This matter of actual social security involves such intricate economic problems, problems of such magnitude which have to be tackled and solved, that I approach this subject almost with hesitation. But fortunately it is clear to us that the solution of these social evils, or the bringing about of a better future for the people, is not dependent only on the great economic structure, but that it is above all a matter of the heart. At certain times in his life man becomes aware of certain things. Fortunately for civilisation, mankind has during this time become aware that in order to live a happy life, it is not necessary for a certain section of the population to acquire great wealth, but the people have realised that what really is necessary for a happy community is a proper civilised standard of living for all civilised beings, and that being so, I am happy to be able to participate in this debate today, and to support this comprehensive motion proposed by your esteemed leader, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). At the present time the nations of the world are destroying one another in one of the cruellest wars the world has ever known, and it is clear to me that the war presently being waged is purely and simply the result of the economic uncertainty of mankind. Where there is uncertainty, there necessarily is conflict, and where there is conflict, war follows. When there is a conflict among the nations of the world, war must follow. And when there is an economic conflict and economic uncertainty within a nation, a revolution must follow. It is fortunate, in view of that, that the people belonging to the civilised part of the world, have come to realise that they have to exert themselves, that the nations should act in unison in order to provide a proper civilised standard of living for all civilised people. It is clear to me that not only with us, but throughout the world, there is today a tremendous demand for a better world. In South Africa also one hears every day that a better South Africa should be brought into being, and we on this side are convinced that the time has now come, that the time is long overdue, for the creation of a better South Africa, not a South Africa where thousands of people are living below the bread-line amidst plenty, and wherein a large proportion of the school-going youth are undernourished amidst plenty. The Herenigde Nasionale Party, we on this side, are convinced that the time has arrived for us to abandon the individualism of the past, and that we should act as one, as a unit in which excessive profits will not be permitted, but a unit wherein excessive poverty will still less be permitted, and we believe that the time is ripe, and has long been overdue, for us to bring into being a system which will be a real safeguard against dire poverty for all who are prepared to work. I know that money is required to solve all great problems, but we have already spent the colossal sum of £240,000,000 on this war, and the war will probably cost much more in the future. Why has this tremendous sum of money been spent? This war is being waged as a result of poverty and want! I believe that the time has now arrived, and we on this side believe, that millions should be spent to prevent poverty and want. I know the Government side will say it is easy to cherish great ideas and to come out with such ideas, but that it is quite a different matter to give practical effect to them. Last year we had before us a motion for social security, and the Prime Minister said that the motion was too vague. The Prime Minister said more concrete things should be laid before the House. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) then made a proposal from this side, and suggested definite and concrete proposals. The Government over there did not give effect to one of those suggestions. Instead of provision having been made, instead of proper provision having been made for the aged, instead of proper provision having been made for orphans, instead of a proper pension system having been introduced, instead of proper medical assistance having been provided for the country—instead of all this we have had pensions for illegitimate wives and illegitimate children of soldiers. But no heed was paid to these direct proposals from this side of the House for a more civilised life in the country. Those concrete proposals from this side were not adopted. Today this side of the House again comes forward with a motion, the motion of my esteemed leader, the hon. member for Piketberg. In this motion this side proposes in a most unequivocal manner what to our minds constitute the prerequisites for a better future and for a better South Africa. But the Prime Minister is not satisfied with this either. Now he rakes up the story that the hon. member for Piketberg has discarded his old policy and comes out with a brand new picture, as he called it. He makes this—words fail me to find the correct word; I intended to use the word feebleminded, but it is wrong—I shall say he makes this fatuous charge that the motion has been introduced into this House solely and simply as an election catchcall to catch votes at the next election. Let us now test the soundness of that charge. We do not expect a prominent person in this House, like the hon. Prime Minister to come out with vague charges like those, which he cannot prove. We do not expect him to use the childish method of putting up popinjays so badly that he himself could shoot them down. We expect of an hon. member bearing the responsibility of the Prime Minister that when the Leader of the Opposition brings forward a motion such as this he will be prepared to discuss that motion on its merits; that he will counter one point of view with another, and one argument with another. We have not had a single instance of that in this debate. Not a single hon. member over there has tried in the least to challenge the definite proposals from this side, or to show that our proposals are impracticable and unpractical. Let us consider for a moment the accusation by the Prime Minister. The first point we put forward in this motion, is the establishment of a Central Economic Council. Since when has this side of the House been propagating the establishment of such an economic Council? I have here before me the programme of principles of the party to which I belong, and one of the first things mentioned in that programme of principles, is the establishment of a central economic council. We introduced a motion of this nature seven or eight years ago already. Since when has the Prime Minister been considering the setting up of such a Council? In 1941 a Committee was appointed in regard to agricultural and industrial requirements. That Committee put forward the idea that a central planning council was necessary, and only since then did that side of the House wake up, with the result that they evolved a half-hearted thing in the form of the Planning Council we have to day.

It is a political Council.

It is remarkable how true and to the point the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) can sometimes be in his remarks.

It is not remarkable; it comes naturally to him.

Take the next point in our motion—effective state control of the gold-mining industry and other industries. Has this side of the House not been pleading for that for years? Take the other part of our proposal—effective State control of all credit facilities. That we also have in our programme of principles. One of the first things mentioned is control of banking and credit facilities. So we could take every point in this motion by my leader; we have not only been propagating those proposals for years, but they have also constituted part of our programme of principles. This charge by the hon. Prime Minister that this motion before the House is solely and simply intended to catch votes, is most certainly one of the most unfair charges a responsible man in his position could make. We on this side take exception to that. The Prime Minister has, in making this accusation, availed himself of a method a person only uses when he no longer has any arguments, and has nothing more to say. Then such a person usually comes forward with the charge that this or that or the other thing is merely said for political purposes. That form of reasoning will no longer hold water with the people of South Africa. The next charge by the Prime Minister is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has revealed his political insolvency by introducing this motion in this House. I also have a little practical experience of business, and this has been the first time I have heard of a person being insolvent when he possesses sufficient to produce the necessary in every possible contingency. A man is insolvent when he no longer has the necessary wherewithal to meet his obligations.

And when he has to look to other people for assistance, as the Prime Minister does now.

Here it is a different matter. This side has, since we have been sitting here, come forward with motions to explain our point of view in regard to the war. Subsequently my esteemed Leader last year came forward with a motion to explain to this House and to the country what we believed on this side to be the ideal future form of government for our country. There has been a republican motion. Now my esteemed leader has again come forward with a motion to indicate to the country what we believe should be done to place the people of South Africa on a better economic basis. That does not look like insolvency. It seems to me the hon. member for Piketberg will still be able to bring forward important matters in the House for many years to come. No, this side believes that the time has come for us to break away from the individualism existing today. The people of South Africa have ultimately to be persuaded to act as one entity. The people of South Africa must at last realise that it is necessary to have efficacious and adequate State control in connection with the difficult problems we have in our country in regard to our national activities. We must act as a unit in our country; and how does this side propose that we should achieve that object? We suggest that we will achieve it, and only can achieve it, through a properly constituted full-time Central Economic Council which will be able to act in collaboration with a reformed system of Control Boards. At present the various sections of the community are digging themselves in. One section is entrenching itself against the other sections of the community not because the different sections of the community bear each other malice or want to show malice to each other because they really are ill-disposed, but because in present circumstances there is no other course open to the different sections of the community. The producer, the consumer, the middleman, the industrialist and the labourer—all of them are entrenching themselves, in order to ensure for themselves a proper living in present circumstances. And that state of affairs may not continue. We now come forward with this motion and say we want to establish a properly constituted Central Economic Council. I am not going to occupy myself with what the other sections of the community think about this matter and the benefits to be derived from it. Nor am I going to occupy myself with a discussion of the agricultural policy of this party as such. I shall try to show how the agriculturist will benefit from this general economic policy announced by the hon. member for Piketberg. What we do propose is in the first place a properly constituted Central Economic Council. That is one thing to which the Prime Minister replied. He said they have such a Council, the Social and Economic Planning Council. But that Planning Council does not at all serve the purpose that we have in mind. It is not at all what we envisage a Central Economic Council to be. In the first place the constitution of the existing Council is wrong. As has already been said on this side, we do not say there are no competent men on that Council. The people who know members of the Planning Council, know that there are competent people also on the Council. But the constitution of the Council is wrong, because the various economic interests of the country are not represented on the Council. Furthermore the Planning Council of the Government is not effective because it is a part-time Council. The Prime Minister said in his speech that this Parliament could not occupy itself with the intricate economic problems that have to be solved because this House of Assembly is too busily engaged. Is it possible then for a part-time council meeting once a month, and consisting of busy people, is there any possibility for such a council to tackle our economic problems which have to be solved and have to be solved speedily, in such a manner that they will be able to furnish proper advice in regard to those matters? No, as that Council is now constituted, it is impossible. Then the excuse has been made over there that they are unable to find people to serve on a permanent Council. The Planning Council admits that difficulty, but is says it is not an insurmountable difficulty. The Prime Minister moreover stated that the Government has appointed a Social Welfare Committee as a result of the recommendation by the Planning Council, and he has furnished us with the names of the members of that Committee. Dr. van Eck will be Chairman; then there are Mr. Brown, Dr. Allan, Mr. Kuschke, Dr. Pirie, Mr. Meers, Sen. Briggs and Dr. van Biljon. Here again it is very clear that agriculture is not represented on that Committee. Does the opposite side of the House not realise that agriculture is one of the enterprises in our country which at present sustains most Europeans? Does the opposite side of the House not realise that agriculture will in the near future face a very dark period? And that being so, has the time not come for systematic action in connection with agriculture, for devising fixed plans and for making a start with such plans in order that agriculture may be kept going? In this connection I should like to read from the Report of the Planning Council—

On the contrary, it is clear that nothing at all has been done thus far to put farming on a sound basis in the near future, when dark days arrive. No, we on this side are grateful that this motion has been introduced, and I as an agriculturist am particularly grateful that a central economic council has a prominent place in it. I am particularly pleased because I am aware of the needs of agriculture. I am particularly well acquainted with the needs of agriculture, and for that reason I know that the unfortunate position in this country is that the other sections of the population in the past did not give the necessary attention to the needs of agriculture. The agriculturist has struggled with and has stooped under the idea that the farmer only wants to live as a parasite on the rest of the community. In present circumstances, if a central economic council were established with express instructions to have justice done to the various sections of the community, we realise that justice will also be done to agriculture in our country and for that reason I am so particularly pleased that a central economic council is being contemplated. But I am particularly glad to see that the central economic council will not act solely and simply on its own initiative, but in collaboration with a reformed system of control boards. We on this side most certainly are in favour of control of agricultural produce, but as our hon. Leader has stated, this side will never be satisfied with the present system of control of agricultural produce, a system under which the agriculturalist on his own board shares his say with the people who are not there to promote agriculture, but who are there on express understanding that they are there on that board for the protection of their own interests. With such a constitution of agricultural control boards this House cannot be satisfied. We hold out the prospect of control boards which will consist solely and entirely of the producers of the product concerned. In those circumstances those boards will really consist of experts and practical people who know what the difficulties of that section of the producers are. A central board in collaboration with such control boards, constituted solely of the producers of the commodity concerned, is the only means of safeguarding the future security of agriculture. It must be very clear to every agriculturist that the power of the farming industry outside is daily becoming less also in respect of representation in this House. There are very few constituencies at present where agriculture is the decisive factor, and even where agriculture forms the decisive factor the numerical proportion between the farmers and the town dwellers is becoming increasingly smaller. Under the present system it is very clear to us that the majority is going to dominate the weaker. The minority has no safeguard under the present system. But if we have a central economic council acting in collaboration with a reformed system of control boards then the minority, and the farmers at present comprising the minority, have the assurance that they will not be dominated and will not in future be used to provide wealth and comforts to the more powerful section of the community. It has for a long time been clear to farming members on this side, not a single argument has thus far been raised by members opposite to show that the agricultural policy of this side, as indicated by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) is unpractical, or that it embodies wrong principles. Arguments have not yet been used to show why that programme as set out by him, should be considered unpractical or impracticable. The Prime Minister did indeed bring forward the charge that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn has in vague terms promised the agriculturist a heaven on earth. Where has that been done? This side has contended in this motion and in the speeches held here, that profitable markets should be provided for the farmer. Is that a heaven on earth? This side is prepared to say also how we should tackle that process of providing profitable marketing to the farmers, and what is necessary to ensure that. We also pointed out that it is necessary to fix a proportionate and permanent price level and that we should have the necessary markets. We suggest a plan as to how we wish to tackle that matter. We say very emphatically that we believe in the first instance in the inland market and in controlled marketing. We know the question of a controlled market is a great and complicated problem, but for the very reason that it is great and complicated, it should be tackled energetically and with a will to solve it. We have various examples of how controlled marketing at the present time benefits the farmer. Take the tobacco industry. What would have become of the tobacco growers in present circumstances had there not been properly controlled marketing of the product? Take winefarming; what would have become of the wine-growers had there not been proper control of the product of the vine? What would have become of our wheat-growers had there not been a controlled marketing system? No, we have examples of what controlled marketing can mean to the farmer. But we realise that improvements could also be effected in this direction, and we realise that there should be some rapprochement between consumer and producer in connection with all the matters I have enumerated. The Government should take the initiative in bringing the consumer and producer closer together and in seeing to it that unwarranted fortunes are not made by the man in between. That can only be done by establishing a systematic marketing system. Take our meat market. We cannot conceive a greater confusion than there is on the meat market. Attempts are being made to exercise control, but those attempts are made without any endeavour having been made to provide proper cold storage. That is the first step that should be taken in connection with meat control in our country; the first step that is required, is surely to provide the necessary storage and the necessary cold storage. The existing cold storage that can be used, is too inadequate and is in private hands. To exercise proper control of the meat market it is necessary to provide cold storage space. Once that has been done, and once the necessary refrigerated trucks are available on our Railways steps could be taken for a steady flow of meat to the various markets in the country, and in this manner the producer and the consumer could be brought closer to each other. What is the position today? The cattle farmer receives on an average 50s. per 100 lb. for beef. The consumer has to pay 100s. or more for it. 100 per cent. is calculated between the producer and the consumer. It is clear, therefore, that a much better market could be provided for the meat farmer once the marketing of meat is tackled systematically. But attempts are being made, and plans are being devised, to control the meat market in a half-hearted manner, and the result is simply that more trouble and inconvenience is caused. It is very clear that this side of the House takes the view that we wish to provide a better market for the agriculturist and wish to ensure a profitable price to him by organising our inland market and by the establishment of a proper system of distribution. And the time has now arrived for such a system to be tackled. This Government is afraid to tackle anything of this nature, and it apparently likes to adopt half-baked and half-hearted methods. I have here before me a resolution adopted by the South African Africultural Union, and I should like to read from the Farmers’ Weekly of the 4th November, 1942, what the mover of it said—[ re-translation ]

And he is a S.A.P. member.

I do not know what the political convictions of this person are. But I do know he is a man with a sound opinion. I know this also, that if the Government of the day would accept the resolution of the South African Agricultural Union and the motion introduced by this gentleman, we as agriculturists in South Africa could expect better and more stable prices for our products, and thousands upon thousands of pounds would be saved to the consumer. Of course, a further requirement is that the agriculturist should be relieved of the burden of over-capitalisation pressing him down. Once farming is over-capitalised, it is very clear that the farmer concerned is unable to produce on an economical basis, and then the agricultural products cost too much. Therefore this side has come forward with the proposal that the over-capitalised portion of farming should be redeemed by a State aided mortgage redemption scheme until those mortgages reach a sound economic level. It is necessary also to provide a steady market for the farmer, in order that there may be greater purchasing power in the country. A lot of people without money in their trouser-pockets will never provide a market for the farmer, and for that reason we as agriculturists confirm the proposal that there should be State control of our industries in future, in order that a proper wage may be paid to the worker. We as agriculturists realise the importance of our gold export; we realise also that we have our agricultural products that will always have to be exported, and that this country therefore never will be able to manufacture everything it requires itself. But what we do feel, is that there should be systematic action in regard to our industries. In the past our industries expanded, but the purpose was solely and singly to make profit. The motive was the profit factor. When an industry has been established, it has only been established because the people concerned wished to make as much profit out of it as possible. We now wish to see State controlled industries established, and we want to see to it that our industries are not aiming at making profits only, but that their object will be to supply the national needs of the country. Our wool-growers especially look forward to the establishment of a proper wool industry in our country. The woolgrowers in our country have a dark future ahead. It is the section of our farming community which is going to meet with very difficult times in future, and that being so, an endeavour should at least be made to provide for the processing of the product of the wool-grower in our own country. But once we have State controlled industries in the country, encouraged by the State according to a fixed plan, we know that provision will also be made for the needs of the woolgrower, and for that reason we as farmers welcome the prospect of systematic action in connection with our industries. If that happens, we believe that the wool-growers will not again, as in the past, be permitted to go to the dogs. We see also in State control of our industries the solution of one of the greatest social evils in our country, I mean the overcrowding of the population in a few large cities. In our country we have grave problems. We have a large European poor population. We have millions of natives on our hands, and we may not permit that population to throng together in a few large cities in our country. With State control of our industries, we contemplate the prospect of the decentralisation of our industries. Decentralisation of industries is the only hope we have in connection with our people, to prevent them losing their identity and coming under foreign influences. And we see in that the hope for a proper distribution of our people, entailing the simplification of our marketing problems and so on. As long as things go on like this, and as soon as our people throng together in a few cities, impossible marketing problems are created for us. When our industries are spread out over the country, our marketing problems will be easier, and for that reason we as agriculturists welcome particularly that section of the motion by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in which he recommends State control of our industries. We also welcome that section of his motion which envisages controlled credit facilities. As one who knows the destructive work of uncontrolled credit, I welcome the portion of the motion of my hon. leader which contemplates the establishment of State control over credit and credit facilities. [Time limit].

I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman). My reasons for wanting to do away with capitalism, and I think that members on all sides of the House will agree with me here, is that in the times we are living in today, we have the best evidence that capitalism has left the whole world, in which it rules, in the lurch. Everything that capitalism has so far controlled, it has controlled solely and for one purpose alone, namely to make record profits out of those activities which it controls. When I speak of capitalism I do not confine myself to South Africa alone, but I also look to other countries like Britain and America—all the countries where we have capitalism—and if we look at these countries, then we see that in all those countries capitalism yields the fruits about which we have had a series of complaints from the hon. member who has just sat down. Those are the bitter fruits of capitalism. Those distorted markets, those fluctuating prices, that weak distribution—they are all the sour fruits of capitalism and nothing else. That strife, that discord and destruction which has been going on from time to time, those bitter fruits which so far have always been reaped in the past, are the bitter fruits of capitalism.

