In the resolution before the House attention is drawn to what exercises the minds of the public to a great extent, namely the problem of post-war reconstruction, and it is hardly necessary to say that while South Africa, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, is engaged, in conjunction with the United Nations, in a deadly struggle to secure victory over Nazism, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that a mere victory over Nazism would not be sufficient, if at the same time the problem of poverty and economic insecurity were to remain. The Prime Minister, during the last few years, has shown that he is alive to the position, not only by the policy which he has enunciated at Bloemfontein and elsewhere, but also in the survey which he gave us a few days ago, as to what is being done at the present moment, so that when post-war reconstruction is taken in hand, and when the soldiers returning have to be re-absorbed in the economic life of the country, this will not be done in a haphazard manner, but in considered and reasoned plans. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition now, after three and a half years of war, comes forward, for the first time, with a motion dealing with an economic subject, is an indication that the Leader of the Opposition and his Party at last are alive to the fact that victory for us is round the corner—because otherwise there would be no point in him coming forward with a motion of this kind, because he would know, as I am sure he does know, that if, instead of victory coming to us, Hitler and his Nazi gangsters were to achieve victory, then it would mean that this so-called New Order would be imposed on us just as it has been imposed on Europe by the Axis, without discussion and without references to the views and wishes of the people. Realising this, the Leader of the Opposition has come forward with a definite proposal which lays down his policy as to how to deal with post-war reconstruction, and as long as it is, it is important, and its importance has been accentuated by speeches from the other side of the House, intended to show how they propose to give effect to this policy. I can only briefly analyse the proposals, and I am not going to make this analysis in a carping spirit, but in order to find out the true intentions of the Opposition in connection with this matter. And, in the first place, I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that some of his proposals in the motion before us, as, for instance, Government representation on directorates, and the reservation of occupations on a colour basis had been proposed by the Pact Government. These are all matters which were in the power of the Leader of the Opposition when he was one of the most prominent members of the Pact Government. He could have given effect to that policy. But they then decided to abandon those proposals and, therefore, one is entitled to ask if, having had the power to do these things, they did not do them, what possible guarantee have we that they are serious in the proposals they now place before us. In any case they must know that even if they got into power it would be long before they could translate their theories into realities. That being so can problems pressing for immediate attentions wait for them? One is entitled to ask whether they are in earnest or whether this is merely a Vote-catching Manifesto? Let me briefly examine some of their suggestions. They put forward a suggestion as to how to deal with the wage rate for semi-skilled and unskilled workers. They make suggestions for wages to be paid to semi-skilled and unskilled workers in industries in which the majority employed are the worst paid people in this country, the non-Europeans on a colour basis. They divide the workers into three sections—one section will get one set of pay, another section another set of pay and a third section a different set of pay again And according to their proposal the pay for semi-skilled and unskilled sections which absorb the vast majority of the workers that is the non-European population, in industry, will be based not on the job that is being done but on the colour of those doing the job, and they will be paid according to their accustomed standards. In order to protect the European minority, which may be engaged in unskilled and semi-skilled labour they want to introduce a segregation policy which in the days of the Nationalist Party Government was considered undesirable. The object which we should have in view is to increase the spending power of the large masses of the population, so that instead of our spending population, our consuming population being 2,000,000 people, we shall be able to regard our spending, our purchasing population, as being 10,000,000. A large section of the population today have not got the means to purchase the goods which is being produced in the Union. If our policy of increasing the spending power of the population were carried out, it will help every section and not least so agriculture. Instead of our having to subsidise export it will result in people in this country being able to consume the products produced here. All the evidence and all the figures at our disposal go to show that we are not producing sufficient to feed the people of this country, yet we have been pursuing a policy of exporting at a loss by means of subsidies, while our own people were starving or of restricting production by means of Control Boards. In this connection I would remind the House that there seems to be a concensus of opinion that the policy of control boards will have to be reviewed, and I would urge that the system and operation of Control Boards be referred to the planning council or to some other body for review. Now, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) who is the spokesman of the Opposition on industrial matters, put forward another method which he said his Party was going to follow if they came into power. He said that in future the conditions of labour would be decided by the Government conditions, pay and matters of that kind. And therefore there would be no need in future for collective bargaining and for negotiation at round table conferences between organised workers and employers and that being so, all that would be required according to the hon. member for Fordsburg so far as Trade Unions were concerned would be that they should look after the spiritual interests of the members of Trade Unions. That is what he seems to aim at — the emasculation of Trade Unions, so that Trade Unions will look after the spiritual interests of their members, and do nothing else — that is the very policy which has been pursued in Germany, and although hon. members talk about democracy, yet they are anxious to introduce into this country a policy of Nazism. The policy which was introduced into this country in 1924 after the unfortunate strike of 1922, the Prime Minister having realised the mistakes and difficulties which resulted in the strike and having brought out one of the leading Trade Unionists from Great Britain, Mr. Brace, to preside over a Commission which went into the whole position was based on the report brought out by the Brace Commission which advocated the policy of Trade Union negotiation and collective bargaining. That policy was put into effect, and but for this policy of negotiation we would have had very much more trouble in this country than we have had. But after the hon. member for Fordsburg came the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and he told us what his Party’s policy was in regard to professions and commerce. In professions and commerce licences were to be issued on a racial basis, and quotas were to be imposed on one section of the population.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I know. This was only to apply to the Jews. I am not concerned with that aspect, but I say that once you lay down that policy, the Nazi policy of dealing with matters on a purely racial basis, what guarantee have the English speaking people and all the liberal minded people in the Union that the same policy will not be applied to them eventually?

Read my speech and you will see.

So in this extensive and long winded resolution we have the policy of Nazism introduced to this country, but I want to ask the Leader op the Opposition whether he is serious. He knows that the problems facing this country require immediate attention. He knows that to introduce what his Party terms an economic revolution will mean that a great deal of time will have to be taken up. Manny years will have to pass before that can be carried into effect, and what will be the result — what will happen meanwhile to the returned soldiers and others — will they simply have to wait to have their problems dealt with? The Government has sufficient machinery available to cope with the situation. I am in sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) but I believe in gradualism. Today already we have the position in this country, as well as elsewhere, that a tremendous amount of activity has been withdrawn from private enterprise and taken over by the State, by local authorities and Public Utility Corporations. And we have the opportunity by using private enterprise and State enterprise in connection with our industrial matters, to carry out the policy adambrated from time to time by the Prime Minister, a policy which on the one hand aims at advancing the standard of life of the people, and on the other hand seeks to secure economic and social security for the people, so that the evils which led to the war may be avoided when the war is over. Our policy therefore is to use the machinery which we have to raise the standard of life of the cast masses of the people, and in the first place I say that it is the non-European population which has to have its wages raised, so that it is placed in a position to buy the goods which it needs. Now, that is a matter which requires immediate attention. It is pointed out in the Third Interim Report of the Van Eck Commission that there are large numbers of people who earn such low wages with which they cannot buy the goods produced at high wages. As a result we have restricted consumption, restricted employment and a restricted home market. The policy of the Government is to reverse the position, so we must see to it that especially the lowest paid section of the population shall be given proper conditions of livelihood, so that they may become an effective buying and consuming section of the population, and so create a home market in South Africa which will mean not only the end of unemployment but which will actually mean that we shall not have sufficient labour in this country to do the work that the country requires to be done. In order to cope with that position you will have to have a vigorous policy of immigration which will not only increase our Home market, but which will reduct the present numerical disparity between our European and non-European population. You will thus be able to go in for mass production in this country, which at the same time will mean cheaper production. It has been proved by the war that as you go in for mass production you can lower the cost of production, and the steps which I have indicated are those which we should take to cope with the situation. In addition to an expanding Home market we will be able to cater for the African market. We may be told that it is impossible for us to compete in these markets but I contend that with a big home market, with mass production and consequent reduced costs we can capture the African markets and hold them and ultimately establish an economic union between the Union and the Rhodesias and British African and possibly other African territories, and that is where I can see great future development. Now, I want to deal with one other point. We cannot deal with this problem by a wage policy only. We also have to deal with the question of a more equitable distribution of the wealth of the country. We have to establish a basis, a “floor” below which the earnings and conditions of the people shall not fall. But at the same time we must set up a “ceiling” beyond which the incomes and profits of people shall not pise. If that is done it will be possible to increase the National wealth of the country, and do that in such a way as to contribute to the opportunities of employment. I have on a previous occasion referred to the facts set out in the 1936—’37 Industrial Census and I have pointed out that we have something like 10,000 establishments falling under our factory legislation, and that of these 10,000 establishments more than 7,000 are employing less than 4 workers each. It means that they are inefficient. The industry is inefficient because it is under capitalised, it has not got the adequate plant which it requires and the overhead expenses are too high. Therefore we shall have to go in for a policy of rationalising our industries, not by eliminating the small people, but by seeing that some are absorbed in the bigger concerns, and that others with the help of our Industrial Development Corporation are grouped together and established on a cooperative basis. Now, I want to touch on the immediate problem of our absorption of the returned soldiers. And there, again, I say that under the system which is being carried out, under the system of creating a home market, there should be no difficulty of absorbing in industry the large majority, in fact all the people now in the Army. And here there is one point of which I wish to remind the House, and that is that the figures which have been placed before us by the Planning Council in regard to the numbers that will have to be absorbed are not claimed to be accurate. Those figures should not be accepted without very careful investigation. We have to take into account that thousands and thousands of the soldiers who will return have by arrangement and in terms of a War Emergency Regulation to be taken back by the employers whose service they left to go to the front. We have to take into consideration those who were employed in Government Service, in the Railway service, by public utility corporations, by local authorities, by large business concerns, by the mines, the banks and so on. So, with the expansion of presently restricted enterprise, and with the conversion of war industry to peace purposes, and the method of securing this is, at the instance of the Prime Minister, already being investigated—a large proportion if not all of those who have gone to the front will be absorbed when they come back. Apart from that, I hope the Minister of Defence will see to it that he will not allow any men to be demobilised, that he will not allow anyone to be put on the street, but that he will continue to pay all these people whether they are in a dispersal camp or in their own homes, until they have found employment. Then there is another point which has been touched upon and that is the question of national housing. We have our Central Housing Board. Many millions of pounds have been spent but we have not even touched the fringe of the subject. Thousands and thousands of houses are required; not a few million but £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 should be spent annually on a policy of national housing until the housing problem is solved, and that will immediately create an avenue of employment, the like of which we have not seen in this country. We are at the moment spending something like £50,000,000 a year on Defence from Loan Funds. Surely if we can spend all that money on war purposes the Minister of Finance will agree with me that it is right that when the war is over there is no reason why an equally large sum should not be spent on post-war reconstruction by means of Peace Bonds or Reconstruction Notes. And finally I would like to suggest to the Government, in connection with the question of appointing commissions and committees to enquire into all these matters, that they should not forget that every department of the Union is littered with reports and blue books on subjects which have already been enquired into by commissions and committees. I would suggest that, in addition to the many committees that are being set up, the Planning Council should set up a small committee to enquire into all the blue books and the reports which we already have and see whether something useful cannot be taken from those reports. I would also urge the Government to reduce the membership of the Planning Council and appoint the members on a full time basis, and finally I would urge that instead of leaving the plans put forward to be carried out by the various unco-ordinated government departments, the Government should appoint a Minister of Reconstruction and co-ordination. I think that along the lines of policy which the Government is pursuing we can have confidence that if the energy and vision with which Gen. Smuts is leading us in the fight against Nazism will be applied in the fight against poverty and its consequential evils he will secure for the people in general and for our soldiers in particular an advanced standard of life and economic and social security.

The Prime Minister of our country—I am sorry that he is not present this morning—is often called a world figure. When he speaks, there are admirers in all parts of the world who listen to him. But I go so far as to say that notwithstanding that, the Prime Minister was never, at any rate, as far as his speeches in this House are concerned, so unconvincing and so disappointing as he was in the reply he gave on the motion of my leader. He was unconvincing and disappointing. That disappointment was also discernable in his own ranks. We have only to listen to what is said in the lobbies, we have but to look at the newspapers to realise that disappointment. That disappointment over the speech of the Hon. Prime Minister cannot be expressed better than a certain person expressed it in the Press in these words—

I say that that disappointment, which is felt throughout the country over the action of the Prime Minister, cannot be expressed better than this person expressed it. The people outside can only be disappointed over these words of the Prime Minister when they think of the post-war conditions that can arise if plans cannot be devised and carried out in time to provide for the needs which may arise as a result of the war. Through our participation in the war nearly everything—our production, our industrial activities, and thousands and thousands of people have been torn loose from their foundations. When the war is over there will be an end of the enormous war production, which is only a temporary production. All the factories which are busy with the manufacture of war requisites will immediately come to a stop, and at once there will be thousands and thousands of workers as well as thousands and thousands of returned soldiers who will be without work and without a haven. The Planning Council of the Government has already put that number at 230,000 people who will be without a haven after the war, and of them 110,000 are Europeans and 120,000 non-Europeans. But that is not all. The Government is devoting approximately £100,000,000 annually to the war. As a result of that enormous circulation of money, money is plentiful for all sorts of activities which are usually the result of inflation. Those industries were suddenly created, and they can come to an end as suddenly. I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance: When the war is over and this enormous additional circulation of money dries up, what will happen? Apart from the thousands and tens of thousands who will immediately be unemployed, I wish to ask him whether he has thought what the condition of our country will be if steps are not taken in time to provide for the needs which are going to develop in our country as a result of those facts which are going to arise immediately after the war. Because if provision is not made for that time, we are heading for the most dangerous situation in South Africa which we have ever had in the history of our country, we are heading for a condition of chaos which very probably will not only shake our public companies and institutions to their foundations, but will also totally destroy the existence of those companies and institutions. I wish to ask the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance whether they have read the writing on the wall. I wish to ask them whether they realise what is already happening, whether they know of the meetings of returned soldiers, to which large numbers of soldiers go, supported by the Springbok Legion. I wish to ask them whether they have taken note of the meetings of coloureds and kaffirs at which they are addressed by European Communist agitators. It is not only Jews who do this. There are now others too. There are young Afrikaners and English-speaking persons who take part in that today. I shall give a few of the names. In Johannesburg there is an advocate named Fischer. There are two young Pretoria advocates named Boshoff and Findlay, to give a few of the names. What state of affairs is going to develop if we are going to get a chaotic situation in our country after the war; what state of affairs is going to develop if we do not take effective steps in time? Chaotic conditions will be pregnant with dangers which may not only have disastrous consequences for us as a Christian and European people, but which may cause our death as a European and Christian civilisation. If those conditions are to continue and if thereby a tidal wave of Communism—about which I do not want to dilate now, I mention it merely in passing—is released by the Prime Minister on the country, as he is doing with his war policy, and with the exemption that has been given to Communistic champions and agitators, both European and non-European, so that they can continue scatheless with their propaganda, what then is the situation which confronts us in the immediate future with a view to all this? What is more, with a view to the actual building up and development of South Africa in the economic, industrial, agricultural and every other sphere, my leader introduced in this a comprehensive motion, a motion which, if notice is taken of it and it is carried out, offers the possibility of converting South Africa, eliminating root and branch everything that is wrong and that lies at the basis of our difficulties, and enabling our country to develop in such a way that it will be able in the future to provide a happy home for South Africa’s sons and daughters and a decent existence for those thousands and tens of thousands who have hitherto lived as beggars in their own fatherland, with whom it has been as with Lazarus that they have had to pick up crumbs from the tables of their lords. On that comprehensive and thorough motion of my leader, what was the Prime Minister’s reply? His reply was a speech of 40 minutes long in which he said nothing positive. It was characteristic of the dexterity of the Prime Minister that he succeeded, with plays on words and with platitudes, in talking here for 40 minutes and in evading the subject of the debate. If we analyse closely everything the Prime Minister said here and reduce it to what was actually positive in it, we can express it in two full sentences. The first is that the motion of the Leader of the Opposition for the establishment of a general economic council was an imitation of the Government’s Social and Economic Planning Council. The second was that the Government is doing all that is necessary, because, see, it has appointed an Economic Planning Council, and what more do we want? As far as the first part of the speech is concerned—that what the Leader of the Opposition proposes is an imitation of the Government’s Planning Council, I wish to put these questions to the Prime Minister: Was he in 1934/5 a stranger in Jerusalem in this country; does he not know that this proposal for a general economic council to act in a co-ordinating and advisory capacity has already been contained in the programme of the Nationalist Party since 1935/6? Moreover, does the Prime Minister not know that during the election of 1938 it was stated in the election manifesto of the Nationalist Party that there should be a general central economic council for South Africa and that this was one of the most important points in our election manifesto? This is also my answer to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), who echoed the Prime Minister as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. It is not that a proposal of the Leader of the Opposition is an imitation of what the Prime Minister has proposed. On the contrary, the creation of the Planning Council is nothing but a weak and poor attempt to give expression to what this side of the House has already advocated for years in South Africa. I come to the second part—that the Government is doing all that possible and because, see, there, is the Planning Council. If we have to accept as proof that the Government is doing all that is possible and necessary what we find in this report of the Planning Council which was issued recently, then I wish to ask the Prime Minister: Has he ever in his long Parliamentary career encountered a more damning document than this in respect of the action of any Government in South Africa? Has he ever read a more serious indictment against the lack of activity, against lack of any devising of plans for the future, than is to be found in this very report on which he relies and which he presents to us as proof of what the Government is doing in our country to save the population from the conditions which may strike it? I want to say this to him: that in a country having people’s government a document like this, a damning indictment like this, ought to mean the immediate fall of the Government, and I wish to say here in all earnestness that if the members who sit behind the Prime Minister—members of Parliament who represent the people—have acquainted themselves properly with the contents of this document, and if they wish then to act honestly according to their conviction and duty, this Government should fall when this motion is voted on. For I say again: never has such a damning indictment been brought against a government as we find in this document. Let us investigate slightly the charge which is brought against the Government. I wish to refer to paragraph 24 on page 3 of the report. The Planning Council deals here with the effort made by the Civil Re-employment Board to make provision for the people who will be without work after the war. The report states that there will be about 230,000 unemployed after the war, and then it surveys what plans have been made to make provision for those people, and here now we get the results of its investigation. The report states—[Translation]—

In that direction, therefore, there is nothing—

And then we get this significant statement—

They will be able to absorb all former native volunteers, but for the Europeans no prospect is held out that they will be absorbed again.

