I move:

This is not really consequential to the amendment which we have just accepted, but it has arisen out of the provisions of this Bill on the acceptance of this amendment. The point is this. That broadly under the Bill we allow in the case of a cancelled sale, the option of the proposed price of acquisition and the price under the cancelled agreement. That, however, would open the door to evasion and so in the original Bill we did not allow such an option in cases where the date of the cancellation was after the date of the coming into operation of this Act. On further consideration, however, it has been found that we can achieve our object if we limit it to cases where the actual date of cancellation of the agreement is prior to the coming into effect of this Act. This will therefore in effect be a further concession, and I move accordingly.

I second:

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 16 (Afrikaans) put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 21st April.

When the Committee adjourned yesterday I asked the Minister if he would undertake to give the Committee the assurance that he would issue a warning now regarding future purchases of land by Indians, a warning that legislation will be introduced with retrospective effect. Now I would like to raise another aspect of the matter which I do not think has yet been pointed out. It concerns the peculiar position we find in Natal, and I must say that I am surprised that the members that have to represent the natives here have not yet referred to that aspect of the matter. They are here to represent the natives in the first instance, and not the Indians. In Natal we find that the aborigines, namely the natives, are not entitled to buy land. There is no land that they can buy, while the imported Indian, the man who comes here to make something out of the country and who has money to invest, can buy as much land as he likes inside and outside Durban. The natives may not buy. We as a Native Affairs Commission went through Natal and in terms of the Native Trust and Land Act 526,000 morgen of land had to be bought for the natives in Natal. That land is simply unprocurable. In the first place the price is too high, and in the second place it is unobtainable because the Indians are busy buying up land in all the districts. It is a peculiar position that the representatives of the natives do not make their voices heard so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, but that they continue to plead here that land must be made available to the Indians and that the Indians must be allowed to buy as much land as they like. We find that some of the very best farms are being purchased. I am not speaking now of land within the municipal area, but of the very best watered farms which are being bought, particularly by the rich Indians. They do not go to live on those farms themselves, but they put 40 or 50 coolies on a farm to work the land. We know how they work The coolie, his wife and his children all work on the little bit of land they get, and where other people can perhaps not make a livelihood they work in such a way that they can still pay a high rental to the rich Indian. It therefore pays some of the rich Indians to buy the best land in Natal, outside the urban area. That is what is taking place, and the result is that some of the best land is falling into the hands of the Indians. Why does the Minister not want to make this legislation applicable to the whole of Natal now? Let him do that, and then he can later cause an investigation to be made if it is necessary. I cannot understand why the Indians should be allowed to purchase as much land as they want outside Durban in Natal. As I have already said, 526,000 morgen of land must be apportioned to the natives in Natal under the Act, and it is unobtainable. Notwithstanding this the Minister allows the Indians to buy up farms everywhere in Natal. They buy as many as they want. May I just say this to the Minister. It should not be difficult to ascertain how much land is being bought by the Indians. He can go to the office of the Registrar of Deeds, and all the land that they purchase outside the urban areas will be land that they ought not to get. It should be kept for the inhabitants of the country, and why should we now wait till there are again complaints as in the case of Durban and until it virtually becomes too late to restore the position. If the Minister will take the trouble to notify the Registrar of Deeds to supply him with information regarding the purchase of land by Indians, then he can soon find out what the position is. It is a pity that it is now so late in the Session, otherwise we could put a question to the Minister regarding the area of land that has been purchased in Natal by the Indians. If the Minister obtains that information, then he will realise how disquieting the position is, and that the Indians are buying up the best agricultural land in Natal. They do not buy land only for the purpose of trading, but they buy land to use for agricultural purposes and for the purpose of making provision in that way for the thousands of coolies who are placed on the farms to work the land, and to make a living in the manner I have described.

