he addressed the coloured people in the City Hall of Cape Town. On that occasion he used these words—

I challenge the right hon. Prime Minister to prove those words, to show that the standard of living has been raised, to show that the pay, the allowances, the feeding and care of our people is satisfactory. But now, sir, I am going to condemn the right hon. gentleman out of the mouth of a member of his own Cabinet. I accept it that the right hon. Prime Minister used those words in all sincerity, but I really think that he was philosophying. He is a noted philosopher, and when he spoke to these people in the City Hall of Cape Town, I think he had in mind the conditions he would like to see, but which will probably never come about in South Africa under this Government. But what does the red remnant of the Coalition Government think of the promises of the right hon. gentleman? Let us see if they really believe him when he says that he is going to give our people a better way of life, when he says that he is going to raise their standards of living; let us see whether they are satisfied with the regime of his Government. Let them speak for themselves. On the 3rd January, the Labour Party had its annual Union Congress, a congress representative of the whole of the Labour Party in the whole of the Union. They endeavoured to show a wonderful expression of strength, and, in spite of this, they managed to muster only 31 delegates, in spite of the phenomenal growth of their party, as they have continually informed the country. There was practically not a single resolution on the agenda of that congress which did not express the most intense dissatisfaction with the Government. Six branches demanded that the Labour Party should sever its connection with the Government, and that the hon. the Minister of Labour should leave the Government; but after a very heated discussion, and after the hon. Minister’s chief lieutenants had made a pathetic plea for his remaining in the Cabinet, they decided by a majority of three to one, that he should remain in the Cabinet and continue to co-operate with the Government. But the Labour Party laid down certain conditions on which depended their continued support of this Government. Those conditions were submitted to the Prime Minister. Whether they expect the right hon. gentleman to carry out these conditions it is for them to say, but at least he satisfied them by appointing a Commission. I remember the time when the hon. Minister of Labour stood up in this House and most indignantly repudiated any suggestion of his laying down conditions for supporting the Government. On the 8th May, 1940, the hon. gentleman was reproached for entering the Cabinet unconditionally, and in righteous wrath he exclaimed—

That was a good speech.

I wonder how the hon. Minister regards himself after the resolutions passed by the congress? Surely he does not regard himself as beneath contempt. Two years ago he surrendered unconditionally, and now his party wants to impose certain conditions. The party felt that the Government had done nothing and that the Government could do nothing. One delegate expressed himself quite picturesquely when he stated—

Another one said—

I wonder who is actually blackmailed? I have a clear recollection of a demand for additional seats at the next election; I have a very strong recollection of conditions being presented to the Government, and I do not know whether it is the Labour Party which is being blackmailed, or whether it is rather the Government who is being blackmailed by the Labour Party. But let us see what the hon. Minister of Labour himself has to say in regard to this “better way of life” that the right hon. the Prime Minister is going to give to people of this country. Let us see what the Minister of Labour says in regard to the raising of the standard of living of the workers; and surely he is the best authority; surely we must accept the word of the hon. Minister of Labour in regard to this. Early in November he addressed a meeting in Pretoria. He stated there that they, the Labour Party, were today compelled to be friends with the capitalists, but that the capitalists were no true friends. He told us that two years ago.

Where did you get that?

The hon. Minister is only discovering this now. With the capitalists, his own interests come first, and the welfare of the people as a whole, second. We told him that three years ago, but he would not listen; he continued to associate with the capitalists. He stated further—

Well, that is a condemnation by the hon. Minister of Labour of the Government of which he is a member, and of his leader, the right hon. the Prime Minister. That is what he said three months ago. At that time, I must give him credit, he was very candid and frank. He really excelled himself on that occasion. He simply wallowed in the truth. He said further: But all this talk about social security will just remain talk. The capitalists will see to that. What an expression of confidence by one of the colleagues of the right hon. the Prime Minister in the Cabinet; an expression of confidence in his Government and himself! The hon. gentleman summed up the position as follows—

Surely it is not the hon. the Minister of Labour who could have said anything of that nature! This was reported in the Press and it was never repudiated by the hon. gentleman. Then one must remember that a very short time ago the Prime Minister stated in Cape Town that the standard of living is being raised, that “the pay, allowances and feeding and care being given to our people point the way.” But the Minister of Labour says that the cost of living is rising and the wages are decreasing.

I did not.

As I have said, these were Press reports, and they were never repudiated. I must therefore accept them as correct.

Give us the reference.

I will afterwards. Early in January at Benoni, his own constituency, in the course of a speech, the hon. Minister of Labour stated that even the Prime Minister was bound by big capital….

I did not.

And that they will do everything in their power to wreck his plans for better living conditions for the people. I have always had a suspicion that the Minister of Labour does not always know what he is talking about; but it is not only a question of knowing what he is talking about, but now it seems also a case of not remembering what he said.

Not as you report it, anyway.

That is the reply of the Minister of Labour to the claims of the Government in regard to all these social and economic amenities they are going to create for the people of South Africa. But they continue to co-operate with the Government in spite of the fact that they condemn the Government. The Labour Party tells the world that this Government will and can do nothing, but they still continue to co-operate with this capitalistic Government. We have also heard that the Labour Party has grown to such an extent, that in the words of the hon. the Minister of Labour, they will shortly rule South Africa. He says—

Hear, hear.

Did you say that?

They expect to rule this country before long; but, strangely enough, they continue to co-operate with the Government; in spite of the tremendous amount of support they can muster in the country, they still continue to support the Government. In November last the National Executive of the Labour Party stated—

Well, that is a far-fetched claim. Let us test that claim. Let us see if this phenomenal growth and strength is a fact. After the condemnation by the hon. Minister of Labour of his own Government, one would expect that the Labour Party would long ago have severed all connection with the Government. The hon. gentleman himself addressed a meeting in Benoni. He addressed a meeting in Benoni, and he could muster an audience of 26 persons, including himself. A great mass meeting at Pretoria was advertised; they managed to get an audience of 100 people, including the speakers. A very widely advertised mass meeting in Johannesburg had to be abandoned because only seven people turned up. And at the Union Congress they mustered 31 people to represent the Labour Party in the whole of South Africa. That must be a clear indication of the phenomenal growth and strength of the Labour Party. I think the true position can be summed up in the words of an article in the “Sunday Times”, where they stated that the active membership of the Labour Party had fallen to a significantly low figure. One wonders why the Labour Party co-operates with the Government in view of its phenomenal growth and strength.

Don’t wonder; there is a war on.

Can they be of opinion that something will be done by this Government; can it be, sir, that the much-vaunted support that the trade unions are giving the Labour Party is only a figment of the Minister’s imagination? Can it be that they are growing so strong that they think that once they break with the Government, the Government will fall? One can but remember what a very prominent trade unionist stated in 1941. He said—

Tell the House who the prominent trades unionist is.

The hon. Minister wants to know who the prominent trade unionist is who used those immortal words. Instead of saying who he is, I shall show the House a picture of him. Here is a picture of Mr. Solly Sacks, and next to him appears the picture of Mr. Walter Madeley. This appeared in an issue of the Garment Workers’ Union only two months ago. Well, the House has heard what Mr. Solly Sacks’ opinion is of the hon. Minister. It is not for us to say whether Mr. Solly Sacks is wrong, but one wants to know the real reasons for the continued ’co-operation of the Labour Party with the Government.

Isn’t there a war on?

The hon. and somnolent member has at last woken up and discovered that there is a war on.

You speak much better in Afrikaans.

Let us see what the record is of the Labour Party in the last three years. I think that they have travelled a road that is strewn with broken pledges and discarded principles. They have lost the confidence of all Trade Unions and workers in South Africa. One need only go back to the end of 1940 when the strike of tobacco workers took place at Rustenburg. During that strike the Police used tear gas bombs and batons. When charged with joint responsibility for this, the hon. Minister of Labour disclaimed all responsibility. He raised his hands in horror and said—

That was one of the numerous undertakings on the part of the hon. Minister which has not been carried out. During October last a strike took place amongst the sugar industry workers at Stanger in Natal. I am not going into the merits of the case. When I charge the hon. Minister for being responsible for this state of affairs, I charge him with the responsibility because he is a member of the Cabinet. There is such a thing as joint responsibility, and whether he gives the order to use tear gas bombs, or whether the hon. Minister of Justice does so, it is his responsibility. If he is not satisfied with the order, he should resign from the Government. If he does not do so, he is jointly responsible with the rest of the Government. This strike took place, as I have said, and tear gas bombs were used by the Police to drive these people out of their homes. I am not saying whether the Police action was justified or not; that is not the point; what I am trying to show is how much an undertaking by the hon. Minister of Labour is worth. Less than two years after his pious undertaking that tear gas bombs would never be used again, the Police again used tear gas bombs in Natal. I am not discussing the merits of the case or the necessity for Police action. I am only concerned about an undertaking that was given by the hon. gentleman. On the 14th September a strike of the sweet workers in Johannesburg—approximately 600 European women and 400 Natives—was called. These European girls had to maintain themselves on a commencing wage of £1 5s. per week. Some of these girls had to support families, and these girls were expected to maintain a decent moral life on £6 per month. At a time when high profits were being made, they demanded a slight increase. Eight months previously a wage determination was published, which provided for certain improved conditions, but after the lapse of eight months this wage determination had not yet been gazetted, so they were compelled to resort to a strike. What happened? A full week after the strike had commenced, the hon. Minister of Labour only called a meeting of the employers and employees. He was absolutely helpless; but the authorities immediately acted in another way. On the very first day of the strike four European woman leaders of the strike were arrested.

These factory workers, 600 women, the ages ranging between 16 and 60, marched the streets of Johannesburg every day in efforts to enlist public sympathy, and I want to say that they did enlist public sympathy to a large extent. As I said earlier on, almost a week passed before a meeting was even arranged between employees and employers. A meeting was held but nothing resulted from it. These women, in order to prevent scab labour from being employed, were compelled to picket the factories and this was the result of the efforts to prevent scab labour from being employed. The police rushed these women and knocked some of them into a gutter and some were thrown into pick-up vans. One of the employers, a certain Mr. Cowan, came armed with a hose pipe and hit one of the girls black and blue. The police looked on while that happened. These girls, in receipt of 25s. per week, were trying to obtain a slightly increased wage, so that they could live decent and moral lives, and that is how they were treated. These are the girls whose husbands, in some cases whose sons and sweethearts, are now giving their lives for the right hon. the Prime Minister’s Empire, while the women left behind are treated in this way. Nothing at all was done. The strike lasted a month. During that time even the Transvaal Provincial Executive of the Labour Party issued a statement to the effect that they gave full support to these women and that their cause was just. The Minister of Labour sat helpless, looking on, unable to do anything at all. Eventually, the Minister of Justice had to intervene and he arranged a settlement. The Minister of Labour could do nothing; he found himself helpless and he had to call in assistance, and he called the Minister of Justice who arranged a settlement. But for one month these women had to strike in an effort to obtain a slight increase of their scandalously low wages. But what happened when the dock workers, natives, in Durban threatened to strike? No arbitration was even arranged. Immediately a proclamation was issued acceding to their demands, giving them wages of 5s. plus 1s. cost of living allowance per day. That is what happened to the native dock workers, but these women, in receipt of £1 5s. per week as against wages of native dock workers of £1 10s. per week—these women had to walk the streets of Johannesburg for a month before a settlement was arrived at. These women, between four of them, in three years received an amount of £780. The four hon. members on the Labour benches opposite between them in three years received £17,500. That is rather a contrast. These women were thrown into the gutter, bundled into pick-up vans, and the Minister of Labour stood helplessly looking on while all this went on! His colleague had to arrange a settlement. That is the proud record of this Government—in spite of the pious hypocrisies uttered by the Prime Minister …

The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisies.”

I withdraw “hypocrisies” and I substitute pious platitudes by the Prime Minister uttered continually during the last three years. This morning I have shown that one member of his own Cabinet has condemned him in no uncertain terms. He has been condemned by the Minister of Labour, who said that nothing had been done by this Government and that nothing could be expected for the workers after this war. In addition to that they have been condemned at the bar of public opinion. Very soon the public of South Africa will have the opportunity of passing judgment on this Government. I have no doubt as to what that judgment will be.

I, too, believe there is no doubt what the judgment and the finding of the public will be. The hon. member who has just sat down has a presentiment what the judgment of the public is going to be, and even now he is in full flight. For the rest of his retreat I shall leave him to my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Labour. Now, I wish to come back for a few moments to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). Let me say this: That the work done by this Cost-Plus Committee has been good work, and it is appreciated by me. That Committee has had a very difficult task. It had to enquire into building and other contracts, and it has presented a report which in my opinion in many ways is of considerable value to the Government, and important in respect of our policy to remedy whatever we find wrong, and to ensure the prevention of unnecessary expense. I am grateful to the Committee, and I am also grateful to the hon. member, although he may perhaps not take that in the right spirit. I am grateful to him for the work he has done and for his attitude, and I have already shown my appreciation of the Committee’s good work by accepting to a large degree—almost in their entirety—their recommendations and by giving effect to them. I know the Committee has done honest and good work. The work was not done in a party spirit, and the majority, if not all, the recommendations have already been carried out, or are being carried out by my Department, and it is in that spirit that I want to proceed. I realise the difficulties, and I believe that the House and the country realise the tremendous difficulties with which we have to contend in handling this colossal expenditure for Defence. In view of the fact that the machinery we had for carrying out our policy consisted of a department and an administration which was not fully prepared for such a colossal task, one must expect certain things to go wrong, and one must expect waste of money here and there, and unnecessary expense. That sort of thing happens everywhere in the world, and it has also happened here in South Africa. Our aim is to do the work well and to ensure that the methods adopted for doing the work are continually improved. The Committee has helped me there. I am giving effect to their findings so far as I am able to. Now, the hon. member wants to go still further, and, in addition to the work already done by this Committee, he wants a Parliamentary Commission composed of members of Parliament to be appointed with an indefinite instruction or mandate to scrutinise all the expenditure of the Defence Department, and to find out whether there is anything wrong anywhere. I think he wants to go too far there. The House knows that we have a definite method, a definite channel, of dealing with difficulties of that nature. We have specific machinery to deal with abuses if’ they do exist. We have the Auditor-General and his Department to scrutinise the Government accounts, and to ascertain whether there is anything wrong. The Auditor-General has to report to this House. We have machinery in existence, and there is no need for us to scratch around here and there to appoint a new Commission with an indefinite mandate. That work has been entrusted to the Auditor-General and his Department, and they are there to investigate how our money is being spent, and how the administration of the country is being carried on, and then to report to this House. And that is not all. Our machinery goes further than that. We have the Select Committee on Public Accounts which has to decide on the work of the Auditor-General. If the Select Committee on Public Accounts makes a specific recommendation, or if it wants anything to be further enquired into, if it wants an enquiry into a matter which the Auditor-General or the Select Committee itself cannot enquire into, then I am prepared to consider such a recommendation and to accept it. I am prepared to do so, but I do not think we are called upon; I do not think it is in the public interest, to appoint a Commission of members of Parliament with an indefinite mandate to scrutinise everything in regard to the financial administration of the Department of Defence, and I see no reason why, if such a Commission is appointed, it should be confined to Members of Parliament. I do not think that would be the right thing to do. It would be better to do what we did in the previous instance, namely to appoint a mixed Commission consisting of Members of Parliament and members of the public, to go into the whole matter. I must say that when I read the Committee’s report I felt reassured to a certain extent. To a certain extent the Committee’s report was reassuring, and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) by his speech this morning, reassured me even more. One can never feel sure that everything is going well when one has an administration such as the one under my control today, such a colossal administration, which was almost entirely improvised. One never feels sure that things will not go wrong, and I therefore looked forward with considerable interest to the report in order to find out whether anything was radically wrong. We now have the report and we also have the speech of the hon. member for George which, as I have said, has reassured me to a certain extent, not entirely, but to a certain extent. What do the remarks of the hon. member tell us? He told us that certain sections of the administration are good. For instance, we have this amazing, colossal administration, under the Director-General of War Supplies, Dr. Van der Bijl, the biggest organisation we have established during the war—it is a new experiment—we have never done anything of the kind before in South Africa. It was to be expected that where such an organisation was established, which had to deal with production expenditure, and all other expenditure in connection with the war, falling under it, something might go wrong. We heard this morning from the hon. member opposite—we had his testimony—that that organisation is a good organisation. He hands us that certificate and I think it is well deserved. Hon. members will realise that it is not a small thing, it covers a tremendous administration, the most difficult, the most involved, and the most extensive part of the organisation coming under me. Very well. We have this certificate of good conduct and order from our principal critic.