And why do you now sit among the capitalists?

If my hon. friend wants to do away with capitalism then he will very soon find more friends than he has now.

Why do you sit among them?

It is of no use saying that I sit among capitalists. He is not going to tell me that he attacks capitalism in the name of his party although he may do so as an individual. If my hon. friends on the other side will not feel hurt, if they will get fidgety when I attack capitalism then I hope that they will give me a chance to make my speech. Let us now first confine ourselves to South Africa. Not only does the capitalist hinder the prosecution of the war, not only does he make it impossible for the nation to develop, but he makes it impossible for the Government to carry out any decent scheme. If we analyse the war situation, then we shall find that where schemes fail, schemes by which we want to develop the nation, then it is the capitalist who is responsible. It is not due to the incompetence of the Government or to the incompetence of commanding officers, but to measures which the capitalist uses from time to time to put a spoke into the wheel of the Government of the day. Look how the capitalists have left South Africa in the lurch. There is not a single measure that can be tackled to solve our national problems that organised money power does not oppose. Last year we proposed a motion for a social security code, a motion that was approved by this House. That motion was welcomed on practically all sides of the House. Hardly had those views been made known in the House when we saw organised money power with all their might try to prevent something we all wished to see carried out. I rise today in the first instance to give my humble advice to the Government and to this House, and it is this: in the first place that if we want to bring about social security in South Africa, then we must not have too many investigations; then we must make too many inquiries. If we want to rescue a drowning man, and we first of all go to the river bank and stand and argue whether we ourselves will not perhaps be drowned, whether there are not perhaps logs in the water, if we first make enquiries, then the man whom we wished to rescue will be dead long ago. If we want social security and we go and hold too many inquiries and investigations, then we are simply going to kill social security. Then it will be a case of what the hon. the Minister of Labour once said—“we are going to kill it with too much kindness.” If a farmer throws Karoo manure several feet deep on his land, then he cannot grow wheat, but the manure will kill the wheat. With all the ways in which we are busy investigating social security, we are busy throwing Karoo manure ten feet thick on our lands and then we expect the grain to grow. No, we have already sufficient data. We know what we want. The Government knows what we want and the people know what we want and it is not necessary for us to make further investigations. There is only one question, and that is that we must come to a definite decision that we are going to bring about social security. That is the doctrine which we must accept now. Instead of this we are busy going into the question of what the repercussions of this or that measure will be. While we are busy doing this, while we are busy enquiring what all the repercussions of our measures will be, the capitalists are busy catching the whole nation and the world in its strangle-hold. And the worst of everything is: while we are making enquiries, the capitalists are again busy laying the foundations of a future war. If we do not raise the standard of living in this country and if it is not going to be raised in other parts of the world; if after this slaughter of people we must return to the previous state of affairs, then we have done nothing else but lay the foundations of a future war. I do not think there is a single hon. member who will differ from me when I say that the cause of the World War was the same thing, and what we must endeavour to prevent, is that it will happen again in the future. Now I put this question to every member of the House. After all we have had men at the head of affairs in South Africa, and we still have them at the head of affairs—the hon. leader was also a member of a cabinet and we have today members in the Cabinet who have been members of various governments—and I ask any hon. member who is experienced in the legislation of South Africa, who is it and what is it that has always hampered you in any measures in the interest of the nation; was it not the capitalist that was the cause of the failure? Was it not the capitalist in Germany that was the cause of the troubles there? Was it not ultra-capitalism? Was it not the capitalist system in Britain who supplied them with steel instead of bread? And now they are still doing the same thing. They are again laying the foundations of a future war. And while we are busy with this war and talking about these things, they are busy exploiting the position for their own purposes and laying the foundations for a future war. I shall be very thankful, I shall be very satisfied and I shall be very pleased if an hon. member can get up and explain to me how we in the future under the old capitalist system are going to solve those problems with which we are faced in the country today. No, if we want to solve it under this system, then a number of farmers will again have to go bankrupt, then there will again be people who will have to go hungry; there will again be people that will become impoverished and lag behind as the result of unemployment. If an hon. member here can get up and say to me: Look we have a solution, then I also shall be satisfied with this present system. But so far we have not had it in practice and I am convinced that we cannot get it. I say that after the experience we have had everyone must come to the conclusion that under the capitalist system it is impossible to improve or permanently eliminate these conditions. There was a time when hon. members thought that the capitalists would mend their ways. While I am speaking of this I should like to mention this point. There are members who reply when we attack capitalism, and say that we want to go and deprive the farmer of his possessions and that we want to deprive the man of his possessions who has struggled to get a little together, that we want to confiscate it, and what not. This is not the case, and no man with any sense will propose such a thing. But there is the domineering influence of capitalism in Britain, in America, and also here in South Africa. And when plans are proposed to solve the problems of the country, then they stick something in the wheel to make the plan fail. We have already had the experience that capitalism brings a government to a fall when it suits the capitalist. Just as it has brought about the fall of governments in the past, it will bring governments to a fall in the future when it suits it. There is not a leader in our country today who is more honoured than the present Prime Minister, but when the capitalist has one day finished with this war, and when he sees an opportunity to carry on with the old system, the capitalist will start an agitation against him and whip the public up against him, and bring the Government to a fall, just as he has done with any other government in the past. I am not speaking today in the ordinary political sense; I am not speaking here to attack a party. We are all inspired with one thing and that is to solve the problems of our country, and I say that you cannot show me a plan to solve them under the system which we have now. This system will again leave you in the lurch, just as capitalism has left you in the lurch in the past. History has taught us this, and that is why I say that this House must consider the amendment of my hon. friend. We have given capitalism sufficient opportunity and it has failed. If this is not the case, why do we dawdle today, and why do we not commence with the measures that we should take. Why do we dawdle if it is not true that there are powers in the country that hamper the Government. There is nobody in this House that will tell me that if the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were in a position to solve our problems tomorrow, they would not do it immediately. I assume that the other side of the House intends to do the same if they get into power, but under the present system you cannot, even if you wish. May I point out that the Government and the nation are engaged in a terrific struggle—in a war—and while every section of the population is doing its share to help the Government, the capitalists are not doing so. The majority of the debates in this House are about the exploitation by capitalism while the war is going on. The Government sits there and the men return from the army disabled. What becomes of them. There certainly is no one that will say that these fellows must be placed in a new heaven, because that is not so. I understand that the opinion is held now that they must be kept, when they return, in any case on the standard on which they lived before the war.

Tell us, is a person a capitalist if you draw a double salary?

I do not know what is going on in the mind of the hon. member. He is at his best when he speaks of the question whether the former King Edward abdicated on the 10th or on the 11th, but when it comes to national problems, then he is usually found lacking. The problems of which I speak stand before the door. The men who return from the army are not placed in a better position, but they come back to the same old basis as before. If we cannot treat the few who come back today in a better way than to send them back to their position of before the war, then I do not know what will happen when the war is over. I do not believe that capitalists will say to the Government: “We are going to help you.” If they are prepared to help the Government, let them show it now, but they have so far left the Government in the lurch very badly, and they have not gone out of their way the slightest to provide extra work. The people are expected to go back to where they were before the war. Where the Government took action and here and there under difficult circumstances provided extra work, the capitalist has still made a hundred per cent. out of it for his own purposes. If we consider the matter from all sides then I say that the time has come that this House as well as the people of South Africa must ask themselves whether the time is now opportune for the whole world as well as South Africa to say: This system for long enough has been the cause of wars and misery.

You ought to be in the New Order.

Is it not time that we should say that the system for long enough has been the cause of all the poverty and misery, and international quarrels, and that we must now get another form of Government, under which the Government is the master of the country, and not those who control the finances. “The government is finance and finance is the goevernment.” This must be the motto and the day when we realise this and act accordingly, things will be better. The Government must take up the stick as the master and carry out its plans which today are not being carried out. I know that it is the desire of the Government to carry out certain plans, but it is made impossible by the pernicious system of capitalism. I do not know whether you have yet asked yourselves who so far have been the opponents of a social security code. Who is it who immediately let the Government understand: “Yes, that thing is quite good, but it will hamper our business.” The insurance companies. They were the first to oppose it. They do not take into account that we have said that after the war there will be a better world, and that the people will enjoy better economic conditions. They do not take into account that it will not be a world that will be better for the business man alone, but that the whole nation as such will be brought on to a higher standard. That is the aim, that is the promise. If we end the war and the people must remain on the same standards as before the war, in so far as the low paid men are concerned, then I do not care the least what happens, because then I really do not know why the world is standing together and why we are fighting a war, because then we are only one step away from slavery. I think the whole world has had more than enough of capitalism. Now I know the problems with which the Government is faced and I realise that capitalism will oppose the Government immediately it wants to take action, and honourable members on the other side are beginning to become fidgety already.

Now you are talking through your neck.

Honourable members on that side of the House become fidgety when I attack capitalism, but I have not yet seen that members on this side become fidgety.

They are appeasing you a little.

I just want to tell hon. members this, that hon. members on that side of the House are very sensitive when I attack capitalism while I know that on this side they are becoming convinced more and more of the fact that capitalism is making the world difficult for them. The Opposition also comes with beautiful proposals and with all kinds of complaints, but they are very careful not to tell the world that the reason for their complaints is but the same system of which we have been reaping the bitter fruits so long. The hon. members argue in a circle. They do not say to the Government that they realise that the bitter fruits that we are reaping, of poverty and misery, are caused by the capitalist system. No, why do they not say so? I must take off my hat to them as cunning politicians. They know very well that the people are in a state of rebellion against capitalism.

Against the capitalist Government.

Therefore they bring only complaints before the people, but they do not tell the people that they as a party want again to work hand in hand with capitalism. Therefore they have not the right to attack the Government and to raise complaints about matters which existed and which were worse in the days when they governed. The hon. members must not be so fidgety. They pretend that a white horse that has a black tail is black because the tail is black. They do not blame the system. But what they do is to make the people dissatisfied and whip them up against the Government in order thereby to kick the Government out and they will do the same as what the Government has done. Therefore we give hints to the Government. In the first place I want to point out that the people have responded to the appeal of the Government. Men and women have enlisted to stand faithfully by the Government and they are prepared to carry the Government on their shoulders. They also say that they realise that the Government side is anxious to do what it should for the people but that organised money power makes it impossible, treads on its toes and takes the matter out of its hands. This Government will have no problems if it takes matters in its hands and does away with capitalism. Then economic conditions will improve. Just take the spectacle in connection with agricultural products. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) raised a series of complaints. At the time when the Marketing Act was before the House we were told that the confusion in connection with agricultural products would disappear. I said then that it was all bluff, that it was the biggest piece of bluff ever put on our Statute Book, because it was a half-baked socialistic thing which was to be carried out under the capitalist system. Today the farmers are dissatisfied. That is the reason why it cannot work under the existing system. The hon. member will remember that when the matter was discussed, I said that it was not worth anything, but they told me that I should be quiet and that it was a good thing. I know that the Government has done its best for the farming community, but all the measures are hampered and made impossible by the capitalists. Therefore they cannot carry out anything.

Are you satisfied with what the Government has done?

I am satisfied with what the Government has tried to do. And where the Government has not been able to carry out certain measures with success, members on the other side must admit that they are just as guilty with the capitalist friends who sit there with them.

I am not sitting with a lot of capitalists like you.

The hon. members there want to use conditions not to bring about a different system, but to use it as a hat stand to hang up a lot of grievances. I am not using this thing today as a hat stand to hang up my grievances, but as an opportunity to point out to the Government that it is essential that radical changes should be made, because the Government and the people have been left in the lurch by the capitalists. Of this there is no doubt. The Government for instance established the Industrial Corporation and gave industries this hint: You must act systematically to prepare matters so that a large number of people can be taken up in industry. But so far as I can see there are no signs that they have acceded to the wishes of the Government. And hon. members on the other side are part of it, I do not mean individually, but capitalism has a greater stranglehold on their party than it has on this party. Why must we always jump from one political party to another? When hon. members on that side hold meetings, they blame the Minister of Lands personally, and they blame the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister as if he can be blamed personally for the malpractices created under the system.

The Prime Minister is naturally the responsible Minister.

The hon. members do not tell the people that the system is the cause. Therefore we have all the bad blood that is caused by bringing in personalities instead of pointing out the cause of conditions. I want to give the Government the hint to bring about better conditions with all the means and measures at its disposal and eventually find a solution. It is essential to go to work as quickly as possible. I think we are all thankful for the research work on which a start has been made but I want to ask the Prime Minister not to leave it at investigation, but to take some real action. Let something emerge so that the people will be encouraged a little. The people are under a dark cloud and want to see the Government tackle things so that when the war is over, we will not fall back to the same old conditions. Give the people the conviction by doing something. I just want to illustrate with one little matter why I feel so hurt. I do not now want to talk about the pay of soldiers, because the matter is at the moment being dealt with by a Select Committee, but I want to point out how it is being emphasised that we must return to the old standard of before the war. When assistance is asked for a returned soldier, then too often the attitude is taken that the man, before he enlisted, was a labourer earning 3s. or 4s., or who perhaps was totally unemployed. Now it is said that he must remain on the standard of 3s. or 4s. The attitude is that the man must remain on the standard on which he was before he enlisted. If I am not mistaken—and to tell you the truth I am very positive on the point—it was the attitude of the Government that the family of nobody who enlists in the army would find themselves in needy circumstances. The promise was not carried out in practice. There is today a great number of men whose families are still in needy circumstances, just as before the war. Why does the poor man fight then, if he must return to the same miserable conditions as before the war? Is there then no ray of hope for the man, no encouragement to carry on? The men are beginning to ask if they have fought to return to the same conditions in which they were. Must they go to all parts of the world to fight and then return to see that they have protected only the rich people, who reap 50,000 bags of maize and 80,000 bags of wheat and who have so many mining shares? The people who remained at home have received fat Government contracts, but the men who have come back, return to 3s. 6d. a day. I say to the Prime Minister and to the House that this is too much for the patience of any soldier. They fight for 3s. a day and are perhaps wounded, and the people who could never open their mouths wide enough against the Government and the war, work for £40 and £50 in the factories to carry out Government contracts. Can the soldier be satisfied with this? Is it not provoking? For what are they fighting then? I want to ask the Government to take active steps and as quickly as possible. I am glad that the Minister of Lands is here. I agree with his policy in connection with settlements to keep the land until after the war. It is a wise policy. But I want to draw his attention to the fact that there are today a number of soldiers who have returned who would like to come under his schemes, but it is not possible now. They must wait until the war is over one day. Can he not make temporary provision for these people until such a time as the war is over, after which they can be taken up in the various schemes that will be tackled after the war? The matter is a burning one and the people do not know what to do. They say that the war can perhaps last another two or three years, and what must they do in the mean time? They are not trained journeymen, and they cannot get work in the factories. I want the Government to take these circumstances into consideration and make provision for these people until the war is over. If we do not do this we discourage our own people. The Government has provided very well for the Opposition and the followers of the Opposition. The Opposition has no reason to complain today, because so far, although they are against the Government they have scooped the cream from the milk.

You have got the cream, the double salaries, £1,315 extra.

I wonder if the hon. member who interrupts me, is thinking of his colleague, the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé). I say that the Government must now give a little attention to its own people as well, and not only feed the Opposition. There are many people who are bitterly opposed to the Government, but they scoop off the cream, while the men who support the Government and who fight for the country are treated like this. We know that the Government must be thrifty and must not waste money. But if there is money to give contracts to people who are against the Government and highly paid positions in offices, there must also be money for the soldiers who fight. They must receive the first consideration before any other man. So far the soldiers who have returned have had no consideration. On the contrary, they find themselves in poor circumstances. I therefore appeal to the Government to pay attention to its own followers who supported the Government in the darkest times. The men are perhaps wounded and they deserve the first consideration.

That is a damning speech. Are you not ashamed of yourself?

We dare not delay the matter any longer, because the dissatisfaction will grow still more. This is the proper time to improve social conditions in South Africa. The more the Government delays the matter, the more difficult it will become for the Government to bring about such a system of social upliftment. I think there is only one word I want to say to the Prime Minister. Let him have the country understand that he is definitely against our returning to the old standard, and I want to ask the Government if it is not possible to make the capitalists understand that they must do their duty towards the nation and that accumulated capital must be invested in factories and more factories and not in speculation and only in mining shares. That is what the hon. members on the other side do. We must get away from the idea of speculation, of the buying and selling of shares that has made South Africa an ultracapitalist country. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban, North (The Rev. Miles-Cadman), and I hope that the Government will give attention to the matter we have raised, because they are important matters. I hope that the Government will pay attention to its own people and will not allow the Opposition which so far has flourished all the time, and which has scooped the cream, to get everything. I think we are also entitled to a little of it. The soldier who is fighting should receive the first consideration before any other person in South Africa.