I was rather pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) yesterday. The hon. member was compelled to admit that the Dominion Party had since its entrance in this House, always attempted to safeguard the interests of the non-Europeans in South Africa. I would like to assure the hon. lady that we will continue to do so, and I make bold to say that the interests of the non-Europeans will probably be better safeguarded in the hands of the Dominion Party than they are being safeguarded at the present time by the representatives of the natives. Let me repeat that we have always been the friends of the non-Europeans, and in Natal particularly of the Indians, and we will remain their friends despite the attacks that are made on the Dominion Party, despite the attacks that are made on the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, which are mostly unjustified. I say that they are really ungrateful to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in making these attacks on him when he is endeavouring to keep peace in this country. This legislation has undoubtedly been forced on the Government by a certain section of the Indians, and the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has no alternative but to take the steps which he is taking today. He has warned them, and let me say this, that the representatives of the natives are not being fair to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. These remarks that they are making will be carried over to India and will stir up trouble there. They are doing the cause of the Indians no good, because these remarks will have their repercussions. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has moved an amendment, and he thinks his amendment is necessary. He objects to making the legislation retrospective. I have just received a letter which I should like to read to the hon. member, and I think after I have read it to him, he will realise how the people in Durban feel. Whilst I am on this particular subject, I hope the hon. Minister will make a statement in this House at the earliest possible moment that will reassure the people in Durban, that Indians who have bought houses will not be able to evict the present tenants from those houses. Let me just read a few extracts from this letter to which I have referred. It will give hon. members some idea as to what is going on in Durban. This gentleman writes as follows—

That is the length to which the people of Durban are being driven. He goes on to say—and this will be interesting to my hon. friends on my right and to other hon. members of the House—

That is the sort of thing that is going on. I hope the Minister will make a statement so that the people will know that they are protected by the Government, and that no one Will be put out of his house. It is necessary to have this Bill as it stands, and I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member. Now let me come to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). There is a saying that you must be careful of the Greeks when they bring presents. The hon. member for Winburg is very anxious to assist Natal in this matter. We appreciate the assistance the hon. member wants to give us, but I want to ask him whether he is prepared to go a little further. He, of course, wants to bring about total and complete segregation. We are not prepared to support him in that. We have promised to assist the Right Hon. the Prime Minister as far as we can, and we are not prepared to embarrass him by supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg. If the hon. member really wants to be of assistance, I suggest that he should introduce a motion in this House in which he says: “I have so much affection for you people in Durban, that I am prepared to open the doors of the Free State and let you come in.”

You have got a hope!

If the hon. member is prepared to get up in this House and move in that direction, I shall vote for his motion. I think the whole of the House is in favour of this Bill except the misguided members representing the natives. I say that this Bill will teach that section of the Indian community which has been causing so much trouble, a lesson. The Indians in Natal will impress upon their compatriots the serious consequence which will follow if they continue to penerate in the way they have been doing. They will advise their compatriots that they must not take advantage of the Government. They have been warned that if we find that penetration is taking place in other areas in Natal, as it has taken place in Durban, we will issue a proclamation within fourteen days to peg the position. The Indians are now on trial. We call upon them to play the game. Let us hear no more of these appeals to India to deal with a matter which is entirely one for South Africa.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member who has just sat down. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) should be very grateful to the native representatives. From what I gather from the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) we are now causing the Dominion Party followers to vote for a Republic. What I want to speak on more particularly is this: I personally have made no attack on hon. members of the Dominion Party, for whom I have a great respect. I refer more particularly to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). That is why I am amazed in some ways that he and the hon. the Minister of Mines should have associated himself and his party so strongly with this Bill, In regard to the question of making this legislation retrospective, I do want to make a further appeal to the Minister. I am perfectly well aware that legislation is often retrospective, but I doubt whether the hon. Minister can give us a single instance where legislation has been made retrospective in a matter of this kind. Usually legislation is introduced with retrospective effect to meet people, but I have never heard of retrospective legislation in a matter of this kind. I would like the hon. Minister to consider the results of this measure. It has been said that the Indians have been warned, but a warning is not legislation, and a warning in relation to something which the people can claim as a matter of right at the time, is quite different from a warning in relation to something which is illegal. Therefore I do appeal to the hon. Minister once again to adopt the ordinary principle of legislation, that is to make it effective as from the date it becomes law. I want to refer very briefly to the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) against myself. He made the point that I was in some difficulty in view of the fact that Asiatics are not admitted to Transkeian Territories. There is a very definite difference between the position in the Transkei and the position in Natal. The situation in the Transkei arises out of the annexation agreement.