I hope you also accept his other certificate.

Those who came to curse remained to pray. Let me go a little further. We now come to the Department of Public Works. That, too, is good. Of course, certain recommendations are made regarding the cost-plus system which as hon. members know, is a difficult system—other countries have had difficulties with it, and we also found that in the unusual circumstances where we had to improvise everything, where we had to watch out carefully which road to follow, there was no readymade course for us to follow, we had to find our road very carefully—we also experienced certain difficulties. As to the various recommendations made by the Committee I shall go into those. The hon. member, however, says that this Department is also doing well. Now, however, we come to his third point, and that is Col. Craig, Director of Fortifications. And here the hon. member becomes as pessimistic as his eloquence can possibly make him, and all the fire and venom of his eloquence are poured on to the head of Col. Craig. That is where I find fault with the hon. member. He has a good cause, occassionally, or a partly good cause, or a cause which has some good in it, but he spoils it by exaggeration. And in Col. Craig’s case he has exaggerated the few good things he had by a magnifying glass of unequalled eloquence, and he has created the impression that everything was in a state of chaos, and that the Department was like an Augean Stable and I don’t know what not.

It is so.

I do not possess the eloquence of the hon. member, but let me say that I have complete confidence in Col. Craig.

Good gracious!

In spite of everything that has been said here. Last year the hon. member for George made a terrific attack on the Secretary for Defence.

Another weak link.

I replied to that attack by reappointing him.

That may be, but it was a very rotten answer.

The hon. member will agree that that is a matter of opinion. If he prefers his opinion to mine, very well, let him have his opinion. I like the Secretary for Defence and I have every confidence in him and also in Col. Craig. Who is Col. Craig?

That is the question?

Let me say this to the hon. member. He is a man who has occupied an important post in the Public Service for many years, he built our Harbour works along the Coast, he has done great things in improving our Coast. He is the man who has been responsible for that. He did not drift into this country during the war, he is not a man who was just picked up in the war but he is one of the most trusted and most able officials we have had for years. He is a prominent official in our construction work. When it was necessary some time ago to attend to our Coastal Defences the choice fell on him. Fortification Works had to be constructed rapidly—a great deal of work had to be done—we did not just need bush carts, but Defence works along the Coasts, and I thereupon employed Col. Craig for that purpose. The great Fortifications along our Coast which defend South Africa today, on which we depend for our safety, are Col. Craig’s work. When the war started we had nothing of the kind, anyone could have attacked us and things had to be done quickly, hard work had to be done, and after I had looked around to see who would be the most competent man for the work—I did not know Col. Craig personally—I selected him because of his ability and his record, because of the reputation he had as a thorough and competent official. Since he has constructed those Fortification works I got to like him, and I stand by him. For a time he was in the Middle East, but I said that I required him here and that I wanted him to carry on the work along the coast, so I got him to come back here, and that is why he came back. Here is where his work is. He has done that work. And now the hon. member has criticised him on a few details, he made a hefty attack on him. What the House should remember is this, all the points which the hon. member raised here this morning were dealt with by the Cost-plus Contracts Committee—no new evidence was brought before us here. All the irregularities and all these abuses which the hon. member waxed so eloquent about—all these matters were laid before the Committee. The Committee had to judge. The hon. member for George was a member of that Committee, and he was the one juryman who differed from the other eleven. And he has had the privilege of placing his views before this House, but what was the finding of the other members of the Committee? Let me read it to the House. It is contained in this report of the Committee in its summing-up, after they had thoroughly gone into everything, into all the scandals, into the Augean Stable—

Listen now, Fortifications—

That is the answer.

That is the report of those who say “yes” and “amen” to everything.

Is not that a complete answer to everything the hon. member for George has said? After considering everything they had heard, after having considered the evidence before them, they gave their judgment as the Court which had to enquire into the matter, and they said that excellent work had been done under exacting circumstances.

Which report is that from?

The first report.

It was only after that that the scandals really came to light.

This is the report on the activities of the Department of Public Works and Fortifications.

Do you deny any of the facts stated by the hon. member?

Here is the finding. If you have 10,000 cases and you select just one or more to build up your criticism you build on sand. Here is the answer, here is the finding.

The allegations are true or they are not true.

This was not a whitewashing committee it was a committee composed of responsible people.

Were there no other reports?

Yes, on other points. The hon. member for George made a further attack, namely, that the evidence which was given was incorrect, that officials of the Department of Defence in certain cases had been attached to the staff of the contractors. That also was enquired into by the Committee, and we have the finding which I have just read out, that the work was excellent. Col. Craig states that it was impossible for him with the staff at his disposal, and in view of the haste in which the work had to be done, to act differently. There was a lot of work, and careful supervision had to be maintained over all the work, and it was impossible for him to do anything else but to attach some of his own staff to the contractors so that he could keep his eye on matters from the inside. Unfortunately in some cases the Cost-plus profits were also applied to their salaries. That was a mistake. The people who gave evidence in the first instance did not even know about it, it was merely a mistake. I do not think there is any need for us to worry our heads about such instances which were palpable mistakes, which can be rectified. And that is the whole case put forward by the hon. member. If one scrutinises it carefully, not even with a magnifying glass, it vanishes just like his eloquence. I cannot accept the amendment, I don’t feel that a case has been made out for its acceptance.

I listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s speech, and I wish to make a few remarks in support of the amendment which has been proposed, and I wish to urge the necessity of its being accepted. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the valuable services rendered by the Cost-plus Committee, he will be prepared to accept the services of that committee for other work as well? So far as Col. Craig is concerned, the Prime Minister spoke of his ability. I am very pleased that such a competent person has put our undefended coasts in order. I am glad to have that assurance, because if I take over the Government from the Prime Minister, I shall be able with the help of those fortification works, to defend my own neutrality. I am glad that we have good fortifications, but the Prime Minister’s reply has not satisfied me at all. He quoted from the first report on the question of Fortifications. Why did he not go further? Why did he not quote from the other reports as well? The Minister says that valuable services have been rendered by the Committee. Well, if that is so, why does he not go further and have the other matters enquired into as well? Valuable service can also be rendered there. It is true that every business has its auditor. In regard to Government expenditure, we have the Auditor-General with his qualified officials to go into everything, but when do they find the errors-? After they have been committed, often long afterwards, and then they report. This committee has gone into matters. I as a business man, see to it that when there is waste, that the leakages are stopped at once. I don’t allow them to go on for a year, because it is too late then. The Auditor-General can only report on last year’s waste and extravagance, and on the basis of his report the Minister of Finance presents his Budget. Taxes are levied accordingly; our taxes are levied according to the amount that has been wasted. That is not the way of sound business. We are charged for the future because of the waste of the past. The Prime Minister should accept this motion of ours, because it is in his own interest to do so. Don’t exhaust South Africa more than you are already doing with your war effort. At the end of this war we shall be completely exhausted, squeezed dry; we shall have been bled to death, and there will be nothing left to rehabilitate the people and to build them up again. In my business my main object and my aim is immediately to stop leakages, and in every department we have competent persons to go into matters, so that mistakes cannot happen twice. The Prime Minister, in reply to the speech by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) quoted from the first report. I asked him in an interjection whether that was the only report. Well, I have the third report here, and that is the report which deals with the question of attaching the Fortification staff to the contractors and placing them on their books. Let the Minister study that. In paragraphs 37 and 38 he will notice that criticism is levelled there, very serious criticism in connection with this matter. And let me read to the Prime Minister what is said here—

If paragraph 37 is read in conjunction with that it will be noticed that on the wages, etc., of the people in the service of the contractors 10 per cent. went to the contractors. That fact cannot be argued away, and it reflects a serious position. There are always people who are out to make as much out of the State and out of the people as they can, and the Prime Minister is now subscribing to that. He silently approves of it, and wants to get away from it by making a joke. It is a serious matter, and the people will consider it as serious that money is spent and wasted in this way, apart from the fact that we are opposed to all war expenditure, and that it is my duty to resist every step to give effect to that policy, because I behold the economic ruin which is staring us in the face. With these few words I associate myself with our amendment. The Prime Minister has admitted that the Committee has done good work, valuable work. There are many other things to be enquired into. Let the Prime Minister in his own interest have these matters enquired into, and do not let him hasten the economic ruin of our people by wasteful expenditure.

At the risk of making the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) appear more important than he really is, I intervene in this debate at an early stage. I am afraid that it is necessary to retort like that because my experience of the hon. member’s intervention has not been a pleasant one at all, all through his representation in Parliament.

Well, you don’t like his criticism.

But my reason for intervening now is not because of his tirade against the Labour Party but in order that I may nail to the counter a canard which he has repeated, which his Leader repeated, which appeared in a certain section of the Press of this country.

But you know that it was true.

And that was that I had definitely said in public both at the Labour Party Conference and at a meeting in Pretoria, that I did not trust the Prime Minister. Now, if my hon. friend had been at either of these meetings which I addressed, if the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) had been at either of these meetings, they would have heard quite the contrary. I expressed myself in no uncertain terms as having complete confidence in the Prime Minister.

That was in the reports which I read.

And what is more, I repeated, what did not appear in the Press at all at both meetings, my high opinion and admiration of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. And the hon. member has now forced me to say that here in Parliament.

Notwithstanding 1922.

Notwithstanding 1922 and notwithstanding 1911. My memory is a long one—I said notwithstanding 1911 when the hon. gentleman who is now unfortunately deceased led that side of the House, who was then Minister of Justice, and he is the painful progenitor of the pick handle brigade of South Africa. I remember that too. But I also remember this, that it is given to all of us to make mistakes, it is given to all of us to redeem ourselves and I am happy in the association which I have made with the Prime Minister.

Do you really mean that?

Yes, but the reason for the attitude of hon. members over there is not far to seek. They are hoping to cause a rift in the lute between us.

You have all the loot on your side.

Yes, but ours is a musical lute.

We have the lute and they have the rift.

I could not say it so well as you have done, sir. Well, we will leave that point. They are hoping, sir, that they can wring the withers of the Labour Party to such an extent that we will kick over the traces and say goodbye. Why, sir, are they harping so constantly on this unconditional association of the Labour Party with the United Party? Again I say, that I am proud that I took up that attitude, and I want to say this, that I took up that attitude despite the sneers of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), I took up that attitude with the full and unanimous backing of the South African Labour Party and the trades union movement of South Africa.

And now?

Including that important union to which the hon. gentleman referred, and the photograph of his leader. He has an artistic perception, has the hon. member for Fordsburg. That is very evident indeed. And, sir, that forgives him a tremendous amount of political sins that he may have committed in the past. No, sir, the Labour Party is not going to fall for that; and in his rather heavily-witted references to the Labour Party Conference at the beginning of this year, which he said was only attended by 31 delegates; what is the point of that, I would like to know?

I want you to rehabilitate yourself.

I am delighted at and I appreciate very much the kind-hearted spirit displayed by the hon. member in his desire to rehabilitate the Labour Party. But I do not believe it; I hope he will forgive me for saying that.

You don’t believe it is possible.

I don’t believe the truth of it. You cannot rehabilitate perfection, there my hon. friend is perfectly correct. No, sir, he does not want to rehabilitate us; what he would like to do and what that party would like to do is to swing us, but the swinging is going to be over there. My hon. friend need not worry himself any more. The object, of course, is as I say, at least that is one of them, to cause a rift, and the other is that they have started their election campaign. Well, they are welcome to all that. I want to say this to the hon. gentleman as a matter of comparison in regard to representation at a conference, that our delegates are delegates, and we see to it that people on the Roll are authorised, and we make the most meticulous examination as to the credentials of the individual, and if he regards the Labour Party as so puerile, why all the fuss? Why does he worry? No, sir, they are worried to think that this association has been productive of almost 100 per cent. war effort, that is what is worrying them. They wanted the United Nations to lose the war, and I appeal to the hon. member—and there can be no question as to the truth of this, he himself warned South Africa, this was his estimate of the position—he warned South Africa that the future success of Afrikanerdom depended on a German victory. What does he say now, I wonder? Why don’t you give up the ghost, why try any more? Because there is not going to be a German victory. So the future of Afrikanerdom, as he knows it, is non est. Therefore, why do any more? Now they have swung on to the Communist appeal. I shall have another occasion of dealing with that, Mr. Speaker, and I will take advantage of that occasion, but there are some points that the hon. member made that I want to deal with now. But before doing so, I want to appeal to the hon. gentleman to give me the source of his information with regard to the strictures which he and his Leader, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) poured out upon myself with regard to the Prime Minister. I would like to have the source of that information, because “Die Transvaler” was present at our conference, and my information is that no reference of such a character was made even in “Die Transvaler”.

I will show you the Press cutting.

Put it on the Table. Let us have it in public, and tell us which organ of the Press published the report from which he made the cutting. When I challenged the hon. member as he was speaking, it was a simple thing for him to have said what was the source of his information. I am always willing to give the House the source of my information on the spur of the moment, but are we to understand, in view of his reluctance to disclose the source of his information, that that source is tainted? Sir, it is an invented source, and I am inclined to think, sir—

I hope the hon. Minister is not implying that the hon. member has invented the source.

Oh, no, no, sir. What I meant was that I am anxious to find the source of the sauce. I do not accuse the hon. member, and I never accuse any hon. member of deliberately disregarding the truth in the House.

[Inaudible].