I have been making notes for a whole week in regard to what I wish to say in support of the motion of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) but the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has taken my arguments out of my mouth and has said exactly what I wished to say. I thought it was a new man talking. I cannot understand it. He rose and said that he was tired of Commissions, of the wealthy people, of the capitalists; he said there were just a small number making all the money, while the great majority of the people were living in poverty. He came along with the assertion that he was sorry for the poor soldiers receiving 3s. 6d. per day—all of which things I wanted to say. But the hon. member has not mentioned one single point to suggest a solution for the things he referred to. There I come to the motion by the hon. member for Piketberg, which proposes to remedy those things, and the hon. member ought to vote for it. I remember the days when we, he and I, still were poor. I am still poor, but of course the hon. member now has a little more, for he draws a double salary. I am still just as poor, and I am pleased to see that the hon. member still agrees with me on the fundamental point, namely that there is something wrong with the economic conditions in our country. The hon. member should however not come along and say that the wealthy people are sitting on this side. It is no use making such reproaches here in this House. Throughout the world today there is a tendency to improve conditions. In this morning’s paper I have just read that in England there has been quite a discussion on the Beveridge plan, that the British Parliament has been debating it for two days already, and they will discuss it today also. There is a great difference of opinion on the matter. The same applies to this motion. Every section of the population is taken into consideration in our motion. It is our policy it is our programme of principles. Since the Boer War it has been my policy, that we should look after the settled section of the population; when they flourish and have sufficient food and clothing, and enough money to educate their children properly, all goes well with the country. Who is making money today? The hon. member for Krugersdorp says it is the farmer. He knows that is not true. He also is a farmer’s son and he knows that a small section of speculators is acquiring everything. It is not the people on this side. If more than two per cent. of the great capitalists are sitting on this side, I shall cross over to the other side. No, 98 per cent. are sitting over there, more than 98 per cent., who are supported by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. They have been the ones who have awarded the contracts and made money out of the war. I know and he knows that they are making money. They show very little concern for the war effort of the Prime Minister, but they look after themselves. That is the unfortunate position. I feel that if we were prepared to sacrifice more for others, the world would be a happier place. But that is lacking in our country. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has explained the position. He is the most dissatisfied man in this House, more so even than I. I had thought I was the most dissatisfied, but he surpasses me. He comes along and tells the Prime Minister all kinds of things, but he should go to the Prime Minister and say: Look here, general, I see things are going wrong, the soldiers are returning and we have told the soldiers that we are going to provide a new heaven and a new earth for them here in the Union, but they are not getting it. That is what he should tell the Prime Minister, and he should tell the Prime Minister further that the Opposition now have introduced a splendid scheme for the solution of all these things. It is no use endeavouring to solve these difficulties for the soldiers only. There are thousands of other poor whites who today are suffering starvation. The Minister of Lands is reserving the settlements. I would tell him that he need not be afraid that the soldiers will go there. What do they say? Does the Minister think that we, who have given our blood, will go and settle by the river on a small holding and work from morning till night?” No, the holdings will be vacant. The resources of the country should be distributed more proportionately among the population, and that could only be done if the poor people were also taken into consideration. They are grappling with that problem throughout the world. Here we come along with proposals that are suitable for our country, and which are adapted to the economic position of our country. It is a plan for the salvation of our people, and when I refer to our people, I include every South African who has his home here in South Africa, and who really loves South Africa. We should do everything’ to take practical steps, and now is the time. That is what we propose. We have not come here to make propaganda for the election. I have never done that. When I get to my feet here to discuss economic matters, I do not do so for personal gain. Nor could that be said of other members on this side. Let us come together and tackle the serious problem. Here sits the Government, powerless, hopeless, helpless. But what has the Stellenbosch farmer done? In one day he has rectified the marketing system. He has demonstrated how it could be done for the poor producer to receive what is his due, and for the consumer not to pay exorbitant prices. He has eliminated the tremendous gap between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays. That is what we should also do. We want to eliminate the enormous profits. We as producers only want to receive fair prices for our products, so that we may be in a position to meet our obligations and live decently like Europeans in our country. If we don’t do that, we shall be making a kaffirland of South Africa. That is what we are doing. Look at what is going on in Cape Town, for instance with regard to the system of distribution. It is a waste of time and money. The products are hurled to and fro from the one to the other, and enormous profits are made. Take the entire distributive system, say of milk. You find large buildings where no less than four different milk suppliers each day deliver milk. Perhaps the one milk supplier turns up at the large building with only one bottle of milk. The entire system of distribution is unpractical, and we are getting tired of it. We feel that drastic steps should be taken. I hope the hon. member for Krugersdorp has read our motion verbatim.

I have.

Yes, and therefore he supported me during the first quarter of an hour of his speech, but then he began to deviate.

It is the double salary.

Well, he considers he is entitled to it, that he works for it. I do not agree. I feel that when one wishes to see the war through, it should be a matter of the heart and not only of money. I feel that we in this country do too much for the sake of money and too little to make the people happy. Before I sit down, just this one point: We have to understand well that the crust of our troubles in South Africa has not yet been touched. We have always just been scratching at the surface and have never reached the root of the evil. The Government which is going to tackle the problems at the root, is going to be the Government of the day. The motion by the hon. member for Piketberg forms the foundation for such a Government.

I have listened with considerable interest this morning to the various speeches on the Opposition side on this important topic, and I was particularly struck with the impassioned appeal of the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) that this matter should be approached with “eenheid van optrede”, with unified effort. The hon. member appealed for support of the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, because he said it showed “enheid van optrede” on their part. Yet when I look at the Order Paper, I see not one “unified” motion, but three on the opposite side of the House. I see a motion by the hon. Leader of the Opposition; I see an amendment by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis) as representing the New Order, and I see an amendment by the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) as representing the Afrikaner Party, and that is the “eenheid van optrede” with which the Opposition appealed to us to regard this matter. But I, for my part, welcome both the motion and the amendments emanating from the Opposition benches for one single reason, and that is that it seems to me that for the first time since I have been in this House a problem has been approached from an economic rather than from a racial angle.

Oh, no; look at Hansard.

It seems to me an encouraging sign that as a result of the explosive force of this feeling for social security in the world today, even the Opposition has been driven to’ produce to this House what is a manifesto, if you like, for social security. It has been called on this side an election manifesto, but whatever it is, it is at least proof that at last that side of the House has awakened to a realisation of the importance of providing the people with a real standard of living after the war. It is encouraging to find that the importance of this question has even penetrated to the Opposition. But when it comes to regarding this as a motion of social security, I would like to advance the view that it is hardly what you would call social, because in my understanding of the term “social” it includes all the people, whereas to the best of my understanding of the motion of the hon. member, his is purely a racial and a sectional motion, a motion meant to apply purely to a small group, to that section of the community, in short,’ which believes in the political ideas of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The motion looks after everyone, bar the parasites.

I shall deal with that in a moment. For my part, I want to say first that with the fine preamble of the motion of the hon. member, I am completely in agreement. I am quite in agreement that there should be an adequate measure of social security for every individual. I desire to stress the words “for every individual”. I am also in agreement with him as regards Section (a), where he says—

I believe fully that for social security it should be a case of one for all and all for one, because all of us stand and fall together. I agree, too, with Section (b)—

I agree, sir, because it is one of the hall marks of the democratic system, that the functions of the State should be based on an understanding and an appreciation of human values and human needs that it should be based on the needs of the individual and should value him. But when it comes to the third section of the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, there we begin to differ. Not, of course, as to the first portion of Section (c)—

there I am in total agreement with him. If we are ever really to have social security in this country, we will only have it by paying for it, and we can and will only be able to pay for it by building up our national income on a broad system of developing all the natural resources in this country. So far I am in agreement with him, but where I begin to differ is where he begins to talk of the “effective elimination of all parasitic activities from our economic life.” What precisely does he mean by “parasitic activities?”

The Nationalist Party.

I would be inclined to agree with the Minister on that point, but I do not think that the hon. Leader of the Opposition will agree. But I say when it comes to parasitic activities then I begin to ask myself on what basis would the hon. Leader of the Opposition consider and look at what he calls “parasitic activities?” And then it is quite clear to me having listened to views stated so frequently in this House by the Opposition, that the basis that he would accept on which to base “the effective elimination of all parasitic activities” must inevitably, from his known record be racial. I must take it from the Opposition’s own mouth that they are going to eliminate all English activities, all Jewish activities, all Indian activities and even all coloured and Native activities in their attempt to eliminate parasitic activities, because all these various sections of our people that I have mentioned have at different times been termed “parasitic” by the Opposition. And if that is what they are going to do, then the condition of South Africa, if this motion were ever to be adopted by this House, would indeed be a parlous one. That brings me back then to my first point, that this manifesto of social security adumbrated by the hon. member is simply not security at all, but is merely protection for a limited group of the population, and as such “group protection” only I must reject it in toto. This morning the hon. member for Smithfield—a significant constituency, I would remind the House—objected vehemently to the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the policy adumbrated by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in this motion was a policy of bankruptcy. He objected strenuously to that description, but I feel that it was not too harsh a description of a policy which on their own showing, would apply only to a small and limited section of the population. For Sir I am convinced that there can be no such thing as “sectional” security, no such thing as security for a group, and everybody outside it to be shut out. If we are to have social security, it must be and can only be on a broad basis of security for every single person who has made his home in this country, irrespective of race or creed or colour or origin.

When the House adjourned just now, I was making the point that there can be no such thing as sectional or group security within a people. We are all of us members of the one body politic and it is absurd, it is not economically possible for a party to set out that one section of the people shall be made secure and that the rest of the people shall have no lot or part in that security. As Lincoln said in another connection: “You cannot have a people half slave and half free,” so my contention is that you cannot be half secure and half not; if you want security for a people it must be security for every member of that nation, whatever his political colour or his political creed. And as for this question of eliminating parasitical activities, according to the views of the Opposition, the soldiers who have gone North to fight for South Africa would not be covered by this programme of social security which the Opposition are pretending to be working for behind the actual physical security which the soldiers who are fighting our battles are providing! Because our men, English, Afrikaans, Jewish, Natives and coloured’ who have gone North to help fight in this battle for freedom, while the Opposition sit safe here are, in their view, a portion of the parasitic elements they have set out to eliminate. Let me say once again then that you cannot have limited social security; you must and can only have security for all the people and not for only one section. That is my general criticism of the motion, and of both the amendments. But I have one very specific grievance against the motion and the amendment too. They are very comprehensive affairs. They set out a policy that I take it the Opposition, or rather the Opposition parties, will preach in the event of an election, and yet the very Opposition who sets such store by a sound and healthy family life have made no provision in their manifesto for supporting that family life. One day during the week, recently, the House was treated to the spectacle of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) inveighing against Communism mainly on the ground that it destroys family life, and yet neither in the motion of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), nor in any of the amendments moved by the other Opposition parties, is there any specific mention of any matter that will help towards maintaining that very family life on which they set, and rightly set, such store.

You evidently don’t understand the motion.

Oh, yes, I have read the motion very carefully. I know that there is a vague generality about maintaining family life—particularly in the amendment of the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis).

Evidently you don’t understand it.

I understand it perhaps better than the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) does, but the point I am trying to make is that these hon. members in their own programme have not even adumbrated any definite specific scheme for maintaining family life. And here I want to draw the attention of the hon. members opposite to that part in the Beveridge Report where Sir William Beveridge sets out the two fundamental bases on which only you can build social security. He says that to produce social security you must have firstly an abolition of want, and the abolition of want requires the provision of State insurance—that is to say, provision against interruption, provision against loss of earning power. You must have provision against people being thrown out of work. You must have provision against people, as a result of contingencies of some kind or another, arriving at a stage when they have no earning power. But the second thing, the report goes on, which the abolition of want requires, “is the adjustment of incomes in periods of earning as well as in interruption of earning to family needs, that is to say in one form or another it requires allowance for children—note the phrase allowance for children—and my quarrel with the Opposition motion and amendment is that neither makes provision for family allowances. And yet it is obvious to everyone who has studied the question, as has been done in England, and here also, that without allowances for families, without allowances paid to the mother to meet the family needs, just because she has brought children into the world, you cannot have an adequate system of social security. Moreover it is significant of the amount of importance attached to this Question of family allowances that the newspapers have stated to-day that the labour Party in England is dissenting from the Government on this matter of the Beveridge Report because there is no immediate provision in the Government plan for family allowances. I am particularly stressing this point because I am very much concerned, and rightly concerned, I feel, with the health of the children of this nation. It is a truism to say that unless your children are healthy you cannot have a healthy nation, and yet in the whole of that manifesto in the whole of the motion and the amendments of the Opposition you see much stress laid on building up the earning capacity, on the producing capacity of the nation, you see great stress on a sound agricultural and industrial policy, but what I do not see there, and that to me is a root cause of many of our problems here, is that there is no stress laid on the sound building up of the physical health of the people, the maintenance of the family life of the nation, by at least some such scheme as that suggested in family allowances. Now for my part I am quite clear that the realistic approach to this problem of social security is the practical one. Build up reasonably healthy strong citizens and you will give them the initiative to work, you will produce ability to work, you will make it possible for people to work and fend for themselves. Build up reasonably strong and healthy citizens and you will not have such immense requirements, both in money and kind for hospitalisation later. Hence I contend again that if you include in your programme for special security an equal stress on building up the physical capacities of the nation with building up the financial resources and feed the children, and the children of all colours in your nation, Native, Coloured, Indian and white alike, that is the only solid basis on which you will be able to build a system of social security. The whole thing is two sided. And as far as I have been able to judge from the speeches which have been made from the Opposition side, they approach this question mainly on the material side and not on that personal human side which in my view is at least as essential a method of approach as the material side. And so I would like to say to the hon. member over there, that as far as women are concerned I think in the main they would agree with me that you will never have an adequate system of social security if it does not contain in it, provisions for safeguarding the children they bring into the world. Without that you will never get any kind of system that will ensure the health and strength of the population. And to me it is one of the things which I found most reassuring in the programme of social security suggested from this side of the House, that the Prime Minister in his famous, and deservedly famous Bloemfontein speech, did include in his programme a scheme of family allowances realising thereby that only on such a system can you base all the rest, only on such a system can you build up a healthy people, and a people which will exploit and can exploit all the magnificent resources of this country.

The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), who has just resumed her seat, based her objection to the motion of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) principally on what we definitely want, viz., that in future any parasitic activity be eliminated. She said that she got the impression immediately that this side again wants to differentiate between race and race. She even dragged in the Natives, and said that we ourselves also want to differentiate as regards the Natives. Well, apart from all the other difficulties there are, I do not think we can accuse the Natives of parasitic activity. But if there is one or other of the races in the country who make themselves guilty of parasitic activity, then that is no reason why we should depart from our striving. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the elimination of parasitic activities is directed against Afrikaans-speaking, English-speaking and Jews. If there is one of the races which feels itself particularly guilty, whoever the shoe fits, then I want to give that race the advice to improve the position as soon as possible. The sooner the better for the country. I on my part can only say that this point of our policy, the exclusion of parasitic activities, is one of the most important points in the motion. We all have experience of the life in Johannesburg. There you find the utmost misery on the one side, and on the other side those who live in the greatest luxury and who do not know what to do with their money. You find men, women and children in Johannesburg who perish from misery and poverty, and others overwhelmed by wealth. Why? Principally because of the parasitic exploitation that takes place there. This is consequently one of the most important points in the motion to my mind. In order to eliminate this, we advocate State control of the gold mining industry and other industries. We are opposed to things continuing as in the past, that a small section should become richer and the rest poorer. We are not in favour of the man who does not want to work being protected, but if the man is not too lazy, and is willing to work, then the State must not allow his wife and children in the land of their birth to perish from poverty. I am thinking particularly of the mining industry. I have come across cases and cases in my own district and in other districts, of outworn people who are languishing gradually on the farms. If you make more intimate acquaintance with them, and you ask them how they arrived in this position, then they often tell you that they had worked for years and years in the gold mines, that they had sacrificed their health and everything there. Who gained the advantage of this? Only certain persons who thereby enriched themselves, but these people were thrown out and must now try to eke out a sad existence on the farms. Their best years have gone, they have sacrificed their strength, and now they must find succour on the Platteland, which under present-day-conditions is not too easy. Thus they must spend their old age in a poverty-stricken and sad condition, and some of them virtually succumb to want. When I speak of the gold mining industry, then I cannot help but think of what is before the door for me in the constituency of Klerksdorp, because great developments in mining are taking place there today, and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not stand up here to break a lance for the people who must work there. For that reason I am so glad that our Leader has formulated a comprehensive scheme, and laid this before the country, under which everybody will find a livelihood. In Klerksdorp there are numbers of boys who grew up before me and who go into the mines, and the same fate awaits them, as for thousands of others who sacrificed their lives in the mines. For that reason I stand up to plead for them. These people give the best years of their life to make the enormous profits of the mining industry possible, and we say that they must also share in the profits that are made. This can only happen if the State has a say in the mines and can intervene. If I think that the young people will have to go and work as in the past, to contract first-grade and second-grade and third-grade miners’ phthisis gradually, then to be put out of the mines as unfit with a small and meagre little pension, and ultimately to die after a short while, then the matter affects me sadly. For that reason we are coming forward with our motion, and our object is to prevent people from contracting miner’s phthisis. We propose that when they have worked a number of years in the mines, then they must be taken out before they contract the disease and they must be given some other livelihood. Even so, despite all precautions, there will still be cases where phthisis is contracted, but there it is the duty of the State to ensure that they get the best treatment possible, the necessary medical help and hospital facilities. Such persons must be sent to the best places, to health resorts which are the best for them according to medical officials. A stop must be put to what we have experienced in the past. The position must no longer continue. Then I want to say something briefly about the agricultural industry. Recently a great deal has been said about the difficulty of the potato farmers. Yesterday I gave the Minister of Agriculture a full exposition of the quantity of potatoes that a farmer can produce on a morgen of land, and the costs connected therewith. I do not want to repeat the figures again, but I told the Minister last night, and I repeat it, that I shall be glad to learn from him whether he can refute my figures. I took the market reports of the Department of Economics and Markets, and according to my figures it worked out at a profit of 5s. per morgen to the farmer, and then I assume that he gets a yield of 120 bags per morgen, which is a fair yield. Now the Minister will perhaps say that we cannot hold him responsible if the market is bad, and if there is overproduction. I remember the Minister saying three or four weeks ago that the position is a bit bad, but that they are busy conducting an investigation and that they hope to give relief shortly. Now the price is such that it means a profit of 5s. on a morgen of potatoes. Is that the way in which the Government intervenes? Last year we were told to produce and produce, and we received the assurance from the Minister that the price would be fair. We did so, and now the Minister tells us that he had warned us not to produce at this time of the year. Meantime the Minister of Lands is also busy producing potatoes on the settlements and to push these on the markets. If there is overproduction, the Department of Lands should be the first to see that it does not aggravate the position by bringing potatoes on to the market.

I think the hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I would just like to mention the few points to show how conditions in the farming industry demand improvements. I am now busy criticising the Minister concerned for neglecting the interests of the farmers. We want an improvement of these conditions, hence our motion.

The hon. member must not go into that. The matter has already been discussed in this House comprehensively on two previous occasions.

For that reason I did not quote figures, even though I have a whole page of them. Another point on which too much emphasis cannot be laid to my mind, is that the forthcoming mealie crop is in danger. I want the Minister to understand clearly that we are getting reports from all parts of the mealie-producing areas that a terrible drought is prevailing, and the Minister must be very careful before he undertakes any drastic measures or any decision in connection with the pending season. He must make certain first of all whether we shall have an over-production or not. Our experience of last year has also shown this. In view of that, and in view of the prevailing climatic conditions, it is quite possible that we shall have a shortage. Therefore the Minister must be careful before he fixes prices for the following year.