Do you agree to Indians coming into the Transkei?

No, definitely not.

There you have it.

I do not agree, but if the Indians had been allowed to come into the Transkei, and were there today, I certainly would not vote to prevent them from acquiring property. The difference is this, that Indians cannot come into the Transkei because of an agreement which was entered into, whereas in Natal the Indians came there at the invitation of Natal to work for Natalians. By a mere stroke of the pen this legislation now proposes to eliminate the right of these people to acquire property. These people are still there, and they have to live. You now want to put a wall round them so that they cannot expand, as they must expand. From this debate I am convinced of the truth of the statement I made at the second reading debate. It is perfectly obvious to every person who is a protagonist of this Bill, that it is in effect a permanent measure. It is perfectly clear to me that everything will be done to extend the operation of this Bill right throughout Natal, and that is one of the things to be feared. Have you the power to withstand the legitimate demands of the people who came to Natal at the invitation of that Province? I cannot stress too strongly that aspect of this matter, and I ask the hon. Minister at any rate to bring in that measure of justice which will not penalise the man who did something in the past which he had every right to do.

I was very much amused by the suggestion of the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) in connection with this matter.

Are you prepared to do it?

No, certainly not. The people in Natal have cut off their noses; now they want us in the Free State to cut off our noses. No, thank you. My forebears in the Free State were wise enough to prohibit the Indians from coming into the Free State. Now the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, wants us to open our doors to solve their difficulties in Natal. The people in Natal imported Indian labour to make money for them; they imported Indians to till their sugar fields; today they are in trouble, and they want us to help them out. No, that is not the way to solve the problem. We have always put our cards on the table as far as all the coloured races and the Asiatics are concerned. But these people have played fast and loose. When it affects their personal interests, they are in favour of segregation, but when it affects other people’s interests they are opposed to segregation. They sometimes pay lip service to the principle of segregation, but at other times they oppose it. Then it is against all the principles of humanity. But I want to put another solution to the hon. member for Greyville and his party—a very wise solution which has been put to their leader, the hon. the Minister of Mines, a solution which will solve this problem. I propose to read extracts from a telegram which was sent by the Natal and Transvaal Indian Congress to the Leader of the Dominion Party.

Did that come from the Congress, or do I see the hand of someone else in it?

It purports to come from them. It reads—

Does that telegram refer to a debate that took place in the House this Session?

This part refers to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Mines. I shall not read that part. They go on to say—

That is a very wise solution. The hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) has asked me to allow Indians to come into the Free State. That would only aggravate the problem. But here is a good suggestion: The Indians will voluntarily leave South Africa provided the Englishmen in India leave India.

Do you think the Indians will leave Natal?

My hon. friend spoke yesterday of putting the Indians on trial. He wants to trust them. Why does he not trust them to leave Natal, or is it that he does not trust his own people to leave India? I think this is a very wise solution. Let the Englishmen in India leave India. Personally, I think the Indians will be glad to go back to India, provided the British leave India.

If all the South Africans leave India?

Let them give that a trial.

The South Africans have nothing to do with it.

I am putting this forward as a solution. The hon. member for Durban, Greyville, has come with this solution, that we must open the doors of the Free State to the Indians.

Do you agree to that?

No, certainly not. Why should we be saddled with your problem? The people in Natal have encouraged the Indians to come to Natal to work for them and to make money for them, and now they want us to open the doors of the Free State to the Indians. They want to transfer their problems to us. If hon. members want Natal freed from Indians, what is their objection to this solution? This is an offer from the Indians. Let them give it a trial. I merely rose to point out to the hon. member for Durban, Greyville that to come and make this suggestion that the Free State should open its doors to the Indians, which will have the effect of creating this problem in the Free State all over again—no, we will never do that. I am surprised at the members of the Dominion Party. They are so keen on this Bill, but they are not prepared to vote for an amendment which we moved, and which will assist them.

The Government won’t accept it.

And that is why those hon. members won’t vote for it. What becomes of their much vaunted protection of the European in Natal? Personality I am glad that the Dominion Party will not vote for this amendment, because it means their end.

It shows that they are not in earnest.