I come to a further point—

Thus, there too there are no prospects. The explanation of that is this in the report—

I go further—

Also as far as new industries are concerned, as far as industrial development is concerned, there are no prospects from the Government side. I take the following—

Seven hundred men will be absorbed out of 230,000! We go further—

We note—there may be. We take another important section, namely, the work done under the Central Housing Board. Many of these thousands and tens of thousands of people will not only be unemployed; they will also be without housing. The planning Council states—and this is its final summing up—

Then they come to the Railways and Harbours—

But note this now—

This then is the document which the Prime Minister presents to us as showing the effort which the Government has already made to make provision for those enormous difficulties awaiting us. I take another point in connection with the National Roads Board—

The greatest portion of these 1,000 men will be natives and coloureds, and not white people—

And then we come to the Department of Forestry—

Can you understand now why I say that there has never been a more damning indictment issued in our country than this? In every sphere in which something could have been done by the State, the report says that practically nothing has been done yet and that they apparently have no plan for doing anything. I take the following point—

Then we come to one of the most important things with which we can be occupied in our country, namely, land and veld conservation. On this the report of the Planning Council says—

Here we have to do with a matter where thousands of people can obtain work, but the verdict of the Planning Council is that up to now no comprehensive scheme, also related to the broader aspects of utilisation of land, has been evolved. And then the Planning Council draws this conclusion—

Remember now, this is the body on which the Prime Minister relies, and this is the damning verdict which is given by this body—from the foregoing it is clear to the Planning Council that the drawing up of post-war re-employment schemes is not being tackled seriously. Can we imagine anything more killing than that? It appears from the same paragraph that, as far as the Planning Council could ascertain, the position is that, with all the efforts which are being made, tentative efforts which are not yet definite, and efforts which are in progress, the Government will be in a position to give work to something more than 15,000 people after the war—15,000 out of a total of 230,000. That is why I say that when one regards and surveys the situation which confronts us, one shivers at the consequences which may arise if steps are not taken in time. The worst is still to come. In paragraphs 60 and 61 we get a brief collection of the charges against the do-nothing policy of the Government—

But so it continues—

That is right. So one can go on from A to Z and quote examples, and nowhere has the Government done anything. It has no plans. That is why I say that the report of the Government’s Planning Council is the most deadly and damning indictment which has ever been laid on the Table against any Government, and I say once again that if this House of Assembly wishes to do its duty and if hon. members on the other side wish to act in accordance with their duty and conscience, then when this motion is voted upon, this Government must fall. The hon. Prime Minister said that our motion was an imitation. What we propose is a permanent planning council. The great objection against this body is that it is virtually powerless, because it is entirely part-time. We proposed a permanent planning council. This panacea of the Prime Minister, on which there are a few capable people like, for example, Dr. Van Eck and Mr. Leisk, is but a part-time body. This great plan of the Government to investigate the conditions and work out plans, to face the great difficulties and devise means, is but a part-time board. Have you ever seen anything more futile than that? Now I come to our own proposal, and I wish to deal only with one aspect of the matter, and that is the development of our industries, because I am convinced that industrial development is the best measure that can be tackled, not only as far as the future is concerned for the improvement of conditions in which the people must live, but also with a view to the 230,000 unemployed who will exist after the war, according to the estimate of the Planning Council. Industrial development is the best measure that can be tackled to meet the problem. We in South Africa have in this connection to contend with a great difficulty, and that is the gnawing poverty which brings thousands and thousands of people annually to beggary and lets them live in conditions where they have to exist not much above the level of the coloured and the native. And then we have the colour problem, considered from the point of view that the European race must maintain itself in South Africa. The European race numbers only 2,000,000 souls and must maintain itself in all Africa against nearly 200,000,000 coloured people on the Continent of Africa. This in itself, considered from this point of view, seems a superhuman task. The maintenance of the European race in the past was, comparatively speaking, easy, because the enormous native population of 200,000,000 in Africa was completely undeveloped; but they are developing in the industrial sphere and in other spheres, with the result that the task of the small group of white people, to maintain themselves, is no longer as easy as in the past. In addition, we have to bear in mind the disturbing figures of the latest census. According to those census figures the European population in South Africa was 1,500,000 in 1921 against 5,500,000 non-Europeans, but according to the census of 1936 the Europeans numbered only something over 2,000,000 against 7,600,000 non-Europeans in spite of immigration on a fair scale. We see, therefore, that our European population increased by only 484,000 in that period of 1921 to 1936, while the’ non-Europeans increased in the same period by 2,176,000; expressed in percentages, it means that in this period of 15 years the European population increased only by 32 per cent., while the non-European population increased by 40 per cent.—40 per cent. for the non-Europeans against 32 per cent. tor the Europeans. When we consider those figures and consider the data, we can imagine what if this process continues, the situation of South Africa will be in another 50 years, unless effective steps are taken to develop South Africa in such a way that it can give an existence to a much greater European population than is the case at present. Otherwise and I say it in all seriousness, there is no future for the European race in South Africa, for if the non-European population continues year by year to increase so rapidly, much more rapidly than the European population, the handful of Europeans will in the end be unable to maintain themselves against the great mass of nonEuropeans, especially if the natives develop and civilise themselves as is now the case. Industrial development is one of the means of making it possible for a larger European population to exist here. One may not think of immigration as long conditions exist such as those existing today, because in the first place one must see to it that the thousands and tens of thousands of poor whites in our country enjoy attention and get a chance to make a livelihood, and it is therefore necessary first to develop South Africa in such a way that one can provide for the needs of one’s own sons and daughters. It would be criminal, while there are thousands and thousands of unemployed and poor whites in our country, to import people from oversea to compete further with those unemployed. Because of this, we have the great problem that provision must first be made for thousands of poor whites in our own country, and that we must then increase our development still further to make possible a greater influx of people than is the case at present. If we wish to enable Christian European civilisation to continue, we must provide first for our own people, because before we have done that, there is no room for people from outside. If we look to agriculture, we see that as far as agriculture is concerned, there is also at the moment little chance for the expansion of the population. Take wheat farming and maize farming. Is there a chance in those two groups for more people to find a livelihood under present circumstances? I do not wish to dilate on that, but unless a greater area of sale is created and there are not adequate markets, it is clear that under existing circumstances there is no chance for more people to make a living in farming in South Africa. Next to the agricultural industry the mining industry is the important industry in our country, and one will look in the first place to these two industries to see whether there is a chance for the absorption of more Europeans. As far as the mining industry is concerned, it is said in this report by people who can speak with authority and who have the necessary information at their disposal, that they predict that within ten years’ time the gold mining industry will decrease considerably. Thus, far from having in the gold mining industry a channel in which more people will be able to find a livelihood, one has the additional problem that in the near future the gold mining industry will push more unemployed into the market as a result of the curtailment of the industry. This is the prediction of people wo can speak with authority. Thus there remains only one thing, and that is to develop South Africa in the industrial sphere and at a much faster tempo than has happened up to today. We must develop our industries by all means to be able to provide work not only for those who are already in our country, but also if we wish to have in South Africa a much larger population than there is today. These things are self-evident and I do not need to dilate upon them: If there is a greater industrial population than today, you will not only give a direct living to thousands and thousands more people in industries, but by means of this you will also create a greater area of sale in agriculture, and in agriculture again more people will be able to make a living than is the case today. In this connection it is important to point to the industrial growth from 1924 to 1936, a growth which, in fact, continues today. That growth is to be attributed to the protection policy of the old Nationalist Party. We know what strong opposition we encountered in connection with the protection of our own industries. The old Nationalist Party had to conduct a hard struggle for the policy of industrial protection. But what were the results? Such a growth of industries occurred in South Africa from 1924 to 1936 that in that short period 80,000 more Europeans found a livelihood directly in industries. The development was so enormous that in the period of 12 years an additional 80,000 Europeans obtained work as a result of the development. And that did not only mean a living for 80,000 people. Many of them were married and had wives and children, so that the number of people who lived from that was considerably greater, and one can estimate that at least 180,000 or 200,000 people could live in that short period as a result of the development and could make a living directly out of industries. In addition, there are the indirect consequences of industrial development. A greater area of sale was created for agricultural products, as a result of which the provision of work in agriculture also increased. In addition, too, there is the development of commerce as a result of industrial development. Let us look now for a moment at the development in the industrial sphere in England because our history in the industrial sphere more or less forms part of that of the British Empire, and we must see it in that light. Well, England is not a country like Russia or America or Germany, which draw a great part of their wealth from their own soil, which produce from their own soil. England s position is peculiar in this respect. England s wealth throughout the centuries was built up and came not out of her own soil, but was built up with the help of raw materials which England obtained by means of foreign investments and trade in all parts of the world, mainly her colonies and dominions, and these raw materials were processed in England’s factories, whereafter the manufactured articles were sold at a profit over the whole of the globe. In this way England built up her might and power. It goes without saying, too, that England harnessed all her forces, her money power and her political power, and her newspapers and banks, to retain that enormous source of revenue. In other words, it has always been in the interests of England that there should be no industrial development in those territories from which she obtains her raw materials and where she desires an area of sale for her manufactured articles. Common sense tells one that if Canada and Australia and South Africa and India and other territories which not only provide raw materials, but are also the area of sale for the manufactured articles — if they themselves developed in the industrial sphere, so that they could themselves process their raw materials in their own countries into manufactured articles, then England would suffer and would eventually have to die as a great nation. There is no doubt about being so, we can also understand that England, through her statesmanship, through making use of her Press, through her great money power, in all spheres exerted influence—here in South Africa, too—to oppose big industrial development. Anyone who has a knowledge of industrial development and who was able to see a little behind the scenes can tell of all the influences which were in action in connection with South Africa’s industrial development. The best example that one can quote is the struggle which, again in this House, was conducted years ago when we created the iron and steel factory. How were we not fought? And if you investigate it, you will be astonished at how the struggle was conducted and what political influences and economic influences were put to work to cause the thing to miscarry. The Prime Minister and his followers day and night, tooth and nail, fought the establishment of such an iron and steel industry in South Africa.

Now they boast about it.

Yes, but only because they can use it now in their war effort. I mention it as an example, which no one can contradict, because it’ stands written in black letters in the annals of South Africa’s industrial development. Politically, by means of the Press—which is also controlled in a large measure from England and by means of the enormous money power, these influences were at work This war compelled South Africa to create certain industries, but they are in the main war industries. In this war England also as far as her foreign trade and investments are concerned, has suffered a tremendous blow [Time limit.]

It has been said by several people that this debate has not been a very interesting debate I find it interesting, nevertheless, but not because of what has been said here but rather because of the basis of this debate. We on this side of the House are somewhat surprised about the motion which the Leader of the Opposition has introduced. We expected a motion of no confidence, or at least we expected a motion that would indicate where honourable members on the other side stand today in respect of the war situation. But instead of that, what do we get? A motion that indicates their idea of what form South Africa should assume when South Africa, as one of the United Nations, has achieved victory in the war, and after peace has been restored. The basis of this motion, the assumption behind it, is that democracy will be victorious in this war. That is the meaning of this motion. And in this motion the Opposition is attempting to indicate what form South Africa as a democratic State should assume.

Is Russia one of the democracies?

On the other side you have the New Order Group, under the temporary leadership of the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis), who has also moved an amendment, but the assumption behind that amendment is that Nazi Germany is going to win the war. That is what they desire. They desire that as a result of this, South Africa will also become a Nazi State and what is embodied in their amendment is the form which South Africa as a Nazi State will assume. Well, as far as the members of the official Opposition are concerned, they apparently are now convinced that Nazi Company is going to lose the war, and that South Africa will remain a democratic State. The Leader of the Opposition has made considerable progress in recent years. No longer is he of the opinion that England has already lost the war, no longer does he feel himself called upon to declare—as he did at Ventersdorp at a meeting which he did attend, not the one which he did not attend—no longer does he feel himself called upon to declare that all that Germany expects of South Africa is a friendly-disposed Government, and that he is prepared to accede to Germany’s wishes, no longer does he wish to represent himself as the great protector of the Ossewa-Brandwag—“if you raise a hand to this body, then you will have to deal with me”.

What has that to do with the motion?

A lot. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has apparently changed his mind on this point. A turning point has come about.

Where?

We heard a lot about the crisis congress which was to have been held in September last year. It was a crisis congress, but the crisis was a crisis for my hon. friend. It was with him that the turning point came about. Beforehand a great deal was made of what would happen at that congress. A very important announcement was to have been made. A new lead was to have been given. Of course, the expectation was that by the middle of September Stalingrad would have fallen. That was what they expected.

The hon. Minister is now wandering a little far from the motion.

I want to show under what circumstances the motion originated. Last year the Leader of the Opposition was busy indicating to us that the only question of interest for South Africa was the matter of a republic, the status of South Africa after the Nazis had achieved victory. He has since learned that such a victory will not be achieved.

What has that to do with the motion?

The hon. Leader of the Opposition has now to deal with a different question, with the status of South Africa as a democratic State. He now no longer has much to say about what the position of South Africa would be if the Nazis won. No, his motion is based on the expectation that the democracies will win. I congratulate the hon. member on the progress he has made. We do not take him amiss. He has been placed in an unbearable position as a result of the attitude he has taken up in the past, and we congratulate him on the attempt he is trying to make to save himself from that situation.

Is Russia a democracy?

I say the debate is interesting in view of its basis. It is not very interesting from the point of view of what has actually been said here. And that for the simple reason that we have covered a very wide field in this debate as it has been a very wide debate. I have had the same experience with budget debates. Every year when I listen to the budget debate, I feel that it is the most uninteresting that I have ever listened to. The reason is simple. The budget debate is also a debate in which members have the right to speak on any subject, and there is practically no coherent thread running through the debate. That is precisely what has happened in this debate. The leader of the Opposition has come forward with an election manifesto. The Leader of the Opposition will not take me amiss if I call him the “aspirant Prime Minister,” and he has come forward with his election manifesto wherein the whole field of state policy is covered. Thereupon followed speeches by other members of the Opposition, aspirant ministers who dealt with different parts of the policy. We have had the aspirant Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), we have had the aspirant Minister of Commerce and Industries, the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), and the aspirant Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), and everyone of them has laid before us what his policy would be when he perhaps becomes a minister. It was all part of the election program that we have had. We know what election speeches are, nice words, promises that are made, but without a feeling of responsibility. There is a great difference between the words spoken by a person who is not in a position of responsibility and the deeds when a person really holds a responsible position.

Are you speaking of yourself?

I do not accuse the aspirant ministers of dishonesty. I assume that their real intention is to carry out the program, but nearly everyone of them has never yet held a position of responsibility, and they have never yet experienced the hard facts that lie behind the problems of our State policy, But I want to say this, that they will never carry out the program if they ever become ministers, the program which they are advocating in this debate. I do not know whether they will ever become ministers, some of them perhaps might, but they will never be able to carry this programme. There is a great difference between words and deeds. The leader of the Opposition himself was a minister for nine years. What did he do to carry out all the great plans that are embodied in this motion of his. He had a chance for nine years. What did he do? But there is also another aspect of the matter. The honourable leader of the Opposition was my predecessor as minister. I know what his attitude was and how reasonably he acted towards uni-lingual English-speaking officials, and how tolerant he was towards the Asiatics, and how conciliatory towards the coloureds and Malays. I know all these things. In this respect my friend’s deeds were considerably better than his words were afterwards. But as regards this motion of his, there the hon. member’s deeds in the past have fallen considerably short of his words of today. And when the people judge this motion, the people must take this into account, and compare his words of today with his lack of deeds in the past. The old people here in the Cape have a saying “Listen to my words, but look not at my deeds.” This can be applied to the leader of the Opposition. Against the election manifesto we have received it is certainly not necessary for the Government at this time to set another election manifesto. When the time comes, we will enlighten the people about our further plans, and we will do it with a complete feeling of responsibility, knowing that we will be called upon to govern the country for another five years, but a premature manifesto is not necessary. It is sufficient at this time to refer to the deeds we have already achieved and to the steps we have already taken to solve the problems. I could say quite a lot about the policy of the Government, I could speak quite a lot about the war policy of the Government and the manner in which we established our army here, the way in which we equipped our army, I could speak of the expansion of our war industries although we had to begin from the bush cart stage of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). I could speak of the manner in which the Government has maintained peace and order in spite of the attempts that have been made to disturb the peace and order. But I just want to say something on the matter of our social and economic policy and especially I wish—I cannot go deeply into the matter because time will not permit of it—to mention points and a few outstanding facts that I can submit in support of the claims I make In the past 3½ years South Africa has made considerable progress in respect of her financial independence. I mention the tact that when war began, we had an external debt, apart from the funds in the Redemption Fund, of £103,000,000. After the repatriation transaction that is going on has been quite completed, it will amount to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. In the past 3½ years there has been a considerable improvement in the general position of the farmers in South Africa.

That is not so.

I mention the fact that the Land Bank last year paid back £1,000,000 to the Government instead of increasing its capital by £500,000, and the farmers paid back £1,680,000 to State Advances Recoveries Office. I also mention the fact that the Land Bank expects to pay back £1,500,000 this year, and that the State Advances Recoveries Office this year expects not less than £2,150,000. In other words, the farmers reduced their debts to the State last year by £2,680,000, and this year we expect that the Land Bank will reduce its debts by £3,650,000, nearly £1,000,000 more than last year. In the past 3½ years the position of the poor man and the middle-class man has improved considerably.

That is not true.

I mention the fact that Post Office Savings Bank deposits last year increased by £7,500,000.

That does not come from the poor people.

In the year before the war the increase was only £1,250,000. I also mention the fact that the nett increase in Union Loan Certificates last year was £6,000,000, and in the year before the war there was an increase of only £100,000. In the past 3½ years the Government has done a good deal for the workers in our country. I mention the fact that we passed an important Factories Act, a Workman’s Compensation Act, a law in connection with insurance against unemployment and I can mention several other things. These are all things that this “do nothing” Government, as the honourable member calls it, has done in a few years. We have done a good deal to promote industries. I mention one fact, viz., that in this financial year we made available £750,000 to the Industrial Development Corporation and nearly £4,500,000 to Iscor. In the past three years considerable progress has also been made in respect of housing. I mention the fact that in this period the amount available for sub-economic housing purposes has been increased three times. In September, 1939 the amount was £13,000,000, after that we increased it to £13,250,000, and later to £15,500,000, while recently ’it was brought up to £17,000,000. In the past 3½ years social services have been expanded considerably. I mention facts again. Three years ago the amount available for public health was £840,000, this year we intend to make available more than £1,110,000; three years ago the amount for public welfare was a little over £810,000, this year we intend to make available £1,520,000.