I think it will be admitted that my whole Parliamentary career has been very largely concentrated on the very points which are being dealt with in this House at the present moment. I have always seen that we would in the end have to view as our major problem in this country the social reconstruction of our people, especially of our depressed classes. And so, of course, I am very gratified indeed that this changed attitude has come, and that it has come from the other side as well and that this opportunity of debating the whole issue has been given. I think it is necessary to approach the subject by noting what forces have been at work in creating this new outlook and in bringing forward the social security idea at the present moment.

The Dominion Party.

Naturally there must be a reason why this upward surge has arisen at this moment towards ideas of this sort. It is not only the war which has done it, though the war has given it a very great impetus. Fear has touched the imagination of the world and has reached out its hands to this country to make us realise how great are the explosive forces which poverty and despair can release. There is no doubt that these explosive forces which are released by poverty and despair have become much more definite today, certainly we have become much more aware of them than we have ever been in the past. It is not too much to say that the basic causes of most wars rest on these same bases of poverty and despair. There is another reason which I think has inspired many of us, especially on this side of the House, to approach this subject with the determination that as far as our human intelligence is able, we shall try and deal with the root causes of the problems of poverty, and that is that we associate ourselves with those who have shared in the “blood and the sweat and the tears” of which Mr. Churchill spoke. We also realise that many fine lives have been lost—that they will have made the sacrifice entirely in vain unless the purposes for which they are fighting for a better, safer world are achieved, and it is with that high approach to this subject that we on this side of the House have entered into this debate. From that point of view we are grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to debate this in full measure. There are certain points, however, which fill me with fear; the stage is set, we realise the difficulty of our approach to it, yet I sense a false optimism that in a few years we shall be able to create a millennium in this country. I should like to quote from an article in “Commercial Opinion” to explain why I say that I am afraid. Let me first explain that I feel very strongly that the conditions created by this war will not bring about a condition of affairs where this world as to wealth will be better off than before the war, that conditions will not be such that the sources of our national income will have expanded, but that the conditions created by this war must mean that the world is going to be poorer, that until we have carried through that period of reconstruction necessarily created by the destruction of war, we may not even be able to begin except in a small way on our path towards social security. Our approach to this question, although it must be as swift as possible, must be with a certain amount of caution. We cannot enter into wild and extensive schemes which by the fact that they will ultimately break down, will set back our path towards social security rather than advance it. The point I am making was very adequtely expressed in this short article in “Commercial Opinion” from which I should like to read a brief extract—

I feel this word of warning is necessary. We are the leaders of thought in this country, or we should be, and it is not our job to promise to all classes of this country performances which we cannot really undertake, and therefore I confine myself to dealing with those advances which I think are feasible, and that is why I intend to narrow down what I say to certain particular spheres of the problem. For one thing, we do not even know in this country whether our available resources even with regard to food, are adequate to give a decent standard of living to everyone—and by everyone I also include our Native and coloured populations. We do not know whether under our present agricultural policy production will yield sufficient to provide everyone with minimum requirements; I think undoubtedly we must agree that the majority of our people and our Natives still live near the starvation line. I have no doubt, however, that with better methods and with the greater ability of our people to produce, we could expand, and could provide minimum requirements for our people. I want to try to deal with only this one aspect: How can we increase the ability of our own people to produce? It is quite obvious that you cannot get out of a pint pot more than you can put into it. Our business is to have not only one pint pot, but two; we have to increase the ability of our own people to produce. I will admit, of course, that the major problem is the problem of industrial expansion and of employment, but that is a subject with which I am less competent to deal. It is with the problem of the uplift of our people that I wish to speak. I want to deal with this in a practical way. I want to deal with advances which I know can be carried out after the war. We have already the machinery to deal with all schemes of upliftment. We have had in existence for some five or six years now a Department of Social Welfare. We have a Department of Public Health, we have a Department of Education, and I think that through the expansion of these departments we shall be able to deal with this vast problem, and we shall be able to deal with it in a way that will ensure a firm foundation which cannot be pulled down. I am referring more particularly to the Department of Social Welfare. So far the work of that department has been largely alleviation. There are three aspects approaching to our social problems: palliation, reconstruction, and prevention. Hitherto unfortunately, due perhaps to the reason that we had much leeway to make up in dealing with these matters, but also largely because we have not been long-sighted enough to spend sufficient money on trained technical staff, we are applying mostly today palliative measures, and I suggest that in the future we shall have to get away from that and we shall have to expand more in the field of reconstruction and prevention. I am afraid that there will always be problems for which palliative measures only can be used. We shall always have the poor with us, certainly to the extent that we shall always have people suffering from physical and other disablements. We must provide for them—they are our responsibility. For them, too, the Department must go ahead and money must be provided for reconstruction and preventive work. We have at present fortunately a very fine scheme that is being worked out under the Department of Social Welfare with regard to returned soldiers. The problem of disablement is going to be a huge one all over the world; the problem of refitting men who have been maimed in this terrible war, and of bringing them back into normal life and of making them useful citizens is going to be a huge one. The work which is being done by the Social Welfare Department for the soldiers has two aspects—reconstruction, which is purely medical, and social readjustment, which, of course, also includes vocational training to fit them for work which their incapacity will allow. That will have to be one of the greatest charges laid upon us in this country when the war is over. I want to suggest, and very strongly indeed, that the machinery set up to deal with our soldiers should, after the war, be also extended into the sphere of civilian life. I think that that is very important indeed. Then, before I leave this question of palliation, I feel it is necessary to say that the Department must have the courage to increase all invalidity grants and make them more uniform. I have never been satisfied that the amount of these grants is enough to maintain a decent standard of living. It is one of the points that we shall have to deal with when we are considering social security; we cannot forget that side of our population, they also have to be looked after. Especially would I stress the point that these invalidity grants must be raised where the recipients have dependants. They also get support for these dependants, but the ceiling is so low—the ceiling of £9 is so low that we cannot leave people, suffering from disabilities, to bring up a family on an allowance of £9. I say it is only going to re-create the old difficulties from which we have been trying to get away. Let us once and for all tackle this matter of disability grants and face it in an enlightened manner. I have been speaking so far only in regard to the work in our Social Welfare Department in respect of disabled people. I want to place emphasis not merely on the physically disabled people, but mainly on the people who are disabled merely through poverty. That, of course, is the main problem which we have to tackle. I do not like using the words “poor relief”. None the less I want to suggest one way of “poor relief”—I think that we cannot transplant into this country the same insurance schemes that can be made applicable overseas, because our conditions are so different, although no doubt in certain spheres we shall have to follow the example of those countries in regard to insurance policy. But I think the whole question of poor relief, the question of helping a man who cannot maintain a decent standard of life, and who brings loss upon his children and upon the State by the mere fact that he is poor, I think in a national way that whole question will have to be very carefully gone into after this war. There are all sorts of other points one might stress, and one of them is that instead of leaving the unemployed simply unemployed or perhaps unemployable or merely helping them with monetary relief, we should concentrate also on their training to fit them into spheres of life where they can make good. I come now to my main theme, I want to deal particularly with the children. I think it must be admitted that if we could devise a scheme which would relieve the breadwinner of the family from the terrible haunting anxiety which is so crushing in many homes, that is to say the question of the care and maintenance of his children, if that could be met in some way, if in some way he could know that his children will be looked after and educated and a chance in life given to them, even though he himself may have failed I feel that we would not only for the children but also for the parent and for the State, be doing a very great service. There is no question at all as to the effect on the powers of a man mentally and physically, created by this great anxiety. I say if you can relieve him of this everpresent fear of inability to bring up his children properly, you would by that fact alone, increase his own ability to produce, and by that means you would be able to readjust many a square peg at present in a round hole. I emphasise again this point, that to raise our standard of living our principal duty is to increase the ability of our people to produce. Before turning to the question of so-called family alowance, let me deal with a few other points in regard to children. Take the question of wastage due to maladjustment alone. That wastage is far, far greater than we realise in this country, and it will be well worth while for the State to deal with this problem in a preventive manner in the early years of the child. I want to make some suggestions to my friends the hon. Minister of Social Welfare and the hon. the Minister of Education with regard to that. The first is that he should shift the whole emphasis from the law courts and the machinery of the Children’s Act, to the schools, where it properly belongs. It is in the schools, that the foundation should be laid for the prevention of a great deal of this maladjustment, and of what I call wastage. I say, shift the emphasis to where it rightly belongs. Firstly Nursery Schools should be part of our educational system. Secondly teachers should be trained to detect deviate behaviour, and deal with it in the early life of the child. Child guidance clinics should be set up as part of the machinery. Actually, some of this work is already being done; the Universities could give great assistance. There should further be a system of visiting teachers not only to deal with the child in the school, but to make contact with the home, because the home environment is a primary factor very often in the problem of maladjustment. I believe the Director of Education himself should have the right to deal with an unmanageable child, and to send that child to some institution falling under his own department, without the functioning of the legal machinery set up under the Childrens Act. Until all the possibilities in our school system have been exhausted, only then should the child come before the Child Welfare Commissioner. This problem of wastage is a very serious problem throughout the world, and it is certainly a very serious problem here with our mixed population of whites, coloureds and natives. Now I want to get on to my main thesis. I say the State should have the courage, through its present machinery, to concentrate on reconstruction and prevention, and not concentrate so much on palliation, as it has in the past. I know that very large sums of money will have to be spent on this, but I do say that in spending that money we are going to lay sound foundations. Now my proposition is this, that we should expand our present so-called Mothers’ Pensions Grants into a system of family allowance. To-day we make a grant to widows and others. Why should we not expand that to a family whose income is so low, or where the capacity of the breadwinner to earn is so low that it is almost a certainty the children of the family will inevitably become a drag on the State, why should we not grant a family allowance? Our present Mothers’ Pensions Scheme in terms of the Children’s Act certainly should not be our last word in our endeavour to solve the problem of economic distress. Our next step should be to make use of the so-called system of family allowances based on experiments and practice in other countries. I do not want to go into the whole question of family allowances, because I think that would be quite out of place here. I would like to point out that we already have a system of family allowances brought about by the war. What else are the allowances given to the dependants of soldiers? Experience in the last war in Great Britain showed that the effect of these military allowances to dependants of soldiers so lifted the status of many of these families, that the expenditure had been well worth while. That fact is well established. Making these soldiers’ dependants allowances to such a large number of people—practically the whole of the manhood of Britain was at war—had an immense effect upon those families, and who shall say that it is not having an immense effect to-day upon our people in this country? It is giving many families a standard of life that they never had before, and when the war is over, I don’t see how we can let these families sink to the position they were in before the war. I say with regard to the soldiers’ wives and their dependants, these allowances in many instances will have to go on; we must implement our promises to our soldiers. Children, should be the joint responsibility of the parent and of the State. We have here a precedent which we must not let lapse after this war; we must face this question of family allowances. I would like to lay down another proposition, to which I believe no one can dissent, and that is that children are the greatest asset of any State, and that the State should share the responsibility with the family man, of laying the foundation of their health, their education and their character. The State has far too long lacked the courage to face that proposition in all its implications. We have too long allowed the citizen who after all bears the main responsibility of the State, that is to say the family man with dependants, we have too long allowed him to muddle along on the same basis of wages as the bachelor. I am not touching on the question of the wage basis, wages given for work actually performed. I realise that, but what I maintain is that if our wage system cannot take into account the difference between a bachelor who only has himself to look after, and the family man who has the responsibility of four or five children, the State must step in and equalise the difference. We can no longer give merely the paltry alleviation of some relaxation of income tax allowing him to struggle along as best he can with the health and education of his children; we must come to the assistance of our poorer family man. I feel that terribly strongly, Mr. Speaker. This allowance must be an allowance made to the mother. The whole status of the family depends upon the mother. There is no doubt about it at all, that on the status of the mother in the home depends the status of the family, its health, and everything else. I know hon. members are very much taken up with high finance and agricultural matters, and that this question of the status of the woman in the home has been somewhat disregarded. But I expect in the future that we who favour that proposition, will have the help of all the members of the House, not only because the women of South Africa form half the electorate, but because I know men really have at heart the welfare of the family, a sentiment which is not confined to this side of the House, but is shared by all. If this family allowance does come into being, the woman is the rightful one to receive it. There are many reasons why, but I do not think it is necessary to weary the House with them. Before I finish on this subject, I do want to say this, that I feel the House has in this debate not paid enough tribute to work that has already been done by previous Governments and by this Government, and by the Department of Social Welfare. I want to pay my tribute to the Department for the very sound foundations that have been laid. I think we can be proud, as a country, of our enlightened policy that we have been working-on the right lines, but I would repeat: Let us not concentrate so much on palliatives; let us go all out for reconstruction and for prevention. I feel that I must mention two other points. First, no scheme of social security can be worth the name, and no Department of Social Welfare can ever carry on with any degree of success unless we presuppose a national health service. In my opinion there should be the very closest collaboration between the Departments of Health and Social Welfare. They should be under the same Minister. That I hold very strongly. Finally, I want to say one short word about nutrition. The Government has set up a Nutrition Council, and I must believe that they intend vigorously carrying out a national policy of nutrition for the whole country. I would like to make one suggestion. If we cannot have family allowances in the ordinary sense of the term there is a practical family allowance that we can make, and that is to see that every child in the country, every school child, has one decent meal a day. In Great Britain a million school children are fed every day, and one good meal a day is one way of laying the foundations of national health. But it is not much use giving a meal to children in school time and then not giving it in the vacation, as we do with our milk scheme. I think some experiments of nutrition might be made along these lines. Finally, may I say one word to members on the opposite side of the House? I say as forcefully as I can that no scheme of social security that we can set up will be of any use at all if we are going to take up a policy of isolation towards the rest of the world. We must do these things in collaboration with other nations of the world, and especially those nations that are friendly towards us and are willing to work with us. I also think that any attempt at social security that we make must break down if we disregard the interests of any section of our people. I am reminded of what an old Native said in giving evidence before the Native Economic Commission some years ago—

I feel strongly on these matters. I believe the whole emphasis of any plan for social security, in the first place, should be put on the welfare of children, because it is to them we have to look for that added productiveness in our country that alone is going to give us a better way of life.

The hon. member who has just sat down has made an appeal to this side of the House at the end of a very interesting speech; she has, as she expressed it, directed a little word to this side. But this little word has again shown what wrong conceptions hon. members such as she always have of this side of the House and of our policy. They are strangers to our policy. They evidently do not read our newspapers, and do not listen to our speeches. The hon. member comes here with much well-meant advice, and she mentions two points: We must not, for instance, stand for a policy of isolation. That is her first point. Her second point is this: We cannot build up in this country and have progress for one section only. Where does the hon. member learn that this is our policy? Who advocated such a thing in this House or outside in the country? The mere fact that she says this in the House shows that she has a conviction in her mind that we want to form a small circle, and that we do not want to have anything to do with the rest of the world. That is a wrong prophecy, because we want to be friends with all. It is she and her party who stand for a measure of isolation. There are, for instance, certain countries who stand outside their sphere; they are held up as bandits, and this country must consequently have nothing to do with them. Our standpoint on this side is that we do not just want a little red circle; we want to deal with all nations. Take, for instance, the standpoint they adopt as regards Germany. Their policy is now simply to destroy Germany after the war, if they win the war, and then the conquering group wants to isolate itself. We say you cannot have co-operation with that sort of isolation which the hon. member and her party stand for. We want no isolation whatever. We say: Begin with your own home, charity begins at home; but we also want to contribute our share to the upbuilding of other nations and countries to a position of welfare from which we can all draw advantage. She told us here for instance what an old Native told her. But who of us are in favour of a Native and coloured being-down-trodden? I do not know how hon. members have arrived at that idea. As I have said, they apparently never read our newspapers. They simply believe the things that are told them, without taking the trouble of reading our statements of policy, or our newspapers and speeches. Our policy is a very clear policy for the uplift of all sections of the population, but what we do not want is a form of equality. You cannot treat a nation on a high standard of civilsation in the same way as you treat a nation standing on a low level of civilisation. You must build up the nation on the low level of civilisation gradually, in accordance with its requirements. It avails nothing today to give the kaffir a tail-coat and a top hat and all sorts of niceties; he is much better off if you give him a pair of trousers and a shirt, a plate of porridge and a loaf of bread. The hon. members have a completely wrong conception of the policy of this side. Our policy is also to uplift all sections of the community according to their nature. Over several days we have had a very important debate here, for which the House and the country should be grateful to the Leader of the Opposition. What standpoint has been revealed here? On the one hand we have the party that proposes the matter, that comes here with a concrete policy, a motivated motion that in addition indicates the means of achieving what we want to do and what we want to get. I must emphasise again, because it seems necessary in the case of certain people’s weak memories, that it is not a brand-new policy, that it is not one thing or another brought out of the clouds by this Party, but that it is a matter that this side of the House has advocated for years throughout the country and here in the House. Numbers of proposals have been made here. Here is a policy we have constructed over a period of years. Here we have laid a concrete policy before the House, and there it is in the motion for everyone to read. From the Government side we get no motion of a concrete nature, we get no motion of thanks from an ordinary member; no, the hon. Minister of Finance, the Minister who represents the Government in this House, himself comes with an amendment that the House endorses what has already been done by the Government—he does not say what or where or how. It is simply a blank cheque: Thanks for what you have done. And then thanks is expressed for what the Government has done in view of investigation and the ultimate adoption of further measures. Nothing concrete, nothing decisive, just an expression of thanks for what has been done, and then they thank themselves for the investigation instituted further. Now it appeared, however, that every hon. member who spoke on the other side is dissatisfied, in spite of this expression of thanks, in spite of this praise directed to the Government by a Minister. Every member who gets up on the other side expresses his dissatisfaction. The hon. member who has just sat down referred to many points—that I agree—but here again we have the tokens of dissatisfaction. From the side of the Labour Party, the Government Party’s ally, there are hefty attacks on the Government’s work, but the Minister is completely satisfied, quite tranquilly he rises and thanks himself and says that he is completely satisfied with what the Government does and with the promises that have been made. The Labour Party which supports the Government comes here simply with an amendment in which it does not say what should be done, but that there is only one miraculous remedy for everything, namely, Socialism. South Africa is verily the most Socialist-Capitalist country in the world with all our State undertakings—railways, posts and telegraphs, iron and steel industry—but bare Socialism is seemingly the only remedy, without telling us what they want. The hon. member for Smithfield said here this morning that humanity has now come to realise that there is something wrong, and that it must be put right. But I want to point out that humanity comes to such a realisation at intervals of every few years. During the last war there were a great many things that were wrong, and after the war those things just continued. Who of us will forget that book of Prof. Keynes, “The Economic Consequences of the Peace?” There he put on black and white what would happen as a result of the peace that was made. He prophesied the economic consequences precisely. We read the book at the time and studied it, and we felt it was true, that humanity had ultimately been brought to a realisation of the conditions and to a realisation that those conditions must be improved. The conditions, however, were permitted to continue in the same channel, or perhaps to bring the same misery in much greater degree. Quite suddenly there is now talk of social security, of the Atlantic Charter and so forth. But of what is this a proof? It is simply a proof that certain governments are undergoing a gallows repentance. They are in distress and now they come to light with those wonderful ideas purely on paper, and they say: “Just wait till after the war.” The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) has repeatedly said: “After the war”. Why cannot it happen now? Everything must come after the war. The hon. member has spoken of home life, of the interests of the woman in the home. These are very important things, but everything must wait until after the war. Why must everything wait until after the war, if those things are imperative? What happened after the last war will again happen after this war. There will be postponement, and from postponement will come shelving, and persons will again write books about the dangers that lie ahead, but nobody does anything. Here in our country we suddenly have pious talk about the capitalists, who want to create a new world after the war. This is pure talk in time of distress, and I can visualise that when things change they will again quietly forget all those things, and again continue in the old way of everyone for himself and the devil takes the hindmost. I attach no belief to the talk of people who have for years followed the exploiting capitalist policy, a policy of everyone for himself, a policy of making as much money as possible; and when they become distressed, then there must suddenly be social security; then quite suddenly there must be a new world. No, they are again going to follow the same road as the one they followed in the past.