It means the beginning of the end of the Dominion Party in South Africa.

This listless, one can almost say unwilling, manner in which the Government is tackling, or trying to tackle, this extremely serious question by means of the Bill that is before us, will, I realty hope, still have damning results for the Government. The question arises if the Government is realty serious in tackling the matter. The impression is created in this House, and it is also clearly said, at least that is the deduction one can make, that they would have done nothing if they had not been forced thereto, particularly so long as the war lasted. The refusal of the Minister to accept our amendment is a proof to me that they are not serious about stopping Indian penetration in Natal. Why are they not serious? Because there is a war. They do not like to disturb the relations between the Indian Government and the Empire. This is another example of how our interests have to be sacrificed to British interests.

The hon. member must not now make a second reading speech.

They are not serious in the matter. Hence this kind of apologetic Bill, this Bill that must satisfy everyone. For that reason also our amendment is being turned down. The Indian community must infer from this refusal that it is the purpose of the Government that this will be only a temporary measure, and that the Minister will first of all investigate if there is more penetration, while he knows that the penetration is not occurring only in the municipal area of Durban but everywhere in Natal. Why fidget with this matter, why make pinpricks that do not actually solve the problem. This measure will apply only to the urban area of Durban, and already we see the tremendous agitation which is now going on in connection with this measure. That is also why the Minister is afraid to accept our amendment. Time must be gained, they dare not anger the Indians now. The result of the Minister’s action is that the feelings between the European community and the coloured population will deteriorate further and that it will aggravate the whole colour question, and it will in any case be necessary in the near future to apply more drastic measures and to adopt legislation of a more effective nature to solve the question in actuality. The Government’s attitude reveals a lack of policy so far as the future is concerned. The Government is concerned only about the position as it is today. It is not concerned about what the results and the effects of the ramshackle legislation are going to be in the future. They want the same problem that exists in Durban today to become equally serious in other parts of Natal, where the problem also in fact exists. The result is, as we were informed just now, that even the English-speaking people in Natal are today becoming republican-minded, because they look into the future and know that the Republican Party sits on this side. They realise that if they want to protect and make themselves safe in South Africa in future, then they will have to accept the republican standpoint for their own sakes and for posterity, and for the maintenance of European civilisation. The country can never be satisfied or remain satisfied with this legislation, because it does not even meet the situation as it exists today. In the rest of Natal there can be further penetration and the Indians can buy more land. I do not know if it will be necessary to make a further appeal to the unreasonable Minister, who represents the Government in this matter and who has come to light with such ramshackle legislation, to accept our amendment.

I was very interested to hear the speech of the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) who, as I understood from his speeches yesterday, constituted himself the main champion of the Durban City Council in this House. I was very interested to hear him say—and that is not a proposition from which I am prepared to dissent—that this matter is one to be decided here in this country and not elsewhere. But I would like to ask him whether he agrees with this unanimous view expressed by the Durban Town Council at the beginning of this so-called penetration.

When was that?

The year I am talking about is 1925, and penetration is defined as the purchase of land by Indians since 1927. I want to read this resolution of the Durban City Council which was submitted to a Select Committee of this House in 1925—

Now I want to say I resent very much one type of criticism against the attitude which we on these benches have taken up. And that is that we are concerned with the interest of a clique of rich men. That is totally untrue, and I am surprised at any hon. member, knowing the attitude we have adopted on economic matters, making statements of that kind. If hon. members wish to launch a crusade against the machinations of rich men generally they know I am with them. The issue is not with regard to the question whether these people are rich men or not. The issue is whether so long as you have a system which depends on free investment there should be discrimination as to who should be permitted to invest. But in any case I think this allegation about rich men has been carried too far. To begin with, taking the scope of the purchases described in the second Broome Report, it has been shown that in fact, of 259 purchases that were involved, 227 were of cases where only one house was bought by one person, and 32 only bought more than one house. I am surprised to hear anyone saying that a man who buys a house is a plutocrat. I have bought my own house and I am sure other members here have, and nobody is going to say that I am a plutocrat. It is not fair when 80 per cent. of the people described in the second Broome report only bought one house, to describe them as wealthy men. These purchases represent only a very small percentage of the Municipal area—most of that area is occupied by small people, market gardeners etc., and now it is proposed to stop them extending their holdings or residential sites. I know it is uncomfortable to have the facts stated when it is so much easier to make general allegations. But on the facts of the whole position, the statement made by hon. members certainly does not hold water. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) levelled another charge against us on these benches, namely that we wanted social intermixture. We do not, nor do the Europeans, nor do the Indians. And that was the finding of the Broome Commission. Let me read the concluding words of the Broome Commission on this matter—