No, no, don’t do that, don’t read into my remarks anything I did not intend. I think the source itself is tainted, and the hon. member has been very much misled. Now here is a point that I do want to get my teeth into. The hon. member said that in the course of the same speech or another speech, that I had said that in spite of what had been done, wages were decreasing. He said that in this House.

Yes. According to the Press report.

That I said wages were decreasing? According to what Press report? I want that report, I am anxious to get that report.

You will get it, you will get it in the neck.

You know what Churchill said? “What a neck.” Nothing that you can do will hurt my neck. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, is not that a perfectly ridiculous thing for a man of political substance like the hon. member for Fordsburg to say, that I had ever said that wages were decreasing, especially in view of the fact that I am constantly increasing wages, and not decreasing them. Not cost of living allowances, that is always superimposed upon these increased wages, I mean increased basic wages.

Give us an instance.

I am going to give you a lot of instances. First of all I am going to tell hon. members in this House that since I have occupied the Ministerial chair, not entirely due to my own efforts, don’t think I am so immodest as to claim that, but the sum total increase of wages in South Africa, that is to say the Wage Bill, is £4,811,000. That is the sum total. My hon. friend comes along in that light-hearted uninvestigating way of his, uninvestigating so far as the source of his information is concerned, and calmly tells the House that I was fool enough all the time that I am increasing wages, to tell the public they are decreasing. That, sir, is perfectly ridiculous and requires no further reference. But it is just as well that the House should know just where we are in these matters. In addition to that increase in wages, sir, it is well within the recollection of the House that this Government passed a new Factories Act, despite the very sympathetic support of the hon. member for Fordsburg, who was so kindly disposed towards it that he did all he could to make it difficult to have that measure passed. He did it under the guise of a kindly disposition, sir, under the guise of a determination to improve the Act or rather the Bill that I had brought forward, he really wanted to make it difficult for it to be passed at all. I am not trying to suggest that the hon. member does not want to improve conditions. I am prepared to concede to him a desire to improve conditions.

The people are not satisfied.

Nor am I satisfied. I am not satisfied. I told the hon. gentleman then that I was not satisfied, and I am not satisfied today. But what I want to know is this. Why was it left to this Government to bring in and support a Bill in the direction of increased wages and improved conditions? My hon. friend presumably was a supporter of the Government that was in power before us, and why did he not use that tremendous influence of his, and that eloquence of his, in the direction of improving these conditions that we have been trying to and have actually improved since this Government has been in power? We have improved conditions very considerably. Let me give you instances. I have here a few examples, the Clothing Manufacturing Industry at Cape Town, in that industry wages have been increased by 10 per cent.

By your efforts?

No, he says no.

Mainly by my efforts, but no matter whose effort it was the hon. member had evidently made very little effort, or if he did it was highly unsuccessful, because these increases have taken place since the gentlemen opposite were in power. The clothing manufacturing industry in Port Elizabeth have had wages increased by 11½ per cent.; the leather industry throughout the whole Union 9 per cent.; the motor trades in the Transvaal 10 per cent. Now we come to the classic example that the hon. member has quoted as a knock down blow for me, the sweet manufacturing industry. I hope the House will remember that these are increases on the basic wages that were extant when hon. members opposite were in power. The sweet manufacturing industry in Cape Town has had wages increased 18 per cent.

Then why did they strike?

The sweet manufacturing industry in Durban, 14 per cent., and on the Witwatersrand, 16 per cent. [Interruptions.] It only shows that you did not do your duty when your Government was in power, and I have done my best to rectify your omissions. This is an example which, of course, will not interest the hon. gentlemen over there because they are not concerned with humanitarian motives, they are not anxious to improve conditions because they ought to be improved, but we find them very anxious to improve conditions on paper, at all events by speeches to potential voters. Do you find them raising any very great outcry about the poor unfortunate Native? The hon. member and his friends are not likely to give much urge to us on this side of the House to improve the wages of the Native. However, we have made a start in that direction on the Witwatersrand and in other places.

After 34 strikes.

No, no, this was before the strikes.

What did they strike for then?

The strike was in anticipation of the wage determination. I am surprised my hon. friend did not quote some of the leaders of that strike, because after a short time, in all probability, they will be very close friends. We have raised the Native wages on the Witwatersrand by 27½ per cent. I hope hon. members over there will not come along and accuse me in the future of saying that this is the be-all and end-all of Government efforts. Not at all, I am not satisfied with that yet. I am not satisfied with any of these wages, and Sir, it may be known to the House that even with regard to industrial agreements, time after time I have refused to accept them until the industrial councils concerned have agreed to reconsider the wages of the native and non-Europeans engaged in unskilled work.

Give us some of the increases in Government employees.

Yes, that is on the board too.

On the board, after three years.

After 23 years, and 15 years experience of government from that side of the House. I am able to say that we have made a move, but hon. gentlemen opposite never intended to make a move, and what we have done, Sir, is an interesting commentary and at the same time a condemnation of the supineness of that side of the House when they were in power. And not only have we been increasing the wages of the workers of this country, but we have made it possible for them to spend those wages much more wisely than they were able to do before.

But you have not increased wages.

That is a typical example of the argument that these people use, and in the election if we are unable to follow them up platform by platform and give the lie to some of these remarks that are made by them, this country is going to be completely misled. But I want to say this in anticipation, hon. members over there will find that the workers of this country are waking up, no longer will they accept the dicta from that side, no longer will they accept their statements of fact, no longer will they believe things derogatory of this side of the House.

Don’t make us laugh.

If my hon. friend were to laugh he would be nearer to heaven, because I believe the merry soul is nearer heaven than my hon. friend is ever likely to be. Instances of the improvement of the general conditions of the workers are to be found in the Factories Act, and I am now going to deal with the Workmen’s Compensation Act, another measure which my hon. friend tried to kill with kindness. But here first I want to refer to an interjection of my hon. friend who sits behind me in connection with the fact that the hon. member fought, tooth and nail for the estate agents. I wonder why he takes such a kindly interest in estate agents?

[Inaudible].

Exactly, my hon. friend would like to write himself that testimonial and I will sign it with reservations. Now I come to the Rent Act. That Act has already saved the people of South Africa £1,000,000 per annum, and when I say the people of South Africa, I mean the workers of South Africa in the main. Therefore, in addition to increasing their wages, we are making it possible for them not to have to waste their wages in a manner which they had to do before. What sort of assistance did the Rent Act get from that side of the House? At every turn they did everything, of couse in the guise of friendliness, in the guise of anxiety to pass it, they did everything they possibly could to make it impossible for me to pass that Bill.

Sabotage!

Yes, sabotage. These are some of the things that we have done since we have been in power. Then he makes great play, he became quite lachrymose, did the hon. gentleman, about these 400 families, after the high falutin’ speech of my right hon. friend the Prime Miniser. That is not my word, that is my interpretation of the words of the hon. member over there. I have to be so careful, or it will go outside that I said this about the Prime Minister. The hon. member said that 400 families had to go on poor relief.

In one month in one centre.

He did not tell us why those families were in that condition. It was a relic of the past when hon. members over there were in power. When we took over, there were infinitely more than 400 families, ten times that number of people that were actually provided with poor relief, and I appeal to my hon. friend, his collegue who supported him up to the hilt in his aspersions upon our administration of social welfare in this country, and I appeal to him to tell us what he has got to say about it. Before making sweeping assertions like that, they should tell us the circumstances relating to the 400 families referred to. The hon. member followed that up with a tremendous condemnation of the Labour Department and myself in particular, about the number of unemployed, suggesting in that inimitable way of his, that delightfully gentlemanly way of his, that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister was once again endeavouring to delude the country. “Tremendous numbers of unemployed,” says the hon. gentleman. Let me give you the figures. In 1934, when my hon. friend was sitting behind the throne….

The Prime Minister was sitting there too.

My hon. friend was sitting behind the throne, and was he giving the Government a push to move on?

In 1934 I was sitting here.

I am talking of the hon. member for Fordsburg at the moment. In 1934 there were 10,877 registered unemployed, and at the end of the month under review, there were 7,697 unemployed. In 1940 we were beginning to get a grip on this subject, and there were only 4,589 registered unemployed, and at the end of the month under review there were only 1,463. In December, 1942, there were 981 unemployed in the Union of South Africa. I will not be satisfied until nobody is unemployed. But, sir, it ill-becomes the hon. member for Fordsburg having sat behind the previous Government, and having these political urges in his soul, I say it is unbecoming of him to accuse this Government of not having done its duty in the direction of endeavouring to wipe out unemployment: 7,697 unemployed in 1934; 981 in December 1942, only two months ago. And, sir, you know perfectly well from your experience that there must inevitably be under the capitalist system, and even under any system, some people who will be out of work, some of them unemployed, some of them not satisfied with the particular work offered I don’t blame them for that, but it is a fact that there must be some people unemployed, and I don’t know in which category they can effectively be placed. I only got up first of all to repudiate the statement made in the newspapers and in this House that there is a rift between the Prime Minister and myself, and that I had cast aspersions upon the bona fides of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. I hope I have done that effectively. I denied it at every public meeting, and at the conference to which the hon. gentleman referred.

You usually deny what you have said previously.

No, no, that is unworthy of my hon. friend. Unfortunately for him, this country has known me much longer than it has known him, and will know me much longer than they will know him. I got up to say that and to repeat the figures of the unemployment position. Also, what is the wage position and the social welfare position in South Africa. I hope I have done that, certainly to my own satisfaction, and I hope to the satisfaction of the House.

I have heard a great deal about the cleverness of the hon. the Prime Minister, but today he has really excelled himself. I say that with admiration, because I think he had a very difficult case to defend, and he tried to do it as he alone can do it, and I admire him for it. But it does not seem to me that he is aware of the true circumstances. It seems to me that he had to speak too soon after the reports were handed in. He quoted from the first report of the Cost-Plus Contract Committee, but he did not take the third report, nor did he tell this House how he got the third report. He did not say that there was a minority report from the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). After the hon. member for George had raised the matter, it was referred back, a clear proof that they regarded it as serious. I just want to ask him to look at the third portion of that report. That report appears on page 3. We notice in the minority report of the hon. member for George, that the name of Maj. Jordaan appears in it fairly frequently. We cannot say anything else but that these people made scandalous profits. I take it that these are loyal people who support the war effort of the Government, and it is very clear to us that they can support that war effort because they make enormous profits out of it. I want to quote from paragraph 47 of the third report, but I think I should first read paragraph 44—

It is therefore not the fault of Maj. Jordaan, but of the Government. Now I want to read out what the Committee said about this after the matter had been referred back to it. We find in paragraph 47—

This is another difficulty for which the Government is responsible. Here it is said that Col. Craig could not get the staff, or otherwise there might have been a change.

But read the whole paragraph.

Very well, I am quite prepared to read the whole paragraph—

Hear, hear!

But this has nothing to do directly with the expenditure. This has to do with the manner in which the staff was obtained. Let me quote paragraph 51, and then the Prime Minister will see—

That is precisely what I said.

Now the Prime Minister asks why he should appoint a Commission for this, since we have the Auditor-General to go into these matters. I do not know if the Prime Minister has ever served on the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I serve on it now for the first time, and I must honestly say that I have not much confidence in the Committee when I see what happens there. We meet in the morning at 9.15 and we sit until 11 o’clock. We take a few paragraphs from the report of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General himself is perhaps not in position to dissect it properly, and then we must quickly try to do it up there. This does not give me much confidence in the matter, and I say to the Prime Minister that if he wants to proceed in that way, and if a stop is not put to this scandalous procedure, he himself will later rue his lot. He says that here we had a Committee, and he mentions the names, Blackwell, Werth, Prentice, Boyder, Osborne, Kentridge and Le Roux, Secretary, who conducted an investigation. He says that he also appointed people from outside Parliament. Well, I have no objection to him having done this. If he accepts this motion, then we have no objection to that, provided he appoints impartial people who are in a position to investigate the matter thoroughly. I would like to read out another paragraph, viz. paragraph 45—

The whole report is different to the one originally introduced. We must remember that these people are well-disposed towards the Government’s policy, and if there are mistakes, then they would like to circumvent these without trouble being made, in view of the fact that there is a war in progress. But the point to which I want to draw attention, is that this Commitee recommended in its report that the matter should be further investigated, and why is the Prime Minister not prepared to accept our proposal that the investigation should be made broader? Our motion does not look unfair to me. Further, I want to point out that we received these reports only today. We have not yet had the opportunity to go into the reports thoroughly, and when we have had that opportunity perhaps other difficulties would come to light that we would like to discuss here. I had to read through the reports hurriedly, and it is perfectly clear to me that the Prime Minister has not seen all these reports, otherwise he would not have quoted only the first report. I do not want to be unreasonable. I know that mistakes can occur. People are not perfect. But the Prime Minister should be in position to obtain the best Commission for bringing out the best and most useful report. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not know that in England they have a Commission to buy food. They have said that they want 20s. value for every £. They were able to buy raisins here from us at less than half the price for which they could buy it during the last war. During the last war they paid up to 1s. per lb., and now the raisins fetch less than 3d. The people in England are eating cheaper raisins than we do here. They have organised the matter, and the Prime Minister could have organised our expenditure in connection with the war in the same way. The State has decidedly lost much money on these cost-plus contracts, and goodness knows if we shall get that money back. I do not feel satisfied with the position. I do not feel satisfied with the Prime Minister’s explanation. He bases his satisfaction on a certificate of the hon. member for George. But the hon. member for George has in fact come forward with this motion, whereby he proves that he also is not satisfied. Moreover, het has brought out a minority report, which has been accepted by the Government, because the Government referred the matter back to the Committee, which then brought up another report. I am really not satisfied that the money of the country is being spent in the most advantageous way. That is the position as regards this expenditure. The third report conflicts with the first report. It is clear that there were scandals, and therefore we say to the Government that it must institute further investigation. We want the investigation to be conducted by members of Parliament, but if the Government does not want to do that, let us then also get people from outside, people in whom the public have confidence and let them conduct the investigation. The position today is that we continue to pay taxation, and we have not the certainty that the money is being spent in the right way. We do not know if our money is being wasted, and if one pays taxation, then one wants to have the assurance that the money is being spent properly. We hear murmerings in the country that show that the people are not satisfied. If they themselves see that money is being wasted; if they themselves see where money can be saved, then I want to say to the Prime Minister that the best he can do is to appoint such a Commission. The costs of such a Commission will not be so very terrible, and such a Commission can then indicate where loopholes can be closed, so that we may know that for every £ we spend a value of 20s. will be received. The country expects this. The taxpayer expects to receive full value for his money, and therefore I make a strong appeal to the Minister to appoint such a Commission. Then I would like to direct a few words to the hon. Minister of Labour. He is not here. His cup of coffee is worth more to him than what is said on this side. I have here a cutting from “Die Transvaler” that I want to read out to him. The Minister of Labour made a reflection against the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and challenged him to bring a cutting from the newspaper on what he said here. Those cuttings have been handed to me, and I am going to read them. We are also prepared to lay them on the Table if the Minister enables us to do so. Here is a cutting from “Die Transvaler” of 13 November, 1942, and I want to quote the following from it — [Translation]—