And will you not also do it?

I am glad that the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) has made that remark, because I would like to say something to him and those spiritually akin to him. He says that we are in the same position and that we shall do the same. I accept that challenge to prove what this party has indeed done in the days that are passed. In the years immediately after the previous World War, there was misery in this country. There was trouble, and the Government of the day fell. Then came the Government of the Nationalist Party, and did not the Nationalist Party in that time create monuments in the economic sphere? The hon. member himself still reaps the advantage of it. Did we not introduce that protection policy, while Mr. Jagger and others in the party on the other hand fought against it tooth and nail? The industrialists are making money as a result of the protection policy introduced by the Nationalist Party.

I was in favour of it.

I know that there were some of them who were in favour of it. We know that Mr. Graham MacKeurtan and Mr. Saunders were driven out of the Party on the other side at the time because they were in favour of a policy of protection. They no longer wanted to support the present Prime Minister, because he did not want to accept a protection policy. Under that protection policy industries were built up in our country from which the hon. member and others are still plucking the fruits. We on this side are not manufacturers and our supporters have no factories. It is the hon. member and his supporters who make their livelihood from this. It is well that they do so, but then the hon. member must not come here and say that we on this side shall do the same by forgetting these things after the war, as they have forgotten them after the last war. The Nationalist Party carried out its promises, and that protection policy gave the country a great push forward industrially. We have long been out of power, but throughout all the years the country has had the benefit of that policy. Another part of our policy was that the Government should establish key industries with State aid. I remember the hefty struggle that took place in this House about the erection of the iron and steel industry. I was on the Select Committee in 1926, and for two years we waged a hefty struggle to get that law passed. We adopted the law twice in this House and twice in the Senate, but with a majority of members on the other side that law was rejected. The result was that after two years we had a joint meeting of both Houses of Parliament to get the law on the Statutes, so that we could establish the iron and steel industry. Who is plucking the fruit of this today? They are using that industry for their war effort. Now it is a wonderful thing and a great asset to the country, while here they fought it tooth and nail year after year. How can the hon. member now say that we have done nothing?

I said that you are now in the same position as regards the future.

But we did something after we promised it. We did not merely make promises and do nothing. We carried out this policy under the existing system. I can go further and point to our policy of using white labour, while we also did justice to the Natives and coloureds. I merely mention these matters to show that there are monuments to this party’s economic policy, monuments at which a little wreath is laid now and again by members on the other side, that these are wonderful things for this country. Here in our motion certain concrete things are now mentioned. I do not want to repeat what hon. members have already said, but I merely want to mention one or two matters that have perhaps not been sufficiently dealt with. I mention particularly one paragraph in our motion, namely, effective State control over all credit facilities and over banking, with the object, inter alia, of supporting our own economic developments and of breaking the domination of foreign capital. That is a very important part of our policy, and will have far-reaching effects. When I speak on this subject, then I cannot but pay tribute to the late Mr. Piet Martins, the former member for Wakkerstroom. In this House he fought on this matter year in and year out, first as a member of the United Party and later as an Independent. He did pioneering work in the House. His great striving was that the State should take over control of credit facilities. I gladly pay homage to him for his work, and it is a pity that he is no longer here on an occasion when this matter is discussed. I can only say that it is something that we have submitted to the people in our programme of action as far back as 1938 at the General Election. We emphasised at the time that we want banking and credit facilities on the basis of the utility principle. We talk here of Socialism. In South Africa we do many things in this direction without calling it Socialism. Our transport system is in the hands of the State; communications by post and by telegraph and by telephone are in the hands of the State; and certain key industries are under control of the State. We also have essential services, such as, for instance, electricity supply, under the control of the State. All these things in various other countries are left in the hands of private persons who derive profit from them, and who act therewith as they think fit. As regards the provision of credit, we leave this in the hands of private banks or companies, who can do as they like, and we know that those banks have in the past played a role in our country that was hardly attractive. Members who know the history of economic development in South Africa, know there was a time when these banks, which are controlled from outside, went to the farmers and virtually asked them why they no longer bought land. If the farmer replied that he did not know where to get the money, then the bank was prepared to advance him thousands of pounds to enable him to buy. Particularly in the years 1920-1923 they overwhelmed the farmers with money in order to buy land. But what happened in 1932 and 1933 when the depression came? Then instructions simply came from overseas: Call up the bonds. If the man had not paid all his interest on due date, his bond was called up. I know of one case where a person had a bond of £12,000. On the due date he had paid all the interest except £15. He told the bank manager that he had sold as much as he could sell, but to give him a chance for the £15. The bank manager’s reply was: I am sorry, but my instructions are to call up the bond if all the interest is not paid. The farmer pleaded, but it availed him nothing. The instructions from overseas were there, and although the man had paid £900 in interest, the bond was called up on account of £15. The bank had no mercy in its soul. We know how things went in the country when the banks curtailed credit and called up bonds. There was disorder and a collapse in the country. That is the sort of thing that must be prevented. We cannot allow this to continue. Recently a bank was established in South Africa. Volkskas is a purely South African bank, and we know that it had the greatest difficulty, and still has, to get proper recognition and facilities from the overseas banks. They tried to place every obstacle in its way, so that it should not get authority in South Africa. I say that this South African commercial bank still suffers as a result of difficulties placed in its way by overseas banks, simply from jealousy and because they do not want a South African bank to share in the business. We advocate a policy that the commercial banks, particularly the overseas commercial banks, should not be the bodies to have authority over our credit facilities. At present they can create credit and curtail credit as they wish, and we are perpetually delivered to the mercy of people who are out to make money and to pay high dividends. It is not necessary in a country such as South Africa that there should be credit institutions paying 15% and 20% or more in dividends. This simply means that those banks and other institutions are making money out of the credit of the country. That is not desirable. We say decisively that credit provision is something that should not be left in the hands of a private individual for the purpose of making money out of it. It should stand under the control of the State. The banks do not make profits with their money. They do so with the money and the credit of the public, and out of the public’s distress. They make use of those conditions of which we have had experience in the past to make money. At a given moment the bank becomes as hard as a stone simply because the people overseas want their money and want to have their money secured, and no other consideration counts with them. We dare not allow that state of affairs to continue. This is one of the important points in our policy, and I say again that there is absolutely no reason why we should wait until after the war in connection with this. The next point in respect of which I want to say a few words is contained in point 2, namely that the State must assume full responsibility for employment to the unemployed, inter alia by means of undertakings of public interest, such as a comprehensive and planned housing scheme. In this connection I want to say that my view is that it should be made a crime to beg. Any person going about the streets begging ought to be put in gaol. If he can work, then he must work. If he cannot work, then the State should look after him and then there should be means of giving him food and clothes. But it should be a crime if a man goes about begging. Here in this country it is certainly not so bad as in other countries, but still bad enough. We have here people going about from house to house and office to office with terrible stories about what happened to them or about a mother or father they must support. That sort of thing ought simply to be made punishable by law. Work-shy people should not be allowed to go around in this way. People who are really ailing, for them provision should be made and there the State should contribute its share to ensure that these people need not go about begging. Signs of the times have become manifest in this debate, and also at meetings held everywhere in the country. People seize at things they hear there but which they themselves do not understand properly. That is the reason why so many of them snatch at Communism. We see people on the streetcorners listening to Communist speeches, and they snatch at Communism because they feel uncertain. They do not know what is going to happen, and we can imagine what the results of this are going to be. It is a proof of a spirit of despair among the people. Apparently they have no confidence in the Government of the country, which simply makes promises that at some vague date in the future they will do things that will create a heaven on earth. But it is a dangerous thing for the country when people arrive at such a mental condition. That is one of the dangers that Communism holds for us today. This should be a pointer for us that trouble will come after this war. Trouble came after the last war. There was bloodshed of white and coloured, and unless something is done before this war is over, to put into effect some of these things about which there is now talk, there will again be bloodshed. It does not help to wait until after the war. If troubles, strikes and riots come, then bloodshed will take place. That will not help the position. We must plan ahead and ensure that something is done. We have seen in a report of the Planning Council the statement that practically nothing is being done to look after employment after the war. I just want to say that if in other countries, for example in England, such a report came to Parliament, a report that condemns a Minister and a Government in such a way, then either that Minister or the whole Government would resign. The Minister would have felt that he should get out. But what do we find here? Instead of the Government taking up the matter seriously, the Minister of Finance comes forward with an amendment in which he congratulates himself, and we get nothing but pious talk from the’ Government to thank itself for what it has done and for promises about what will be done in the future. This sort of amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance is purely an attempt to smear honey around the lips of his followers. What will it help if the Government appoints a Commission when it takes absolutely no comprehensive steps to ensure that those conditions are prevented? No, I want to emphasise again that the Government must now come to light with its post-war plans, and it must begin putting those plans into effect. The danger is growing daily. There is dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction leads to wrong doctrines, and those wrong doctrines lead to ultimate bloodshed, as we have already had in the past. The Government is going on at a mad pace, blinded by the policy it is following in connection with the war, blinded by its all-embracing war effort, so that it can see nothing but the war, and is neglecting these things in such measure that it will be too late after the war to do anything. We have come forward with concrete proposals. The Government cannot say, and no member on the other side has tried to say, they did not even try to go into the matter and to tell us that we are wrong here or there. Our policy is here before the country. I have said here just now that in the previous war our Party also came with its policy. It carried out that policy and it called into life important things in the country. This side of the House again comes early, not only today, because we have done so in past years, with our consolidated policy as incorporated in this motion. This is the policy that will avert the great dangers before which our country stands.

With your leave and the leave of this House I should like to read a few paragraphs and thereafter comment on them. Here are a number of principles laid down:—

1. (a) No racial discrimination of any kind between citizens of British or Dutch descent in South Africa, and a fair treatment shall be accorded to all races and classes in the Union.
2. (b) An advanced and broad policy of social betterment to secure social justice for all workers, European and nonEuropean.
3. (c) A scheme of unemployment insurance, the production of more wealth and its wider distribution among all classes by the concentration of National energies on profitable enterprises and by the training of all classes for participation therein.
4. (d) The recognition of the basic right and duty of every South African to earn a living, and the conduct of the country’s affairs in such a way that work is available for all.
5. (e) The recognition of the obligation on the part of the State to secure the provision of sufficient food, clothing and housing for the whole population.
6. (f) A reduction in the cost of living and the prevention of artificial scarcity in the necessaries of life caused by internal rings and combines and by the excessive exportation of food products, which increase the burdens of the local consumer.
7. (g) The immediate and continuous alleviation of unemployment by using every effort to develop industry, including Mining, coupled with restoration to the land of those who have been driven therefrom by economic stress.
8. (h) The elimination of slums with the provision of additional housing accommodation with financial assistance from the State administered through Local Authorities.
9. (i) The improvement of Old Age Pensions and better administration of the existing Acts.
10. (j) The investigation of the position of Pensioners’ Widows who at present are not provided for.
11. (k) The principle that the welfare of the Returned Soldiers and of the dependants of those who lose their lives in war shall be a charge on the State.

Those paragraphs have a familiar ring in these days, and we have come to know them by the name of social security, but those paragraphs were not lifted from the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. They were not taken from any declaration by the Government, they were not taken from anything delivered by the Labour Party, they were not even taken from Prof. Sullivan’s Social Security Code. They are the principles laid down in 1933 under the guidance of the Three Musketeers. I refer to the Minister of Mines, Mr. Charles Coulter, whose absence from this House most people regret, and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). So you will see that social security in some guise or other is not with us of mushroom growth, it is not something which has just recently come to the fore, it is something which we have pursued and pursued relentlessly during the last ten years. Now, I am not finding fault with the adoption of these principles by the United Party or the Labour Party, or the followers of the Leader of the Opposition, or the Afrikaner Party, As a matter of fact we have fought hard for these principles which we have followed for the last ten years, and we are very gratified that they are now receiving recognition and are being embraced by practically everyone in this House with the exception, perhaps, of the New Order, but even they are looking for social and physical security, even through domination. Now, it is wise to look to the future in respect of social security, the immediate future, and I am placing very great reliance on the labours of this Committee, the economic Council, which has been set up and which I hope will report before the end of the Session. And I hope that the scheme which they will put up is not going to be something nebulous but something concrete, something which we can sit down and consider as something which we may adopt or even amend. A Social Security Congress was held in Durban a few months ago and we owe a debt of gratitude to Prof. Sullivan for the manner in which he has brought social security to the fore, and concentrated public attention on it. But it is about time that we got down to figures, and we should consider exactly what social security means in the life of a Parliament as distinct from the country. Now, I have taken some figures form the final Estimates of Expenditure for 1942—’43, showing the amount which may be saved if the particular code of social security adumbrated by Prof. Sullivan is adopted. I find this. We shall save on relief of distress £3,000; blind Natives, £114,000; invalidity pensions, £135,000; old age pensions, £2,811,000; grants to aged and infirm ex-soldiers and dependants, £800; blind persons’ pensions, £73,000; public health expenditure, £55,530; subsidies for unfits (social welfare), £225,000; assistance to blind persons, £16,400; grants under the Children’s Act, £489,200; poor relief, £108,100; State-aided butter, cheese and milk scheme, £200,000; transport for old age and blind persons committee, £1,500. There we have a total saving of £4,232,530. The total expenditure budgeted for in the Sullivan scheme was £30,000,000, and they proposed to find this or a portion of it, by levies in this way: A levy on incomes of 1s. in the £ (European), i.e., on £200,000,000, £10,000,000; levy on coloured incomes at 6d., i.e., on £30,000,000, £750,000; levy on Asiatic incomes at 4d., i.e., on £9,000,000, £150,000; levy on Native income, nil. That gives a total of savings and levies of £15,132,530. When we consider the savings and the levies together, we find that there is a deficit between the amount available and the amount that they propose to expend of £14,867,470. The estimated figures of income tax revenue for the year 1942—’43 are £28,862,000, and if we add to that the levies on income, we find that we have to raise at least 50 per cent. more, than the £28,862,000 for social security alone. Now, social security is not going to be on a proper basis in five months, and what I would like to see is that we should concentrate on getting rid, first of all, of this £3 and £3 10s. complex when we consider old age pensions, invalidity pensions, war veterans’ pensions, and blind persons’ pensions. I think we should, first of all, concentrate on these, because it is an actual fact that nobody in South Africa can exist, much less live on £3 a month. I would advocate that we should concentrate on giving these people a maximum allowance of £8 a month, and that we should disregard any incomes which they receive from other sources, up to the first £60 per annum. If we make an endeavour in this direction, I am perfectly satisfied that this country will applaud Parliament, and say that we are actually doing something which is absolutely necessary, and immediately necessary, if we are to have some modicum of social security for those who most require it.

Listening to the various speeches from both sides, it becomes clear to us that this House is fairly unanimous as regards conditions which call for improvement in our country. It is clear that hon. members realise that conditions demand improvement, and it also is clear that they are living in the shadow of the coming election. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Neate) also came forward with a manifesto. It seems to me to be the manifesto of the Dominion Party which seeks to reassure the voters. They propose to bring about wonderful reforms. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) made a damning speech against the prevailing system and against the Government which he serves, and from which he receives alms. He stated that the capitalistic system was no good, that it should be dispensed with whilst he renders service to the capitalistic system and for the capitalistic system. He waxed hot and cold simultaneously; but it was clear that he was waxing hot for the benefit of the outside world, for he had to have his voice heard in order to satisfy the Labour Party outside. They have to see that there is someone at least who lets his voice be heard against the irregularities prevailing. He reproached the Opposition for not coming forward with a system here. Is the hon. member such a stranger in our country? Does he not know that for years we as a New Order have been pleading for a new system, under the leadership of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow)? Does he not know that we want to abolish the capitalistic system, the Party system and the Parliamentary system? He knows it well. We emphasise that capitalism is the cause of all the evils and bad conditions, but the hon. member sits there submissively and supports the capitalistic Party in its war effort, while his own colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), has named it a capitalistic war. The hon. member is in pitiable ignorance as regards the objects of the New Order. Otherwise he would have come over here and taken his seat among us. But while I was listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) I must say I would congratulate him for having progressed, and for being amenable to conviction in his old age. I do not wish to accuse him of having committed plagiarism as regards the New Order, but in his motion there appear phrases which also appear in the handbook of our Leader, which are almost identical. I have come to the conclusion that there is only a very slight difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Gezina—there is perhaps a difference in method and practice. But the Leader of the Opposition has made progress. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has averred that the system we are pleading now is as old as the mountains. But in the past it has never been said that the State should provide employment for every poor man, that every man is entitled to employment from which he could wrest an economic living. Former Governments have always said that they could not hold themselves responsible for the provision of employment, they could not be manufacturers. I remember how we approached the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister at the time, for health services. He then asked us where the money was to come from. Now he apparently takes a different point of view. He now places human values above money values.