Election promises.

Those increases have taken place gradually in the past three years. Before the war the amount paid out in pensions was £5,300,000, this year we intend to make available £7,100,000. I could mention many more points and facts to support these points, but I want to spare hon. members that. I have mentioned enough to indicate by mentioning direct facts that the Government has in fact done a great deal, and that the Government without fear can ask the people to set out deeds against words of members on the other side. What is especially significant is the fact that we have had to undertake a tremendous task in the past 3½ years. We have had to build up a great army and all that goes with it.

That is all that you have done.

We saw defence expenditure grow from £2,000,000 to £96,000,000 a year.

Shame.

It would not have been surprising if we had felt that we, with the gigantic task in connection with the creation of the defence machine, had done sufficient, that that was enough to take up all our energy. We did not do that. Notwithstanding the great expense connected with it, we still found money for the expansion of social services and the development of natural resources, and the extension of industries. Even in this time of war we say that this Government has done more constructive work, has contributed more to the development of the permanent resources of our country than any Government has done in the past, in peace time. I mention these facts of what the Government has done. I certainly do not mention them in a spirit of self-satisfaction, or to create the impression that we have done everything that should be done. There is still much that must be done.

Make a few more election promises.

There is still a lot that the people expect to be done. The Government also has its aspirations in this connection. But for the reasons I have mentioned we have the right to ask the people to regard and to judge our aspirations for the future in the light of our achievements in the past. We have something to which we can refer as proof of our good faith. Our opponents have not. They can only come before this House with words. We come with deeds. When the Prime Minister made his speech at Bloemfontein, where he accepted the Atlantic Charter in the name of South Africa and represented to the world, and to us, a new South Africa that would be built up on the dual basis of economic progress and social welfare, it was not really a new policy that he announced, but a new formulation of the policy that this Government has been following for a long time already.

If it is only the old policy, then I am sorry for South Africa.

With this policy we will go forward until we have achieved complete success. In connection with this policy, I wish once more to mention a few things in general. The first point I want to mention is that sometimes the present is spoken of as an abnormal time, as a result of which perhaps the impression is created that after the war we shall revert to what is regarded as normal, to the status that existed before. That will not happen. The people do not desire to revert to the status quo. The Government does not desire to re-establish it. The status quo was certainly not desirable in every respect. We are all firmly resolved to see to it that as we are prosecuting a war in the name of democracy, South Africa after this war, will be a more democratic country than it has been in the past. There will be a greater measure of equality and justice in the mutual relationships in our country; there will be more freedom in South Africa, not only in the political sphere, but also—and perhaps especially—in the economic sphere. Those are the intentions of the Government, and those intentions hold good, not only for the European population of South Africa, but also for the non-European elements of our population.

When business was suspended, I was busy mentioning three points in connection with the general policy of the Government with regard to economic development and social welfare. My first point was that we shall not revert to the status quo. The people do not desire it, and the Government does not desire it. I speak of the people as a whole when I say that we are inspired by definite intentions to see to it that the new South Africa will at any rate be more democratic than she has been in the past—that there will be more fairness and justice. When we say this—I repeat what I said before the recess—then we think not only of the Europeans, but also of the non-European section of the population. My second point is that in respect of the taxation system we shall not revert to the status quo after the war. There are perhaps people who are of the opinion that after the war we will again enjoy the old system of taxation. Our scale of taxation before the war was a low scale. We will not revert to it again. More and more the imposition of tax is being used as a means of arriving at a better division of the income of the various sections of the people. This is happening at present in war time. It will also have to happen after the war. But I come now again to the third point I mentioned, and that is that the system of taxation as a means of redistributing the income of the people as a whole, has not yet brought us very far in the direction of those better living conditions for the whole nation which the people desire, and which we have in view. There will still remain a lot to do that cannot be done purely through a better distribution of public income by means of the system of taxation. We are faced—and we cannot get away from it—with the fact that South Africa after all is not a rich country. We have gold and diamonds, but, notwithstanding that, South Africa is not a rich country. Take the income of the nation as a whole, and divide it between the people as a whole. Even make a difference between European and non-European, and then we get an average figure which is comparatively low compared with a similar figure for other countries. The redistribution of public income by means of taxation is therefore by a long way not sufficient. If we want to meet the wishes of the people, and if we wish to bring about our own ideals, we shall have to do other things. We shall have to increase the average figure for public income, and make better use than we have hitherto made of the natural resources of the country. We shall have to fit all sections of our population better for the work to make use of those natural resources. It is in this spirit that the Government must begin to act from the beginning. We have taken those steps referred to by the Hon. the Prime Minister. We have, in the first place, had an investigation into the agricultural requirements. We appointed a Nutrition Board. We appointed the Civilian Re-employment Board, and that Board has done very important work. It is somewhat unreasonable to hold it against that Board that it did not solve the more general problems. That Board was appointed to deal with soldiers as they came out of the army, and it has succeeded excellently in this task. But there are greater problems than those to which I have just referred, and with this in view we appointed the Planning Council. We were criticised because the Planning Council did not consist of full-time members. Well I ask you, where would we have got full-time members for a body like this which must consist of persons who are not only theoretically equipped but also practically equipped for that work? You cannot get them, and we did the best that we could in the circumstances. With that aim we appointed the Planning Council; with that aim we instructed the National Supplies Board to go into the question of converting war industries to a peace basis; with that object in view we took steps to co-ordinate the various plans of the Departments in respect of public works. It is unreasonable to suggest that there are no such plans. Those plans had not yet reached finality when the Planning Council made its report; but the plans were there and they are now being co-ordinated, and they will contribute considerably to the solution of this problem. No, from the beginning this Government has acted systematically in connection with this greater problem and we shall continue along that road until we achieve our final object. I will leave the matter there. There is the choice that this House will have to make between the motion of the honourable leader of the Opposition and the amendment which I intend to move. That choice will also have to be made by the people as a whole. The people today are particularly interested in post-war conditions. The people entertain high expectations, and rightly so. The people ask: Who is going to satisfy these expectations? On the one side we have the Opposition which throughout the last 3½ years have been on a wandering course, who have spoken of a neutrality policy, which the trend of events has proved to be a futile policy. On the other side we have an Opposition who has spoken of a German victory, which will never be achieved; who has spoken of a republic which is disappearing further and further in the distance. On the other side we have an Opposition who are busy proving that Gen. Hertzog was right when he said that they would remain in the desert for 25 years, an Opposition who at long last is taking an interest in the post-war social and economic problems of the country. On this side we have a Government that can make an appeal on facts, on deeds as well as words, which tackles the matter as a whole in a healthy and systematic manner; a Government in which the people as a whole has confidence and the only body that will fulfil its desires There we have the choice that has to be made and that will be made. And in the light of this, to test those plans of the Government, I want to move the following amendment.

Why do you not hold an election ?

There is nothing that will startle my honourable friends on the other side more. I say, to put choice clearly, I will move the following amendment—

I second. There is an old adage which says: “When all is said and done, more is said than done.” I trust that as the result of the discussions on this motion and as a result of the Government’s actions which they have hitherto taken, the time will not be far off when we shall realise that insofar as social security is concerned, the phrase which I have referred to, is not just mere wishful thinking. On the contrary, I think our first duty is to translate our language of intentions and promises into definite action. Already the Government, as a result of a recommendation of the Central Economic and Planning Council, has appointed a Social Security Committee, which I shall refer to later. I hope and in fact I think it is perfectly clear, that if there is a common ground in this debate in this House, it is that we are in favour of social security. We are at present engaged in a life and death struggle and we are being irresistibly driven to form a genuine, a humane, a free and universal war aim. That universal war aim, so far, has been crystallised in the Atlantic Charter. Then let us in this country, in regard to our domestic efforts, make our first major instalment towards this Atlantic Charter—let us as our first objective, as soon as possible, enshrine the blue print of social security on the Statute Book. Let us show quite clearly that we are prepared to go forward and make that instalment in order to show that we intend to form a fair and just society of the peoples of this country. I should like to make this point clear also, that since the inception of the Social Security movement in South Africa I have endeavoured to play my part. I have taken an active interest in the movement, and I have been nominated as a representative from Natal on the National Social Security Council of South Africa. And in making that statement I should like this House and particularly the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) to accept the views that I am going to indicate, as the views which can—in a great measure—be rightly regarded as being representative of the policy of that Movement. But, before doing so—not that I wish to try and be lofty in this debate, but I do want to put forward two important points to this House. The first is, that if we are to have social security in this country, bearing in mind our problems and our racial difficulties, I must appeal to the House that we must firstly develop that true Christian outlook. The churches have been accused in the past of associating themselves with the rich and the wealthy, in fact they have often been accused even of being reactionary. Of late years the leaders of religious thought in this country have not only given a lead from the Pulpit, but they have come down from the Pulpit and have taken their place alongside the man in the street in working for the progress of the social end economic improvement in this country. They have refused to believe that their functions are exclusively those of teachers of religion and dogma. They have come down and taken their places alongside the common people. I believe that if we accept that lead then at least there can be some hope for us in finding some common ground in this House in order to ensure that social security will become the corner stone of our peace proposals in this country. The second point is that in considering social security we must be wise and we must temper our idealism with realism. Those who hold right wing views must come down off their perches, those who hold left wing views must curb their demands, and I believe that if we are to achieve these principles in examining social security, in a pure and proper Christian outlook, and temper our idealism with realism, then I am convinced that there is hope for us to expect, in this country, not a mere extension of existing social services but that social security will become a reality. Now, what briefly are the broad principles of social security? The principles, as I believe them, and the principles as accepted by the Social Security Movement in this country are four in number. The first is that it is a system of social insurance on a contributory basis covering all sections of the population. The second is that it is a national health service for all the people. The third is that it is a system of family allowances to supplement wages where these themselves are inadequate to maintain a decent standard of living, and fourthly, the rehabilitation of training benefits applicable to all sections of the people and designed to raise the economic efficiency of the people. Such a system of social security is already in operation in New Zealand, such a system of social security has been legislated for in Australia, and such a system has been, or is in the process of being enacted in Canada, and in regard to England, sir William Beveridge has laid down in the Beveridge Report that those four principles are the cardinal principles for the basis of post-war economic reconstruction in England.

What is happening to his report?

Surely it is being considered by the Government.

In twenty years’ time.

Do you want it tomorrow?

In regard to the first principle, the payments for social security should be on a contributary basis. Every citizen over the age of sixteen, in receipt of income, must be compelled to pay into the Security Fund, in proportion to his income. Time will not permit me, nor is it reasonable at this stage to suggest what payments should be made by the various sections of the people in this country, in view of the different economic factors. But let me say now, that the code must not acknowledge any racial groups. The code must apply all round, according to economic capacity. Under the principle of leadership and trusteeship, we must at all times endeavour to uplift the less privileged. Poverty and disease are universal evils, and they can only be eliminated by a People’s Front. The code, of course, should provide for exemptions for payments for certain individuals, or groups of individuals. In regard to the second principle of National Health Services, there is little that I should say at this stage, in view of the fact that at present a Commission is investigating this important subject. However, I trust that the Commissioners will not lose sight of the important fact that social security must be built around health standards, for disease and sickness and their varied causes, though health factors are also essentially economic and social factors, as they are related to income earned and income lost. Social security is designed to maintain an income in all circumstances, for every family. In regard to the third principle of family allowances, it is not my intention to indicate in some cases the inadequate payment of allowances, and in other cases the total lack of payment of allowances for the socio-economic disabilities of widowhood, orphanhood, large families, and other contingencies, such as sickness, invalidity, old age, and unemployment. In regard to the fourth principle of rehabilitation or training benefits, admittedly much has been achieved in this direction. Nevertheless, the policy of social security must be that vocational rehabilitation or occupational therapy measures should be undertaken on national lines, in order to restore the beneficiaries to some degree of economic efficiency, thereby generally maintaining the moral fibre of every citizen at the maximum to which these can be developed in every case. I now wish to refer to the Committee which has been appointed by the Government as a result of the deliberations of the Social and Economic Planning Committee, and, if I interpret public opinion correctly, there seems to be a certain amount of doubt, of misgivings in the mind of the public in regard to the personnel of this Committee. Firstly, on this Committee there is no representation of any women’s organisations. Secondly, there are only two independent men on the Committee, and I am not so sure, as to whether both these gentlemen have a deep knowledge of the subject of social security. Thirdly, there are three departmental officials on the Committee, and I am always perturbed when there are departmental officials on a body like that because they are to a certain extent governed by the policy of their department. I would put it to the Minister of Finance that in view of the importance of social security the Government will perhaps consider enlarging the scope of that Committee insofar as the personnel is concerned. Now, the second point I want to make is this. If I read public opinion correctly I do not think the public will be satisfied with any recommendations which are in effect merely bringing about an extension of the existing social services. Social security to me is a short range plan and what is more must be considered as a war measure. In regard to the motion moved by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) I am not disposed to doubt the hon. member’s intention in regard to his long range plans, but I want to put it to him that he is confusing the issue. He is mixing up social security with a long range plan, and in fact what social security he deals with, in his motion, is in the absolute and remote. The Leader of the Opposition has confused social security with economic planning and long range planning at that. Such planning as envisaged by the Leader of the Opposition—which I am not criticising—will take years to put into effect. What is wanted now is a short range plan of social security on the lines I have indicated as a war measure, and as the corner stone of our peace time policy. Furthermore, if I interpret that motion correctly I believe that the motion itself is not susceptible to a single piece of legislation. What is wanted, as I have indicated, is a social security Act in the immediate and relative and not in the absolute For fear that the Leader of the Opposition may think that, I personally and others, who are interested in social security are not in favour of his long range planning, I would put it to him that before we have long range industrial and agricultural planning in this country we firstly must have social security. Admittedly there must be a parallel development of such planning as indicated, but social security must be given priority in our planning, as it is the very basis on which to build a peace economy. Now, I would put it to the Leader of the Opposition. Who is to guarantee that after the war everyone will be working to capacity? I believe that if we could guarantee, that everyone would be working to full capacity then there would be an excellent opportunity when the social security fund could become so well established that it will be able to face up to any economic depression or disaster which perhaps might follow in some subsequent period. But if we could not guarantee full employment after the war then I would put it to the Leader of the Opposition that there is then a bigger reason still why social security should be approved of. Without it, I think this House will agree, that in the presence of unemployment and accompanying poverty and disease, there will be chaos and disaster. The establishment of a Social Security Act will be the rational approach to peace conditions, thereby stabilising in a great measure the purchasing power of the people, with the result that there will be a great inducement for the establishment or for the encouragement of our industrial and agricultural industries. Mr. Speaker, there must be no forgotten men, no hungry families or bankrupt businesses, and I am convinced that on social and economic grounds social security must be our first consideration. There is just one point I would like to add in conclusion and that is in regard to the Social Security movement throughout South Africa. There is, and there has been in the past a tendency towards apathy in regard to our political activities on the part of many people of this country. I believe that perhaps one of the most important functions of the Social Security Movement will be to make for the more efficient working of our democratic system, as every member in this House will have it made quite clearly to him, what are the wishes of his constituents in regard to Social Security. I hope in conclusion that when we come back again next Session—and I, particularly refer to myself,—we shall see that the expressions of opinion which have been voiced in this House, and the actions which the Government have taken will show in no uncertain manner that social security can and will become an accomplished fact in this country.

The Minister of Finance in his speech visualised a more democratic South Africa, in which he says there will be more fairness and justice. He went out of his way to emphasise that the natives and coloureds would also be included. Without admitting that the coloureds and natives have been treated unfairly in the past, I want to give the assurance that in so far as we are concerned, that we have not the least objection to natives being treated fairly, and we also deny that anything has been done in the past to give the native the right to say that they have not been treated fairly and reasonably. But the Minister, before he sat down, before lunch, told us something else about which I should like to say a few words. He said—

He also emphasised in this connection that the coloureds and natives would not be excluded. I should like to know what he means by that. These words, coming from the Minister of Finance, sound very ominous. He emphasises that there will be a more democratic South Africa, with a greater measure of equality and freedom, and he adds that it will also apply to coloureds and natives. What does he mean by that? And to what extent is he going to grant greater equality to coloureds and natives? Did he merely mean economic equality, or also political and social equality? We have the fullest right to put this question to the Minister, because we know his past, and we know that the Minister of Finance quite recently stated that the segregation policy had failed. In view of that statement of the Minister and his words today, we have every reason to be disturbed, and we have the right in all seriousness to ask what he meant when he said that more equality would be given; when he emphasised that there would be a greater measure of equality and freedom.

He did not say anything about equality.

His words were that we would not go back to the status quo, that there would be a greater measure of equality and freedom. In view of the traditional politics of the Minister of Finance, I should very much like to know what he meant when he said that.

He did not speak of equality.