That is precisely what the hon. member for Fordsburg said. Then I have another cutting from “Die Burger” of 8 January, 1943, that reads as follows—[Translation]—

Now let the Minister deny these reports. In any case, there are the cuttings. He has challenged the hon. member to show them, and if he is willing he can have them laid on the Table. I would just like to say to the Minister of Labour that he can boast as much as he likes, but I myself see hundreds of poor people in our country every day who have not enough food to eat. He has said here that he has made provision for all; and that he has seen to improved wages. I have not seen this. In my constituency and in areas where I travel about, there are numbers of poor people who cannot exist. I have myself taken people to his office for work, and he was not able to give them work. I say this to him, and let him deny it. One man was 39 years of age, and he could not get work because he could go and fight in the North. And then it is the Minister who comes to say here that he is so terribly proud of his association with the Prime Minister. I want to remind him of the English proverb: “Pride goes before a fall.” Despite his pride he is soon going to fall very far. We know that he is in the hands of the capitalists. All his activities and his seat is dependent upon them. We know they keep him there, for so long as he is there there will never be a Labour Party. And then he comes here with all sorts of frivilous and insulting challenges that he cannot prove. He boasts so much about what he does. There are more than 20,000 poor Europeans in the service of the Government, outside the Railways, who receive from 3s. 6d. to 8s. per day, and they have received no increase. That is the man who sits in the Government and can do such a great deal! He tells us about increases in wages. Is he the cause of it? The determination of those wages fall under the industrial legislation. He has nothing to do with it, and yet he wants to take the credit for it. But if there are deficiencies, then he is very quick to say that he is dissatisfied with the law, and that he did not want it like that. Why did he introduce it and request us to vote for it? A man that does such a thing is not honest, and he cannot expect us to feel that he is honest. And then he spoke about the “Unfortunate native” for whom we have done nothing. The natives on the Rand get a bigger wage than the poor Europeans in the service of the Government. In my own constituency the natives in the factories get more than the Europeans in the service of the Government. Then I want to ask the Minister of Finance what is the policy of the Government in connection with industries on the platteland. Some years ago a Commission was appointed to investigate the question of industries on the platteland. That Commission brought up a report, and now I would like to know what the policy of the Government is in connection with that. I want to explain to the Minister what has happened. The Railways have begun killing the industries on the platteland by means of its tariffs. I do not say that the Railways have done it deliberately, or that they knew what they were doing. But I want to mention a few instances. Take the furniture factories. I think that this Commission said that the best place for an industry is in that area where the raw material is produced. In Knysna stinkwood and yellow-wood are produced, and on that wood the railage per ton to Cape Town is 19s. 8d. But if the furniture is manufactured in Knysna, and sent to Cape Town, then the railage is 206s. 8d. per ton. That is more than ten times as much as the railage on the wood The Railways will possibly tell us that those things are determined in the usual routine of the Department. But I think the Minister realises what the position is, for the market for the furniture of Knysna is not in Knysna but in big cities such as Cape Town. And what is the position now? The wood is transported cheaply to Cape Town, and the transport of the furniture to Cape Town is costly, which enables the manufacturers in Cape Town to kill the furniture factories in Knysna. The furniture makers in Knysna are not in position to compete with Cape Town. Formerly they were in position to do this because wages there were lower. Costs of living were lower, and when I say this I do not mean the cost of living in the sense in which the Government views it, viz. things such as house rent, water, light and food. What I mean is this, that in a place such as Knysna there are not the opportunties for recreation that exist in a big city. The workers in Knysna who do the same work as the furniture makers here in Cape Town, are satisfied to go to the bioscope once a week. In Cape Town they go to the bioscope, they go to dances, etc., and because their standard of life is much higher they must have a higher wage. I reckon these people deserve it. I do not want to plead for lower wages. On the platteland the wages were lower in the past than in the city, and the factories were in position to compete. Now the reverse is the case. The wages of these people are fixed, and those in Knysna are the same as in Cape Town. The result is that the furniture makers of Knysna are being crushed. They must send their products to Cape Town. The same applies to the printers. In my constituency there are a few printing works. One of these people came to me and said that he is going to close down his place and is going to Cape Town. He employed about 20 people. He said he could not compete with the printing works here in Cape Town. In the past he could do it because his wages were less, but now he can no longer do it. In the past the wage of a printer was £2 less in Robertson than it was in Cape Town. But the bosses who now fix the thing, did not fix the wages on the basis of cost-of-living, but on a competitive basis that means that Robertson is being killed as against Cape Town. When a small place has to compete with a big factory it can only do so if its wages are lower. I do not ask here that the wages in Robertson must be made lower, but that the wages in Cape Town must be raised, or otherwise we are going to get the same thing, viz. that the platteland factories are killed. I want to put the matter very clearly, otherwise the Minister of Labour will perhaps again say that I said things which I did not say. At the moment industries on the platteland are being killed, and I want to know what the Government’s policy is in this connection. To me it seems that there is something wrong. We want the Government to explain its policy clearly and we want to appeal to the Minister of Finance to give the small places a chance. He will know that there are places in Europe that have reached their apex hundreds of years ago; practically no additional houses have been built, because these places are in agricultural areas where there has been no industrial expansion Other places again which were small a century ago are today great cities. Great factories arose, and there was expansion. If the Government is not prepared to do something like that to help platteland industries, then it simply means that all the platteland workers will transfer to the cities, and the result is housing difficulties and all sorts of other difficulties in the cities. Consequently I consider that our aim should be to encourage industries on the platteland. I also want to make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture. I think a plan should be formulated in connection with the production of potatoes. If things go on as at present we are going to have trouble. We have often heard that we must plant things when prices are low. If provision is not made for the disposal of potatoes so that the people can receive decent prices we shall later again have the difficulty of not having sufficient potatoes. I do not know what we can do with the potatoes, and therefore I ask the Minister if an investigation cannot be instituted into some means or other of using the present production. We cannot produce potatoes at the price now being paid. If we do not do something about this matter then the people will not be in a position to go on; no potatoes will be planted, and there will be trouble. I have received a letter from the Farmers’ Association of Bonnievale, in which I am specially requested to raise this matter. I can tell the Minister that in recent years 10,000 bags of potatoes were produced in that locality. Considerable confusion now prevails because certain areas that never produced potatoes on a big scale are now producing heavily as a result of the encouragement they have received, and now those people who produced large quantities in the past find themselves in a situation where they cannot proceed. Something must be done to ensure that the interests of these people are taken into account.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) after the specific denial by the Minister of Labour of having said what he is alleged to have said regarding the Prime Minister, I am surprised at the hon. member for repeating the assertion.

The Minister denied having said it, and he also denied that it was in the paper.

After that specific denial by the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Swellendam comes along with a cutting from “Die Transvaler”, a hostile party political paper, and quotes a report in that paper against the specific denial of the Minister.

I tell you, the Minister said there was no such cutting.

I don’t want to carry this matter any further, except to deplore that the hon. member for Swellendam should persist, after the Minister has given his assurance to the House. The Minister has given a very full account of the improved wage position and the improved machinery of his Department for dealing with the economic position of the people. While I and many of us feel that the progress is not adequate nor as expeditious as we would like it to be, I repeat what I said in the debate on postwar reconstruction, our industrial legislation with some improvement and planning provides the Government with machinery to secure further progress. Now I want to deal with what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said about the Cost-Plus Committee. The hon. member was a member of that Committee, and I want at the outset to say that I regret that at the beginning of his remarks he cast some aspersions on two members of the Committee. I want to say, and I think my hon. friend the member for George (Mr. Werth) will agree with me, that those two members were of the utmost value to the Committee, which was appointed by the Minister of Finance. Both of them were technical men, and both of them, during the whole course of the proceedings of that Committee and in framing the reports, showed the utmost impartiality combined with the utmost appreciation of the problems in respect of which evidence was being given before that Committee. The answer to the suggestion that another Commission should be appointed, is that the whole subject has been adequately dealt with. The Committee was set up to enquire into the Cost-Plus contracts, and the Committee dealt with three specific types of work. They dealt with Public Works Department contracts, which involved an expenditure of close on £25,000,000, they dealt with fortifications and they dealt with other types of contracts such as equipment for the army, which were under the control of the Director-General of War Supplies. The hon. member for George, in the course of his speech, did not complain about the administration of the work in so far as the Public Works Department was concerned, nor did he complain of the contracts carried out under the Director-General of War Supplies. In fact, he spoke of the excellent work done by the Director-General of War Supplies and his staff. The hon. gentleman, however, attacks the Director-General of Fortifications and the work that was done by that section. Outside of those three specific types of work, there is nothing else for any Commission to enquire into, There were two questions which came before us and which fell outside our terms of reference. The one was the establishment of production committees. The representatives of trades unions believed that by the establishment of production committees, it would be possible to improve the actual working of all war contracts, and probably check any defects or difficulties that arose at different times. The other point that arose, and which the chairman of the Committee, who so ably presided over the Committee, definitely checked any investigation of, was the alternative suggestion put forward by representatives of the trades union movement, that all war production and contracts should be carried out by State enterprise. These are two matters of policy, the establishment of a production committee, and the question of the State taking over everything are matters neither of which require a special Commission to be appointed at the present moment. I think the hon. member for George will agree as to that. The point that the House and the country will have to consider in examining this report and in examining these points made by the hon. member is this, that in 1939 when South Africa entered the present war, we started from scratch. We had no army, we had no equipment, we had no fortifications, we had no camps, no military hospitals, we were left standing as we were at the time without any provision whatever. When the country realises all this, and realises that during the period there was a shortage of labour, there were difficulties in getting material, the question of costs continually changing from day to day on account of the shipping conditions, and that since then the Government had built up an army of over 200,000 men, and equipped it with all its requirements, it is not to be wondered at that there were mistakes and defects. It has also to be remembered that the Director of Fortifications had to build fortifications all over the Union at a time when even a temporary victory in Africa by the Axis forces, or any temporary victory on the part of Japan, would have left South Africa completely unprotected; taking all these factors into consideration I submit that it is unfortunate that the hon. member should come along and deal with details here and there, should create the impression that on account of such details everything is unsatisfactory. You cannot go through a period of this kind, prepare works of this kind without some difficulties cropping up and some defects being shown. The Cost-Plus Committee was not concerned with covering up defects. They were concerned with getting at the facts. It is interesting to know that in spite of the criticism of the hon. member for George, in reality in the findings there is complete agreement between the majority members of the Committee, which consisted amongst others of a representative of the Trades Union movement and the member for George, namely to get back to the tender system, and that where owing to urgency that is not possible, the Cost-Plus system should be applied on the basis of a fixed fee and that only in special cases should the Cost-Plus a percentage method be used, and these recommendations have already been accepted by the Treasury. The report said where work had to be done urgently it was impossible to take up the necessary time to prepare for calling for tenders, and the Defence Department was obliged, as has been the case in other parts of the world, to go in for contracts on the Cost-Plus system. The House and the country should remember that the hon. member for George has left out all the activities of the Public Works Department, which is an important section of the work that had to be done for the Defence Department, which implies that he is satisfied that the Public Works Department has done its work in a proper manner. He has left out also the work of the Director-General of War Supplies, and so he has merely confined his attack to an examination of some of the details of the work done by the Director of Fortifications. The Director of Fortifications, Col. Craig, is one of the highest qualified men in the Union. He was the Cape Harbour Engineer and was sent by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) when he was Minister of Defence, to London in order to specialise in fortifications, and when he came back in 1939 he had acquired a great deal of technical knowledge, special knowledge, in that work. He was suddenly called upon by the Minister of Defence (Gen. Smuts) to carry out a very important and extensive fortification programme. The hon. member for George complains of Col. Craig not doing the work in the regular manner, in a manner which would take up time which could not very well be spared. It is fortunate for my hon. friend that the report in connection with this matter only came on the Table today, otherwise he might have realised that he was taking a rather dangerous line in referring to these contracts. Although every possible enquiry was made in connection with the work of Col. Craig, the hon. member for George expressed himself as not satisfied with the evidence that we had and with the explanation given by Col. Craig. A letter which was addressed by Col. Craig to the hon. member for George gave him all the details. I will not weary the House by reading the whole of it, but the gist of that letter was simply this, that when he was suddenly called upon by the Defence Department to carry out these fortifications, he sent for particular contractors, and I think the hon. member for George will agree with me that when you have to carry out a very important and intricate job, you cannot go and call for tenders from every possible small contractor. The men he sent for were the biggest contractors in Cape Town, and the contractors said to Col. Craig: “It is quite impossible for us to do that job, we cannot undertake it, we are not sure of the excavations, we are not sure about getting the material and the labour, and how are we going to get to Robben Island, how are we going to carry out the work; we are not prepared to tender.” Then Col. Craig, as any other wise man would have done, called upon the four principal contractors to consider the matter further, and they, whilst refusing to tender individually to do the work, agreed to have a meeting amongst themselves to decide what they could do, not to help Col. Craig, but to help the country in this very difficult and dangerous time. These contractors met and an agreement was arrived at. They came along and they said: “We will form ourselves into a syndicate, we will pool our resources, our plants and our capacity, and our experience, in order to carry out that work. Under these circumstances Col. Craig was not even then satisfied to do this on his own responsibility. He went to Pretoria, he saw the Chairman of the Tender Board, and the Chairman congratulated him upon arriving at such an excellent arrangement, and now the hon. member comes along and says that this arrangement was very bad. There is another point in that connection. I have here the evidence that was given before that Committee in Cape Times, and one of the principal witnesses was the Secretary of the Cape Federation of Trades, who is himself connected with the building industry. The question was put to Mr. Rose as to what his view was—

The answer was—

In the light of that, the hon. member criticises Col. Craig for what the Tender Board approved of. And then my hon. friend goes on to say in his sympathy for the small man, that the small contractor did not get a chance. As a matter of fact, the evidence not only of Mr. Rose, but the evidence generally before the Committee and the experience in other parts, was that the small man could not possibly tender for any of these big jobs. In Great Britain they adopted a system to which the hon. member referred, a system of grouping these small contractors so that they could co-operate in carrying out a job. In South Africa that has not been found possible. The answer that the Committee received on this point from people who are in a position to know, is that the small man could not undertake, could not tender for that sort of work, and the point made by the hon. member for George is substantially dealt with in a reply given in Cape Town by one of the master builders’ association, Mr. Bakker. He made the following statement—

He took another point in connection with a contract at East London. He said that work which the Public Works Department were doing was carried out with local labour, and local contractors, and that Col. Craig came along and on certain work which he did, instead of using local labour, he employed one of the big contractors from the Cape, who took his own labour with him. My friend forgets to tell the House that the actual facts were these. A great amount of work had to be done there, and a portion of it was done by the Public Works Department which absorbed all the available labour in that particular area, and before that work was finished, Col. Craig and his department had to come and undertake certain other parts of that job, and there was no local labour available. He therefore had to do what he did, and employ one of the contractors from the Cape and get the labour where he could, largely through the Controller of Labour. For the hon. member’s third point there is some justification. He took the point that Col. Craig, the Director of Fortifications, because of shortage of staff, was not able to get people to do checking work. He could not get them from the Public Service Commission quickly enough, so he placed some of his men on to the contractors’ books and arranged that he would pay, or rather the Defence Department would pay the contractor for these people. The Committee definitely, as my hon. friend will admit, not only criticised that, but regarded it as something very undesirable. At the time my hon. friend signed his minority report the matter was under investigation. Enquiries were being made in connection with that matter.