What about your Leader?

The pot cannot call the kettle black. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition proposes now—

To that I say “Amen”. It appears in our principles also, that human values should be placed above financial interests. But at that time, when I pleaded for health services for the bushveld, and the border areas, he asked where the money was to come from. At that time money was more important than human values, counted for more than the lives of the poor people. Today again thousands of people are being sacrificed to the capitalistic system. They have to have themselves shot dead for capitalism, which meanwhile makes money. I am pleased that the hon. member for Piketberg has progressed. The conditions prevailing in the past were a scandal. What have we done with regard to the poor-white problem? How can we call ourselves patriots? Our late Leader, blessed memory (Gen. Hertzog), and others after him have stood by helpless while a European man with a wife and eight children had to eke out on 4s. per day. And we have dared to call ourselves patriots. It is recorded to our shame in the annals of South Africa. No wonder that the people are beginning to rise on all sides, and that programmes are seeing the light, such as Social Security, the Beveridge Plan, the Oswald Pirow Plan, the Dr. Malan Plan, the Atlantic Charter—from all directions people come forward with systems, for the world is up in arms against the mismanagement, against the suppression of the poor, against the exploitation of the workers. The Nationalist Party Government did precisely what this Government is being accused of. The hon. member for Winburg has said that the old Nationalist Party stood for the protection of industries, and that industrial development took place in our country as a result of that, but in those days we never referred to protection of the workers in the factories; in any case, we did nothing. We enabled the manufacturers to make enormous profits and to become wealthy, but we did not ask what the workers in the factories were earning. We enabled the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) to manufacture shirts, but we did not enquire what the workers in his factories were earning. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has knowledge of the scandalous conditions prevailing in the Clothing Manufacturing Industry, in the Confectionery Factories, the conditions prevailing under the Nationalist Party Government and which still prevail at present. What protection is there for the workers. There is a powerful movement today, people are becoming impatient and desire that there should be an end to the scandalous conditions. The poor people are telling us: We have been hungry, and you did not give us food; we have been naked, and you did not clothe us; you have come with promises, with motions. Today we once again have motions from all sides here. We do not believe in it any longer. Now they are beginning to restort to Communism. Who is going to show us the way in the darkness? I have listened to the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz). One cannot find fault with what she has been pleading for. She also today pleads for those things, but she cannot give effect to it under the present system. You cannot find a better Minister than the present Minister of Finance, but he is in bondage to the system. He cannot get away from it. He has to consider the votes. The rich people and the poor people have votes, and you have to tax the rich man to provide a better life for the poor man. In that way you have the scandalous conditions in regard to nominations and elections and promises and all the speeches here. But the Caucus decides. We may talk till we are blue in the face, and make a splendid impression outside, but the Caucus has decided. Under the present system you are not going to improve the position. That is why the nations revolt. What become of the farmers under the South African Party and under the Nationalist Party? We had beautiful motions and splendid words, and we did not advance a single step further. It was like water on a duck’s back. Nobody could be a more eloquent speaker than the Leader of the Opposition, and he also means well, out he is bound to the system, he has to consider votes. I do not want to accuse the Nationallist Party, of which I have been a member—I am still a Nationalist—but I blame myself also and I blame the hon. member for Gezina—all of us are guilty. But we were powerless under the system. You cannot find better men than the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Opposition. You cannot find better South Africans, but they are bound hand and foot to the system, and cannot move. It is the big capital that rules, the Schlesingers and the Oppenheimers and in England the Rothschilds and the Morgenthaus—they set the fashion. Will the eyes of the South Africans, both English-and Afrikaans-speaking, not open to what is going on? Will they not realise that we have to divert ourselves of the bonds, of the big capital which is suppressing us? If wet get into power, we are going to tear asunder those bonds. How will we be free otherwise?

By standing together.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will still bring us together if he has the courage to tackle these matters in our spirit. It is true what the Leader of the Opposition has said, that there is great poverty and want prevailing. Poverty and want prevailed in 1923 and 1924 and in 1933, when we adopted coalition. We adopted it because we stood at the edge of an abyss, because our people were in the throes of poverty; that is the reason why we joined hands to save the people. A small number of members did not join us, but that was the position. The United Party did improve conditions, but it was only patchwork. Compensation was paid here and there, and subsidies were given for this and for that, but it was not a solution of the problem. Cannot the Minister of Finance with his phenomenal brains draft a real scheme? He, however, is also chained to the existing system. He ought to come over here and sit with the hon. member for Gezina. The two of them together could perform marvels. But the hon. member for Gezina is being accused of being a German and a Nazi. We are National-Socialists, and we are firmly convinced that under our system, you may call it Fascism if you like or National-Socialism, marvels can be performed for the benefit of our people. We shall have to find each other in some way or other. The best brains of the people should be brought together in order to save the people from the stranglehold of capitalism and of misery. Today, however, the party counts as everything. A party only represents a section, a portion of the people, but we represent the people as a whole. [Laughter.] The hon. members laugh. You may laugh, but we defend the people, with the exception of the anti-national elements. One for all and all for one. Our late Leader, Gen. Hertzog, was cast out by the hon. members over there because it was said that he was pro-English, that he stood for the English interests. Certainly, we cannot oppress one another—one for all and all for one. Just like a large family, where one member of the family is ill and has to struggle and to starve, and where the other members of the family stand together to ameliorate the position of the one. That is National-Socialism in the truest sense of the word. Down with the party system. Under the party system the Nationalists throw out all the Saps if they get hold of the Government, and the Saps in their turn again throw all the Nationalists out of their jobs when they hold the reins, and the women and children can starve. We are putting the interests of the whole people first and foremost. Down with the eternal party struggle and the mutual disputes. That is the reason why we find under the party system that there are people in the Cabinet today who ought not to be there, people who are too silly and too stupid to remain there on their ability, but they are good party men, and for that reason they also have to get a “job” in the Government. I do not want to mention names, but that is what is happening under the party system and the Leader of the Opposition can do anything he likes, but if he should take over the reins of Government he will also be powerless, unless a wonderful revolution, which, however, I am afraid, will be accompanied by violence, takes place.

Mr. Speaker, if words could bring about social security, I think South Africa would have the finest social security code that it is possible to have. Unfortunately words will not secure that. I have listened to a tremendous number of words this afternoon, but I have not heard today, nor have I heard in previous debates, very ’much about the sacrifices that we should be prepared to make in order to get social security. Social security will not be brought about by a wand that can be waved over the country until there is nothing more wanted, and there will be no more fear and no more shortage, and we will have the necessary medical services, old age and invalidity pensions. Sir, no such wand exists. What we want is the right spirit, and the right kind of Acts. Certain of us here have tried to make political capital out of this question which is not a party question at all. It is a question that the country is very much interested in. Elections are excellent things in one respect, because they make us take stock of ourselves, they make us examine ourselves, and it is then that we find we have to give an account of our stewardship. The right hon. the Prime Minister knows that he will have to give an account of his stewardship, and he knows what the verdict will be. The verdict will be: “We are satisfied with you, we are pleased with what you have done, but remember we expect more from you, because unto him to whom much is given, from him much will be expected”. But the Leader of the Opposition has also been taking stock, he has seen that the country is demanding a full and happy life, and he sees that he must bring forward this motion. He brings forward this motion, and he thinks that that mere fact is going to help him. If you look at what the Leader of the Opposition said when introducing his motion you will find that he says: “We do not want patchwork; we want something else; we want a radical change.” That is more or less what he says. Then he was followed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), who also went on to say: “We don’t want patchwork, we want things changed altogether, we want something new.” Then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) let the cat out of the bag when, in answer to an interjection by an hon. member on our side who said: “What did you do when you were in power?” said, referring to the Nationalist Party: “In those days we had to do patchwork.”

No.

You did say that.

Order!

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. gentleman did say that. But hon. gentlemen on the Opposition benches say now that this Government is in power they want something constructive, something effective, something practical. What a confession. Mr. Speaker! When they were in power they could not give the country these things, but now the present Government in power they want them. They know perfectly well the country will not elect them to carry out these constructive schemes, the country will rely on the United Party to carry them out. I must, however, congratulate the Nationalist Party on its swing-over. [Interruptions.] But I want at the same time to remind them of the old South African motto “Eendrag maak mag.” If their conversion be genuine, and they come back or come over to the fold, they can join in this practical constructive work. The hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, said amongst other things that if we had to have a mealie control board, let us have it consisting entirely of mealie growers; he said we must not have a conflict of interests. Then he goes on and says: “Let us have an economic council which will control the control boards, and then the economic council will have the conflict of interests there.” Then he went on further and said that some manufacturers today were employing machinery to do work that was formerly done by hand, this he said was detrimental to the State; but a little later on he said it might be advisable to support monopolies who would be able to employ the latest machinery, and so give us material more cheaply. That sort of argument may be very good neutrality, but we want action today. £ do not intend going on and doing any more talking as one Party to another, and trying to score there. What do we really want?

Bread and butter.

We want social security and what do we mean by social security? My opinion is that what we mean by that is an absence of fear for the present and for the future. And I want to stress one particular point this afternoon in social security. I know that we want medical services, disability allowances, family allowances, and we certainly want more generous pensions for our old and aged people. But a lot has already been said about this particular question and I wish to bring forward one particular thing which the Government has already done. The Government is continually being told: “You have done something”…

This Government has not done anything.

… “and we want you to do more”—and I am afraid I am going to do the same—I am going to ask the Government to do more. The Government has introduced a Price Controller. Personally I think it is a misnomer, as it is impossible to control prices. I think that a better name would be a Profit Controller. Business must have profits because otherwise it cannot extend, but those profits should be used really for the expansion of business, and those profits should be reasonable, so that the people who are served by the business can get their goods at a reasonable price. My own idea is, and I should like to put this to the Minister of Commerce and Industries, that prices to the public should be fixed at the source, prices should be fixed at the factory where the goods are manufactured. With regard to imported goods, prices should be fixed at the warehouses of the importer. This will prevent all the additional unnecessary handling and commissions which we so often have, and incidentally there is one section in our country which will be thrilled if we can adopt this sort of method, and that is our farming section, because they will then know at the time of production more or less what they will get for their products, and also what the consumer will have to pay for their products. This question of profit control is a big one, and while the Profit Controller is busy at his work he will also have the job of seeing that fair wages are included in the cost.

What do you mean by fair wages?

On the cost sheet wages are figures outside, babies’ cradles children’s education, and homes, etc. Fair wages are bread and butter. A very important proportion of our costs should be our wages. The Profit Controller will then be in a position to see that the public get good value. We may find it necessary in the early stages of industrial development to subsidise industry either by tariffs or by direct help, and the Profit Controller should then see that these industries which are subsidised are not used as taxing machines in order that their profits should be handed over to people who are not directly developing the country—these profits should not be taken out of the businesses but should be used in order to provide more work and more labour and better living conditions for all of us. I could go on about different things in social security for ages, but I know the House has spent a good deal of time on this debate, and in conclusion therefore I want to appeal to the Government to consider what I now say. We are a Christian country, and if we as a Christian country are prepared to do unto others as we wish others to do unto us we shall have accomplished something.

I should like to answer a few points dealt with by the hon. member who has just sat down. But I must admit straight away that I could not follow him. With me he created the impression that he did not know himself why he got up. At the beginning it looked as though we could expect a very reasonable and decent speech from him, because he began by immediately rapping the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on their fingers because they made out that this motion was introduced merely for party political reasons. He said that this was not so. I want to congratulate him on having said one thing of interest, even although it was only one. Then I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz), in so far as she said this, namely that not only she but the whole country was grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for this far-reaching motion, and as the Prime Minister himself called it, this all-embracing motion which my honourable leader in this House has introduced, a motion which he has introduced at a right time and at a time in our national history when there is really a great need, and at a time when the people outside want to know what the future policy of this Government is in connection with the economic and social security of the country. I listened with interest and I looked forward to the answer and the manner in which the matter was going to be discussed by the Government Party. I looked forward especially to hearing to what the hon. Minister of Finance would have to say about it, because I regard him as a man with good reasoning powers, and I thought that he would get down to the relevant questions and those principles referred to in this motion—which are of a revolutionary nature—and that he would deal with them one by one and then show the House that the motion is impracticable, and that he himself would then, on behalf of the Government, present a better policy for the future. But no, not he and not even the Prime Minister did so. They were surprised and they were taken unawares, because it appeared to be very clear that neither the Prime Minister, nor the Minister of Finance, nor the Government had any fixed policy or plans in so far as social security in this country is concerned. What did the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister say? He stood up here and after he had described the motion as all-embracing—it is an all-embracing motion—but the economic conditions of this country demand that there should be an all-embracing proposal, and that the policy of the country must be set out in a manner that will be all-embracing in the economic and social sphere. We do not want to see only a single or only one of the problems or questions in the economic and social sphere solved or changed; we do not wish to offer remedies in only one sphere. No, we want to get down to the root cause of the whole problem, and unless you want to get down to the root cause of the problem and tackle it and revolutionise your whole economic life in South Africa, you will continue to have no social welfare in this country. I say that it is essential that such a motion should be all-embracing. Those allegations that the motion is too embracing, are in my opinion the strongest recommendations in favour of the motion. Unless it is all-embracing, it will not serve its purpose, because it must necessarily bring about a revolution in our economic and social life in South Africa, and to bring about that revolution your economic structure must be changed, and to change your economic structure, it must be moulded in a purely South African mould. It must be Christian, national and Afrikaans in character. Only when it is this and no longer an imitation of something foreign that is born far away over the seas, whether in Germany, England or elsewhere, only when it rejects that foreign form will it be suitable for South Africa. There are important questions that are touched upon by this motion, important and far-reaching changes. Here, inter alia, the security in the economic sphere, the independence of the Afrikaner people in this country in that sphere, by the nationalisation of your gold industry, and also of your other key industries is proposed, but together with that nationalisation we want this prospect to be held out to the worker who works in those key industries: “You will not in the future be just a worker giving your services to key industries and great industries which are in the interest of our country, but which have not been used in the past in the interest of South Africa and South Africa alone, but which have been the cause that money has poured out of South Africa; consequently you have given your services to something that has impoverished South Africa and enriched other people overseas.” No, we want to give this assurance to the labourer, and we want to see this policy introduced in South Africa, namely, this: That your worker in those key industries will be a fellow-shareholder, a fellow-owner, of the profit of those industries. I thought that the Minister of Finance would go into this matter, and that he would tell us that it was impracticable, and that it could not happen. But instead of this, the Minister of Finance stood up here and told the House that this motion was proposed merely for election purposes; that it was merely a statement of policy of the party, and he said further that this motion was too all-embracing, and that it was vague. I make bold to say that there never yet has been a motion before this House dealing with every branch of our economic and social life like this motion. The motion was dealt with by one after the other of the Opposition front benchers, and this especially, the Minister of Finance did not like. He referred to this side of the House, and said that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was aspiring for the Prime Ministership, and that everyone of the group leaders who introduced various aspects of the motion were aspiring to become Ministers.

That is an old story.

Yes, the new story is coming now. The Minister of Finance goes further and says: “Let me tell you; if you get into power you will do nothing.” In other words he says: “I also aspired to become a Minister; I succeeded and became a Minister of the Crown, but now I discover that a Minister can do nothing.” In other words, there sits a Minister who condemns himself, and who tells the people that he can do nothing. Do you know why he can do nothing? He can do nothing because the economic security of South Africa must mean or must visualise the economic independence of the people of South Africa, and it is not in the interest of that capitalistic Government which he serves, and because he is one of the exponents of this liberal system in South Africa, because he practically shares with the Prime Minister the responsibility for it in this country, he will not be able to do anything to these South African conditions, especially if they are contrary to the best interests of the Empire. Because they become handymen of the Empire.

And he is an aspirant Prime Minister.

He must not talk about aspirant-Ministers. We know that he is aspiring with the Minister of Justice for the Prime Ministership.

He has not a hope against the Minister of Justice.