We want to know whether it will also be in the social sphere, and we expect an answer to the question. The Minister said further that there would be economic progress and social development. Let me just say that this kind of speech and slogan has been sown everywhere on the path of democracy. The path of democracy is full of traps of this kind, which have no other purpose than to catch innocent voters, nothing else. I shall come back to that later, but I first want to say something about what the Minister mentioned in regard to the achievements of the Government of which he is a member, and on the grounds of which he says that they have the greatest liberty to make an appeal to the people, to return them to office. In the first place, he spoke of “financial independence”. I ask you if we can call it financial independence if we look at the gigantic debts that are being incurred in connection with the war, a war with which we should not have been concerned? Will this give South Africa greater financial independence? The Minister in support of his argument stated that our external debt has been reduced to practically nothing. But have you any right to claim that we have greater economic independence before we have freed ourselves of the chains of foreign financial institutions? Is it not true that our credit to a large extent is controlled by foreign banking institutions? We know what happened after the last war. Then we also had a time of so-called prosperity and riches. The country flourished. We also saw what happened immediately afterwards. We had one of the greatest depressions that the country has ever experienced, and we know what role banking institutions played then. It is a well-known fact that banks are inclined to grant advances and loans and approve overdrawn accounts while everything is flourishing, but immediately a depression comes they turn on the screw. That is what they did before the last war. The result was bankruptcy, not by the hundreds, but by the thousands. Now I want to ask the Minister—he talks of economic independence—what power has the Minister over foreign banks operating here, and which, immediately there is a depression again—and it will come as surely as we sit here, after the war—will again try to do the same as they did after the last war? What power has the Minister to prevent credits being called up again with which they are now so generous? Before the Minister takes steps to prevent that—so far I do not know whether he has the power to do that—he cannot speak of greater financial independence. Foreign banks look only to the interests of their shareholders, mostly foreigners and immediately a little trouble comes, they withdraw loans and recall mortgages. Until effective steps are taken by the Government to prevent this, the Minister has not the slightest right to speak of greater financial independence. The Minister referred to the conditions of farmers and boasted that conditions had greatly improved. In support of his claim, he spoke of the £1,000,000 paid back by the farmers. He mentioned that figure, but I want to ask him what percentage that represents of the total debt of the farmers. The total debts of the farmers is estimated at an amount of £100,000,000, i.e. mortgage debt. Now I want to ask the Minister what percentage the amount paid back represents of the total debt of the farmers. Only a comparison of this kind can give us any idea of whether conditions have improved. I admit that farmers have paid back to a certain extent; I admit this and it is to their honour. I admit also that to a great extent there is an apparent prosperity today. But it is certainly not prosperity on which we can build. During the last war and immediately after we also had this kind of prosperity. We still remember how after the last war farmers received up to £5 for a bag of wheat, £1 10s. for a bag of maize and up to 3s. 6d. and 4s. for a lb. of wool. Those were gigantic prices. Today it is not so bad, but there again exists a measure of apparent prosperity, and as a result of this farmers have been able to pay off more debts than in the past. This is however not yet a proof of healthy economic conditions for the farmers. The Minister also referred to the middle classes and he said that the position of the middle classes had improved. His proof is that greater sums have been invested in the Post Office Savings Bank. This is also a result of apparent prosperity. Today there are many people who are drawing larger salaries than they did before the war and who after the war will no longer draw high salaries. They receive it in the army. Here in the House there are quite a number who draw double salaries. How many of them will draw double salaries after the war? There are hundreds and thousands of persons in the army who today receive big salaries, which they will not receive after the war. It is obvious that as a result of this more money is being invested. It is no evidence of a healthy prosperity for the middle classes. Then the Minister speaks of industrial expansion. The same applies there also. There has been great expansion, but almost without exception as a result of the war and for war purposes. The war industries of which the Minister speaks originated as a result of the war and have expanded as a result of the war. But will they be able to carry on after the war? Take the Steel Works. It produces today to a great extent material that is used for our war effort. This material will no longer be produced when the war is over. In the same way there are many others, and industrial development is misleading as a yardstick of progress. The Minister spoke here of the £4,500,000 made available to Iscor. The fact that Iscor is there today is not due to the other side of the House. I think that they thank the good Lord today that at that time they did not succeed in their attempt to wreck Iscor. The Minister speaks of £4,500,000, but how much of this money is taken up in war production and will simply disappear after the war? Then the Minister speaks of pensions. The pensions that exist today are also the fruits of the former Nationalist Government, but let me say this, that the pensions, war pensions as well as old age pensions, which are granted today are certainly nothing to boast about. Two pounds a month is the average amount that is paid to a persion who in the past sacrificed everything for his country. All day we hear that the Natives are paid too little, but the average sum paid to a European who is no longer able to work is a pension of £2 a month. They are expected to come out on £2 a month, while complaints are made every day by the Imperialists that the Natives are getting too little. The Minister says that pensions have increased by £2,000,000, but how much of that is a natural increase? It is obvious that pensions will increase from year to year because from year to year the number of pensioners increases. The Minister mentions figures here of an amount between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000 that is being devoted to social development. But compare that amount with the amount of £96,000,000 which is being spent on the war in one year. The Minister boasts of a mere £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 used for the social improvement of our people. But assume that £96,000,000 is being spent on the war. I do not want to go into the question whether the spending of that money for the war is justified, but in any case I want to say I do not believe that the Minister can believe that it is for the democracy of which he speaks. The country could have been converted into a paradise if this money had been used for permanent economic development. The Minister said further in his speech that there still could not be selfsatisfaction; much has still to be done, he said. There I agree with him entirely. There is still much to be done. But all I want to say is this: I remember that during the last war, although I was still very young, we also heard these beautiful promises. There were also promises that after the war there would be a world without misery. I remember also that after the war we experienced the greatest misery and want, and as a result of that war we have this war which is taking place today. Now I wish to say a few words about the motion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition which he introduced here. In the first place I want to congratulate him, and for this reason: It is the first time that he has stood up in Parliament to move a motion which to a great extent accepts the fundamental axioms advoated by the New Order. I do not want to go into details, but let me say this to indicate what I mean. I want to refer to Articles (a) and (b) of the motion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition. He says this:

1. (a) That the people be regarded as a moral and economic unity with full claim to the devoted service of everyone of its members, but also with full responsibility for providing to every one of them an existence worthy of a human being.
2. (b) That in exercising all its functions the State should as its first duty take human values and human needs into consideration above purely financial interests.

Compare these two articles which I have quoted here with the basic principles laid down by the New Order. I find on page 3 of our booklet the following: You will hear that it is practically the same but only expressed in other words. We declare that:

1. (c) The nation forms an organic unit and the wronging or injuring of a part (class or group) leads to the downfall of the whole.
2. (d) It is the right of every individual, no, his duty is according to his talent and ability to do his share in bringing about the God-given aim of the nation as a whole.

Here we find the same thing which the honourable Leader of the Opposition emphasises, viz., that the nation must form an organic unit. This is the first time that he has used this expression that the nation forms an economic and moral whole. He emphasises further in article (a) which I have read that the State can demand the devoted services of every individual. What does this mean? It means the acceptance by the official Opposition of the principle that the State is the highest authority and that the rights of the individual must be subjected to the rights of the State. The State can make certain demands of the individual. This is precisely what we say. The hon. Leader of the Opposition says that—

What do we say? We say this, that the New Order stands for—

That is precisely the same thing which he proposes. On page 17 we go further and say—

I emphasise that this is precisely the same as what the hon. Leader of the Opposition now proposes. Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition goes further and says that—

This will also be one of the duties of the State. I refer to page 22 of the program of the New Order. Here we say that every individual shall have the right to demand work from the State at a white man’s wage with reasonable chances for progress and sufficient free time for recreation and for a happy family life. The similarity between the New Order’s policy and the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition can be noticed in all the articles. The hon. Leader of the Opposition speaks further of effective State control. Paragraph (ii) of the motion is as follows—

Let me say this, for long time already we have advocated that there should be State control. We have been advocating for the last three years that the State should have the right to have its representatives on big directorates. I say therefore that the only difference between the motion of the Leader of the Opposition and the policy of the New Order, is that the former amounts to nothing but speaking in general terms, while the latter goes to the root of the matter. That is the only difference. As far as the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition goes, it consists of practically everything which the New Order also proposes. Only we go quite a good deal further. Then there are a few other points. There is the question of possession of property. We also advocate that excessive owning of land like company lands should not be permitted; we advocate that there should be stable prices for the products of the farmer, and that there should be protection against exploitation. Although the hon. Leader of the Opposition also advocates this today, we in the first place set it out much more clearly and in the second place we go to the root of the matter. The hon. Minister of Finance put this question to the Opposition: How are you going to carry it out? He predicted that they would not be able to give effect to these promises. I want to say immediately that I assume that the hon. Leader of the Opposition with his party placed this motion on the Order Paper in all honesty, that they really intend to carry it out. The hon. Minister reproaches them and says they will not be able to carry it out. The Minister of Finance has also made promises here but he also would not be able to carry them out. I should like to put this question to the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Leader of the Opposition: Name me one single country in the world where you have a system of government modelled on democratic lines, where the social evils of the country have been solved. Name one democratic country where the known economic and social evils have been solved by the government. Therefore I say that neither the Minister of Finance, nor the Leader of the Opposition will be in a position to carry out the promises that have been made here. I repeat my question again: I should be very glad if one of the honourable members, whether on the other side of the House or on this side of the House would answer me: Can they name one country where the social evils of unemployment, of exploitation of certain sections of the people, to mention only two evils, which have been solved by a government that is dependent on the democratic parliamentary party system.

Yes, Denmark.

I should be glad if the hon. member would give me proof of it. I want to put this further question also. Were not the same promises that are made by the Minister of Finance and in the prospects which the hon. Leader of the Opposition visualises, not also made by democratic governments in the past, democratic governments in which people who today sit on the other side and people who today sit on this side of the House, were represented. They made every attempt to solve economic evils. Did they succeed? I am not one of those persons who attribute it to unwillingness on their part or who attribute it to indifference to the country’s interests. No, they did not succeed in solving social evils, simply because they had to contend with a system under which they were not in the position to solve the problems. That was the difficulty. That is why we who stand for the New Order say that present evils which exist cannot be capable of solution, unless a radical change in the form of the State is brought about. Under a democratic system of government I fear that, whatever we do, we will not be able to solve those evils.

What do you want to put in its place?

I cannot now go into all the principles of the New Order, because the Speaker will not allow it, but we stand, according to page 39 of our little book, for—

We say that too.

Yes, but you do not say the following—

Is that the Hitler system?

I shall answer that hon. member just now. That is why I say we are not prepared to effect a compromise. In the last paragraph we say we are not prepared to effect a compromise. We are prepared to co-operate for a republic. We hold that the exact form of the republic can be decided later, but over its existence there can be no compromise. The question may be asked: “If it is so that the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition proposes practically the same, but just does not go so far as the New Order, why can you not support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition?” My answer to that is this: In the first place, we go through to the kernel of the matter. We go much further than the Opposition Leader. I want to ask members of the official Opposition this: If they admit that it is so, why did they not allow us as New Order persons to advocate our programme in the party? Why were we banished from the party?

You were not banished.

The hon. member says we were not banished, but what is the difference, whether you shoot a horse, or whether you let him drown?

You committed suicide.

They wished to drown us. That hon. friend says I committed political suicide, but, at any rate, I did not perjure my conscience.

If you committed suicide, you must not say that we drowned you.

I do not say I committed suicide; he says so. But I do not want to quarrel with hon. members, it is not worth the trouble. I wish, however, to emphasise this. If my hon. friends consider that there is a great measure of agreement between our motion and their motion, if they stand for the same as we stand for, then I ask why we were not allowed to advocate the New Order in the party. We were not allowed to do so. I wish to conclude with this. There is the cardinal difference, not so much between the motion and the amendment, but there is this cardinal difference between how they wish to achieve it and how we wish to achieve it. They wish to achieve it in the democratic way by means of a democratically chosen parliament; we say that by means of a democratic parliament you will not achieve it. This is the cardinal difference between us. They may not believe it.

And what happens if Germany loses?

Let me say just this in passing: Even if the Germans lose the war—that hon. member apparently assumes that only if Germany wins can we introduce this programme….

You said it.

I did not say it; it is untrue. I never said it. Let me emphasise this in reply to what my hon. friend said. My hon. friend intimates that we can carry out this programme of ours only if the Germans win. I am not going in now into who is going to win the war. Time will teach us that. But whatever the result of the war, the only salvation for the world, not only for South Africa, but for the world, is a system based on the system for which we stand, and that is a system which hon. members opposite will eventually adopt. Now already we have the Beveridge plan in England which in a great measure is the same as the New Order. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has also developed in a great measure in that direction. It is understandable because it is the only basis on which a solution for existing evils in the world can be found—the basis on which the New Order is based.

Mr. Speaker, I am not very interested in the auction that is going on between the two parties opposite in regard to the programme upon which they evidently want to appeal to the country. I think the country will agree that a new order is not necessary for South Africa, but rather a better order, an order infused with a new spirit, a spirit of endeavouring to do one’s duty to one’s fellows. Here we have a conflict going on between the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) as to which programe will secure the larger sale among the voters of South Africa. The answer of the Government to the proposals of the two sections of the Opposition who say to the public “judge us by our promises” is “judge us by our deeds,” and by deeds this Government will stand or fall in the future. I feel it is necessary to remind ourselves that the question of Social Security before the House today is not something new. It followed upon a series of statements that have been made during the course of the war. The history of this movement during the war may be very briefly stated in this wise. It follows from the statement in Section 5 of the Atlantic Charter where the two nations concerned stated that “they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of security for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security.

They said that at the end of the last war.

The fact that this movement is going ahead in this country and in the world is a clear indication of the determination of all well-minded people to ensure by sacrifice and hard work, a better condition of affairs. This section of the Atlantic Charter was followed by a statement by the Leader of the party to which I have the honour to belong at Bloemfontein, wherein he declared that “our ultimate aim, our target is to provide as far as possible, fruitful employment, housing and the necessities of life including food and clothing for our whole community of all races and colours. And, as far as our finances allow, I hope we shall reach a minimum standard not only for the individual but also for the family,—a family minimum providing for an allowance which will not allow the rich blessing of large families to be a grievous burden upon the poor Problems of public health and housing, of nutrition of poverty and economic insecurity clamour for attention. None of them is really insoluble. Industrial expansion will help towards their solution, but such expansion also creates problems of its own.” That statement was followed in proper sequence by the third report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission on the 2nd October, 1941. Then we had a debate in this House last year when all members were in accord in regard to the desriability of introducing a social security code for South Africa. The principle was unanimously endorsed by all parties in this House. The Government went further and followed the logical course of appointing the Social and Economic Planning Council, recommended in the Third Report of the Agricultural Requirements Commission. That commission has done good work. Before it issued its report in regard to social security, an important congress was held at Durban largely through the initiative of Mr. J. R. Sullivan, M.Sc., to whom this country is indebted for placing before it something concrete in the shape of a social security code. Mr. Sullivan has performed a splendid service in preparing the statement. Professors, politicians and the Press have by criticism and publicity, fastened this subject upon the minds of our people. None of the criticisms weakens the main principle of the scheme; they only serve to stimulate the advocates of early action to further endeavour in the spirit of realism. Then we had the report of Sir William Beveridge in Great Britain, and, Mr. Speaker, no one can calculate the importance of the impact of that report on the minds of people in the British Commonwealth, not only in that connection, but in other associations. And the fact that such a scheme involving the expenditure of something over £600,000,000 per annum should be seriously considered at a time when Great Britain is involved in such a war, is a clear indication that leading thinkers of our day do consider the establishment of a social security code a matter of immediate importance and value to the people. Following that, we had the appointment of a Social Security Committee on the recommendation of the Economic Planning Council. We have had this series of commissions and committees appointed, and the people are now looking for something concrete as the result, and here I want to support the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer), when he suggested that the committee should be enlarged so as to include a woman representative. I think that is a valuable suggestion in view of the fact that our women are playing such a very large and important part in the war effort, and in efforts for the uplift of our people. I want to put on record my appreciation of the value of the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council. It may not be a perfect report, it has been prepared under very difficult conditions, but it certainly gives us a basis; it certainly places before us certain important facts in our economic position, which will lead us to a clearer understanding not only of the difficulties which confront any measure of reform, but of what may result from an efficient tackling of the whole problem. Mr. Speaker, I want at this stage to say that in my opinion the War Pensions Act of 1942 is the most important evidence we can have of the determination of this Government to raise the standard of living of all sections of our people, for we have there laid down a standard of living for the dependants of our soldiers which must have its effect upon the general economic standard of all the people of South Africa. I consider that this question of the social security code runs into every department of our life, economic and otherwise, and therefore any social security code that is established in this country must be based upon a sure foundation, it cannot be superimposed upon a foundation that is in itself imperfect and unsound. Its fundamental must be the fullest employment of the people as a whole and the payment of a minimum wage capable at least of covering the bare necessaries of life. To act in any other way is to place the cart before the horse. To illustrate what I mean—a social security code not only applies to payments but also to other benefits, and therefore if we are to include medical services—a curative scheme—and have people at the same time living below the bread line, we are creating a condition of affairs for which we shall have to pay by our services in the way of medical attention. No, the prerequisite of any social security code or any complete system of social security in South Africa is this—it is to place on our Statute Book a minimum wage covering the bare necessaries of life, and to ensure that employment be given to our people—the fullest possible employment. And in this connection it is of primary importance that such a code should cover all sections of the community. We often hear South Africa compared with a country like New Zealand, and some people seem to lose sight of the fact that we in this country are not a homogeneous population, but a population of 10,000,000 consisting of four sections—we have a European population here of over 2,000,000 people, a coloured population of about 800,000 people, an Asiatic population of about 300,000, and a Bantu population of 7,000,000. So we have to consider a population of 10,000,000. I commit myself to the principle of a social security code for South Africa, but I realise that its introduction will mean work and sacrifice. It will mean the subordination of our own interests to those of our fellows in need. It will mean a change in our financial adjustments. The present economic system must prove itself equal to the call that is made to South Africa or it will have to be radically altered and perchance destroyed. It must meet the situation, otherwise it fails in the service of humanity. Capital should be the servant of the people and not the master in our national economy.

You had better not say that in Johannesburg.

It is said that we are a poor country. If that be so, then there are some very rich in this so-called poor land. If there is wealth, let it be shared reasonably, if there is to be poverty, let it also be shared. Let us cultivate in our political life more of a family spirit. Those who are very rich in a poor country are an economic monstrosity and our taxation measures must be so framed as to make for equity. I realise that a comprehensive security code must envisage, especially in this country, an alteration in the distribution of our national income and also an increase in our national income. The money in circulation will have to be increased, and I suggest, what will be apparent to every portion of this House, that there will have to be a redistribution of the existing income. By that I mean that there will have to be a lessening of the gap between the extremely poor and the extremely wealthy. And then I consider that through the committees that have been established there should be an investigation as to the possibilities of the development of industry, first of all by the encouragement of private enterprise, and secondly that the State should take steps to exploit the mineral and other resources whose potential products while not yielding an attractive profit to the private investors, can yet find a market and give employment to our people. It seems to me that there are possibilities in South Africa in regard to base metals particularly which, while not being attractive to the private investor, could well be worked by the Government, I would say almost at a slight loss. By this means you would distribute money and increase the national income because the money circulated would be a great benefit in other directions. And if the control of profits during the war can be justified surely it can be justified in time of peace, though perhaps not to the same measure as at present maintained. We are in earnest in this matter, otherwise our resolutions in this House have no value. We are in earnest about an attack being made on social injustice, and excess profits are not only an evil confined to the war period. If we should not eliminate the profit motive entirely then we should modify it in such a way as to be fair to the men with initiative and enterprise who are preserving the national welfare.

What are excess profits?