Oh no.

And when we came to Cape Town further investigation was continued on that very question. I think the House should know that Mr. Gilson, who was giving evidence on behalf of the Public Services Commission admitted that Col. Craig was so short of the necessary staff, he was not in a position to get the staff that he required from the Public Service Department, and in these circumstances the method he adopted, although unsatisfactory and incorrect from the point of view of financial purity, was justified. That is the answer given by the witness who spoke for the Authorities Commitee and the Public Service Commission, and the Committee, in its report, whilst specifically condemning that method, definitely found that in the circumstances which exised, Col. Craig could do nothing else but what he did. There is one other point. It is only fair to say that some time before December, 1942, Col. Craig actually wrote a letter to the Quarter-Master-General in which he specifically pointed out the difficulties that existed, the impossibility of getting adequate staff under the arrangement that existed, and he urged all the time that the Quarter-Master-General should take steps, if the checking up was to be adequately done, to provide him with an adequate staff. Mistakes were made and difficulties cropped up, but Col. Craig is the last man in the world to be criticised for what happened. The facts are such that in the circumstances he could not have done anything else than he did. No profit was allowed to the contractors on the pay to such of Col. Craig’s men as were put on the books of the contractors, and although profit was charged in some cases it will be disallowed. I might mention that the financial arrangements for Col. Craig’s Department has now been put under the control of the Costing Section of the Director-General of War Supplies. Now, there is one other point. Attention should be drawn to the fact that profits have been reduced all the time. 10 per cent. was allowed to begin with. That was reduced to 8⅓ per cent. and afterwards 10 per cent. was allowed for labour and 5 per cent. for material making an aggregate profit of 7 per cent. The probability is that these figures will be further reduced. The hon. member quoted the fact that in Great Britain 2¾ per cent. was allowed. The hon. member for George forgot to mention that this was a statement made by Mr. Adams, representing the Admiralty in South Africa. He told us that so far as contracts for £500,000 and over were concerned they were limited to a profit of 2¾ per cent. We are dealing with much smaller contracts.

Oh, no.

Oh, yes. The point in regard to this 2¾ per cent. which Mr. Adams mentioned is that according to subsequent information there is a probability of the figure being much higher. The hon. member also referred to Australia. Well, the Prime Minister cabled to the Prime Minister of Australia to get information for this Committee. We got a cable back from Mr. Curtin, the Prime Minister of Australia in which it was stated that only since Japan had entered the war had Australia been faced with these big contracts, and they were continuing with them on the basis of Cost-Plus—the profit basis being 3 per cent. That conveys very little, of course, unless you go into the whole matter and analyse how that percentage is made up, what is allowed and what is not. The Committee had evidence from numerous people and in reality we were told that people here were not getting 8 per cent. but that it was watered down to 5 per cent. Well, so far as the Committee was concerned we all started off in a hostile spirit to this Cost-Plus system, but we were forced to the conclusions which we came to and to a justification of the system in view of the circumstances under which the work had to be carried out and the difficulties that have to be coped with. We have to take these factors into consideration—I want to submit that the fundamental difference as far as we are concerned was one as to what had to be done. Those of us on the Committee who constituted the majority were concerned with the issue that we were in the midst of a great war and that it was the duty of the Defence Department to see that every possible provision was made to carry that war to a successful issue, whereas the hon. member over there who was in the minority was more concerned with the method of doing the work than with doing the work itself.

In spite of the fact that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his speech said that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) had as a result of his eloquence allowed a certain amount of venom to creep into his speech, I am one of those who fail to see any venom in his speech. I noticed no venom in the hon. member’s speech. As a matter of fact I feel that the whole country owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for George for having made these disclosures to us. It is very clear to us who are serving on a certain Committee that the Department of Defence is brimful of irregularities. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister—while we are talking about eloquence—when replying—with all his eloquence, did not convince me that it was not necessary for us to appoint this Commission. On the contrary, after the Prime Minister had spoken I was more convinced than ever before that it was desirable to have such a Commission. In a most dramatic manner the Prime Minister took up the first report and said: “There are two reasons why it is not necessary, No. 1 is this report.” The second reason which the Prime Minister gave was this, “We have the machinery—in other words, the Auditor-General is there and he can report if there are any irregularities.” When the Prime Minister spoke he had the first report in his hand. Now let me quote from the third report of the Committee on Cost-Plus contracts. On page 4, in paragraph 49, we have this—

This, in spite of what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had said, makes it perfectly clear that the matter has not yet been adjusted. The Prime Minister, in defending Col. Craig, told us that he had great confidence in him. He said he trusted him because he was the right man in the right place. Now, listen to what is said here. On the same page, in paragraph 50, with reference to Col. Craig, the same man in whom the Prime Minister has such great confidence, we find this—

Here Col. Craig admits that he did not even know that irregularities were still occurring. Now, let me come to the Prime Minister’s remark that machinery is available. It is very clear to us that the Auditor-General cannot go into every case. There must undoubtedly be many cases which do not come to his notice. I only want to give one instance and hon. members will notice that that case is not mentioned in the Auditor-General’s Report. I have in mind the case of a certain firm. A large order was placed with them for a certain quality blanket. After those blankets had been delivered it was found that they were not of the requisite quality, so that they had been overpaid to the extent of £50,000, and nobody knew about it or would have known about it. If this Commission is appointed, however, they will be able to ensure that a stop is put to those irregularities. The hon. member for George said that it would nay to appoint such a Commission. He expressed the opinion that it would save the country at least £100,000. If I speak of £500,000—I know that so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned £500,000 is only a bagatelle, but so far as the taxpayers are concerned it is a tremendous amount—and I make bold to say that if this Commission is appointed and if it is made retrospective, if this Commission has the right to enquire into everything that has happened in the past few years, I assure the House that the amount which will have to be repaid, not only in connection with Fortifications, but also in connection with other construction work and purchases, will in all probability exceed £500,000. Let us for instance take some of these construction works. Some of these contractors in spite of the fact that they are paid a certain amount appoint a foreman at 5s. per hour, and then they claim up to £25 per week for overtime. The more I look at this matter the more I feel that it would be advisable to appoint such a Commission, not only to satisfy the public outside, but also for the protection of the Government. Let us take what the hon. member for George told us about the position in Australia and England. There we find that Fortification works are carried out at a profit of 3 per cent. In this country it is 9 per cent. There are certain people whose sole object is to make as much money as they can out of the war, who are out to scrape together as much as they can while the war lasts. One finds that everywhere, and what is the worst of all, and what to my mind is a scandal is that the contractors make these large profits of which the hon. member for George has spoken. We find people come together every day in this town at 12 o’clock to pray. But I want to put this question: Those people who are making those big profits, what do they pray for? Let me tell hon. members what they pray for. They pray that the war may last for ever because they find that now is their opportunity to make money. If the Prime Minister appoints this Commission all these irregularities will be done away with.

I am sorry the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) is not in his seat because I want to say a few words for his edification at the beginning of what I have to say, but perhaps he will arrive in the House after he has finished the job he is doing, or perhaps he will not. Perhaps he is like the usual member of the Nationalist Party who fights and runs away so that he may fight and run another day.

Did you let him know that you were going to speak?

Perhaps the hon. member as a good party whip will give him the tip and send for him.

Why do you attack him?

Well, the hon. member made what he considered a devastating attack on the Labour Party. He must have known that the Labour Party have never sat still when attacks of this kind were made on them; they have always been prepared to reply to those attacks. Anyhow, perhaps the hon. member will let his friend know that I am going to reply to him. Now, I want to say a word or two to the Minister of Finance. I have consistenly tried to direct the attention of the Government to the grave problems which would face us after the war. I am not going to talk about this much bandied about phrase of social security, because there are problems which are going to face us after the war apart from those questions of social security. The Government, as far as I am concerned, are not giving sufficient attention to what is going to occur after the war, nor have they sufficient ideas of the problems which will arise. The Prime Minister some time ago said that the pattern of the post-war world had not yet appeared. That at the time appeared to me a statement which one should not expect from a responsible Minister of the Crown, because it is much too late to deal with that problem when it is face to face with us. That was our experience in the last war—it was much too late to try and get some idea as to what those problems had already arisen. It seemed wiser to try and get some idea as to what those problems were likely to be, and then put machinery into being which would effectively deal with these problems as they arose. It seemed that at long last the Government had given some kind of consideration to these problems. Well, they have admitted that these problems are likely to arise and they have embarked on a policy which can only be described as piecemeal. They have appointed all sorts of Boards and Committees—a Planning Board, a Social Security Committee, and so on. It is difficult to find to whom these particular bodies are responsible. I am given to understand that the Planning-Committee is responsible to and reports to the Prime Minister; the Civil Re-employment Committee comes under the aegis of the Minister of Native Affairs, and that in itself seems a particularly stupid mode of procedure. What possible connection can there be between the Minister of Native Affairs and the Civil Re-employment Board? Surely a Civil Re-employment Board, if we are going to divide all these activities, should come under the Minister of Labour who will be directly responsible in the long run for re-employing men, or under the Minister of Defence who at the moment is responsible for the army, and certainly not under the Minister of Native Affairs—and one is almost tempted to say, certainly not under the present Minister of Native Affairs.

What is your objection?

My objection to the present Minister is the same objection I have to several other members of the Cabinet. I do not have a high opinion of their ability to deal with the problems which are going to arise after the war, and let me tell the hon. member that many hon. members on the United Party benches hold the same opinions as I do. We also have the Industrial Development Corporation which comes under the Minister of Commerce and Industries. All these Boards and Corporations are being-appointed by the Government at various times. Their responsibility is to different departments, and we are just standing where we were. And I feel that the time has now arrived when the Government should appoint a Minister of Reconstruction who should be charged with a specific job, the job of correlating all these various Boards and Committees and activities, and drawing up a concrete and comprehensive plan to meet the emergencies of the situation which is going to concern us after the war. Ministers of reconstruction have been appointed in the various countries and other members of the Commonwealth have realised that this haphazard way of dealing with the problem is not efficient, neither is it likely to satisfy the people of the country. We want someone to whom we can look in this House, someone whom we can ask: “What are your plans for the after the war period, what do you propose to do, can you give us any idea of the magnitude or of the number of problems which will arise”—we want someone whom we can criticise in this House. It seems the time is overpast when we should have a Minister of Reconstruction, even if it means that the Government has to appoint an extra Minister. I am sure the hon. member for Fordsburg would be only too willing to take over that particular portfolio if he were asked—probably as a member of the United Party. It does seem that the day is coming where a number of these problems will have to be very seriously faced. Now, I want to say a few words about the position of members of Parliament themselves. I we have a Minister of Reconstruction it might happen that members of Parliament will cease to be nonentities and become members of Parliament, because successive Governments have tried to make members of Parliament into nonentities, and no Government has met with so much success as the present Government. On every possible occasion the present Government has gone beyond Parliament to conduct investigations and they have always got other people to do the job—they have always gone beyond the members who have been elected by the people of this country to this House. In fact it has now become almose a saying with members of the Government that under no circumstances on reconstruction problems should a member of Parliament, a man elected by the people of the country, be put on a Reconstruction Committee at all. So we have Boards and Committees and such things where ancient and venerable old gentlemen who should be at home in their carpet slippers smoking their pipes, are called upon to solve problems which can only be solved by the exercise of courage, by the youth of this country. These particular phases of our world problems cannot be adequately dealt with by the old men. That is not an attack on old age as old age. I hope myself to be old one day. But the facts of the situation are that we are living in a world which is going at such a rapid pace, we are living in such a revolutionary period, where the whole fabric of civilisation is being torn to pieces—and what is striking more than anything else in these days is that courage, physical courage, is required to deal with all these great problems, and physical courage will equally be required to deal with these post-war problems, physical courage, mental courage and energy, and I am satisfied that we are not going to get physical courage from the old people of this or any other country.

Don’t you give credit to experience?

Yes, certainly, but let us analyse what has happened. At the close of the last war the peace of Versailles was made by old men—and it is that peace which was made in those days which has brought us to this war—it is the policy of Versailles, the peace Treaty of Versailles made by the old men which was responsible for this war.

No, it is the young men of Germany.

Oh, no, it was the old men of Versailles to whom we owe this war, the old men who ran the British Government, who refused to give consideration to the views of the Liberal men of the world, because they wanted to lend money to the Nazi Government of Germany. And everything will show you that it was the lack of courage and the conservatism of the old men which has landed us into this mess. I am satisfied that old men and old politicians despite their experience are not going to solve the problems of the Union. We want young men. We want the courage of youth to make some attempt at these. I am not with the Prime Minister in his expression of optimism. Of course, not all old men are like the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has managed to retain his youth, but that cannot be said about the average old gentleman who is being appointed to many of these Boards and Committees in order to solve the problems which by their very nature those old gentlemen are not very interested in. It is the young men, the men who have fought in this war, who have fought for South Africa, who will demand that some reasonable solution of these problems is forthcoming. And that applies to this House just as much. I am beginning to wonder why we have a House of Assembly at all, because we are never consulted.

Hear, hear!

Oh, you are precisely the same, and if any commentary were needed to show that something should be done about this House it is the absolute and complete ineptitude of hon. members on the Opposition benches, and particularly this Session. There they are facing up to a General Election, and you never saw a more inept bunch of politicians in any Parliament in any country in your life. The Government is bad enough, but by God the Opposition is a lot worse, a great deal worse. But to come back to my point. Let us take this question of appointing a Planning Committee. We have appointed a Planning Committee which is more or less a part time affair, and that Planning Committee is composed of experts, at least that is what we are told. It does seem to me that there should have been some amount of Parliamentary representation on that Committee, and there is no Parliamentary representation whatever.

There is one member of Parliament.

Only by accident.

There are two members of Parliament, Mr. Carinus and a Senator, Senator Brookes.

Well, he is a member of the Senate.

He is a member of this Parliament.