That is common cause. The only issue, as I have tried to stress which is raised by this measure is whether amenities should be provided for these people and whether they shall be compulsorily segregated without such provision. I hope there will be no more criticisms of that particular nature coming from hon. members of the Opposition.

I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) to pass without a few comments. He has been talking on a subject of which he knows very little. He said that the City Council of Durban in 1925 passed a resolution suggesting a Round Table Conference. It is true the City Council did pass such a resolution. They were out to find a way of settling this question by peaceful means, but at that time there was no proposed legislation before the country.

There was.

Excuse me, there was not. I know something about this matter, I was on the City Council. The next year, in 1926, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), then Minister of the Interior, introduced the “Reservation of Areas Bill.”

No, he introduced that in 1925. In 1924 Sir Patrick Duncan introduced the Bill.

Well, it does not matter whether it was 1925 or 1924. The point is this, that, at the time of this resolution of the City Council, there was no legislation before the country.

Yes there was, the hon. member for Cape Western was correct.

I was a member of the City Council. The Reservation of Areas Bill was introduced, and I am prepared to swear to the accuracy of what I am stating. When this measure was introduced by the hon. member for Piquetberg the City Council appointed a sub-committee, of which I was a member, to go into the question of this Bill and advise …

That Bill is not before the Committee; the hon. member must confine himself to Clause 1.

On a point of order, the hon. member is replying to remarks which I made.

I am aware of that, but if the Chairman allows all remarks to be replied to the scope of debate will be widened and the Committee will never get finished.

At any rate, I should like to refute the statements made by the hon. member for Cape Western in regard to this Round Table Conference. A deputation came from the City Council to give evidence before the Select Committee.

What Select Committee?

The Select Committee on the Reservation of Areas Bill.

I thought you said there was no Bill.

I was one of the deputation and we came with a Mandate to support the Bill. And in our deliberations in the City Council the Round Table Conference was never mentioned. I absolutely refute what the hon. member for Cape Western said. He knows nothing about it. I know everything about it because I was in the picture.

Question put: That the words “the municipal area of Durban in”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—51:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—28:

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. C. R. Swart dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

On the second reading of this Bill I made clear my position on this clause and the succeeding clauses of this Bill, and I now propose moving an amendment to this clause which will carry with it a contingent amendment in the next. I consider this section of the Bill is not justified. There is every reason to believe that the position in the Transvaal is static, that is as static as a situation can be with a population which is undergoing normal increase; and therefore there is no ground for the continuation of the legislation which was originally passed here in 1039. I trust the Minister will accept that situation and agree to withdraw this clause and the subsequent clause and thus restore the Transvaal position as it existed before 1939. I think that situation is justified on all the evidence. I move therefore—

The hon. member can vote against the clause.

I wish to support what the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has said. We have always made our view clear that we are opposed to legislation of this kind. Legislation is not the way to deal with problems of this kind. But assuming even that there is justification for legislation of this kind we say that in regard to the Transvaal at all events a case has not been made out for the extension of the 1939 Act as provided for in this Bill. The Broome Commission is the only evidence we have as to penetration in the Transvaal. And penetration in the Transvaal means something entirely different from penetration in Natal. It does not mean acquisition of ownership because that is illegal. What it means is Asiatics extending their trading activities. Now, how a total population of men, women and children of 28,000 in the Transvaal, could in any conceivable circumstances be regarded as a menace to the European population is something which I have never been able to understand. But even assuming there is such a possibility, we have the definite finding of the Broome Commission on this matter to the following effect—