I would like to see established in regard to every industry what is a fail’ profit and anything over that, in peace time as well as in war time, should be for the benefit of the people who, after all, are the owners of the country. The people concerned are the people who make their homes in South Africa. We must see to it that the interests of the people as a whole come before those of the individual, and capital should be the servant and not the master of our economy. In this connection the co-operation of all the peoples in this land who are all alike in the matter of social security, should be the keynote of all our endeavours. It needs a strong leader to bring about the best measure of social security here, for there will be many antagonistic voices. Our men and women in the army I am sure will support the policy which we are advocating from these benches, and their present leader, the Prime Minister of this country, will, I am confident, lead the nation in the new warfare against internal social evils, against things which are calculated to lead to trouble here in South Africa, and not to develop our nationhood along the lines which will bring us victory in the economic sense. Our difficulties should not, however, do more than steady our enthusiasm. Our present aim should be the maximum practicable at the earliest possible moment. Measures such as a social security code for all people will require to be tackled in a spirit of responsibility. It is easy to declaim against social injustices which we have tolerated in the past and to place before the public some attractive scheme. The question of immediate practicability must be faced unflinchingly and wisely, otherwise we shall be guilty of misleading those whom we desire to help. I repeat that this splendid project must be demonstrated as economically practicable, and it must, by the process of publication and education, secure the enthusiastic support of the great majority of the people in order to make it legislatively possible at an early date. Let us avoid political catchwords like poison, and promises made without a sense of responsibility, or hope of early fulfilment should be shunned. In our desire to hit the centre of our social target we should be careful about the “sighter”. May I suggest to the Government that they should place in the forefront of their programme some immediate measures of social reform for those who need help the most, and to institute if possible a five-years’ plan carefully stated and guaranteed by the Government as far as practicable. The public will favourably consider and be prepared to pay for a definite scheme. They have the right to know what they are asked to pay for. Our sincerity in this matter will be judged by our earnestness and determination to legislate now for those who are most in need.

I fear an awakening awaits the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. His enthusiasm will not attain the expected object. He reminded me of Mr. M. Saw, the former Prime Minister of Burma, who was so filled with enthusiasm when he read about the Atlantic Charter that he paid a visit to England and had an interview with Mr. Amery, the responsible Minister. Mr. Amery then said to him that the Atlantic Charter was not intended for the British Empire. For the other parts of the world—yes; but not for India, Burma and all the other countries that go bent under the slavery of the British Empire’s rule. They will get no alleviation under the Atlantic Charter.

Who said that?

Mr. Amery. I fear that such an awakening also awaits the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), if he puts his hope and faith in the Prime Minister. I shall not pursue that point further, because I want to come to the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. His speech was in many respects a surprising speech, and one of the most surprising aspects of it was that the Minister of Finance surprised us here this afternoon by moving an amendment very near the adjournment hour of the debate. On the first day of the discussion on this motion, there was no participation in the debate from the Government side. On the second day of the discussion we had the participation of the Prime Minister in the debate, but no amendment. But today—I understand this is the last day of the debate—after the lunch-hour, we get an amendment for the first time from the Government side. It is very remarkable that that amendment should come precisely now, at a juncture when the Minister of Labour and the other members of the Labour Party are shining by their absence. The hon. Leader of the Opposition proposed his motion some 14 days ago. All this time the Government has had an opportunity of brooding on its amendment, and you know yourself, Mr. Speaker, what happens if an egg is hatched too long. I have said that the speech of the Minister of Finance was surprising also in other respects. He held before us here the test of words against deeds. That testifies to particularly weak teamwork on the other side, that the Minister of Finance should have to talk like that so shortly after the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance has said that we must compare the words of the Leader of the Opposition with his deeds when he was not head of the Government. I want to be more reasonable and compare the words of the Prime Minister, when he took part in this debate, and when he spoke at Bloemfontein, with his deeds when he was Prime Minister of the country in a period that was almost the same as that now prevailing, a period in which provision had also to be made for post-war construction. We know what promises were made at that time. We are fully aware of them, and also aware what the deeds of the Prime Minister were in that period from 1919 to 1924. I see that one of the Labour members is now here. He will be able to tell us what the deeds of the Prime Minister were in that period of postwar reconstruction from 1919 to 1924. We know what labour disaffections there were, the impediments to the production capacity of the country through all the strikes; we know that the culmination was reached in the great strike of the Witwatersrand in 1922. That was the sum total and the result of the Prime Minister’s promises after the last war. I say that if one must test those deeds on the words of the Prime Minister, used in the course of this debate, then only a fool will have any hope and expectation of the fine promises he has held before us in this debate, and that he dangled before the country in his Bloemfontein address.

The Labourites themselves do not trust him.

Yes, we know that is the case. We know of the troubles there are, and the attempts that are being made to hold it all under the blanket. If we look at the Prime Minister’s promises in connection with the economic development of South Africa, then it is a scroll that brings us no prospect of alleviation. The role that he has always played has been against the interest of South Africa. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has referred to his attitude in connection with the iron and steel industry, how it was fought tooth and nail by him and his party. There was also his resistance to the appointment of a Board of Trade and Industry in 1924. This he also opposed with all power and force. In every instance where the Prime Minister has acted in connection with the economic development of the country, it was unfortunately to obstruct our economic development in every possible way. But the Minister of Finance himself is ill-advised to propose to us a test of words on deeds. There was a time when he declared himself in favour of a republic, and when his words were hurled at him across the floor of the House, we saw him ashamed. Once he was a republican, and how do we find him now? He also has progressed. I fear his progress has been the progress of the crab. One cannot congratulate him on it. There was a time when he tried to protest with every fibre in his body against the action of the Government of which he was a member. But when two other persons were appointed as Senators, who according to his rule of measure were just as unsuitable, then all the fibres in the body of the Minister of Finance remained quiescent. On the first occasion they stood on end in protest, on the last occasion they remained peacefully at rest. The Minister of Finance is the last person to appeal to a test of words against deeds. He held up to us a whole lot of figures, with which he juggled. I want to mention just one of them here. He told us that the external national debt has been decreased from £103,000,000 to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. It has been reduced by £97,000,000 in the war years. But he omitted to tell us that in the same war years the internal debt has increased by about £240,000,000. He mentioned certain figures now on the estimates for certain social services in comparison with the figures of the pre-war period. We know that there is a natural growth in progress for services such as pension services, and similar things. But I touched on figures last year to prove that war expenditure is being made at the cost of the provision that should be made for social services. While on the Loan Estimates of 1940—’41 there was £15.7 million for non-war purposes, the corresponding amount was last year reduced to £11.5 million. That is a retrogression of social services in favour of the war mania and the plunging of money into the bottomless pit of the war. But I think, even if the Minister of Finance were here, I should now leave him to bring his ruffled fibres into a little order. The motion that has been proposed here by the Leader of the Opposition goes out from the assumption that the system of capitalism as we know it in the country, has failed and is busy collapsing. The motion is one that seeks not a temporary alleviation of the evils that have resulted from that system, but a permanent removal of the causes of those evils. That distinguishes this motion from all the other attempts made here in South Africa, and also in other parts of the world, in connection with social security. Those other attempts are all patch-work and based on the assumption that we are going to retain the present capitalist system with all its evils. They are based on the maintenance of the status quo. Here we now have a motion based on the assumption that that system must be re-created. In that motion it is requested that for this re-creation certain principles must be laid down. The first scientific necessity is that one must prove that one’s assumption is correct. It is not difficult to prove that the present capitalist system is maimed by many deficiencies, and I think hon. members on the other side will readily admit that it is obsolete and busy crumbling, both in the material and in the spiritual spheres. That freedom of the capitalist system, that system of laissez faire, under which competition was to be our salvation, has not been realised. That freedom in many cases has meant nothing to the worker but a freedom to lead an existence beneath the bread-line. It was merely freedom for the financially strong, but that system has brought no freedom for the wage-earner. And thus we have had the extremes of poverty and riches, resulting from that system. Not only has it brought no freedom, but also no equality. We still have the extremes of poverty and wealth. Take a country such as the United States, which is perhaps an outstanding type of capitalist state; there we have the position that the incomes of 35 per cent. of the people are earned by 10 per cent. of the population. Take our own country. We do not have to go farther. In our own country we have 300,000 poorwhites living under the bread-line, and on the other hand we have 692,000 people with incomes exceeding £5,000 per year. The capitalist system has lent itself more and more to this sort of thing, and has not brought about equality. Nor has it caused economic stability. The position is that in all the capitalist countries we get the cycles of prosperity and depression. Economists tell us that these have been the results of our economic system, that we have received this economic instability that has operated so detrimentally to the material progress of our country. One of the principal criticisms that we can express of the system is that it has been inherently short-sighted, because it rests on the basis of the biggest possible profit in the shortest possible time. By its very nature such a system cannot provide for a long-term economic policy, and it is because the capitalist system has as its motive the greatest possible profit in the shortest possible time, that we have had under this system the exploitation of natural resources on the one side and on the other side an undermining of national health. Let us apply this to the gold mines. We have the figures that the gold mines are today responsible for 23 per cent. of the national income. But on the other hand we have this important figure, that while gold production in 1941 stood at £122,000,000, it is expected that in 1970 it will stand at only £62,000,000. In other words, the manner in which the gold mines have been exploited has brought about that in less than thirty years the production will have decreased by half. The capitalist system must inevtiably yield the result that people will try to take the gold from the earth as quickly as possible. A long-term policy in connection with the mines has never been laid down, and the question has never been put as to whether it is in the interest of the country as a whole to develop the mines in that way. Our great problem in the gold mining industry is to ensure that the deterioration of this source of national income shall be so gradual that it will not be detrimental to our national economy. We cannot expect such a thing if we leave the development of the mines to the capitalist system and its precepts. Then we also have the other side of this exploitation, that I have already mentioned, and that is the undermining of the health of the people in the industry. Here we have had big employers who could not pay the necessary attention to the health of the people, and consequently we have had all those disastrous results that we have on the mines today. In another respect this capitalist system has also revealed its impotence, namely, to eradicate mass unemployment. It has always been one of the characteristics of our capitalist system that it is not able to counter mass unemployment. The fact that in all countries we have periods of mass unemployment under the capitalist system is proof to us that the capitalist system, as we know it, has failed. This is a sign that the capitalist system is on its last legs. Not only has the result been unemployment as regards labour, but also unemployment regarding capital. All the money for which no investment is to be found is a sign of the impotence of the capitalist system, as we know it, to employ capital usefully. It is not only capital and labour that are unemployed, but there has also been unemployment in the technical sphere. New patents could simply not be applied under this capitalist system because it would have meant such a dislocation of the system as a whole that it could not be risked. On the basis of this obsolete and tumbling capitalist system that we have, we can bring about no permanent reform in the social and economic spheres. And for that reason the hon. Leader of the Opposition comes forward with this motion in the House. I want to point out that this motion contains the four corner-stones of this new Christian National Order that we want to submit to the country. The first corner-stone is the solidarity idea, the idea that morally and economically there should be a mutual obligation between the individual and the community to which he belongs. I call this the solidarity principle, and that principle is one of the corner-stones of this motion. The second corner-stone is that ethical idea that the whole incentive of the community should not be materialistic, but that there should be an ethical incentive, namely, the fulfilment of all its functions, and that the State should take into consideration as its first duty human values. The third cornerstone we find in paragraph (c) of the motion that deals with the means, in other words that any plan we have must be economically praticable. The fourth corner-stone of this motion is what I shall call the civilisation idea, namely, the idea that there is a destination for the white race in South Africa. The second point I have mentioned already distinguishes this motion from all forms of materialistic socialism. The retention of private capital as well as the fourth cornerstone distinguishes it from Communism. The system that is submitted here is that of State-controlled national economy. The motion means that such a planned economy has become necessary in the circumstances, in the first place because the system of rationalisation, of mergers and cartels and monopolies, has made it necessary to protect the consumer and the worker. The concentration of power in the hands of monopolies, makes it essential that the consumer and the worker shall be protected. But the motion also acknowledges that the earning capacity of capital must be restricted, and that the earning capacity of labour must be increased. This is one of the fruits of the capitalist system, and it is one of the evils that we want to curb in this motion. The motion is based on the assumption that the State is there as representative and trustee of all the sections of the population, not only of those who are here today, but also of future generations. The State is thus the body that must act to reconcile the conflicting interests, to sublimate them into a higher interest, and the State is the body that must ensure a farsighted future plan for the generations to come. There are a few points I want to mention, for it appears to me that confusion exists thereanent. The first is that this motion does not visualise an immediate revolution, but it merely envisages an immediate start on a process of gradual replacement of the system of individual capitalism by a State controlled national economy. This process of replacement is in process throughout the world, and has also assumed big proportions in South Africa. I want to mention a few things in which the State already has money: In the Post Office, including the telegraph and telephone services, the State has invested £16,000,000, in the Railways £166,000,000, in Iscor, together with the amount recently voted, more than £10,000,000, and in the Land Bank £18,400,000. Then there are the industries from which the State derives incomes, such as the Reserve Bank, from which the State has incomes to an amount of £600,000, afforestation from which the State draws £650,000, the State Diamond Diggings with an income to the State of £210,000, and then there is the Electrical Supply Commission, the Industrial Corporation, etc. Thus the process is gradually broadening out in the direction of State control. To a great measure it is already in operation in South Africa. This motion does not mean that everything must now be possessed by the State, it does not necessarily mean nationalisation. But it means State control accompanied as far as possible by private possession and private management, and State control only where the existing system has created confusion or has functioned unnationally. Moreover, it is not imperative that State control under a State department be introduced, but rather on the principle of the Iron and Steel Corporation. This motion, on the other hand, does mean that conscious recognition in principle of such a State-controlled national economy as a substitute for the capitalism we have here, and the gradual application of it in certain key industries. After these remarks, I would like to pause a few minutes at the third corner-stone, viz. practicability, the economic basis. The Minister of Finance has declared on another occasion that many of the schemes for social security are impracticable, and I think it is so under the existing system, because if there is one thing that is true—whether in regard to the individual or the nation—then it is that you cannot live above your annual incomes, at least not in the long run. The national income in South Africa for 1924, if one takes four non-Europeans as equivalent to one European, was £75 per head, in 1934 it was £83 per head and in 1939—’40 £102 per head, and for 1940—’41 it was about £110 per head. That is not very high, but I think the Minister of Finance is not right when he says that it is amongst the lowest in the world. The national income depends on three factors, firstly the natural resources and the conservation thereof—that is to say the minerals in the land, the land itself, and sea fishing; secondly it depends on the quantity and the quality of your labour, and thirdly on the best utilisation of both. In all three respects the system we now have is not calculated to lead to the greatest production from South Africa’s wealth. Precisely for that you need a planned system, because it is in better position to remove all the friction that hampers production. Then you have not the everlasting struggle between employers and employees, then you have not the differences and strikes you have now, then you have not the monopolies on the part of capitalism and also not those on the part of the employees. But I would like to give a few figures regarding the national income produced per head of the working population of certain countries. I take three typical capitalist countries, and then three not so capitalistic but having a measure of State control, and I give the figures of the increase of production capacity per head of the working population between 1924 and 1936: United States .5 per cent., England 1.8 per cent., Canada 5 per cent. In the same period the increase in Germany was 30 per cent., Sweden 35 per cent., Japan 50 per cent. It follows that under circumstances in which you have a planned economy you can get a better production capacity. If we have a factor with one management, then it is in much better position to drive up the production capacity to the limit than when production is dependent upon different, separate sub-divisions, each working on its own, and which endeavour to sell their various products on the principle of supply and demand. It is still possible in respect of primitive work, but not where the work becomes more and more complex. The more involved the system, the more the lack of co-ordinated control becomes apparent, and the lack of an eye to the future. As regards the promotion of the quality of your labour, the child must particularly receive the attention of the State as the potential producer of the future. The State cannot put new resources into its bosom. It can only protect and renew what it has. But what it can do is to increase the quality of the labour and then it must start with the child. A children’s charter must be formulated, and in the first place it must provide for a measure of physical development for the child. What can you expect if 40 per cent. of the young boys and girls are undernourished? What kind of workers for the future would boys and girls make who are physically deficient and who were undernourished in their youth? It means in the second place that such a charter must provide the children with technical equipment necessary for their future task in life. But in the third place provision must also be made for the spiritual basis of their future task, so that they do not view their work only as a means of making an existence, but also as national service, whereby they make their contribution to the national income. It is not only the national income that must be increased, but there must also be a more equitable division of the national income. This can happen by means of what the Minister of Finance has mentioned, namely, taxation. But that is not the only means, and it ought not to be the only means. The better and more reasonable division of national income must be achieved also through wage determinations and price fixations. People may think this a novelty. But if we should go to the railway station, we would be extremely surprised if we were told that the price of railway tickets had been increased. We are accustomed to a fixed price. And it is no longer an exception. Once you have fixed prices, then you approach the whole problem not from the viewpoint of the size of dividends, but how low you can keep your production costs. Further, this must also be achieved by profit restriction. We should get what is called ceiling incomes. There are incomes that no person ought to have, and everything above the demarcation should not belong to him, but should go to the State for distribution among others who are less privileged. The Minister of Finance has spoken about what is at the bottom of this motion. Let me emphasise what the object of the motion is. We have pleaded here for an increase in the national income, for a more equitable division of the increased national income. But these things are not an end in themselves but only as a means to an end. The achievement of social justice is also not the object. It is simply an incentive towards the object. The object is not only to obtain material prosperity for your citizens, but the object is to obtain for them a happier existence by ensuring their release from the gnawing anxiety and fear that lack of material welfare brings, so that they may be placed in position to unfold their inner power and possibilities fully for the enrichment of their own lives and for the upbuilding of the nation to which they belong. It is not the material things, but the spiritual basis behind the motion, that we must never forget in consideration of the motion now before us.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance rather indicated his view that the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition had been introduced for electioneering purposes. I am not going to enter into that controversy. Whether that is so or not, the same cannot be said of the speech we have just listened to by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), who, in my view, presented his case with intelligence and moderation, although with much that he said I do not agree. On the face of it, this motion is unexceptionable enough. With the first paragraph I fully agree. I fully agree with the affirmation regarding the community’s responsibility to secure for the individual a life worthy of a human being. The second paragraph is even more admirable, because it states that financial interests should not stand in the way of that human standard being attained. The third paragraph of the motion, in my view, correctly states the means by which the first two objects can be brought about, namely, the increase in the national income and its more equitable distribution. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot merely go by the words set out here, but by the arguments by which they are supported. From the speeches on the Opposition side of the House (also to some extent on the Government side) I have some difficulty in following the policy by means of which it is proposed that these objectives are to be attained. The nearest that I have heard to concrete proposals for the attainment of these objectives is the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith. In the fourth paragraph of the motion belief is expressed in maintaining and safeguarding European civilisation in accordance with the principle of trusteeship, and that it is the duty of the State to seek to achieve this also in the social and economic sphere. On that point I think the House should have some information as to whether this principle of trusteeship is to be based on the existing native policy of this country. Because if it is, all I can say is that all authorities that are capable of impartial judgment are agreed that that policy is consistent neither with the equitable distribution of the national income nor with its increase. I am not going too deeply into this aspect of the matter because there is a motion on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Cape Eastern on this subject which will be discussed at a later stage, and then we on these benches will take the opportunity of putting forward our views on this particular aspect of policy. Therefore I will deal only incidentally with native and non-European policy as outlined in this motion. I am concerned here to make three points or rather to deal with three aspects of the subject of the motion. First, given the data that we have at our disposal, both the equitable distribution of the national income and increase thereof are objectively speaking practical possibilities. Secondly, I want to outline the policy which in my view should be adopted for the purpose of bringing these objectives about and finally, I intend to indicate some of the difficulties which seem to me to stand in the way of the pursuance of this policy. With regard to the first point, the objective possibility of securing more equitable distribution of national income so as to guarantee to the individual a human standard of living, we have the economists’ estimate of the approximate national income. The last estimate I have seen is £472,000,000, and of that figue we are told by the Van Eck Commission that approximately £52,000,000 is annually required for capital investment, leaving available for consumption a balance of £420,000,000. Now the Minister of Finance, in a speech he made some time ago outside this House, pointed out that on the basis of that amount of the national income available for consumption, it would be possible if equally distributed, to pay to each individual in this country £45 per annum. This is equal to £225 for a family of five or £4 6s. per week for such a family. He went on to indicate that assuming that the average European has a standard of living and an earning capacity as much as three times that of the average non-European, this would mean £90 per capita for European and £30 per capita for non-European. For a family of five this would mean an average income of £8 11s. per week for Europeans and £2 17s. per week for non-Europeans. I do not think that the Minister of Finance was suggesting, or that anyone else would suggest, that it would be possible to deal with the national income in this way, but the significance of these figures is that they show that objectively it would be possible to pay a minimum wage to the skilled worker, the vast majority of whom are Europeans, of £6 12s. a week or 22s. per day, which the Van Eck Commission has told us is the minimum that the skilled worker will accept, and it would further be possible, without reducing skilled wages, to pay a minimum of £2 per week to the unskilled worker. And we have it on the authority of the Departmental Committee on Natives in Urban Areas that £2 per week is the lowest upon which any family of any race can live. I do not say that this disparity between skilled and unskilled wage rates would be equitable but it would be an improvement on the existing position and it would be perfectly practicable. If these minima were fixed, having regard to the existing conditions, there would still be a handsome balance of the national income available for middle-class and other higher incomes. So that objectively and on the facts, if our economy were properly organised, it would be perfectly possible to secure a more equitable distribution of the national wealth. With regard to the possibility of raising the national income, that depends upon the availability of income-producing factors of the community which are capable of development. We are told by the Government’s experts that these factors are available in sufficient quantity to make possible a substantial increase in the national income. First of all there is the human population of 10,000,000, the vast majority of whom are unskilled and untrained and whose labour power is hence capable of immense improvement. The Van Eck Commission stated that only a quarter of the Europeans who come on to the labour market annually receive any training at all. Of the 8,000,000 non-Europeans we know from our experience that the vast bulk of them, who are natives, are forced by circumstances continually to move between backward rural holdings and casual employment whether in industry or agriculture. Coming to the material side, the Van Eck Commission reported that the Union is one of the few countries that possess the base mineral basis for heavy industry. Even in regard to agriculture I do not think that the position is as bad as the Commission pointed out. According to its report about 15 per cent. of the total area of the Union is arable, of which about one-third is capable of intensive agriculture. Of the arable portion about 2,000,000 acres are capable of irrigation. Mr. Wilcox, an American agrobiologist, has told the world in a book published a few years ago that it is possible with scientific methods of agriculture and by utilising irrigation, for one-quarter of an acre of land to support one person upon the American standard of living, which is much higher than in this country. Assuming the accuracy of this statement, 2,000,000 acres of irrigated land would be capable of sustaining 8,000,000 of our 10,000,000 population upon a higher standard of living than at present. Even if only a half or a quarter of this estimate proves attainable, a great deal more would be possible in the way of agricultural production than at present. Assuming that only one-third of the total arable land is capable of intensive agriculture, as the Van Eck Commission has told us, that portion of it, apart from the irrigated area, would only have to provide for a population of 2,000,000. This would give an average of 6½ acres available for the support of each person, so the evidence is to the effect that very much more is capable of being done towards raising the national income. Now I want to make certain suggestions in regard to policy. The first step towards increasing the national income is to secure full employment of all human and material resources. The method has been indicated by the Van Eck Commission and it is nothing new. It is based on theories evolved years ago by Mr. J. M. Keynes and which have been popularised by the younger economists who have come under the influence of his teaching. It amounts to this: The volume of employment both of human and material resources depends upon the volume of investment and where private enterprise actuated by the profit motive fails to produce a volume of investment large enough to secure full employment, then it is for the State to step in and through the financial machinery at its disposal, to increase the volume of investment up to the required level. Private enterprise actuated by the profit motive must fail to sustain a volume of investment sufficient to secure full employment. This has been the experience of all industrialised countries between the last war and this one. The reason for it is this. As capital is accumulated the rate of profit falls, and unless the falling rate of profit is offset by a corresponding expansion of markets, so that an additional amount of profit may compensate for the fall in the rate thereof, then obviously any system which depends on the profit motive to sustain the level of investment, must fall short of sufficient volume of the latter to sustain full employment. The only remedy therefor is for the State to step in and raise the volume of investment sufficiently to restore full employment. This can be done by large-scale State expenditure. It has been calculated that every pound of public money spent by the State is capable of giving from £2 to £4 worth of work in the field of private enterprise. Now such State expenditure is capable of assuming one of two forms, either it may be productive expenditure, e.g., war expenditure, which by providing an extending market is capable of increasing the volume of investment. This is illustrated by the position in South Africa today. As I showed last Session, despite the fact that since the war commenced annual public expenditure from Revenue and Loan Account has been doubled, the national income has increased by more than the total increase of public expenditure. The position at the end of the last financial year at all events was that this country was actually making a profit out of the war. Alternatively the public expenditure required can take the form of productive expenditure upon such public works as housing schemes, irrigation and anti-soil erosion works or communications. This type of expenditure not only has the effect that I have just outlined above but also increases the income earning assets of the community. The method of financing such a programme is well established. Until full employment is secured, provided there is proper control over prices, the programme should primarily be financed from Loan Account. It is only when full employment is attained that this method of finance becomes inflationary in its effect. Hence it is possible to finance an expansive programme of this nature without very materially increasing taxation. Now a policy along those lines would be admirably suited to the post-war conditions of this country as set out in the report of the Planning Council which has been referred to more than once in this debate. That report tells us that there will be about 230,000 people seeking work. The Prime Minister said he thought this figure exaggerated but he did not give us any reason why he thought so. Thus there will be about 230,000 people seeking employment and on the other hand we have a country in which anti-soil erosion and irrigation works and other public works are urgently needed.