He is a member of the Senate, who has been elected by the natives. Mr. Carinus only got on there by accident, he was appointed there before he became a member of Parliament. It does seem to me, I am casting no reflection upon the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) but it does seem to me that there is something wrong that the most junior member of the whole House is a member of the Planning Committee. If the Government’s policy is right, that there should be no Parliamentary representation on this Committee at all, then the hon. member for Hottentots Holland should be asked to resign from that Committee, that is to say if the Government is to be logical. We were given to understand by the Prime Minister that he did not want any political representation on this particular Council, why I do not know. The Prime Minister has been a politician all his life, and yet he turns round and admits, after many years of faithful service to this country, that he does not want any members of Parliament or politicians on a particular Council. That is an admission of the complete and absolute negation of Parliament, and of the job that we are sent here to do, because after all, it costs us a considerable sum of money and a great deal of effort to be elected, and we feel that we were elected for some purpose, not the purpose of saying “yes” and “no” and of having our names put down on the record over there on carrying any particular resolution which the government of the day asks us to support, or if we are in opposition, to oppose any particular resolution. I have gone under the impression that we are sent here to play our part in the government of the country, and we are not allowed to play our part. The Committee which has been appointed to investigate social security is an even more glaring example, because if there is any subject which should have been investigated by a Select Committee of this House, surely it is this matter of social security. Actually, this was a question on which the House for once in a whole had agreed, that the time had arrived when a measure of social security should be embarked upon by the Government. What do we find? On a question on which we are all agreed, the Government goes outside the House and appoints a Committee to investigate, which investigation is something which should have been entrusted to a Select Committee of the House. And so it goes on and on, and I am satisfied that eventually Parliament will develop into just a rubber stamp; it is not very much different from that today. That point will arise on the next occasion when some of us in this House get an opportunity to talk to the hon. Minister of Railways. It does seem to me time that somebody ventured an expression of opinion as to the status of members of Parliament themselves. We hear in the country all kinds of criticism of Parliament as Parliament; we hear in the country all kinds of stories and we see them published in the newspapers and a member of Parliament is gradually becoming the butt of the popular Press, and probabaly right so. We are told that this is the best club in South Africa, and all we have to do is to walk about the lobbies, or go to the bar, or play billiards, or go up into the gymnasium. And a great deal of that is truth, because apart from venturing now and again into a debate, we have no real say in the government of the country, and I suggest that that is one of the reasons why democracy has not been as successful as it might have been. We are working with a machine which was formulated to deal with the world which existed a hundred years ago. There has been too little alteration in the actual machinery of this House of Assembly in common with the House of Commons and the other assemblies in the British Commonwealth. There has been so little alteration in the actual working and the machinery of government, that we find ourselves today using a creaking and ill-composed machine in an effort to deal with the fast-moving modern world. But it can be altered, this particular method of running the business of the House of Assembly can be altered, it is not a method which should be expected to last for ever, we can make alterations in the procedure, we can review the status of members of Parliament; and I am perfectly satisfied that some investigation and thought could make this House into an assembly composed really of members of Parliament who are given some real stake in the government of the country. I want to appeal to the Government to call a halt to this gradual whittling away of the Status and the power of members of Parliament. We have one hon. member telling us the other day—he has been many years in Parliament—he turned round and said: “If you had been as long in this House as I have, you would know that nobody pays any attention to back-benchers.” Obviously, sir, we have no say whatever, we are only here to adorn the House with our beauty, such as it is. It so happens that we are all the best-looking members of the House, but we were not sent here for that particular purpose, we were sent here to represent our constituencies, and contribute our quota of brains and intelligence, such as we have got, towards the effective Government of the country, and I at least, as a backbencher, am not prepared to say that all the brains of the House lie in the Cabinet. I am very definitely not prepared to say that, but what I am prepared to say is that there is a very great deal of latent and actual ability on this side as well as on the other side, amongst the back-bench members, but we are being consistently lowered in our Status, and becoming from year to year more and more nonentities.

[Inaudible],

I am not talking about you. I would not care to call you a nonentity. However, I leave this question to the open judgment of the House. I hope the hon. Minister will give a little attention to this. The last time I raised this subject some nine years ago, the hon. Minister, if I remember rightly, went back to Greece and Rome, and that is a great deal of the trouble in this world today; we are always going back to Greece or Rome or the days of Lord Buckingham or Charlie Peace when we are dealing with the modern world. We see now how battles are lost, because old generals will not wake up to the fact that we are in a swift-moving world, where anything can happen and everything changes so rapidly. Fortunately gradually we are reducing the ages of our generals, and now instead of having generals about 72 years of age, who spend one day fighting a battle and the next day nursing their gout, we have generals running about 39, 40 or 42 years. One of the youngest recent appointments is the appointment of our own new Divisional Commander of the First Division. If we admit in the fast-moving changes of warfare that youth is necessary, so much more must we realise that in the swift-changing world we are living in, and with the grave economic problems which are coming up for solution, we want young men of ability and brains, and possibly more than anything else, courage. Now, sir, I see the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) is in his seat. He has made a great point since he has been in this House of attacking the Labour Party. I can remember in his early days in this House when he was the shadow Minister of Railways behind the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), and his job in the House was to get up, and in answer to criticism by the Labour Party, to show the House just how well the Government under Gen. Hertzog had provided for the workers. I have not taken the trouble to look up Hansard, but the hon. member knows that he made those speeches. It was his duty in those days to attack the Labour Party, and it is still his duty. The hon. Minister of Labour has replied to all of the points which were really worth replying to, and my job, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, is to reply to some of the things which the hon. member said, and which are really not worth replying to, but which were said obviously for the purpose of deluding particularly the electorate on the Witwatersrand. He is one of the members who continually throw across this House the taunt about members of the Labour Party earning two salaries. It is unfortunate for the hon. member for Fordsburg that on the question of military pay he and his colleagues can put a question on the Order Paper, and can get a reply giving the amount of pay, that we receive, and it is a bit unfortunate that I, on the other hand, only know that the hon. member receives £700 a year for being a member of Parliament, and I cannot put a question on the Order Paper asking the hon. Minister of Commerce and Industries how much the hon. member makes out of his estate agency business. That, of course, I cannot do, and the hon. Minister of Commerce and Industries would not reply to that. I want to suggest that the hon. member for Fordsburg must be a very bad estate agent if he does not make more out of it than I get out of being a captain in the army. I am prepared to say that if the hon. member would give us a statement of the profits from estate agency business, it will be found that he is earning far more per annum than the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) or the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) or the hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman), the point at issue being, of course, that the hon. member considers he is perfectly justified in sitting here in the House of Assembly for four or five months in the year, and then going back and running his own business for the rest of the time, and incidentally, when it suits him, taking a week off from the House of Assembly to go and look after his business. That is justifiable, but as regards ourselves, when we are not engaged in the House, we spend the whole of our time, many hours per day, working at the particular job in the army we are doing; and then it is said we are unjustified. That seems to me to be a very poor argument indeed. And so it goes on with the rest of the hon. members. Other hon. members over there spend four months here and then go back to their 20,000 acre farms. They are not drawing two salaries, of course not. One hon. member sitting over there can go back to his farm, as he did a couple of years ago, and buy a farm for what was it—£5,295—and then sell it to the Government for something like £12,000.

What hon. member?

The hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker). That, of course, Mr. Speaker, is not earning double salary, that kind of thing is allowed, to buy a farm and then come along and sell it to the Government at 100 per cent. profit. If you have actually not got transfer you can get it when you sell. And that is not getting a double salary. These unfortunate people who go into the army are getting double pay, but when the hon. member for Wodehouse makes thousands by selling a farm, that is a very different thing, that is by the blessing of God and the Nationalist Party. We know this party, Mr. Speaker, they have had their little day, and they will quietly fade away. The hon. member for Fordsburg worked out what the poor labourer earns in four years. Let me tell him what his leader had in the nine years he was a Cabinet Minister; he earned £22,000 from the Government, and sir, there were more poor whites in this country after the finish of his nine years than there were at the beginning. Who instituted the 6s. a day for the European labourer? The Nationalist Party. And those are the people who today make all the grousing about low wages. The hon. member has been earning £700 a year from the Government ever since, and I understand, I saw a notice in a paper about it, that there are various funds and trusts through which the Leader of the Party is also helped to eke out a living. That, I suppose, is quite all right. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), a fullblown general, who now attends this House to give us his valuable opinion on mortgage interest and that sort of stuff, in 15 years earned £45,000 from the Government, and I have yet to hear that the hon. gentleman ever lifted his little finger to help those lowly-paid workers for whom now the heart of the hon. member for Fordsburg bleeds. Then we find the hon. member for Gezina. He also earned £45,000 in fifteen years.

Fifteen years?

I am sorry, it seemed like 15 years. Then there was the late Prime Minister; he earned in his time £67,000. And so you can go on. Supposing we take the position of the two hon. members on the other side, who combine with their Parliamenetary job the job of being members of the Native Affairs Commission. We find that these two gentlemen have earned £14,000. I do not know what the opinion of the natives may be, but I do know what the opinion of the country is, and that is that there is nothing to show that their experience of natives qualify them for that job. On the other hand, I do know that hon. members on this side who are so often accused of drawing double salary, are members who at least know the job for which they have been appointed. Now the hon. member for Fordsburg, lacking as he does any economic policy in so far as his party is concerned, believing as he did that the only hope for South Africa was a German victory….

A Japanese victory.

The hon. member has now decided that the best line of election propaganda is to attack the Labour Party. Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, I have done so on many occasions, we gave our assistance and we gave our votes to the present Prime Minister on that day when we discussed this war issue in this House, because we were satisfied that South Africa was in danger, and because we were satisfied that if the German army gained the victory South Africa would be enslaved. We were satisfied that all the democratic rights that had been fought for by our forbears would be swept out of existence, and we felt despite our economic outlook, that for the moment that outlook must be put aside and that we must play our part in seeing that Hitlerism and all that Hitlerism stands for must be finally destroyed. We have abided loyally by that view. We are more than satisfied now to-day that we were correct, particularly when we look at the opposite benches. On September 4th we saw cross over to the other side of the House that mighty phalanx of the Afrikaner intelligence of South Africa, and look at them now. This ineptness, this somnolence, this—I had almost said—terrible stupidity which has descended on the Opposition has arisen completely from the fact that they believed that Germany would win the war. As a matter of fact, if I were a psychologist, I could write a thesis on the extenuating effect of supporting Nazism so far away from the fighting line. One has only to look at the parties opposite with their split and discordant creeds. One says he does not believe in Parliament at all, though they still all believe in selling farms to Parliament. Another group does not believe in double salaries, though they still believe in opposing the Rent Act though, of course not because it interferes with the estate agency business. Yet another group is trying to run to the United Party as fast as their legs will carry them.

How many times have you broken away from the Labour Party?

Don’t talk nonsense. The hon. member is one of the members whom I do not pay much attention to. He asks questions about double salaries, Jews and everything else. If he had a little more political prescience during his four and a half years here he might be sure of coming back. But that is something that will never happen now.

Will you stand against me?

Yes, I will stand against you if you guarantee me a nomination. The Labour Party is not going to be frightened by this kind of vicious talk. When we find the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) getting up and talking about the dangers of Communism, and suggesting to this House that one of the most dangerous individuals in the country is Mr. Solly Sacks, and when we find the hon. member …

The hon. member is not in order in referring to a previous debate.

I only wanted to say, sir, that the hon. member wanted to plead for the deportation of Solly Sacks, while the hon. member for Fordsburg quoted Mr. Sacks as his authority for an attack on the Government. So we do not know where we are. We do not know whether the Nationalist Party want him deported, or whether they had him in mind as the shadow Minister of Labour, or perhaps Minister without Portfolio. That is all he would get from the hon. member for Fordsburg. It shows you the barrenness of their policy, it shows you, sir, that they have nothing in the nature of an economic programme. However, the hon. member knows that he will have to put something forward in the nature of an economic programme if he is going to cut any ice on the Witwatersrand, and if he is going to come back to this House. I should be sorry to think he will not come back, because I believe after some further experience here he might eventually get some kind of economic sense, and then he would join the Labour Party. So I would like to see him come back, but I am afraid if that is the best he can do, if he is going to use Mr. Solly Sacks in a personal vendetta against the Labour Party in order to scratch votes for the Nationalist Party at the next Election, he is taking a foolish step. The Labour Party must go on whether the hon. member for Fordsburg likes it or not. The Labour Party has always stuck to economics, and has always eschewed all this racialism, and sooner or later large numbers of Afrikaners are going to realise that their future does not lie with the Nationalist Party. The hon. member weeps tears of blood for the position of these unfortunate people, but himself has never, so far as I know, done anything to help them. He has never gone out into the highways and byways and attempted to form Trades Unions, he has not gone along to interview the Minister of Labour on their behalf, he has not shown before the wage determination authorities the conditions that exist in any industry. All he has done, apparently, is to go to Solly Sacks, and to get a great deal of the venom which is at the disposal of Mr. Sacks, and bring a part of it to this House. If the new economic policy of the Nationalist Party is to be founded and run on and inspired by Solly Sacks, the Labour Party should gain many seats from the Nationalist Party at the next Election.

I feel that this debate which has been forced on us today is nothing short of an insult to this House. We have before us three reports which were handed to us while the debate was going on not even before the debate. These three reports deal with a technical subject, of a nature which it is difficult for a layman to understand and which requires serious study by everyone who wants to understand it. And what is the position? It is this, that of all the members here there are only three who are familiar with these matters, because they were members of the Committee of Investigation, and of those three, only two were present during this debate. What has happened here is an insult to Parliament, and makes it impossible for us to represent our constituents in the way they expect us to represent them. During this debate we have had to glance through those three reports, and because of our experience in everyday life we are able more or less to form a judgment on the opinions expressed in the report, and we may also be able to draw our conclusions as a result of what we hear from hon. members who know more about these matters. It now turns out that this is what has happened: The Prime Minister suddenly found it necessary to construct Fortifications, very suddenly, and without going through the ordinary channels, through the organisation established by the Government. He suddenly went outside those channels, he went over the head of the Department of Public Works which is the body appointed to deal with those matters, and he called in an expert on Fortifications to do the work. I have the greatest respect for that expert, for Col. Craig, and I accept everything that has been said here about his ability, but the great point which to my mind was missed by the Prime Minister is that he, availing himself of the ability of his expert, did not entrust the carrying out of the work to that body to which it should have been entrusted, namely the Department of Public Works. That opinion is confirmed by the statement in the majority Report of the Committee, and that opinion is emphasised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) who, for him, in a very able and fairly reasonable manner, explained the matter—I would say in a very reasonable manner. In all the reports before us greater appreciation is expressed of the attitude of the Public Works Department on this matter than was done by the expert who was forced to do the work himself. The hon. member for George uses strong language in his reports, where he says that in his opionion Fortifications were guilty of culpable negligence over this matter, and that they should be reprimanded. That may be true or it may not be true, I don’t propose going into that, but I do want to point out that to my mind the great mistake was here: that it was impossible simply to create off-hand an organisation such as was required to understake such a huge task involving £800,000—as indicated by the hon. member for George. That is impossible. It cannot be done, and that is why we had these unsatisfactory results. I notice in the first report that owing to certain circumstances the work could not be hastened as much as was necessary, and yet expedition was made the excuse for going past the ordinary channels. After all, the contractors who did the work are in daily touch with the Department of Public Works. They are people who are continually undertaking contracts for the Department, they are people who are under the direct control of the Department of Public Works. That was the big mistake. The Prime Minister made that mistake in his great hurry, which is perhaps quite natural in the circumstances; he made the mistake of going past his regular organisation, with the result that these difficulties which we are complaining of today were created. Everyone agrees, all the six members of the Committee agree, that the Cost-Plus system was essential in the circumstances. There is no difference of opinion about that. The only difference of opinion is about the manner of application of the new method, and in that connection, I have to repeat it, a serious mistake was made by not making use of the ordinary existing organisation. There is another point in connection with this matter which we also know about, namely, that in the application of the Cost-Plus system serious grievances arose among contractors, namely that after they had done their work and had done it well, and after their work had been approved of by the Department of Public Works, they had to wait weeks and months for their money. That is a very bad thing. Those people worked for their money; they have heavy expenses in keeping a large organisation going, and they have to overdraw their banking accounts—which in such circumstances are already overdrawn—even further. Once those people had done their work the Government should not have kept them waiting so long for their money. That is a point the Government should take into consideration. In conclusion I want to come back again to the unfair treatment meted out to this Parliament through these reports being placed before us at so late a stage. It should not happen again. My second point was that as a result of this hurry, which in the end turned out to be entirely unnecessary, a serious mistake was made through the ordinary organisation not being used, and thirdly, that as a result of all this, seven people whose time is very valuable—three members of Parliament and four others—had to sit for months and months, had to travel from one end of the country to another to take evidence, and had to spend thousands of pounds to find out these things. Those are my objections on this matter. I hope that we, as members of Parliament, will never again be faced with this difficulty of having to carry on a debate without first being given the opportunity of studying these reports.