These things do not go down in this country. It is of no use telling the country that this motion was introduced for party political reasons. This motion, I say, provides for the necessities that exist outside, and the people are tired of all the promises. The Prime Minister presented himself as a representative of social security in the country; he made promises here and wanted to give himself a certificate for them. Commission after Commission is appointed by the Government. One Commission is appointed to investigate the findings of another Commission. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has dealt with the findings of the Economic Planning Council, and I do not want to go into that again, but that Commission brought out a damning report, one that agrees with the statement of the Minister of Finance, that he and the other Ministers can do nothing. What does he say further? He says that we have asked Dr. Van der Bijl to make plans for converting war industries. The Government departments have also been instructed to draw up plans. The plans must now be complete. He gave us the impression that the instructions to draw up plans have only just been issued. That is the Minister who told us in this House that they had all been accepted when he asked that soldiers should be sent for service overseas, and that this war would last for only three years. The three years have passed, and now only he has appointed Commissions to make plans. We are now in the fourth year, and now only they must make plans. The people want to know what their plans are, and in what way they are going to bring about the economic independence of the country. The country requires social as well as economic security. Our motion makes provision, inter alia, for the establishment of an industrial bank which must act in co-operation with your Industrial Corporation, with a view to supporting smaller industrial undertakings. I mention only a few of the far-reaching things our motion visualises: the nationalisation of banks, a State mortgage redemption scheme; our farming must be stabilised otherwise our farmers will be driven off the land by bankruptcy; we also visualise in this motion a State-aided harvest insurance scheme. If there is one country in the world where such a system should be introduced, then it is certainly South Africa, because it is known in many respects as the country where there is plenty one day and nothing the next. We are continually threatened by periodical droughts. We also visualise the establishment in the agricultural sphere of Fodder Banks in South Africa. That is something we must have in this country. We thought that when the Vaalhartz-scheme was created and also the Kraaifontein-scheme, that people would be advised to make Fodder Banks of these settlements, which are absolutely necessary to the farmers in South Africa. Instead of this, the Government with its land settlement policy created new State-aided farmers to compete with the old established farming community in South Africa. This motion of ours will remove that liberalistic cloak. We want a State which is essentially South African and which must be adapted to the circumstances in South Africa. I also want to say that if that liberal influence in our economic and social life is broken, then it is not only consistent with our statement of policy which we have put forward in South Africa, a republic for South Africa, but it will also solve the social problems that are created today, because we are under an old decayed system of government, this liberal system which is essentially materialistic, and which has brought about class distinctions in all the countries in the world—rich on the one side and poor on the other. It is from this that you get the proletariat. It is the exploited masses of the people that is a fruitful field for Communism to grow up. This system which we have in South Africa is the cause of all the difficulties, and impatience, and unpleasantness, and dissatisfaction that is revealed to-day, but it is only a prelude of the misery that may come later, namely Communism. No, that must be eliminated. But social security also demands that attention should be paid to national health, which the Prime Minister has described as the basis of national welfare. There are necessary precautionary measures that must be taken. It is no use merely having hospitals in which people who are sick, can be placed. No, precautionary measures must be taken. Proper nourishment: Your people must get proper nourishment, but it is no use merely offering them food. No, they must be taught what food to use. You can eat a lot and still be undernourished. We need that education, that information in connection with this matter. It is apparently something of which our Government has not yet thought. This motion demands that it be tackled on a national scale, and that the State shall regard it as its duty to supply information in connection with child welfare maternal care and nutrition. Then there is the question of housing. We ask for the provision of healthy and cheap houses on a national scale, together with the removal of slum conditions. It is no use building new houses unless you can remove those slum conditions. Unless this is done, I fear that you have not arrived at real social security. The family life of every race demands that they should have the opportunity to develop separately and according to their own character, according to their own circumstances and their own way of living, and possibly under their own local control, and therefore we must create separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans. That is the precautionary measure we want. But there is still more. There must be an extension of hospitalisation. And when I speak of hospitalisation I think especially of contagious diseases and in this connection I would like to read a report in connection with the tuberculosis problem in South Africa. At the annual meeting of the Cape Tuberculosis Board held yesterday, the Secretary for Public Health, Dr. P. Allen, said—

It was stated further by the tuberculosis officer of the Cape Town City Council that in the year ended 13 June 1942, there were altogether 1,007 deaths from tuberculosis in the Cape Town municipal area. He goes further and says—

This is known, and I must agree that the Department has not precise statistics in connection with this serious problem. Because the statistics, if they are not altogether unobtainable, are very unsatisfactory, and it is for this reason: that the majority of the people suffering from tuberculosis never go to a doctor. The majority of people who die of tuberculosis are not certified by the doctor as tuberculosis deaths. It is stated perhaps that a man dies from heart failure, but in many cases the heart failure is caused by tuberculosis from which the man has been suffering for years. It is perhaps certified that he died from one or other chest complaint but not that the chest complaint was tuberculosis. It was however tuberculosis all the time. Dr. Allen said further—

I read this sentence especially because the Government recently has developed this procedure, that as soon as it finds itself in a corner or when it is accused of laxity in its actions, then it says that it is due to war conditions, that we should remember that we are dealing with abnormal war conditions. Here Dr. Allen says clearly that he is not of the opinion, the increase is due to social changes resulting from the war. He goes further—

He goes further—

The other 148 are also there as a source of infection to everyone who comes in contact with them. He says further—

Here reference is made to urban areas. I have quite a lot of other statistics and information at my disposal, which I would like to lay before the House, but I do not wish to detain the House at this stage. I want to say this, however, that we must not for a moment think that the problem of tuberculosis occurs only in our large urban areas like Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban and Johannesburg. No, recently we had a Tuberculosis Congress at Riversdale and there we had startling evidence about the tuberculosis position in the South-Western Districts. There we find that in nine small districts there are no less than 300 deaths from tuberculosis every year. That is, deaths that are certified as tuberculosis deaths. If we include the cases that are not certified as such, then we have every reason to think that about 500 people die every year of tuberculosis. Is that not a serious state of affairs to which we should give our attention? I want to appeal to the Minister of Public Health in this connection, that he should give favourable consideration to the representations that are made to him to make provision for the hospitalisation of tuberculosis cases in the South-Western Districts. It will not solve the problem, however, but it would immediately relieve the position. The problem must be tackled in the broader sense, but we must also have immediate assistance. Further, I also want to break a lance for the platteland women and mothers who live in the most critical conditions and who by a long way have not the necessary services at their disposal. A lot was said here about family life and our aim must be to build up healthy family life. In this connection I want to quote something from a social worker who can speak with authority. Mrs. Rothman said this—

Here she emphasises that we must place trained maternity treatment within the reach of the family on the platteland. We must do this if we want to place the family on a better health level. Even if it is only for this reason, then I say that it is sufficient reason for members on the other side to support this motion and to say to the Government by way of protests, that it has been in power so long already and why has it neglected to provide an essential service like this. The compound party on the other side; they are now still a strong party, but since they came into power, they have had an ear only for the war. The first day when I spoke in the House here, I said that the hon. the Prime Minister was a far-seeing man. Now I want to say today and I say it with every discretion, that he is a far-seeing man, and nobody will deny it; but his farsightedness is no longer to him a certificate or an indication that we may follow that farsightedness because his far-sightedness has developed into a disease so that he is not far-sighted but short-sighted. He no longer sees his own country, South Africa. He can only see 6,000 miles away, overseas.

Mr. Speaker, quite a lot has been said during this debate on the measures necessary to bring about a solution of this social problem. One feels, after listening to some of the remarks in connection with this matter, that it will not only require a superman to bring it about, but almost an archangel. Unfortunately archangels don’t inhabit this earth of ours. I want to bring to the notice of the Government what I consider a very essential element in this matter, and that is that in order to have national security we must have national prospertiy. National prosperity is not only a national matter, but an international matter. I have a book here, sir, which I have been reading and which deals with this international matter. I find from this book that this problem of national security or national prosperity is talked a lot about even in the self-contained United States. I find that the great United States realised that they must go outside their own borders to maintain their national wealth. If that is the case of the United States, how much more does it apply to this country of ours? What is the use of talking about social security if we have not got national prosperity? The Government must do all they possibly can to maintain our national prosperity, even if they have to go outside the borders of the Union and make arrangements with other countries to ensure that. This article that I am referring to suggests that something of that nature might be brought about by some body created on the lines of the League of Nations, whose duty it should be to make arrangements between countries that have over-productions and those which under-produce, so that the over-productions of one country could go where they are most needed. Some body such as the League of Nations would make the exchange, so that those countries which have not the necessary means for the welfare of their people, could obtain them from the countries which are over-producing. That is the opinion of one of the great writers in the United States. It seems to me that if the Government wants to bring about these improved social conditions suggested here, consideration should be given to matters of that sort. I attended a meeting some time ago, at which it was suggested that in order to bring about better social conditions, we would have to spend about £60,000,000 for a start. And that was said in a way that suggested £60,000,000 was something like a schoolboy’s pocket money, and it was further suggested that we could go on allocating £60,000,000 a year for many years to come, as if this amount of money could be produced by a turn of the fingers, or just putting your hand in your pocket. We must remind ourselves that the Great War is not finished yet, and to say that we shall be in a position to allocate £60,000,000 a year in the future, is in my opinion a childish suggestion. This money which is being spent on the war will be largely handed down to posterity, and when the figures are finally known, it will stagger posterity. People glibly talk about our being able to establish a new world, but I am afraid when the cost of this Great War comes to be reckoned up, we shall not be nearer a new heaven than before the war was started. I am not going into the details which the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) did, I prefer to pay my tribute to our local social security administration. The Minister is not in his place, but I think great credit is due to the Administration for the way in which social conditions have been bettered in this country. I congratulate them, and I hope that they will continue in the good work that they have done. In conclusion, I want to say that I am very pleased the Prime Minister has brought into existence a body of men prepared to deal with this great and important matter, who will advise the Government in laying the foundations of a social security scheme upon which we can build for many years to come. I congratulate the Prime Minister for taking the necessary steps in appointing that body of men, whose report we shall no doubt have in the future.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has spread over two or three weeks, and one is able now to get a clearer idea of the picture presented to the House by various members from their different points of view. One or two points stand out very clearly, and one is that the impression might be gained from the debate that no steps had been taken at all in the matter of social security or social development during the last 25 years, that nothing has been done since the last Great War to improve the position of the under-classes of this country. The second impression one might get from the speeches that have been delivered is that everyone seems to think that any form of post-war social security is going to create a new heaven and a new earth for the peoples of the world, and that they are going to maintain standards which in many cases have undoubtedly been raised through war conditions. In fact, that the moment the war ceases we are going to enter into a new heaven on this earth. I think that contrary to that a very serious awakening is coming to the people of this country if they think such a thing is at all possible. Let me deal with the steps that have been taken during the last 20 or 25 years, and particularly in the last nine or ten years. I want to give a few figures showing what has actually been spent in South Africa on matters which fall under the Social Security Code, and which would fall to be dealt with under such a code as suggested by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). I want to give an idea of what that expenditure is today and what is being done not only by the Central Government, but by the Provincial and local governments, and by private individuals in this matter. I think the country has very little idea of what is actually being spent now on social security. These figures have been given to me by the Planning Council. These figures relate to expenditure of the present year by the Central Government: Old age pensions, £2,506,000; unemployment benefit, £120,000; confinement allowance, £9,000; blind pensioners (European and coloured), £62,000; allowances to blind Natives, £129,000; invalidity grants, £200,000; children’s maintenance grant, £247,000; poor relief, £80,000; indigent Indians, £20,000; medical and health services by Central Government, £1,469,000. That makes a total expenditure by the Central Government of £4,842,000. Provincial administration services in connection with social security measures which fall under their control account for £1,334,000 expended during the same twelve months. Local governments spent £253,000, and in addition, you have a total paid out for miners’ phthisis of £1,000,000. Then the four Provinces spend on education in this country approximately £10,000,000. In addition to that we have, of course, a great deal of expenditure which would fall under the Beveridge Plan to be dealt with by the State. In regard to that expenditure, we find that the present cost of social services to private firms or individuals and friendly societies is £1,050,000, and accident insurance accounts for £137,000. The South African Railways Sick Fund spends £295,000; industrial life insurance accounts for £365,000; burial societies, £112,000, and medical expenses (estimated), £8,828,000—making a total of £10,787,000. That gives a total of approximately £27,000,000 which is being spent in South Africa on what you may call social security measures. Now whatever plan we may devise must mean the co-ordination of many of these services, some of which are paid for by the Central Government and some by the Provincial or local governments or by private individuals. A great deal has been said of the Beveridge Plan, but the Beveridge Plan in principle, does co-ordinate the very wide range of social activities which have been growing up during the last 40 years in Great Britain. Besides that, they are further extending the measure of benefits, and further increasing grants in regard to certain of these services. They are, to a great extent, trying to relieve the individual of the burden of many of these services, which he is called upon to bear today. But the great principle of the Beveridge scheme is that it is a contributory scheme, and the State will not be called upon to bear the whole cost. I realise that included in those figures that I have given, there are many other measures which an examination of the accounts of Government departments would disclose might be included in the social security code, and it must be a matter for consideration by the Government how far these services spread over so many different departments can be co-ordinated. The question arises as to whether the time has not come when a closer co-ordination of these various services could not be brought about. This report which has been issued by the Economic and Planning Council is an extraordinarily valuable document inasmuch as it does give the country a picture of some of the problems which have to be faced in the post-war reconstruction period. One gets the impression from reading this report that they would like to be able to be a full time board. At present they are only a part time body, and the problems which await solution will certainly occupy the attention of a full time body. The report instances one phase of post-war reconstruction which includes a re-building programme to absorb the labour force which will be availbale after the war, and in connection with which an unemployment problem may arise, but the difficulty will probably be in getting immediate supplies for all these works, and we may find ourselves at a standstill. The Prime Minister said the other day that he could not agree to give this council statutory powers, and I think one must agree with that view. I think, however, that a ministry should be created to deal with the matter. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), in dealing with Communism, Imperialism and other movements, I think is going partly along the Socialistic road in recommending the nationalisation of nearly everything. He seems to be following our friend the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). But the extraordinary thing is that one of the countries which has created a social security code, a country which is always held up to us in this House as an example, New Zealand, is a country which through a labour Government has by no means abolished the capitalistic system, and it is interesting to note that in New Zealand, though they have a very elaborate Act dealing with Social Services, they have not gone as far as is suggested in the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

We should lead them.

I put it to hon. members whether they are prepared to go so far—when they ask for everything to be nationalised—as also to have the farms in this country nationalised. They are prepared to have industry nationalised they want the gold mining industry nationalised, they want ah profit-making concerns nationalised—are they also prepared to have the farming industry nationalised; are they prepared to have their farms treated on the same basis?

You cannot do it.

Of course, you cannot and therefore the whole argument falls away. I just want to tell the House what the New Zealand Act deals with. The New Zealand Act may be judged by the title—

Now, most of these measures which are suggested under the New Zealand Code have already been started in South Africa, and the Prime Minister has, in the steps he has taken, in forming this Economic and Planning Council, and in setting up these various committees, designed to work out plans for the problems after the war, to a large measure forestalled the proposals in the motion of the hon. member for Piketberg and in the subsidiary motions. If the hon. member had put that motion on the Order Paper three years ago he might have been able to claim some credit for pushing the Government into the steps taken.

Why not vote for the motion then?

But the hon. member was busy on other matters then which did not affect the future of the country. Now, sir, I should like to close on the note on which I started—the people of this country cannot expect to have a new world at the end of the war, in spite of all the recommendations that may be made. Whatever we can get we have to fight for, and it is going to be a very hard struggle, indeed. I want to close with the words of the Beveridge Report—

These words equally apply to this country, but unfortunately one thing lacking in this country is a sense of unity, and that unity can only be achieved if we can cut away these racial differences; if we can stop one section always attacking other sections of the people of this country, sections of the people who are not on their side of the House, and condemning one particular section or race, or other sections—because that thing in the long run must defeat the object which we try to achieve, namely, the object of social security.

There was a long and in many respects interesting discussion on this motion. I would like to take this opportunity, firstly, of thanking the hon. Prime Minister for the facilities he gave for the discussion. At the introduction of my motion I asked for these facilities, and I am glad that he has acquiesced in the measure in which he has done. This in itself is an acknowledgement on his part, and I think it happened with the concurrence of all members of the House, of the importance of the matters brought up in this motion. I only regret that the discussion had to be broken off from time to time. This makes it difficult to see the whole matter and the discussion connected with it as a single entity, and I think it is of the greatest importance that this matter be seen as a single whole by this House and by the country. I think the whole country realises that not only South Africa, but all humanity in other countries of the world, stand at the crossroads today. The one possibility is that everything will remain as it is in the social and economic sphere after the war, that everything will remain the same. Yet it cannot remain the same, because all countries that have participated in the war, and it does not apply least to South Africa, suffer from a financial and economic exhaustion as a result of the war, an exhaustion unprecedented in our history. It is a matter that will count, that must have its influence. Thus when I say that the one possibility is that everything will remain as it is, then I must qualify my statement by saying that everything can yet not remain as it is now, in view of the financial exhaustion. The other possibility is that this war and everything connected with it, and the new psychology created by the war, will lead to a better world, a world in which the evils of which we complain shall disappear—shall disappear because there is a new conception of the duties on the part of the State and on the part of the nation, the conception that everyone is a member of the nation, and that the nation as a whole is responsible for the proper existence of the members of the nation. On this the world is waiting, on this our country waits, on this all sections in our country wait, and that expectation has been expressed in this House of late with an emphasis as never before. While I say this about the debate in general, I also want to say that however interesting the discussion might have been, it was nevertheless accompanied by a certain measure of disappointment, disappointment that became the greater after two of the Ministers—let me say the two leading Ministers in the Cabinet—had taken part in the discussion, viz., the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Through the medium of this motion a general scheme has been submitted to the House for the creation of better socio-economic conditions. It is a positive scheme, it is one great integral scheme, and it appeared from the discussion that very little can be said against the scheme on its merits. There has not even been criticism, or serious criticism on one or other of the sub-divisions, not on any of the points, and there are twelve different points of practical policy that form part of the motion. The whole criticism in connection with this was not really on the motion and its subdivisions, because criticism glanced away from that. The spirit that was sometimes revealed where criticism was exercised actually boiled down to this, that there was a feeling, apparently a sort of grievance, that we on this side had come to light with a motion of this nature. I am now dealing with the criticism expressed on the motion in the course of this debate. I begin with what the Prime Minister has brought forward. One of his most important points of criticism was that this motion was not really seriously meant, that it was nothing else with us but the spearhead of an election manifesto, not intended as a serious contribution to the solution of our great and serious problems, but that it was nothing but a flirting for votes with a view to the impending election. The first reply I want to give to this is: It is not so, but supposing it is and election manifesto, or the embodiment of the social and economic policy of this side of the House, then why not? There are different parties in our country, and the different parties are represented here by groups of members. Those parties all stand before the same national problems, those parties all have, or ought to have, their own solution or solutions for problems, those parties, one and all, appeal to the support of the nation, because only through the support of the people are they able to carry out their policy. Where this is so, there the people in whose hands the power is ultimately vested surely have the right to know for what each of the parties stands. And not only that, but if there is one place where policy must be enunciated, precisely because it can be analysed and criticised by the opposing parties, then that place is this House. Therefore I say: Assuming that this is an election manifesto, why not? We have set out our social and economic policy in the motion, the New Order has done the same, and the Labour Party has also done the same through the medium of a motion. Now I ask the Prime Minister why the Government could not have done precisely the same thing? If it is expected of the other parties that they should do this and they take the opportunity of doing so, then it is so much the more cause why the Government should do it, precisely because it is the responsible Government of the country. In connection with this I just want to ask the Prime Minister: He objects to us coming forward with an election manifesto. How does he view an election manifesto? Apparently the underlying idea with him regarding an election manifesto is that an election manifesto is nothing but deceit, nothing but an attempt to catch votes for an election, nothing but an attempt to spin a web over the eyes of the people. That is the underlying idea of it. We shall remember this when the Prime Minister comes forward with his election manifesto, that that is his own idea of an election manifesto. But further, the idea was expressed on the part of the Prime Minister and others on the other side of the House that we as a Nationalist Party have now ultimately come forward with a brand new thing so far as we are concerned. We have, so they represent the matter, only now at long last awakened regarding a social and economic policy, and actually—so some represented the matter—we never had a social and economic policy. We now come to light with such a thing for the first time. Various hon. members on the other side vied with one another to represent the matter thus. The Minister of Finance was almost alarmed, he was so surprised that we came to light with a motion regarding our social and economic policies. He had a better plan for us. We should have come forward with a motion of no-confidence. But we on this side of the House proposed a motion of no-confidence in the Prime Minister at one of the previous Sessions. No, we should have come again now with a motion of no-confidence. We should have come forward again with a motion in connection with the war, even though we had again put that case at this Session through the medium of an amendment that we proposed to the Prime Minister’s motion regarding the blue oath. No, we should have come forward again with such a motion on the same subject. All I can say to the Minister of Finance is that we on this side of the House are not so seriously inclined, and do not find it necessary to take our guidance regarding our Parliamentary tactics from him or from anyone else on the other side of the House. Now I want to put it thus: If we had done what he wants, and we had come forward with a motion on the war question or a motion of no-confidence, do you know what the criticism would have been? That our Party had no social and economic policy, that we harp year after year on the same string and that we can make no progress, that our Party is stationary and dead. We pursue our own Parliamentary tactics, our own way, and we do not need the guidance or advice of members on the other side. There were a few other members on the other side who even went further, such as the hon. member for Troyville (Mr. Kentridge) and for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), who said that we had never brought something of this nature before the House and that we had absolutely no social and economic policy. I can refer those hon. members to the foundation on which our Party stands, our programme of principles and our programme of action. If hon. members on the other side would take the trouble of going through our programme of action and of principles, not a programme drafted now but one that has existed for years, then they will find that for the greater part all the principles, also in concrete form, as proposed here in our motion, appear in our programme of principles and of action. I would like to present the Prime Minister, or one of the other hon. members there who may desire it, with a copy of our programme of principles. I hope it will do their political souls good to read it. The unfortunate part is that they condemn and criticise us without them having ever taken the trouble of reading our programme of principles. I would also like to refer hon. members who take up this standpoint, not only to our programme of principles and our programme of action which they have never seen, but also to what has occurred in this House. We may certainly assume that they know little of what goes on in this House. Therefore I want to refer them to Hansard, in which they can see how we acted from time to time in connection with various problems, and not only acted, but also submitted motions. I have taken the trouble of tracing those motions again and of looking through Hansard, to see what we have proposed in connection with these matters from time to time. Twelve points of practical policy are incorporated here in our motion, based on four clearly circumscribed principles to which effect must be given, and of the twelve points there are at least eight which we have submitted to this House from time to time in the form of practical motions. Hon. members on the other side have the doubtful honour, where they did not dare to crticise any of the points, of voting against all eight or more proposals. There is nothing brand new in so far as the greatest part of my motion is concerned. It is the known policy of the party. Yet there is something new, and that is the lengths to which we are now prepared to go in so far as State control of the gold mining industry and other keyindustries are concerned. We say that our policy in connection with such industries, and even also in connection with other industries that are monopolies and in which the people have a vital interest and which touches the welfare of the people, there we say that not only employers and employees must be represented on the directorates, that not only the capital put into it must be represented, but that the Government must be represented on the directorates as the representative of the people and of the interests of the people. This has become a cardinal point with us, because, as I have pointed out before in my introductory speech, the poverty that prevails in the world and in our country originates largely not because we have not sufficient wealth in our country, but from exploitation, exploitation originating from the system that makes it possible for the existence of monopolies, uncontrolled monopolies. One cannot stop monopolies. Monopolies, by the nature of things, originate from the economic conditions we have today and which are quite different from those of 30 or 40 years ago. The position is simply that one can get effective production only through the medium of large-scale production, through the combination of capital, and this crushes the small industries to death and makes private business almost impossible. Monopolies are often inevitable and often desirable in the interests of the people, but where monopolies can be in the interests of the people, they can also become dangerous to the interests of the people if they are not properly controlled by the State. That is our standpoint. We on this side put this question to the Government! How do you stand on that? To that question hon. members on the other side gave no reply. I think the people outside would like to know how you stand towards it. Regarding this, I will just refer to our policy in the past, and read out something. I have here Hansard, Volume 24 of 1935, and I want to quote from Col. 413. At that time I proposed an amendment to a motion from the Labour Party in connection with shorter working hours. I then, eight years ago, proposed the following—