Which amendment are you going to support?

I am dealing with the merits of the case. I want to point out that in no part of the country are large-scale public works such as the irrigation and antisoil erosion works more urgently needed than in the Native areas. Hon. members on the Opposition side of the House have constantly opposed expenditure even on Loan Account in the Native areas, on the entirely mistaken and ignorant assumption that where money is spent there, it must lessen the amount of public money available for development in the European areas. That is absolutely incorrect. Public expenditure in the Native areas affects, for the reasons I have given, the whole economy of the country and hence the European population also.

You are talking nonsense; we have never opposed it.

Oh, yes, I have often heard arguments from the Opposition opposing and criticising land purchases by the Native Trust and expenditure by the Trust on development in native areas.

You are quite wrong.

Well, if I am wrong, I am very pleased because it indicates that I have made some converts among the I have made some converts among the Opposition, but the point I want to make is that works of this kind, financed in this manner, apart from providing a stimulus to the growth of the national income, to which I have referred, does not come out of European resources. To secure full employment is only the first step towards increasing the national income. Once this is attained, the question will arise of rationing the capital and labour resources of the country between the gold mining industry on the one hand and the base minerals and secondary industries on the other. In my view, far too large a proportion of the country’s resources in the past have been devoted to gold mining. The gold mining industry produces purely for export. It is a wasting asset and it is not the type of industry which the country will require in the future, since such industry must necessarily be built up on the basis of an expanding home market. In addition there is also the question whether in the post-war world, gold will be needed for its present purpose of settling international exchange balances. For all these reasons there is likely to be a real conflict between the gold mining industry and the heavy industries of this country, which desire to build up a local market. I come now to the method of more equitable distribution of the national income. The first necessity is that access to land should not be permitted merely on the basis of race. At the present time over 60 per cent. of the population of this country are confined to the use of land which is less than 20 per cent. of the total area of the country. The present system appears to me to be calculated to lead not only to grave injustices to the persons discriminated against but to lessening the opportunities of people who are prepared beneficially to expend their labour on the land. Access to land should be allowed to anyone prepared to fulfil two conditions. Firstly, to expend his own labour on the land either alone or in co-operation with other, and secondly, whose use of the land conforms to a given minimum standard of efficiency. That portion of the population which is not on the land or does not desire access to land should be guaranteed employment at a minimum wage of £2 per week. I have already pointed out that this country can well afford to pay that. Hon. members on the Opposition side of the House have often accused us on these benches of being simply concerned with mixing up Europeans and Africans together and having no regard for the future of the Europeans. We have continually explained how erroneous their view is. Let met briefly state what my personal view is in this matter. Provided employment is guaranteed to all, irrespective of race, provided a living wage is paid according to the social contribution made by the individual and not on the ground of race, provided there is opportunity for all to engage in such occupations as they are fitted for, then you can separate on a racial basis as much as you like. It is the exploitive element of segregation which we have always protested against. Whatever misrepresentations may come from the Opposition side of the House, that is our point of view. I am sorry the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) is not here. The other day he called us, who hold these views “Wit Kaffirs.” Well, that does not worry us; if it amuses the hon. member for Gezina; it does not take away from the attitude that we have always adopted in this matter. Now, I have indicated what appear to me to be the main principles of policy, that should be applied in order to bring about the objectives which are set forth in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I said at the outset that I would conclude by dealing with the obstacles. The obstacles are not in the physical resources of this country, the obstacles to the application of these principles and to the achievement of these objects, lie in vested interests that would be hit by the adoption of such a policy by the Government. And that is where lies the weakness in the speeches which have come in support of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition and also in the speeches that have come from the Government side of the House. Why is it that any such policy as I have suggested must always meet with the bitterest opposition? To begin with a policy of taking money from loan funds and using it for the purposes I have indicated must have the effect of reducing interest rates and thus immediately leading to opposition from the banks. Then, an attempt to build up heavy and secondary industries, on the basis of the home market, would mean an increase of wages and would immediately meet with the opposition of the gold mines, determined as they are to base that industry on Native miners paid at the rate of 3s. per day in cash and in kind. There would also be opposition from big land owners who employ Native labour; there would be opposition from many industrialists. Opposition can also be expected to any really comprehensive land reform such as I have indicated—the opposition would come from land owners who prefer the rewards of monopoly to the rewards of enterprise. I don’t want to labour the point, except to indicate that any Government which makes promises that it is prepared to carry out the objects set out in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition must also say that it recognises and is prepared to meet the opposition of the powerful vested interests that will be brought to bear against their policy. Neither from the Opposition side, nor from the Government side of the House, does this debate seem to have yielded any evidence of such resolution or of such foresight. There are plenty of historical examples of what I am saying. The Asquith Government in Britain before the last war, simply because they wanted to tax landed property and inheritance, met with bitter opposition which nearly led to civil war. The Roosevelt Government in America, when they wanted to carry out a similar policy to what I have outlined here, also found itself involved in a struggle with plutocracy; and the Minister of Finance himself is finding the same sort of difficulty in putting through the very moderate measure of war taxation which he is doing at present. I am not referring to the opposition from hon. members on the Opposition side, but I am referring to the opposition of the representatives of vested interests, such as for instance the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell), who refers to all kinds of taxation anomalies, and I thoroughly agree with the Minister of Finance that those vested interests are not so much concerned with the anomalies as with the amount of tax they have to pay—and that at a time when the patriotic drum is being beaten outside this House. That shows how far in this country as well as in other countries, vested interests will go. The Prime Minister in his contribution to the debate told us of the Committees which the Government are appointing to investigate their plans for past-war world. I for one approve of a thorough investigation. I approve of the appointing of committees and the making of investigations, provided the committees are competent. I hope that these committees will prove themselves competent. But investigation is only one half of the business. If these investigating committees are to bring forth anything fruitful they will have to have behind them to the determination of the Government to put their recommendations into effect against the great campaign which will be waged against the policy recommended and which will have only one motive, that of making profit. It will take more than an investigation by a Committee to persuade the Chamber of Mines to pay a living wage to the Native miners, but that is the kind of thing which will have to be faced by the Government. A lot has been said in this debate about the promises made to the men in the last war and how little was done to carry out those promises. I personally believe that the Governments which made those promises were perfectly sincere, but they tried to “give their homes to heroes” under a system which was incapable of giving these things. It did not depend on the Governments, it depended on the individuals who, while they themselves had done nothing during the war but make money, were not concerned with the welfare of the community after the war had been won. It is not a question of accusing the Leader of the Opposition or the Government of bad faith. I am simply asking that when these matters have been investigated, the facts should be faced, and the Government should take up a resolute policy towards the vested interests which will stand in the way and have so often stood in the way—those vested interests which are as strong in this country as they are in any other country. Unless those vested interests are dealt with in a resolute manner, and in a manner which is calculated to secure justice to all races in this country, then I say that there is a possibility that what follows this war will not be an improvement on what followed the last war.

There was a ring of sincerity in what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down, a ring which was lacking in what came from the mover of this motion before the House. I feel that I want to draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to one fact, and that is that without national unity in this country, national security will never be established, and I want to point out that national unity in this country is absolutely essential before we can seriously hope to have any success in dealing with matters of economic and social reform. And if the hon. member does appreciate that, if he does appreciate that national unity and co-operation are required, I want him then, if he is sincere in the motion he has brought before the House, to assist in trying to bring about that national unity which we need so badly. It is essential in order to make a success of social and economic reform. But not alone the Leader of the Opposition, but all those who followed him showed nothing but prejudice and isolation. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) said: “We want something quite different, something all of our own, in the way of social reform in this country; we don’t want our system to be tainted with the experience of other countries.” He forgets, and so do hon. members on the other side, that this is a world war for social and economic reform, and we cannot isolate ourselves. Whether they like it or not we cannot separate ourselves from the Atlantic Charter. I want to refer hon. members to what the Atlantic Charter says about securing improved labour standards. It is impossible for us to bring into this new structure after the war such improved standards unless we remove all prejudice, racialism and particularly isolation. And as the hon. member who has just sat down said, in this new reconstruction, in this new social security which we are to establish, all races in this country must be included your non-Europeans have to be included to make a success of it. These people have contributed greatly to the advancement of our industrial development in the past, and let me say at once that we would not have reached the stage of development which we have reached today in our industrial life, if these much despised non-European labourers had not played their part in the way they have done.

Yes, we quite expect you to say that.

Let us give credit where credit is due, and see that there is no racialism introduced into any system which we might adopt. In this new reconstruction of ours, there should be room for all, there should be plenty of room for all. I am not a bit alarmed at the report of the Social and Economic Commission where they say that there will be 230,000 people looking for employment after this war.

Can you find work for them?

They will not be looking for employment long because with the development that is coming here, with the development in all spheres, there will be no unemployment

There always has been.

The people who are charged with that reconstruction must see to it that unemployment is dealt with in the way it should be dealt with. There are many industries in this country which have been absolutely neglected in the past. When we speak of industrial development most people have in mind our secondary industries, but I see in many of our primary industries in this country an enrmous field for the employment of labour. Up till now here in this House, whenever I have spoken, I have referred to a subject which has been almost barred because the late Minister of Commerce (Mr. Stuttaford) would not allow anyone to talk about fish or the fishing industry in this House, but I am of opinion that it is an industry which offers openings for thousands of people being employed — not only the primary industry but in all the other industries arising from such an industry; there will be canning industries, fish oil, fertilisers and everything else. I speak with authority on this subject because I have made a close study of it. And I see visions of close on 100,000 people in this country being employed in that industry and its associated industries. I was astonished when I referred to the Industrial Planning Council Report, and where there is a reference to afforestation. I notice that it is stated there that extensive afforestation projects are not at present contemplated. If there is any sphere for the employment of people in this country then it is surely in the way of afforestation. I remember in the past in this House the late Mr. J. X. Merriman getting up and pleading for afforestation, and it is due to him that we have the few plantations which we have. But I also know this, and I say this very seriously, that if we go on at the present rate of timber cutting in this country in three years time there will not be a tree left. Surely we should do something in that regard; surely it is a matter which cannot be lost sight of. There is an opening there for the employment of thousands of people. I quite realise that it may not be practicable for the Government to tackle this matter under present conditions, but surely the planting of trees—the growing of timber—is a most essential thing, and there are a number of essential industries arising from it, industries in which there is employment for thousands of people. Then, on this question of employment let us look at the development of our base minerals. Take Iscor, take the Iron and Steel Industry. That industry is only on the fringe of development, and that development properly handled, as I think it will be, will lead to numerous other industries springing from it where employment will be found for thousands and thousands. Our steel and iron industry will employ many thousands more than are employed on your gold mines today. So I do not feel that there is any difficulty about placing these men. But, of course, proper planning is essential. Hon. members opposite speak as though nothing had been done towards that end. Surely we cannot proceed to do things and to do the many things which we want to do without proper planning? It would be very dangerous to go ahead with this work without proper plans, and without a five year or a ten year plan as suggested to this House. What would have been the position of Russia if she had not gone in for a planning council many years ago? Russia would not have been where she is today. So there, too, we can take an example from Russia, and we must see that a proper planning council is established—and that is what is being done actually. I do not suggest for one moment that we should keep everything waiting and that nothing should be done in the meantime. I don’t suggest that everything should be held up to await the report of this Planning Council. You have to have these reports, but we shall have to have a comprehensive report and comprehensive plans laid before this House before we shall be able to put our plans fully into operation. All these social security efforts require a lot of money. The Minister of Finance has told us what a wonderful change has taken place in our financial position in this country, in spite of the money we are spending on war measures. I know that this Government is sincere in the carrying out of these social security measures, and they will get the money for it. The country has paid towards the war, and will pay towards the peace. The public has contributed willingly towards the war effort, and the country is prepared to pay for the social security measures that are going to be initiated after the war. It has to be remembered that the taxation you have today will remain even in peace time, and all our experience is that the country can stand it. I agree that there has been too much accumulation of money by individuals, and that taxation should be properly adjusted. But I also say that the money necessary to carry out these security measures will be willingly borne by the taxpayer, The country, as a whole, is prepared to meet any expenditure that will bring about better conditions. We derive a vast amount of our public money from the gold mines, and I am inclined to think that many people have got the idea that gold is the only source of revenue, the only source of wealth. I often think that gold, in a sense, has retarded our development, and we might have made a greater advance in this country if there had not been this lure of gold.