Last time when we discussed the wool position we had certain arguments raised in this House. We on this side of the House warned the Government that we could never have a guaranteed price on a type basis. We find that we have been right. We find that the British Government have now sided with the wool growers of this country. I think I have proved before today that we do not get our 10¾d. basis. I don’t want to attack or criticise the British buyers. They are honourable gentlemen but after all a buyer will always look to the side of the man who employs him, and he will do the best for the man who employs him. We know that Australia acted quite differently. They had a businesslike scheme, they had a guaranteed basis of 10¾d. We did not. The result is that your wool is sold on the type basis, and the farmer has no redress, only the buyer has redress. If you have any grievance you have to appeal to the British Wool Commission to give you a reasonable improvement on your price basis. But the trouble came about in this way—it is the clean yield of wool. The Minister tried to make people in this House look like fools. He even mentioned some of the high officials. I am not going to do that, I have too much respect for them. But I must mention one of them, seeing that the Minister has mentioned his name. That was Mr. Mare. It was said that he was so clever that he knew more than we did. Well, I don’t want to mention any other names although the Minister did mention other names here. I blame the Minister for ever having mentioned these people’s names in this House. Now, Mr. Mare for some time in the Farmers’ Weekly was trying to prove that we were actually getting 10.75d. basis. Well, we now have the 20 per cent. from the British Government. That is the answer which we got. That is enough to prove that he was wrong and that we were right. Hon. members will remember that the Minister said that it was impossible to go by sample tests. We in South Africa had made no sample tests. We have made some 700 tests to prove our case, but the Minister thought it wise to make it look as if Onderstepoort who were making these tests were not making correct tests. Let me tell hon. members that there were under yields of no less than 16 per cent. and on the average the under yield was 4.5 per cent. And let me tell hon. members that if there is an under yield of 2 per cent. it means a loss of 12s. per bale to the farmer. In most cases there was an under yield of 4.5 per cent., which meant a loss of £1 4s. per bale, which meant a loss to the farmer every year of something like £1,000,000. Under the B.W.C. Scheme these yields have certainly improved, but I wonder what the position would have been if we had not put up a big fight on this matter, but hon. members on the other side were so satisfied and so sorry for the British taxpayers that they did not want to touch that question. We said that charity begins at home, and I as a representative of the wool farmers have always tried to study the wool farmers before anyone else. I have tests here which prove that in some cases your B.W.C. tests were out by no less than 10 per cent. Ten tests were taken and the actual yield was 66.3 per cent. The B.W.C. was 66.3 per cent. Then four practical men were asked to take tests and they averaged 58.2 per cent. Here you can see again that even your four valuators fell short by something like 8 per cent. It is this anomaly which we have tried to do away with, and we want the Government to go on with these tests and give facilities at the Ports by which the farmer can get his full benefit. Forty-nine tests were taken, the actual result was 49.6; the B.W.C. was 45, and this other one 65. I have others here of 63 and 73, a difference of 9 per cent. Now, all that money has been lost to the wool farmer of South Africa as a result of this under yielding of wool. Are we wrong in asking the Minister to give us these facilities? In this country we have made practical tests. I can give the Minister as many tests as he wants. I can give him tests of 542 where he will find that even there there is a difference between your valuator and the clean yield of 10 per cent. We were told that we wanted sample tests. Well, in this country we can go by sample tests on 10 lbs. Well, this was ruled out by the Minister as ridiculous. Let me say that I have been in touch with other countries. In America they took tests on a much smaller scale. They took five bales weighing 4,789 lbs. They took sample tests of 289 grams. It worked out at 67.1 per cent. and then they took the entire lot and it worked out at a difference of .05 per cent. Now, if it is possible on these lines to take sample tests of grams then the Minister cannot come and tell me that we cannot in this country take sample tests of 10 lbs. I only wish to show the Minister that he cannot bluff this House every time. We, the wool farmers, know what the position is, and I wish to challenge the Minister to disprove a word of what I have said—what I have said from the very beginning to the end so far has been perfectly right. Our statements have always been right. And I also challenge him, and those hon. members who tell us that they know such a lot about these things—I challenge them to prove that I have been wrong anywhere. I challenge them to disprove any of these figures which I have given to the House. I shall mention a certain number of tests from the Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Journal of the United States. Let us take No. 1. Five bales tested weighed 4,789 lbs. 244 grams were tested. The next test was 5 bales weighing 4,824 lbs. 190 grams sample tests 71.3, entire lot 71.7. A difference of .4. Then 17 bales weighing 4,917 lbs. only 97 grams tests taken, yield 54.7, total lot 55.5. Next 16 bales—4,866 lbs. 102 grams test. Sample test 60.1 entire lot 60. And so I could mention the whole lot. The average test which was taken was from half a lb.—450 grams. Now I hope the Minister will be glad to acknowledge that when he tried to make out that we were fools on this side he was wrong, and he was wrong when he gave the name of some of his high officials and tried to prove his case. I shall tell you why he was wrong, because when I get up here I speak as a man representing the wool farmers of South Africa, but the Minister has made the mistake of trying to bluff the wool farmer. Well, the result of the Minister’s policy is that the wool farmer in the first year lost about £600,000, the next year he lost £500,000—and it might be even more. There are other people who say that he lost a lot more—they put his losses as high as £2,000,000. We do not wish to blame the British Government for these things but we blame the Union Government and the Minister in particular, seeing that he is the head of his department, and we now ask him, as he has made these mistakes, and as the wool farmer is in need of money,—we ask him to replace that money which the wool farmer has lost through his carelessness and neglect. He also told us that we should be very glad that we had this British contract. Let me tell the House this, that in May of last year the prices in America, the average clean yield price, went up to 1 dollar, and more, whereas we only got a little over 10d. Huge profits were made at the expense of the South African farmer. He also told us how grateful we should be for this basic price. But in Australia they were not so grateful. Farmers there opposed the British Wool Scheme, until they got what they wanted, and here I wish to thank Australia for the help they have given us. For the help they have given the South African farmer to get his prices on a higher basis. Here we have a cutting from a statement made by the Minister of Commerce in Australia in which he says that but for the help that was given the wool farmers would have been ruined. There you have a Minister in Australia, although they have a lower money value and although they get over 13d. per lb.—he says that if they had not got that money—and they got over 13d. per lb—they would have gone to the wall. In this country we were so satisfied with ourselves, we were so loyal, we only thought of someone else, we never thought of South Africa. In Australia they say Australia first, but here we have neglected our own interests very sadly. We have been bluffed. The price of 15d. to Australia means £9,000,000 sterling. The Minister has never helped us whenever we have pleaded for better prices, but we have been right from the beginning, and that is why I say that on the other side of the House the members do not look after the interests of the farmers. They do not care what happens to the farmers, but it is this side of the House which the farmers can thank for the higher prices they have got and for the fact that they are able to carry on. The Australian Minister goes still further. He says: “We are not satisfied yet with this extra 2d. per lb., and the bulk of the people think that there should be another 7½ per cent.” Yet here, did anyone on that side of the House ever plead for better prices? No, not one of them did. I challenge anyone to get up and say that he ever spoke a word about better prices. Not one of them did. Whatever has been done has been entirely due to this side of the House, and the fact that we are getting a better price is due to us. I think our Minister who was overseas will acknowledge that the agitation which we put up opened the eyes of the British Government to the fact that there was dissatisfaction, but there is another point, which I want to raise, and that is these evasive answers the Minister of Agriculture gives to the wool farmers when they ask for information. He has refused to give any information as to the price of wool. Australia on the other hand publishes their records and type basis. They tell their farmers what they would have lost if they had gone on the type basis, why should our Minister refuse to tell the farmers the truth. He is trying to hide behind the same old argument that his idea is that when the war is over, if we don’t get our 10.75d. then we shall be able to talk. By that time we may all be dead, because we don’t know how long the war may last. Now, this 10.75d. basis is finished, and we are again asking the Minister to get everything put on a proper basis. It would be ridiculous to say today that because the British Government has put up the price by 20 per cent. that that will bring us the 10.75d. The Minister never tried to get the British Government to put it up. These arguments are just typical of what we get from the Minister today. We know what the Minister told us. The Minister said that the eventual results could only be judged at the end of the agreement. Have you ever heard a Minister who is supposed to look after the wool farmer arguing in that way? And let me say again that even today that although you have a 20 per cent. rise on the type basis the farmer does not know where he is. Unless the Minister can formulate a scheme where you can have full value wool and can have testing stations in the different parts of the Union the Minister can never tell us that we are getting full value for our wool. He has given all the leeway to the buyer, but he does nothing to protect the producer, and therefore I think it is only fair for the Minister to say that he will help us. There are a few other items I want to approach the Minister on. First of all there is the question of our factory. We are fighting a very hard fight for a factory. I can thank only one man on that side of the House for any help he has given the wool farmer, and that is the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet). I wish to thank him on behalf of this side for the very good work he has put in, in bringing into circulation an army blanket—the best in the world. I must also thank him for keeping karakul wool out of the hands of the British Commission because scarcely had we finished producing when the British Commission tried to get hold of the karakul wool and it is due to the hon. member for Maitland that they did not get it. We are today manufacturing very fine blankets. Before I sit down I want to pay a tribute to a very great young Afrikaner who has lost his life at sea. I am speaking of Mr. Foster du Plessis, our Secretary overseas. He is one of those men whom South Africa cannot replace. His wonderful experience not only in this country but in other countries has proved of the greatest help to the farmers here, and I am sure that the Minister of Commerce will join me in the tribute I am paying him. He has done well for the farmers. Unfortunately he wanted to come back here. We hope he is still alive, but there is very little hope. Mr. Foster du Plessis’ loss is as great a loss to the wool industry as the loss of any other man in any other industry. He represented South Africa at the International Conference at Melbourne, as a result of which we got a lot of co-ordination. Everyone will sympathise with his relations, and we all realise the tremendous loss South Africa has suffered in his death. I only got up to put the case of the wool farmer. As far as the meat farmer is concerned, I am sure the Minister will hear very much more. He will hear much more in the general debate also on wheat, potatoes and everything. I almost sympathise with him.

Can you spare it?

Yes, but he never wants to listen. When we told him what was going to happen to the wool industry he would not listen. We have always given him good advice, and I hope that in future he will listen to this side of the House. Now, a word or two about the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). The hon. member is nothing but bluster.

Well, you know all about that.

He said that there was a little bit of dirt from this side. Well, there was not a little bit of dirt from his side but a lot of filth. But I understand why he feels like that. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) is a man who knows something about labour. He feels that the Nationalist Party are getting very deeply into his soul. It is jealousy. When a man stoops to become personal and to making personal attacks on everyone, it is not creditable—it is a sign of weakness and jealousy. He and his Minister are bound hand and foot to the capitalistic system. They can do nothing for the workman. It is only on this side of the House that we can get up and plead for the workman, because we know their troubles, and we are the people who represent the working man of South Africa. The Labour Party have joined the capitalists for the sake of a little lucre. Well, we are out to protect the poor man and whatever hon. members over there may say the Labour people—the working man—will have the protection of this side of the House. He talks about Socialism. We on this side of the House detest Bolshevism, but we agree with Socialism.

And Nazism?

Are you going to increase farm wages?

That man who talks about Socialism and Nazism does not know what he is talking about. I have heard a lot of talk about fairplay, but those members always try to insult us. I am not a Nazi, I am a South African.

No, you are a captialist.

Yes, but hon. members over there say what is good for Russia is good for us. They are not even good Englishmen. I ask them why they are suddenly so very fond of Russia. They even want to do more for Russia than for England. Well, Britain today is not the Britain which we knew in the past—not the Britain which we know from history. They are swallowed up by a lot of Bolsheviks—and hon. members over there are in the pay of a lot of Russians—and what is going to happen to the poor Englishman who wants to fight? A little cross will be put on his grave—that is all he will get for his patriotism while the Russians and the Bolsheviks will get fat. I can see what is happening in this country. Listen to that shouting on the other side. I travelled with a little woman in the train, a very nice little woman, I can see the jealousy on the other side, because decent ladies are getting frightened of Bolsheviks. She told me that her husband had been killed and that her brother had also been killed in this accident with Gen. Dan Pienaar. Her brother used to give his mother an allowance of £15 a month, and when she heard of his death, she got a stroke. She was only in receipt of a pension of £4 a month. When I think of these things I cannot help thinking: Look at those capitalists; look at those Bolsheviks; when a woman has given her son a paltry pension of £4 a month is paid to her. And that is what the man in the street is going to get from the other side for his patriotism. The poor man poorer, and the rich man richer, and we on this side hope that when these people come back we shall be able to do something practical for them.

You voted against the Pension Bill.

That is why we drew up an economic scheme to carry into effect. We do not want Bolsheviks in this country, but we realise that every Afrikaner and every Englishman must have a home in this country. We realise that the Afrikaner alone cannot govern this country, and we say that the Afrikaner must leave Bolshevism and Capitalism and all those links with overseas countries, and then they will become good South Africans; then they will not pay a widow a pension of £4 a month after she has lost her son.