We are dealing now only with unproclaimed land, so we are dealing only with 14,000 people. Now, the section of the Transvaal Act which this clause extends is a residential section. The original legislation was passed as the result of an agitation in which it was alleged that the position of Asiatics trading in the Transvaal constituted a serious danger to the European community there, to the country towns of the Transvaal and to a town like Pretoria. That matter was investigated by the Commission, and the existing legislation was extended pending the finding of the Commission. The Commission has found that the position is not a serious one. As a matter of fact the Commission itself expressed some disapproval of the wild statements that had been made before it was appointed, and the failure of the people who made these statements to come before it and produce facts. The Commissioners in one part of their report dealing with the Transvaal say this—

It is on grounds such as these that we say that the facts of the case are not in accordance with the assumptions. I know the Minister has said that he has administered the exemption clause of the Act, which we are now extending, in a reasonable way. I am not prepared to contest that. But, however reasonably that exemption clause is administered, it cannot make up for the taking away of the fundamental right to trade of a trading community. The right to trade is not there, it is subject to a discretion. It is a small community which we are dealing with, and I cannot help feeling very strongly that the extension of this legislation on any grounds is not justified.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I don’t want to repeat the speech I have just made, I only want to say that I object to the section on the same grounds as I objected to the last one.

Clause 4 put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

First of all I want to move all the amendments that we have to this clause, and then I shall explain them. I move the following amendment—

As the Bill now stands it puts a restriction on the Europeans. I do not know why the Minister proposes it in this form. The European may not contract an agreement with an Asiatic in accordance with which one of them may obtain land. It seems like a pegging of the Europeans. The effect of my amendment will be that no European may contract an agreement with an Asiatic which will have the effect of the Asiatic getting any land or what more thereby. It simply means that Europeans will have the right to purchase land from Asiatics, but that the Asiatics will not have the right of purchasing land from the Europeans. I consider it very unfair where the Minister now admits, as is admitted in the Broome Report and also generally in this House that in the past 2 years a number of rich Indians have bought up land and buildings in European areas, that Europeans shall now be prohibited from buying back the land. The Minister admits that there is something wrong and that a danger is being created, but now Europeans may not buy back the land bought by Asiatics.

The Minister can grant a permit.

Why must the Europeans first obtain a permit. It seems unfair to me, and therefore I propose the amendment that Europeans shall be free to penetrate, and to push the Indians back again from where they wrongfully penetrated. I do not know what the policy of the Minister is. When is he prepared to grant permits? The Bill as it stands now is no guarantee that such a person shall receive a permit. It may perhaps help us if the Minister says what his policy is. Will permits be granted if a European applies to acquire land bought up by Indians?

I think I should state at once that I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) in regard to the alteration of the Afrikaans version, namely, the inclusion of the words “of perseel”. Those words should have been included. I also move another amendement in the Afrikaans version which does not occur in the English version. The word “goed” is a misprint. Subject to these amendments, I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg. The effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg would be this, that the Bill, in so far as Natal is concerned, would provide that no Asiatic in the municipal area of Durban would be allowed to purchase property from a European except upon the permit of the Minister of the Interior, but Europeans would be permitted to purchase property from Asiatics without any restrictions upon them whatsoever. In other words, if the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg is accepted, then the basis of reciprocity, which has been adopted in the Natal provisions, will go by the board. The hon. member has asked why it is sought to prevent Europeans from purchasing back properties that may have been bought by Indians in predominantly Europeans areas. It is not sought to prevent those re-purchases. If Europeans who wish to make such purchase apply for permits under the Act, the Act will be administered in such a way that they can obtain those permits. The permit system has operated well, I think, in the Transvaal, and I do not agree with the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) in the remarks he made at the second reading, that this system is open to abuse. The hon. member for Piquetberg in his Act No. 35 of 1932 has accepted this principle of a permit being issued by the Minister of the Interior. I would remind the House that in Clause 3 of Act No. 35 of 1932, a new Clause 131 (a) was inserted in the Gold Law of 1938, and that clause provided that—

In other words, the Minister of the Interior of that day was taking very wide powers indeed, powers to exempt land from the restrictive provisions of the Gold Law for the purposes of occupation. The Act was at a later stage amended, when these powers were taken out of the hands of the Minister of the Interior, and it was provided that the withdrawal from the restrictive provisions of the Gold Law might take place only after a resolution by both Houses of Parliament. In any case, that principle was accepted, and we have it also in the 1939 interim legislation.