If we had not the Union Jack here.

We had the Union Jack here long before gold was discovered in the land, but do not let us go into that. I do feel this, that our war effort here might have been greater if our energies were not expended in pouring out this unwanted gold. Who wants it? Nobody wants it today. I say if that energy which we expend on producing gold were directed to what is really important in the war effort, we would do a far greater service to our country than we do at present. Then there is a vast amount of dynamite and other explosive material used in winning gold which could be employed in war industries. In the reorientation of our economic position, we must consider this question of gold very seriously, because I do believe that the export of gold adversely affects the development of our other industries. We cannot expect to be self-contained here unless we change our methods. I am inclined to agree with the mover of the resolution when he says we should have more effective control of the gold mining industry. I go further and say that if you want to build up your industries, every key industry should come under closer State control. Secondary industries and even distribution must be rationalised, and price control of primary products which we have now, will be maintained in peace time as well. Only in that way will you bring the necessaries of life within reach of the poor, and build up a strong and healthy nation.

The hon. Minister of Finance has said this afternoon that proportionally we pay much less taxation than any other country. I do not know why it has become a custom with him to compare our country with others when a question of taxation payment is involved. He is principally to blame for the high taxes that must be paid, and I hope he will remember, when the time comes, that he will evidently have to put his hand deep into his pockets to pay the big taxes. We have already paid great amounts for the war spirit that prevails—£283,000,000 in all. It is being foreshadowed to us that in the near future and after the war we shall have to pay additional taxation. When one listens to the proposals that come from all sides, one cannot help smiling. Then we see the clouds of an election appearing on the horizon. They are falling over one another to submit something to the electors and to satisfy the electors. The one wants to eclipse the other in making bright proposals. But the best of the joke is that the proposals they make have been advocated by us for a long time—for several years. They do not want to admit it, but it is a fact that every one of those proposals appears in the social reform for which we have pleaded for some years. The question of social reform and social security has long since been tackled by a committee appointed by the Government. Until recently this was contested simply because we advocated it. Now the Leader of the Opposition comes with a similar proposal, and he also wants to bring about new improvements in order to get election support. It no longer helps to come forward with pretty promises as in past years, and then to do nothing. The same sort of Government we now have on the other side, was in power in 1914 under the same Prime Minister that we now have. It was due to him that we were in that war, and from year to year we have seen how the position of the poor people becomes weaker and weaker, and how they became poorer. We as Nationalists said that when the time comes for us to be in power we shall immediately alter that position. For nine years our Nationalist Party were in power, and when a change of Government came poverty and unemployment was greater than ever. Then it was said: Give us a strong Government and we shall show that we can solve those things. When war broke out in 1939, and when that strong Government broke asunder, the position was worse and unemployment and poverty greater than ever. Now they are saying again that they will bring about all sorts of fine reforms after the war—they will put new rags on the old worn-out trousers. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has called it the capitalist system. We say that it avails nothing to try to alter the old system. If a system lends itself to parasitism, it will continue to do so. If a thorn-tree develops parasitic growth then it avails nothing to saw off the branches. As soon as branches re-appear the parasitic growth is there. The best thing to do is to take out the tree and plant another that does not permit of parasitic growth. Thus it is with the capitalist system. The hon. member for Fauresmith has admitted that this is so, and he has said here that the capitalist system is busy crumbling. Since this is so, why do they not allow us to-operate to prevent the matter. We have made a beginning of the matter, and why do they not now come forward and help us to put this matter right in our country. We are told that it is only the system that is at fault and that it will be put right if we have another government. No, it will not come right in that way. Others again say that it does not help to proceed with those convictions, because if Germany loses the war then all those convictions of ours are dead. Napoleon had lost the war, but the French Revolution nevertheless had triumphed. But I fear the position, particularly on the other side of the House, is such that today they hold before the country those economic changes, but when the day arrives that they no longer need soldiers they will forget those promises just as they did in 1918 and 1919, because at that time they were in power for five years and the position became steadily worse. I have information here in connection with the orange crop. In 1941, 1,700,000 boxes of oranges were not offered on the market. They were destroyed, or something else happened to them. What is the cause of this? In 1942, 580,000 pockets of navel oranges, 115,000 pockets of seedling oranges and 900,000 pockets of grape-fruit—we have had no report about the Valencias—were evidently destroyed, and 500,000 pockets of these were also thrown away. All these thousands of pockets of citrus fruit were simply destroyed in order to enable people to get a better price on the market. I ask, why could not the State help to ensure that those oranges reached the consumers? Those are not the people who buy at the market so that prices are not thereby affected. They cannot afford to go and buy there. We and also the Natives are told that there will be a change after the war, if this Government is in power, and the object of this is of course to get the support of these people. Take our industries. The time will come after the war when we shall have to co-operate with Europe to regulate our industries on an economic basis, and we shall have to regulate it with them in such a way that we can produce certain things here that cannot be produced in Europe. I think for instance of base metals, gold and diamonds and even of some of our agricultural products. I view it as in the interests of our country that more should be produced so that we shall have sufficient products to sell to our own people, because a large proportion of our people live under the bread line, and if we ensure that our people receive proper food and wages, then there will not be so much of our agricultural products that must be exported. The present system of our industrial policy is nothing else than a mushroom industry. We have established industries everywhere to manufacture war supplies because goods cannot be imported, but when the war is over, then those industries will disappear again, or they will come to the State for subsidies. Then railway tariffs will have to be regulated in such a way as to assist them against competition. The factory people will come to the State and say that they provide work to so many thousands of people, and that they must be subsidised, etc.

Rather elucidate the New Order.

I am afraid one must not say too much to the hon. member at one time, for then he misses the point.

Then you will at least know what you are talking about.

The Government will then have to assure proper security for those factories, or if the factories cannot proceed, the Government will have to see that those workers have adequate food, housing and clothes. Because there is a war on, those things are plentiful. The people can buy them, but after the war other things will happen, and then the trouble will begin again. When I speak of industries, then I feel that we shall not be able to have mass production here in the country, because we shall not be able to compete with Europe. If we want to do that, we shall have to use European labour at a very low wage—and that is against our policy. We want to pay a fair wage to every white man, and if we want to do that then we shall have to impose unbearable customs tariffs in order to compete with Europe. Or we shall have to use cheaper black labour, and that we also do not want to do. We are in favour of it that we shall have only white people in our industries. When the Nationalist Party was in power, it was stated at the establishment of Iscor that that factory would provide work to Europeans, but it was not long before the Europeans were pushed out, and today there are as many Natives employed as Europeans. That is a totally wrong policy, and I say that we cannot try to compete with Europe’s industries because we have not here cheap labour and cannot mass produce. Nor can we use Europeans and Natives together, and the result will be that we shall be obliged to exchange. After the war we shall have to make arrangements whereby Europe will take our products if it takes certain products from us. Before I conclude, I want to revert to the election. I have said that this motion is simply intended to catch votes.

What motion?

The motion of the Leader of the Opposition and the amendments.

I am glad you include your amendment.

I mean the amendment of the Government. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition consists three-quarters of the things for which we have stood for years.

Of course from your birth.

No, not so long. We do not like to exaggerate things. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has said that he will emerge very strong from the election, but we shall see what the future brings. I just want to say that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad’s Transvaal newspaper has described this amendment of ours as the acme of shamelessness. He must try to fit the shoe on the other foot. These motions are now being submitted to the public, and we shall see what the electors think of them.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with mixed feelings of interest and curiosity. I was concerned to see how he would attempt to reconcile within the framework of his resolution the sentiments of those speeches we have heard from him in the last few years. He did not attempt to do so. He conveniently forgot his past. As I listened to him and overlooking too for the moment his past utterances I saw him in a new light, in that of the patron saint of Liberalism in South Africa. It was refreshing to hear such a speech coming from the hon. member. He insisted and very rightly that the people of South Africa were not to be regarded as units independent of one another, but as one family sharing a common responsibility for the welfare of all. He laid a tremendous emphasis on human values. He and his henchmen who followed him actually advanced two of the tenets of the Liberal Party of Great Britain. When the hon. Leader of the Opposition pleaded for a Central Economic Council he was advancing a proposal of the Liberal Party which urges a Central Economic Council. And the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) when he pleaded for what he called a Chief Wages Board was merely echoing the demand for a National Wages Board of the Liberal Party. The value of the teaching of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is however not to be assessed by what he has said in relation to this motion, but what he believes, is to be tested by his actions. If the hon. member were quite sincere in his insistence that human values and human needs were the supreme consideration in our national life one would have expected that he would have been in the forefront with his followers in the very conflict which is being fought to preserve human values. But he has stood aside in this struggle which is being waged as he well knows to preserve human, rights, human liberties and human freedom. The hon. member will no doubt have observed in the course of his ambulation through the maze of this expansive resolution how not only difficult but impossible it is to reconcile extremist doctrines. The hon. member made a pronounced attack upon monopolies and in doing so he said, very rightly that monopoly meant the accumulation: of great wealth in the hands of the few. He used many sound and legitimate arguments addressed towards the total abolition of monopolies. Here I thought our new found economist was on sure ground. Then apparently he had forgotten that there were capitalists and monopolists within his own party, and in order to satisfy them he made this extraordinary concession. Following immediately upon his attack on monopolies he ventured the extraordinary submission that he was also prepared to create new monopolies. I found it difficult to follow such logic. If on the one hand you want to see the end of monopolies because you realise they are inherently wrong and unjust, how you can logically and sincerely in the same breath advocate the creation of new monopolies, baffles me.

Does that also apply to railways and electric supply commissions?

Now, there was another curious exhibtion of the hon. member’s attempt to please the distinctly different factions within his own party. He criticised the control system—and very rightly, too. He said it created chaos. He referred to the Mealie Control Board, the Wheat Control Board and the various other Control Boards, and he said he wanted to see an improvement. What was that improvement? He wanted to see a Control Board solely of mealie farmers, a separate Board for wheat farmers and so on. No one else was to be represented on these Boards but farmers. And if the millers wanted a Control Board they could have one too. He did not say anything about the consumers, but I suppose he would not object to their having a Control Board as well. And that was his simple remedy for the chaos existing in our present control system. If that is not an attempt to satisfy sectional interests at the expense of elementary common-sense, then I wonder what it is. Unfortunately I do not enjoy the privilege which members of the Opposition enjoy in that my time today is very limited, and I must therefore pass on to some of the other ready solutions proposed for our economic ills. The hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), offered us the usual panacea of socialism. One wonders whether the Labour Party is as enthusiastically in favour of socialism as he would have the country believe. I am inclined to believe that the Van Eck Commissioners are perhaps more socialistic than the Labour Party, because that Commission has drawn attention in a number of criticisms of our present economic system—to the fact that there must be absorbed in our secondary industries our vast resources of Native labour, both for the sake of our Native people and of industry. The Minister of Labour, who is the head of the Labour Party, does not apparently share that view, because recently when addressing students of the Witwatersrand, he expounded the Native policy of the Labour Party, and it certainly did not envisage the absorption within our secondary industries of more Native labour. He wanted not segregation but what he called separation. He painted a picture of large numbers of our Native population which the Van Eck Commission would like to see playing its part in industry, herded in reserves somewhere in Zululand to develop along its own lines. When he was asked how he reconciled such a policy which, of course, scarcely deserves the name of policy with the recommendations of the Commission, he confessed he had not read it. The report of the Commission has laid down the principle which it regards as fundamental to our State economy for the future. Upon a consideration of various political systems, and none of them are new, they have all been tried out in various countries to a greater or lesser degree, the Commission planked for private enterprise and it said so in these terms—

The limitations which I understand is put upon private enterprise means that capital must not be the master but the servant of the community. Side by side with the fostering of all those qualities of initiative, drive and industry and application which private enterprise ensures, capital must play its part not for the sake merely of personal gain but for improvement in the lot of the community. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently made an excursion into the economic field and he criticised what my friends on the Labour benches condemned—the profit motive. But he criticised it with this limitation. He said that there was everything wrong in making profit motive the first consideration, but he was not opposed to the profit making motive playing its part in the national economy. And I agree with him. We should plan our economy so that the profit motive is not the first consideration, but that the interest of the community is the paramount consideration and must come before the accumulation of profit by an individual or combine, but that does not eliminate the very valuable part which profit making can play in all directions. The hon. member for Durban, North, went to extreme lengths in his denunciation of the profit motive and the example which he gave—and I rather think the only example he gave—was that this desire for competition had resulted in his pitting his brains against his fellow pupils with the result that he won a prize and was presented with a Bible, and that his fellow pupils were not so presented. And he thought that that was iniquitous, because it had made him an enemy of his fellow pupils. We have been told what, the Government is doing in the direction of reconstruction, in preparing for the change-over from war to peace, in preparing for the readjustment of the disturbed conditions which result from war. I think the Government is entitled to take credit for what it has done, but it is not enough to take credit for what has been done. What is of far more importance is that we should take cognisance of what has not been done, that we should take cognisance of what has been neglected and which is urgent and pressing. I doubt very much whether for a moment the Minister of Finance would suggest that there are not social problems of great urgency, pressing in their nature. There is a great need for food among the masses. That is a problem which in no way is affected by the fact that the earnings of certain sections have gone up in consequence of the war, and that War Bonds and Union Loan Certificates and other securities have been invested in to a greater extent than hitherto. The fact of the matter is that there is not malnutrition—which is a euphemism—there is starvation and hunger on a large scale. Those are the problems on which our attention must be focussed and our energy diverted. We have a large number Of committees all doing or about to do very valuable work. I hope we shall be able to avoid a surfeit of theoretical planning so as not to lose sight in a welter of good intentions of the danger in undue postponement of practical achievement. When the Van Eck Commission was inaugurated, the Prime Minister, when addressing them, told them not to be concerned with the possible political repercussions of any recommendations which they might make—they were only to be concerned with the facts of the matter, and the true economic conclusions which they should draw. The Commission has produced a most valuable report. It would be a mistake to regard it as a blue print for the new economic order in South Africa. After all it reflects the opinion of advisers, and I cannot help feeling that in some respects it has misconceived the true position. Nevertheless, it has done excellent work and it recommended among other things a Planning Council. The Planning Council is now decentralising its work, or they want to do so. It is recommending the setting up of a large number of subsidiary committees which will carry on investigations, which I readily appreciate, can hardly be done by the Planning Council. But it will be very difficult for some of these bodies which are contemplated by the Planning Council to pay respect to the warning which was given to the Planning Council by the Prime Minister. It is going to be extremely difficult for these Committees, constituted as they are, to divorce themselves completely from political considerations. It is not possible to imagine a Committee, consisting even of economists, who have played their part in building up an economic system, which is now being criticised by the Planning Council, advising in contradistinction to the policies which they have themselves assisted to create. If we are going to achieve results the Planning Council through these various subsidiary bodies, must be bold and decisive. It has already said that there are many respects in which our present economic system is all wrong, but we must not render that work nugatory by passing on the functions of the Planning Council to other subsidiary bodies which by their very nature are not independent and unable therefore to wrench themselves from our present system. There are many Committees. It is difficult to know what the relationship is between the one and the other. We have the Planning Council, we have the Industrial and Economic Commission, there is the Board of Trade, the Cabinet Reconstruction Committee, and it is difficult to know what the link is between these and whether in point of fact there is not likely to be a good deal of over-lapping. What is necessary to my mind is that there should be one supreme responsibility for all the work that is being done. The Planning Council is after all an advisory committee. The responsibility to my mind should be in the hands of a Minister specially appointed for this work in a ministry of Reconstruction. We have one respect in which post-war reconstruction is being left to a member of the Cabinet and in a way that would rather suggest that it is a matter of secondary importance. The Minister of Native Affairs was chairman of the Civil Re-employment Board. Now that he has become Minister of Native Affairs he still retains what is in the face of the observations of the Planning Council going to be a very big question, the re-employment of these men at present in the Army. That function one is expecting the Minister to carry out as purely incidental to an otherwise important portfolio. I do not think one can expect the results which one would hope for. This is a matter of paramount importance and it should not be regarded as incidental to routine development. Now I want to pass on in the few minutes that is left to me, to say a word in regard to social security. To be impressed with the need for social security one has to feel deeply for the all too many in South Africa, Europeans and non-Europeans, who live in dire want of the very first necessities of life. Social security offers us merely the minimum requirements in the face of actual want of the necessities of life. It would be a mistake therefore to imagine that the present demand for social security, and it is a self-evident demand, is merely a part of the concern for a general plan for reconstruction. There is an urgency in this demand for social security. The Planning Council has settled down to long term planning, and in that it is quite right. It has been given an enormous job. It is not only called upon to retrieve the position disturbed by war, but it has to go back before pre-war days and undo the mischief of our false politically influenced economics. The demand for social security is a demand not to regularise conditions as they have been disturbed in consequence of war, but to meet the abject misery which had eaten its way into our economy, long before the war came. The demand for social security has come about because the people have realised in the part that they are playing in this titanic struggle that there is no room for poverty and that they are not prepared to be a party to the perpetuation of privileged rights and its concommitant of undue suffering on the other hand. In England Sir William Beveridge has produced a plan. The Beveridge plan is not an innovation, it is an extension of fifty years of social insurance. We are in a very much different position. We, if we are to introduce a code, and I feel we should start at the beginning because we have not got social insurance. In Britain, in the Social Security scheme, of Sir William Beveridge, there is a contributory scheme without a means test. We are told that the productive capacity of South Africa, that our national income, has not reached that level which will allow us to follow the example of the Beveridge Plan. I would suggest therefore that our remedy lies in applying a means test. I see no reason why we should not have a social insurance scheme meeting those conditions, over which man has no control, paying due regard to avoiding the pitfalls, to which Sir William Beveridge has paid due regard. A code of that nature would serve two purposes. It would first of all meet an urgent and pressing problem—the problem of those who are in dire want. It would make a material contribution to the welfare of the under-privileged who, without the necessaries of life, are unable to play any adequate part as citizens of this country. And it would serve another purpose. It would bring about a realisation of our responsibilities towards our fellow men, because a scheme of this kind rests upon the co-operative element and those who are able to contribute and who do contribute to meet the needs of those who are in want, would thereby learn to know and honour the responsibility which is theirs towards their fellow men and country as a whole.