There are a few points which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the time for sowing wheat is close at hand, I should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to make a statement that everything is in order in regard to fertilisers etc., that the farmers will be able to obtain everything they require. I am anxious that the Minister should make such a statement because the farmers are keen on knowing what their position is and there are rumours going about that they will not be able to obtain any fertilisers. The other point I want to put is this. I want to know whether the old arrangement under which Karoo-manure was carried over the Railways at a cheap rate will be put into force again? I understood the Minister to say that kraal-manure was being carried from various parts over the Railways. I should like to explain to the Minister exactly what the situation is. First of all, the Minister is perfectly correct when he says that in the Transvaal Lowveld there are large manure heaps. These manure heaps are in areas where the natives used to keep their cattle, and it is there that people used to go and buy their fertilisers. The trouble, however, is that these people have to carry that manure over long distances before they get to the Railways. It is a practical impossibility to get hold of this manure. Still, there are people who go and buy there. The great difference between this manure and the Karoo manure is that Karoo maure comes from herbs and bush and the manure from the Transvaal comes from grass.

Do you want the herbs?

I am surprised at a Rustenburg farmer making a remark like that. He should know better.

No, I did not say it.

The difference is this, that the Karroo-manure, which is practically a herb manure, which comes from bush, does not ferment. If it is tested by machine we find that it contains twelve different ingredients. If we place the Grassveld manure in the same machine, all we find in it is a little salt. The Grassveld manure ferments, and it turns white, so that it has paractically no value left in it. The humus in the kraal manure has been burned out. Despite the fact that these large heaps of manure are lying there the Minister should not take up the attitude that manure is manure. There is a difference, and those large heaps of manure have no value. We depend on Karroo manure. The farmers must have it and that is why I want to point out to the Minister that he should come to the assistance of the farmers so far as Railway rates are concerned, in the same way as he did in the past. I really want to urge the Minister to reduce the Railway rates. What I have been telling him here is the truth. If he investigates the position he will find that it is so. There is another point on which I would like the Minister to make a statement. It is stated that inferior wheat is being bought up cheaply. We do not get three or four types of bread according to the price of wheat. There is only one price for bread and for meal, but there are many prices for wheat. Will the Minister make a statement on this point, so that the wheat farmers may know what the position is? We find that there is a lot of confusion on this point and the farmers are anxious to know what the position is. Can they mix the good wheat with the bad wheat? They buy up this wheat at a low price and often it is not inferior wheat, but the price is considerably less, and we want to know what happens to that. I should also like the Minister to make a statement about the maize position. What are his impressions? Is there a shortage? What are the prospects of the crop? Is there going to be a shortage or not? The reason why I ask this is because I want the Minister, if he is convinced that there are ample mealies in the country to allow the dairy farmers to use mealies again for their cows. The dairy farmers are being ruined. Large dairies are being put up for sale. The people say that they cannot keep their cows because they are not allowed to feed them with mealie meal. Now, what is the best thing for these people to do? To exchange 50 per cent. value for 5 per cent, value? What I mean is this, if we feed a cow on a little mealie meal and we produce the milk, cheese and butter, then we got a food value of 50, while the mealie meal is 5. In other words, the little bit of mealie meal which is worth 5 is used in comparison with the milk, butter and cheese which are worth 50. Now, what pays best? Is it not better to feed the little bit of mealie meal to the milk cows and to deliver dairy products to the people? I should like the Minister to consider this question and to make a statement so that people may know what is going on. We find today that valuable cows are being sold for slaughter purposes because the dairy farmers are unable to keep their cows alive. They are unable to milk the cows if they cannot give them mealie meal. What is the man to do then? All he can do is put his cows on a sale and a great many of those cows are slaughtered. The last thing I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is the question of our poultry farmers. The poultry industry is a valuable industry which produces both eggs and meat. As in the case of the cows we now find that poultry is being killed off for meat. The market has become overstocked and very shortly there will be no poultry left. The objection I have is that we are wasting our stocks as a result of our difficulties in regard to mealies. The sooner the Minister makes a statement the better, so that this valuable poultry industry is not ruined. If the Minister is convinced that we shall have a mealie crop ere long he should make a statement so that these people may know what the position is. Why should we allow such valuable industries to go to the wall. Those people do not know what to do; they see no way out of their difficulties. They kill off their stock and eat them. I shall be very glad if the Minister will answer these points so that people may know what the position is.

I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not avail myself of this opportunity in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture—we appreciate his presence and we hope he will listen to what I am going to say. I shall not detain him very long—if I did not avail myself of this opportunity to bring two important points to his notice, two points which my constituents have specially instructed me to raise—they instructed me by telegram and also by letter which has just reached me. These are matters which make the farmers in my constituency and in the area in which I live very uneasy in view of the conditions prevailing today among farmers. The Minister made an appeal to the cattle farmers to make sure that sufficient meal was produced and they feel that the Minister should not neglect them now. The Minister perhaps knows better than I do that so far as cattle farming is concerned people in those areas cannot carry on unless they are able to feed bone meal to their animals. They simply cannot do without it, they cannot carry on their farming operations, and we must supply them with bone meal from the sources where it is available. I want to thank the Minister in the first place for what he has already done in regard to the supply of bone meal. As a result of the war one of the bone meal factories in those areas nearly had to shut down, and great appreciation is felt because the Minister has urged the Department of Defence to release a certain individual from military duty so that he could continue with the production of bone meal. The farmers are very grateful to him for what he has done. But as the Minister has already issued instructions that the cattle farmers so far as bone meal lick is concerned, should be given precedence, I want to bring something in that connection to his notice. The factories today are not taking notice of people who do not farm on a large scale. They only take notice of those who place large orders and the smaller farmers have to sit and watch. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that it is not only the big farmers who produce meat; if we put all the smaller farmers together then it must be clear that they constitute a factor which has to be taken into account. Now, I am anxious that the Minister should make a reassuring statement so that the farmers will know that the factories will receive instructions also to carry out the orders of the smaller farmers. I am speaking on behalf of farmers who require about a ton per month. We do not want the factories to turn down those smaller farmers. I have been receiving telegrams and letters about this matter, and I hope the Minister will give it his attention. There is another matter of importance to the farmers on the border. Parts of the border areas are suffering from severe drought. In the newspapers we see reports of rain in the country, but we should not allow ourselves to be misled by those reports to think that it has rained throughout the country. In those areas where cattle farming is carried on there are parts where it is still very dry, and one of my constituents drew my attention to the fact that it would mean a lot to them if some concession could be made in regard to grazing, which is available in the Protectorate. They are willing to pay for it. There are no cattle on the Protectorate side, and in these drought conditions, if the Minister should be good enough to make representations to the Protectorate Administration, the farmers would be willing to pay for the grazing which is available and which in any case is not used by the inhabitants of the Protectorate. The farmers would greatly appreciate it, and the Minister would render the country a great service if he would give his attention to these two important matters, important to the farmers in those parts of the country which I have referred to. We would appreciate it if the Minister, in his capacity of Food Controller, would give his attention to these matters.

Last Wednesday, eight days ago, I spoke in this House and I have Hansard here of the 25th January, column 317, in which I very clearly said to the Minister—

The Minister has now replied to that.

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but he must not refer to a previous debate.

I only want to point out that at the time I thanked the Minister for a minimum price, but when next the Minister replied he said that he was very pleased that I had thanked him for a fixed price. Let me put the Minister right. I did not thank him for a fixed price, but only for a minimum price.

The hon. member must not pursue that subject, he will have to avail himself of another opportunity to discuss that.

Then I should like to know from the Minister what effect the drought is having in the Western Transvaal. I left my home on Saturday, eight days ago. Even then we were feeling the effects of the drought. This is ten days later, and undoubtedly the younger class of mealies which were put in in October, November and December, have suffered considerably, and according to the reports which we have received it has not rained there to this day. To my mind that is the feeling in my district and in Lichtenburg, and in other districts of the Western Transvaal we have undoubtedly suffered damage to our mealies in the last ten days to an extent of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. We had the prospect of an excellent crop this year, above normal, but the drought which is now prevailing—and I think the same applies to the Free State, and the Eastern Transvaal—is doing considerable damage, and I want to tell the Minister that he must be very careful before fixing his price for mealies this year. Don’t let him be too quick about it. A great deal of harm may still be done by hail, drought, caterpillars, etc., and there is a danger now of our crop not being much bigger than last year. I sympathise with the farmers and also with the Minister because the Minister is anxious to have a surplus so as to help the consumers of mealies, but if I am allowed to say so I am pleased on the other hand at the shortage because now the people who have always been so hard on the mealie farmers will see what the value of mealies is, and they will realise that mealies is the key industry in farming. If you take mealies away every farmer suffers, the cattle farmer, the dairy farmer, the poultry farmer—

And the natives.

Yes, they suffer more than anybody else. But let the Minister bear in mind that he must give every possible assistance to the mealie farmer in future to see to it that there is no shortage. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman) has said. Last August I ordered a quantity of fertiliser, and later I again ordered 146 tons. Of that quantity I only received 46 tons. Consequently, it was hopeless for me to make application for fertiliser again in September. As a result of the shortage of fertiliser the wheat farmers, the mealie farmers and the potato farmers are very much concerned about the future. We are anxious to know from the Minister what precautionary measures he has taken in order to obtain fertiliser for the farmers. If the farmer has no fertiliser, especially in the Western Transvaal, his crops will be very poor and they will get worse as time goes on. As a rule we depend on 12½ to 15 bags per morgen, but if you have no fertiliser you will get only half that quantity. Now I want to point out that the farmer has to plough his land, whether he has fertiliser or not. He has to plant and harrow and all the work has to be done, whether there is fertiliser in the ground or not. The expense is there and the larger the production, the less the cost of production, and the smaller the crop, the larger the cost of production. Take last year for instance. Several farmers in the Western Transvaal, big mealie farmers, who in normal times perhaps produced 3,000 bags, did not even get 100 bags, and the cost of production per bag was more than £5. And then one hears people say sometimes that our mealie farmers are making excess profits. People who talk like that do not know what they are talking about. I feel that the Minister should stand up for himself, and that he should put these people who continually want to dominate him in their place. I also feel that the Minister of Agriculture should give more protection to our farmers. If I buy a bag of cement I have to return the empty bag within a month. If I want to buy any kind of medicine I have to bring a bottle, and one finds the same position in regard to other things. Now I want to ask the Minister why we farmers cannot demand that the consumers return our mealie bags within a month. Why should we lose our bags when we ourselves, whenever we buy anything, have to supply containers? We feel that it is unjust. We all want to be treated alike. We don’t want any favouritism, but we do not want any stepmotherly treatment either. I also want to say this. Today only maximum prices are fixed, and those maximum prices are not there for the protection of the farmer, but only for the protection of the consumer. Maximum prices have been fixed for potatoes, mealies, wheat, meat and all those commodities, and they have not been fixed for the benefit of the farmer, but only for the protection of the consumer. Why cannot we have a minimum price fixed for our products? Surely it is no more than just. If a maximum price is fixed, why not fix a minimum price as well? And what is going to happen to the potato farmers? Many of our people have bought grade A potatoes and they have paid £1 15s. free on rail. What are they getting today? They have put in fertiliser—they have done all the work, and today they get an average of 5s. or 7s. 6d. and in special cases perhaps 10s. per bag. But the Minister sits still and does not fix a minimum price. He promised last year that he would treat the farmers fairly and justly, but now he simply allows things to go their own sweet way and he does not do anything. Farmers have to sell their products for practically nothing. The sooner the Minister makes room for somebody else the better—although I doubt whether one would be able to find a better Minister on the other side of the House. Wednesday, a fortnight ago, I went to the market and I went through the abattoirs and I saw how they graded the meat there and how it was marketed. I saw there how the wholesalers bought meat, how they graded it, and how they sold it to the retailers, and we know the prices which the consumer has to pay. I want to suggest that the Minister should be the sole buyer on the Johannesburg market so far as meat is concerned. Then the prices can be fixed and we on this side are in favour of fixed prices. If that s done we cut out the prices of the broker and the auctioneer. And the second factor we would cut out would be the wholesaler. This could only be to the benefit of the consumer and the producer. I also want to suggest that there should be a reduction in the number of butcher shops. The trade has been overdone. I feel that in that connect we should also introduce a quota system, in the same way as is done in regard to liquor licences. Only if there is a specific market, a sales area, where the turnover is say 50,000 lbs. where there is a demand for a quantity like that in a particular area, should a butcher shop be allowed, and when the demand increases by a further 50,000 lbs. a second butcher shop could be allowed. But as conditions are today there are some butcher shops which only handle about 10,000 lbs. which is far to little for a proper turnover, with the result that prices are increased. The butchers all belong to unions and societies, and fix the prices between themselves. And who has to pay for it all? The consumer and the producer. The Minister and the Government should give their attention to this matter in the interest of the consumer and the producer. The price of cattle has come down. Where people in November last year got 75s. per 100 lbs. they are only getting 60s. per 100 lbs today, a drop of more than 15 per cent. Now I want to ask the consumers whether the butchers have come down 15 per cent. in their prices. No; where does the money go? We get 15 per cent. less but the consumer still pays the same. This clearly shows that there is something radically wrong. If there is something wrong and you have a big man like the Minister with all the power he has, he should immediately take steps, and if he does not take immediate steps and does not use his powers, then he is not doing his duty. Either the Minister has not got enough will power, or otherwise he is inspired by political influences. The Minister told me on a previous occasion that I was a good farmer, but a bad politician. I agree, but still I know that I am a pretty good business man, and when I see the way my people are being exploited, and the way the middleman is taking advantage of the position, then I must approach the Minister, and I do expect him to put things right. But the Minister is afraid. A man who has power has no right to be afraid. Whom is he afraid of? He is afraid of the brokers and the auctioneers. They are his supporters, and if that is so, then he is a man who introduces politics into Parliament, and I charge the Minister with attaching more importance to political advantage than the interests of the producers and the consumers. If the Minister takes up this matter he can do a great deal with the powers he has in the interest of the producer and the consumer. Let him put the meat control position in order. Let him remove the abuses in Johannesburg and in Cape Town. If he does that he will do something good for the country. Before I sit down I want to say a few words more about the potato farmers. The sooner the Minister takes action the better, because until he takes action we shall continue to protest as long as Parliament is in Session. We want the potato farmers to be treated fairly and reasonably. We shall continue and we shall persist, and keep on persisting, like the widow who approached the unjust judge—hon. members know the story. We will go on persisting until justice is done unto us. I want justice to be done to the consumers so as to protect them against the exploiters. I have friends among the brokers, and if they want to take umbrage at my talking in the way I am doing let them do so by all means, but I feel that we must bring the consumer and the producer closer together. I don’t know whether I am allowed to deal with this other matter but I should like to say a few words about the amenities of farmers living in the country. We know that they have no electric light and when the farmers go to the shops they can only buy one or two candles at a time. I know of the case of a person who is confined to bed, and no candles are available, or at any rate they cannot get more than one or two candles per week. It seems a very simple matter, but if a person is ill in bed and he cannot get any candles, it is a great hardship. I hope the Minister concerned will see to it that candles are either imported or manufactured in this country.