1. (a) To omit all words after “Government”, in line 3, and to substitute “to take steps and where necessary to introduce legislation—
   For the payment of better wages to the poorly paid civilised labourers employed on the Railways, roads plantations, irrigation and other Government and public works;
2. (b) For the award of a bonus from the gold premium as extra remuneration to miners;

Here we come near to what I have just said, and what has become a cardinal point of policy with us. If an industry is particularly prosperous, and prosperous not by virtue of its own desserts, but through national circumstances—at that time that was the case with the gold mining industry as the result of the country’s departure from the gold standard—then we think that not only those who have invested their money therein must draw the advantage thereof, but that it is right that also the workers who produce the wealth must share in it. The first point in my amendment, eight years ago, dealt with the payment of better wages to low-paid workers, and the second point dealt with the gold premium. Now I quote further from my amendment of that time—

1. (c) For the protection of the labourer against unfair competition caused by the importation and the immigration of unnecessary labour from outside the Union; and
2. (d) For the advancement and protection of the employment of European labour by framing a policy of protection with this special object in view, and for the establishment of a fair system of industrial segregation of Europeans and non-Europeans in particular trades.

This is one of the basic principles I mentioned in this motion, but my amendment at the time went still further, and I would like the Prime Minister to pay attention to this—

In this connection I want to read out to the Prime Minister what I said then, because in his policy of the future this is the cardinal point, the institution of a Planning Council incorporating the same idea as the Central Economic Council. I said on that occasion—that is, eight years ago—

That Planning Council of the Minister does not even come half-way to this.

Who is aping now?

It has taken the Prime Minister eight years to see the light. And now if we give him another 20 years, I hope that he will ultimately see that everything in our motion is the right policy for the country. During this discussion we have had three amendments proposed; two from that side of the House and one from this side of the House. There are three amendments. I shall now briefly deal with the three amendments in the order in which they were proposed. The first amendment proposed came from the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis) in the name of the New Order. I must say I am sorry that the hon. member revealed a little hostility in the introduction of his amendment towards this motion and towards us who are moving this motion, a hostility that was hardly fitting.

Not hostility.

I am glad to hear it, but in any case not much friendliness was shown. The hon. member concentrated not on criticising the Government, but he was out to show the difference between what he proposed and what I on this side proposed. My good fortune is that I have not much need to gainsay what the hon. member says on that point, for the reason that he has been contradicted by one of his own members, namely, the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler). The hon. member for Brits mentioned here a whole series of points in my motion with which they are touchingly at one with us. I have taken the trouble to compare the two, and I find that in the amendment of the hon. member for Vryburg there are no fewer than 17 points in which he virtually, except in words, differs nothing in the nature of the case from what we on this side have proposed. A lot of what he proposed is really beside the point, because my motion does not cover our whole programme of principles and action; it had to do only with socio-economic matters. He evidently incoroprated in his motion—or virtually this was not incorporated but formed the whole—their whole programme of principles and action. His grievance is that I have not done the same, and have not by way of motion proposed our whole programme of principles and action. The hon. member entertained the objection that we are vague. I do not want to reply to that because I think that he has been effectively answered by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood), on my righthand side. The motion I am expounding here, if one judges impartially, is not vague in a single respect. This peculiar argument has come from that side, that the Party of which I am the representative here, which has proposed this motion, has no originality in such matters; while it is true that the New Order’s programme of principles and policy conforms in great measure with that of ours, we are supposed to be aping them. It seems to me that the hon. member’s time calculation is a bit wrong. According to what they propose, the New Order has been in the country for years and years and the Nationalist Party was born only yesterday. I do not think that any serious attention need be paid to that argument. There is something I miss in that argument proposed by the hon. member for Vryburg, and that is that the actual kernel of their programme of principles has been left out. It did appear in the speeches they delivered here, but in the amendment which they propose nothing of it appears; and that is the principle of a dictatorship and of a compulsory one-Party system. Now I would just say to them that in any policy such as they advocate there, a dictatorship and a compulsory one-Party system is imperative. They commenced by advocating that, a dictatorship and a compulsory one-Party system. They have said they do not stand for that and quite rightly so, simply because no matter how a dictatorship fits in other countries of the world, one thing is certain, and that is that it conflicts in South Africa with the aspirations and with the character, with the conceptions, of the people of South Africa. It is un-Afrikaans. I can well understand that they do not want to proceed with that matter. As regards a dictatorship, I can just say this, that history teaches us that one can have a dictatorship only when there is an outstanding personality, a personality standing out far above all others; and even so, it is a well-known fact that a dictator has no successor; the dictatorship dies with the dictator. Where this is so, I want to ask them whether they have in their ranks such a high-standing personality who can become such a dictator in South Africa? I do not think that South Africa has one such personality in any Party.

Except the Minister of Native Affairs; he’ll make a pretty dictator.

The second amendment came from the Labour Party. I must deal with the Labour Party and their amendment here in all seriousness because I do not know if there is a single Party in the country that has such enormous ambition as the Labour Party on those benches.

Have you forgotten the lecture you gave in the past?

To you?

When you taught the students to go in for Socialism.

I am simply referring to what the Leader of the Labour Party said at Benoni. He said that the capitalists in spite of the war calm were by no means asleep. He must know because he lies in the same bed. He said that in spite of the war calm, the capitalists were not asleep. The only Party that could apply a constant post-war policy was the Labour Party; people spoke easily about New Orders and about social security after the war, but the people would have to emerge from their present position of self-complacency to strive for it. That is what the hon. Leader of the Labour Party said at Benoni. He goes further and says—

Now I come to the best bit—

Another aspirant.

In those circumstances I must keep serious count of the hon. member. If that is their ambition, then the first question we would like to put, and the country will also like to know, what their standpoint really is, what we must expect of them. What is their policy if they are going to come into power before long? I think I have the right to put that question because really, after what has happened of late, I do not know what the policy of the Labour Party is. When the House commenced this Session, there were a whole series of motions of which notice was given. Every Party tried to get a motion on the Order Paper on what it considered the most important matter. A motion was then moved by the hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), to set out the policy of the Labour Party. It was a social security motion, but it was formulated in such general terms that one could hardly tie a string to it, and when I came to light with this motion now under discussion, he felt that because we could incorporate a great deal of his proposal with what we proposed—it compares badly with ours—he very wisely withdrew his motion, and thus it disappeared from the Order Paper. But what happened further? The Labour Party then realised the necessity of outstriving us. At first they did not go as far as we did, but now they must do better and go further, and then an amendment was proposed by the hon. member for Durban, North, that what the Labour Party wants is the introduction of a Socialist system—Karl Marx.

They do not know what it means.

In how far they agree regarding this, I do not know; to me it remains a mystery, because I have listened attentively to their speeches delivered here, and now I find that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) has changed Socialism here into its naked form. He is genuinely Socialistic, and from that standpoint he condemned the Government. But this afternoon the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) spoke, and the hon. member had a great deal to say about capitalism, just as we have a great deal to say about capitalism, but from the Socialism that his party advocates, from that he remained miles away.

He knew nothing about that.

I do not know in how far they agree with one another there. They have set out another policy in another form. A memorandum was drafted by them setting-out their policy, on what they want from the Prime Minister. They delivered it to him. It was drafted by the Labour Party’s Executive Committee. The Trade Unions and the group of members of Parliament who are here, co-operated in this.

All four of them.

It is very interesting to compare what they submitted to the Prime Minister with what they have proposed here in the House by way of their amendment. Now, listen to this. The point is as it appeared in the newspaper. In the first place, better payment for soldiers. I assume what is meant is not only better payment for soldiers at the fighting front, but also for soldiers on the home front, also for Parliamentary soldiers. That stands at the top. That is the most important object of their striving: Better payment for soldiers and State support for war funds. Then the official adoption of the Atlantic Charter. Now, if I have ever read a document drawn up in such wide terms that one can include almost everything in the world in it, then it is the Atlantic Charter. In this matter with which we have to do, there are only these few words: You must create a situation in the world where everyone shall be free of fear and want. That is enough for them. Then the social security code. Very well, that is what we have here. Then, State control of essential products. Well, that is also what we advocate here. We had very little support from them regarding this. Then comes a very practical matter. A State fertiliser industry. Very well, that is something that we shall certainly support.

You ought to be glad that we take an interest.

The leader of the Labour Party is also a farmer these days; what sort of farmer I don’t know. But just imagine, State control of the fertiliser industry, but not a word about the most important industry, viz., our gold mines.

That is their king.

Then a national housing scheme. Well, everyone favours that. Then greater educational facilities. That is self-evident. Then comes free health services. Well, that is what is in our motion. Then there are national minimum wages, for which we also stand. We say you must care for everyone, so that he can lead a proper existence from what he earns. Now comes the great matter; that is Socialism, and here they say—

But whether the country needs this or not, the Labour Party stands for maximum taxation. What a programme with which to go to the country! I mention it here because in this memorandum for the Prime Minister it seems that there is a total absence of the Socialism for which they stand here, and on which they have moved an amendment. All I can say is this: That if one accepts that Socialism is really the thing for which they stand, then I can only say that they have stood for years for Socialism, but have they brought it a step nearer in this country? It has brought the Labour Party four members into this House. I believe one is a Communist. While this is so, let them have the best propaganda in the world, but they will not be in a position to put that propaganda into effect and still less will they be able to achieve anything if as a Labour Party they remain hitched with that party in which they are sitting? Where that is so, they can achieve nothing good for the country, they can only disintegrate the anti-capitalist forces in the country and keep the capitalists in the country in power. Now I come to the Government motion. As regards the Government motion, I just want to say that not only the country in general, but I think many hon. members on that side of the House who belong to the Government party, have learned with disappointment of the action of the Government here in the amendment which they have proposed. The Prime Minister has said that we are vague in our motion, that we are occupying ourselves only with generalities. All I can say is this: That the speech he delivered is a model of vagueness and colourlessness. He is the last one who can apportion blame to us on the score of vagueness and colourlessness, or accuse us of lack of policy. His speech was full of remarks about the health of the people. That is very important; we shall not leave the matter where it is at present. Social security is also very important, and it must be investigated immediately. Housing: Of course, housing lies at the root of the people’s economic life and also health, and therefore much more will have to be spent in that respect. This is the sort of general vagueness with which the Prime Minister’s speech was permeated. Lack of policy! The hon. member for Krugersdorp introduced a motion here last year on social security, and the Prime Minister said he welcomed it, but the hon. member must be more concrete; he must give the Prime Minister guidance. There has been a social security campaign in the country, and the Prime Minister has sent telegrams and letters, but it did not get further than that: “I welcome it that you are conducting investigations in that sphere, and that you want to give advice in that sphere; I am waiting, and later I shall see if I can do something, yes or no; but you have embarked on a course on which we shall allow ourselves to be led.” He went to the Labour Party; this party wanted certain things from him—a better world condition must be created. He said: “I cannot tell you what my policy is at the moment, but if you see a case, then put it down in the form of a memorandum, and then I will give it my full attention, and will be guided by it as far as possible.” In other words, the Prime Minister went hat in hand from one to the other to obtain guidance, and then he speaks about us leading towards bankruptcy.

And look at him now.

Thus you can summarise the whole policy in just one word. That one word is: Appoint a Commission. Now just a word about the Minister of Finance, who also participated in the debate. He appeals to the past; he looks less to the future. Then he mentioned, just as did the hon. member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock) series after series of figures. All I can say is this: We had the same thing in 1923 from the old South African Party Government. They went from platform to platform quoting a series of figures until one’s head swam. They appealed to the past, and the following year the people threw them out. No, that does not go down. Now, more houses and more pensions. On that he is going to spend money. It is a young Budget speech he delivered here. More pensions. He will, of course, have to spend more money on pensions. You cannot conduct a war and not spend more money on pensions. So that is no credit to him. More housing. And then, so much money will be made available in future. That still says nothing. The provision of money does not mean that that money will be used by the municipalities. Millions of pounds of unused money are laying idle, and he must adopt other measures to compel them to make use of it. More housing. And then the Government issues Emergency Regulations to say that one may not build. Therefore, if use is not made of those millions, then it is because it cannot be done, and the fault lies with the Government and its regulations. The amendment of the Minister of Finance boils down to this: Look what a good Government we have! That is No. 1. No. 2 he says: Look, this Government is in earnest about the matter because it institutes investigation and it appoints Commissions. Thirdly he says: You must believe in the fixed determination of the Government to do everything that is necessary. That in effect is the whole content of his amendment. That is the impression one gets of it—that this Government has no aim of its own economically. There are rocks ahead. All they do is to try to sail around the rocks, but they have no aim. And then they appeal to prejudice on their side of the House against this side. The best thing can come from this side, but because it comes from this side it is not the right thing to put into effect. The Government appeals to the prejudice of members on its side. It appeals to its own followers there behind it, although they themselves are disappointed at the attitude of the Government, to stand by the Government. They impart the impression that they want to do something, but they bind themselves to do nothing, and the result will be that when the election comes the Government will allow a whole crowd of irresponsible members or less responsible members to promise a heaven-on-earth on platforms throughout the country. The Government will do nothing against this. It will allow them to proceed so as to bring the people under the impression of it all. But the Government is bound to nothing; and when the election is over, the Government can repudiate those members and say that they did not announce the policy of the Government. I admit what the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) said, that what we need in our country is unity in order to get social security and to create better living conditions. But we stand for that unity, for equality of language and culture. It is necessary that there shall be equality of language and culture. But that is not all. There must also be unity of national political standpoint and because that unity can never be achieved with the British connection and Imperialism in our midst—that has failed time and again—therefore we stand for the only basis on which the people can be truly one: Let us be ourselves as a people in the full sense of the word and develop our own national life to the full.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—34:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—66:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, S.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, P. J.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Dolley, G.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Naudé, S. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Verster, J. D. H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A, P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Question accordingly negatived, and the words omitted.

Mr. Speaker then put the substitution of the words proposed by Mr. du Plessis, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. S. Bekker, Bosman, du Plessis, the Rev. S. W. Naudé, Messrs. Verster and C. J. van den Berg) voted in favour of the substitution of these words, Mr. Speaker declared the amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker put the substitution of the words proposed by the Rev. Miles-Cadman, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: the Minister of Labour, Mr. Burnside, the Rev. Miles-Cadman, Messrs. Sutter and M. J. van den Berg) voted in favour of the substitution of these words, Mr. Speaker declared the amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker then put the substitution of the words proposed by the Minister of Finance.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—59:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H. Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—39:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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