The Minister of Finance commenced his speech on social security this afternoon by a reference to the Ossewa-Brandwag. He expressed his concern that the Ossewa-Brandwag no longer has the protection of the Leader of the Opposition. I want to reply to that. The hon. Minister will remember that in the days when the Leader of the Opposition stepped into the breach for the Ossewa-Brandwag, the Government’s intention was to ban the Ossewa-Brandwag, and it was then that the Leader of the Opposition sprang into the breach. But circumstances have altered much since the Prime Minister so kindly gave Dr. Van Rensburg the opportunity of resigning as Administrator and becoming Leader of the Ossewa-Brandwag. The Prime Minister said: “I now have the Ossewa-Brandwag in the hollow of my hand.” And to his friends who still felt anxious about the Ossewa-Brandwag, he said that they need fear nothing from the Ossewa-Brandwag. The Minister of Justice said that he received his information from the innermost circles of the Ossewa-Brandwag. In these circumstances it is no longer necessary for the Leader of the Opposition to protect the Ossewa-Brandwag, because the Government now protects it, particularly the leader-in-chief. The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) has proposed an amendment, and I am not surprised that the hon. member accuses this side of the House that our motion is vague and is an election manifesto, designed to catch votes. He is supported therein by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) who spoke just now, that it is an attempt on the part of this side of the House to catch votes for the next election. I want to point out that all the twelve questions touched upon in our motion, are questions on which this party has in the past introduced independent motions; and in connection with which amendments have been proposed on the Budget. There is not one of those questions in respect of which the Opposition has not taken in a clear standpoint, not only now, but already before the war.

Since when?

If the hon. member looks at our manifesto of before the war, he will find it there.

I thought you are now a new party.

The hon. member for Vryburg has told us that the misery and catastrophic conditions that we are trying to stem did not originate as a result of the war, but already existed before the war. Now I want to ask the hon. member what he did before the war to alleviate the miserable conditions. Let us consider: The first that was touched upon, was State control over the gold mines. We pleaded for effective State control of the gold mining industry. In 1935 I personally, on behalf of this side, pointed out that the gold mines had made millions of pounds out of the gold premium, but I got no support from the hon. member for Vryburg or the hon. member for Wonderboom. They voted against us when we tried to bring the matter to a decision. But the hon. member says that our proposals are vague. Is his amendment clear? We speak of effective State control, he speaks of nationalisation of the mines. What does he mean by that? He is vague. Does he mean that the mines will be alienated? He must say if he wants the mines alienated; or does he mean that he wants to pay out the capital invested in the mines? About £60,000,000 nominal capital is invested in the mines. Does he mean that this must be given back to the mine-owners, and that the mines must then be alienated, or does he mean that the full value of millions of the shares must be returned?

We mean just what you say and what you now want to do, and what we have long said.

The hon. member says he means just what we say. We speak of effective control of the mines.

That you heard from us.

We have years since proposed that in this House. The hon. member does not know what he means. He accuses us of vagueness, but he cannot tell us what he means by his amendment. Let me mention another instance. Take the question of control of our banking system. This is a matter that we have brought before this House very positively in the past. We have said that we are dominated by foreign capital, and we have made proposals in connection with the Land Bank, but we have received no support from the hon. member for Vryburg. On the contrary, he fought us. I want to mention another example. We have come to this House with a clear proposal for the rehabilitation of the farmers. The hon. member now says that we do not want to do anything for the farmer. If he reads the motion of the Leader of the Opposition then he will see that the question of the rehabilitation of farmers is clearly mentioned. But I remember that when we came with the concrete proposal for the rehabilitation of the farmers, the Minister of Finance at the time stood up and said that it was not necessary, that there was not the least chance that farmers would become bankrupt. That was in February, 1935. He said that the farmers had never been so prosperous as in the past 20 years, and he was applauded by the hon. member for Vryburg and his friends. They believed it, but in May of the same year he had come with the Farmers’ Assistance Act. When we came to solve the question, the hon. member fought us tooth and nail, and did not agree. But now they come and accuse us that we are putting forward an election programme. Let us mention another example, that in connection with the immigration of artisans. I personally proposed in this House that a stop should be put to the introduction of artisans from overseas. I pleaded that our unskilled labour should have a chance to be trained as efficient artisans. If a boy of 21 years is today driven from the platteland to the city he has perforce to remain a white labourer all his life at a starvation wage of a few shillings per day, but on the other hand we import many artisans and pay them £30 and £40 in South Africa. The 1820 Settlers’ Association prides itself on the fact that they import annually 1,000 or more persons from overseas who earn £8 and £9 per week here. We made a proposal in that connection, but the hon. member for Vryburg voted against us. Take the question of segregation. Hon. members on the other side also do not know what they want in that connection. They now stand for general segregation, but the hon. member was not at all clear as to what he meant there. When I brought the matter up in the shape of a motion in this House, the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis) and his friends did not support us. They voted against us when it came to a division. Then we have the question of segregation. My hon. friend now stands for complete segregation, but unfortunately he is not clear on the point. What does he mean? Does he mean that the Natives and coloureds in this country must be shifted away from the whites? Does he want to take the Natives and coloureds away from the farms? If so, how does he propose that the farmers should manage without workers on the farms? I have heard from someone who supports that party’s standpoint that it is their policy that all Natives should be sent to Rhodesia. The hon. member accuses us of being vague, but I want to ask him: What does he mean by absolute segregation?

They have no meaning.

We have pleaded in this House for separate residential areas for Natives and coloureds and Europeans. There was a time when 62 persons from Observatory and elsewhere approached us and asked that there should be separate residential areas for Natives and whites. When we proposed a motion to solve this problem, those hon. members fought the proposal tooth and nail.

Among them also the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp).

They fought it. They did not want to see the Natives separated from the Europeans. Then I want to mention something else. In the Juvenile Law a point appeared that a non-European would have the right to adopt a European child to rear it. Hon. members then pointed out that the practice of coloureds in rearing European children would have the result that those children, when they are grown up, would not know whether they are coloured or European. There also we proposed an amendment and they fought it tooth and nail. I mention these cases because hon. members on that side are accusing us that we come here with an election manifesto. I do not want to go into it, but I think the hon. friend makes a mistake when he accuses us of this.

You are very unfair towards a great part of your own party.

They do not criticise us; you criticise.

The hon. friend on that side made the attack on us; it is not the hon. member for Wolmaransstad or the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) who made the attack on us.

I did not say a word.

I say that, but I also say that it is the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) and the hon. member for Vryburg who accuse us of these things, and I am busy pointing out that we have stood for it for years.

But now you are making accusations also against your own members.

I want to say something in connection with the sub-economic housing scheme. One of the proposals of my hon. leader is in connection with the sub-economic housing scheme. I want to point out that the existing housing scheme is not being used to assist the low-paid European worker but largely the non-Europeans. I have no objection to the non-Europeans being assisted, but I feel that more ought to be done for the low-paid European person. In 1942, 3,266 houses were erected for Europeans under the sub-economic housing scheme, while 42,012 houses were built for non-European persons. You will realise from this figure that the Europeans are being neglected as compared with the non-Europeans. We have pointed out in the past that provision should be made to assist also non-European persons. I am glad that the Minister of Railways has introduced this scheme also in the railways. After he was appointed Minister I went to see him and asked him to provide for the low-paid man to enable him to obtain a house at a reasonable rental. Houses were then built with three bedrooms, a kitchen and a bathroom, in respect of which the sub-economic rental rate was not even £8 per year—less than £1 per month. We appreciate this, because it is a great advantage to that poor person. But now I want to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that he has a big surplus, to extend that system so that the low-paid person in the big cities is also enabled to hire cheap houses. The low-paid man on the railways cannot afford to hire a house in the city. His low remuneration does not permit it, and he is consequently obliged to go outside the city where he can hire a house cheaply. He gets no facilities from the railways to come in from his abode. He often has to ride there and back on a bicycle, and he has to eat cold food. There are factories in Johannesburg that provide warm meals for their girl employees at 6d. The girls, of course, contribute. I want to ask the Minister why the railways do not introduce a similar scheme for persons living far from their work. If these people can receive a proper warm meal during the day, at a small cost, then this not only protects their health but it enables them to do better work. I feel that something must be done in that direction by the railways for the low-paid workers. Then another matter. The Minister was very vague in his speech in reply to this proposal. He will forgive me if I say that he was definitely vague. He tried not to make a promise to which he can be nailed later. I want to ask the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, as also the Minister of Finance, while we are now speaking of social security, to determine a reasonable standard of living which they consider as the lowest on which a white family can live. We need not wait until after the war to fix this. We can do it now. What does that Government do? It determines that the wage on which old people can live is £72 a year. In his legislation he says that if an old man earns more than £72 per year, then he gets no old age pension. It is expected of the old man and the old woman that their incomes must not be more than £72 per year. But only a few weeks ago the Minister of Labour determined that the natives cannot live on less than £65 a year. Now I want to direct this question to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways—is it fair on the part of the Government to fix a minimum wage of £65 per year so far as natives are concerned, while the maximum that can be paid to European persons is £72 per year? Does he really think that the difference in living standards between the European family and the coloured family is covered by those few pounds difference? Does he think that the natives who live in the locations and who hire their houses there for a few shillings, who do not pay for water, who do not pay for lights, who in the most cases wear old clothes and do not buy new clothes—does he think that the living standard of those persons can be taken at £65 per year while the European person is expected to come out on £72 per year? The same applies in the case of Oud-Stryders. We have been pleading for years in this House that more than £72 per annum should be paid out to Oud-Stryders. The law determines that if an Oud-Stryder’s income exceeds £72 per year then he gets no pension.

That is for the individual.

Yes, if he has a child then he gets an additional £18 per year, but they may not get more than £72 per year. Often these are persons who offered up everything for their country, and they are paid a meagre amount of £72 per year. Then we find the Minister of Labour saying that a native cannot come out on less than £65 per year. We must ever take into consideration that we in South Africa have a European civilisation that we must maintain, and you cannot allow that an old European couple should live in a room on the same standard as the native. I say it is a crying shame on the part of the Government to make such a distinction between a European family and a native family. The Prime Minister has said that he does not want to make promises. But I want to point out that during the last war he made promises from platform to platform; those soldiers went overseas, and what did they get when they returned? In a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at the Wanderers in Johannesburg, he said that be had provided those people with work. He gave 7s. 6d. to a married couple and 5s. to an unmarried person. That is the work he provided. Year after year Delville Wood Day is commemorated, and tribute is paid to the people who died overseas. The parents of many of those people still live today on a few pounds per month. The Prime Minister stood up the other day and again paid tribute to the people who are fighting in the North and—as he expressed it—have achieved deeds of heroism. I want to prophesy that if the Government remains in power the day will come when those self-same soldiers will return to roam the streets without work. At a big meeting held in Johannesburg recently, and was attended by 2,000 soldiers, it was roundly said that they do not trust the promises of the Prime Minister. They said that they were being shot down for 3s. 6d. a day and when they return they will be unemployed. They want a guarantee that when the war is past work will be provided for them. They know what happened after the last war. Many persons who returned then were taken up in the gold mining industry. The mine bosses said: “We want to bring down your wages to bring these in proportion to the wages of the natives.” It stood to reason that they would object to this. What did the Prime Minister then say? He said: “We must draw a line around them so that they can fight it out.” He must have known that violence would be committed, and the moment that violence was employed, more than 250 of them were shot dead; and then the Prime Minister made a speech and said that out of all this bloodshed something good was born. And what was the “good” of which he spoke? It is this: He said that it now cost 2s. 5d. per ton less to mine ore. In other words, all that misery was justified because the mine owners would make greater profits. The Minister of Labour who is now in that Cabinet, today tells the whole world that that Government cannot fulfil its promises, that he cannot provide that social security that there should be. Surely he knows what happens in the Cabinet. He knows that promises are being sown throughout the length and breadth of the country in order to get people to go and fight. All manner of promises are being made to get the people to go and fight, but those mine bosses remain at home. If you speak to people who have returned from the North and you ask: “Where is so-and-so?” then he says: “He is a traffic constable in Cairo, or he is on the Home Front.” In other words, the poor man is being forced to fight for 3s. 6d. The persons who are fairly well off are generally the officers. All sorts of promises are being made to these people; they are being cheated in South Africa and they are being cheated all over the world. I say that we want a certainty that those promises that are being made will be fulfilled, and they cannot be fulfilled by a Government sustained by capitalists; they must make way for a Government put there by the people.

Mr. Speaker, there is abroad in the world the idea that conditions after this war will give an opportunity for remedying all the evils from which mankind suffers, and we in this country have seen that idea leading people to think that legislation alone can create a new heaven and a new earth. One cannot help feeling that when a resolution of this type is introduced, the idea is “By all means let us have social security as long as the other man pays for it.” Now, it is a fact that in South Africa our condition is such that we must be looked upon as a poor country. I read an article the other day to which I should like to refer, in which the national income of South Africa was estimated. A recent preliminary estimate of the national income by Prof, Frankel puts the nett income produced in the Union in 1940—’41 at £472,000,000. Of this sum, after making certain necessary deductions, he estimates that the annual net income available for consumption within the Union is £35 per head of the total population, and clearly on that basis the country is wretchedly poor. That works out at an average earning capacity for the population of 2s. per head per day. If that £35 per annum is distributed on the basis of about four times as much for the white as for the coloured population, it means that the white population get about £90 per annum and the coloured approximately £21—£90 per head of the European population and £21 per head of the nonEuropean population. Compare that with the position in other countries. In Britain the average per head of the population is approximately £150, whereas in America, the annual income for last year was estimated by the Federal Reserve Board at 130,000,000,000 dollars, which is 1,000 dollars or approximately £200 per head. So that on that basis you can see at once that as far as South Africa is concerned, we lag very much behind the average earnings of both Britain and America. It follows from that that it is exceedingly difficult in this country to formulate any scheme within a reasonably short time which will act as a panacea for the evils from which the people suffer. There is only one way in which that can be done, and that is to increase the earning capacity of the people, and their earning capacity can only be increased by an intensive development of the resources of the country, and by using every possible means for developing those particular products which are likely to be demanded overseas, and which are likely to be demanded by our neighbours throughout Africa. A series of articles on the Beveridge Plan by Prof. Batson has appeared in recent issues of the “Cape Times,” and in one of these the professor makes this remark, which I think ought to commend itself to the attention of the House. He says—

And that point, Mr. Speaker, is also emphasised in the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council, where in a paragraph on page 5, Section 45, it says—

And it is only the minimum protection which can possibly be accorded by social security. As has been pointed out by a previous speaker, the British “New Deal” is something like 40 years old. In 1942 there was a milk scheme in the schools in Britain which served eight out of ten children, and the meals scheme which served one out of every four. In addition to that, they had unemployment insurance, child welfare, State maternity care, housing and nutrition, and as far back as 1908 there was maternity care and welfare of children under five, which became public services. Infant mortality in England in March 1942 was the lowest on record. It has to be remembered that all these things were developments from conditions which precede the issue of the Beveridge report, and the Beveridge report merely deals with the operation of social relief schemes, which had been in existence for England for more than a generation. So that when we talk about social security in South Africa, we must realise that the framework upon which it can be based is a very skeleton one indeed, and that a great deal of work has to be done before we can embark on anything like a Beveridge plan in this country. Every government has done its best to ameliorate the conditions of the poorer section of the people, and this Government has gone a step further than any government has ever done in calling into existence a Social and Economic Planning Council which has framed a very valuable report indeed, which I hope the Government will adopt, and make it a basis upon which something definite can be done, and under which some regular co-ordinated system of investigation can be embarked upon. We hope this will result in a proper method of reconstructing our social services in South Africa. I believe that the first thing we must attack in South Africa is malnutrition. The entire health of the people is based upon adequate food, suitable housing, proper care during infancy, and the Government has taken a step in that direction by appointing a National Health Services Commission, presided over by the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman). When the report of that Commission is received, I have no doubt steps will be taken to give effect to it. It is to be hoped, however, that the country will not be induced to believe that by a pious resolution without something else being done, and merely by the formulation of legislation, that the panaceas which are going to result in the betterment of the people, will be obtained. The first thing that has to be realised is that every improvement in the position of the people has to be paid for, and under existing conditions in South Africa, it cannot be paid for unless we produce more, and unless everybody who is able to do so works to the limit, more or less, of his capacity. The ideal to be aimed at cannot be better stated than in an article by the Archbishop of Canterbury which was re-printed in a magazine which I read:

Well, we have reached the stage in this country where he has an annual holiday with pay, but I am not sure that we have reached the stage in which every man can be in possession of an income to enable him to enjoy a full personal life. The ideals which the resolution embodies are such that one is bound to sympathise with them, but we must recognise that the Government is doing its best, that there is a new spirit abroad in the world, and that there is going to be a change of heart by all men after this war. As has been truly pointed out, if we were to spend more time to collaborate upon schemes calculated to improve the condition of the people as a whole, rather than in fighting over theoretical, political, racial and social dogmas calculated to help only a section of the people, then I think we in South Africa can look forward to a great and prosperous future.

May I ask if the Minister of Finance will accept the adjournment of the debate?

It rests with the Leader of the Opposition.

Very well, then I propose—

Dr. VAN NIEROP seconded.