As we go forward we learn.

And I see no ground for fear that the permit system will lead to abuses. The Natal provisions of the Bill have been based on the principle of reciprocity. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) objects to that. He asks that we should impose discriminatory legislation. I would like to ask hon. members who represent the native people, to bear this in mind. It has been the contention of the Government that the legislation is not discriminatory inasmuch as the provisions are reciprocal. They apply to Europeans as well as to Indians.

What is the difference?

Europeans are prevented from purchasing property and they are prevented from selling property, and of course many Europeans are to blame in this matter just as many Indians are to blame. It is common cause that this infiltration is a bad thing. It leads to racial friction. There have been faults on both sides. But the Bill, in so far as its Natal provisions are concerned, is not discriminatory, and I would wish that fact to be more emphasised. One can only wish that that fact had been more emphasised by those who are protesting against the Natal provisions. It is neither fail nor correct to say—as has been said in some quarters—that the Natal provisions of the Bill are discriminatory, and that they take away rights from the Indian population, inferring that no restriction has been placed temporarily on the rights of the Europeans also. These temporary provisions are applicable to both sections of the community. It was felt that it was reasonable and fair that they should be so. I wish that those who object to the Natal provisions of the Bill would in fairness state all the facts, and not seek to create the impression that this legislation is aimed only at one section. I am not prepared to accept the amendment. These provisions are equitable provisions. They are based upon a policy of non-discrimination, and the Bill, as drafted, is calculated to be in the best interests of both racial groups in Natal, and it is not considered necessary that one should go further than the provisions of this section.

The hon. Minister has just gone out of his way to suggest that we on these benches, objecting to the Natal provisions of the Bill, have been unfair.

I said that remarks of that description had come from a certain section. I was referring to protests which have been published outside.

I am glad to hear that because in my second reading speech I did deal with the facts, and it is on the facts of the matter that I still base my statement that while the provisions of the Bill are not discriminatory in form, they are discriminatory in effect. The facts I referred to are these. Take, for example, the old Borough of Durban. There the European population is in the neighbourhood of 80,000 and the Indian population is in the neighbourhood of 25,000. The total area of the old Borough is 8,200 odd acres, and 204 acres were owned by Indians in 1927, and it is estimated that it has now been extended to 359 acres. Under this Bill, so far as rights are concerned, 25,000 people are to be confined to 359 acres of land, and 80,000 people to the balance of the 8,200 acres. That is the sort of thing I have in mind when I use the word “discriminatory”. I have always taken up the attitude that whether or not an Act is discriminatory has to be judged by its economic effects. Those are the facts of the matter, and we regard the provision of this section as discriminatory. I should like to ask the Minister to give us an explanation of the necessity for this clause in the light of what I have always understood to be the real objection to Indian penetration. The objection I have always heard stated was that European people do not like Indians coming in and living next door to them. I object to Clause 6 but I base my objection to it on entirely different grounds. The objection is not that Indians should invest their money, but the Europeans do not want intermixture. But what is the objection to investment? Section 5 seems to me simply to put an economic limitation on these people. I object to the whole of the section for the reasons I have given. It does not seem to me to have anything to do with penetration. But there is one particular sub-section of this section which I am now going to ask the Minister to omit. It is provided here that no European shall enter into any agreement with an Asiatic in terms of which any party to the agreement acquires or purports to acquire—

Then it is provided that no Asiatic shall enter into any such agreement. Why should not an Asiatic be able to buy a share in any company which owns a block of offices in Durban? And the same applies the other way round. Why should not a European be able to buy any share in a company which owns a block of offices in an “Indian area” in Durban? If the company became Indian owned, in the former case, then in any event it could not purchase property because it would be hit by the definition of “Asiatic company”. If the company became Asiatic controlled, then it would fall under the provisions of this clause, but why should you stop the Indian from buying a share in a company that happens to own a block of offices in Durban? I therefore ask the Minister to accept this amendment which I now move—

I submit that that would be reasonable, and I therefore move accordingly.

I would like to move an amendment that represents a compromise, now that the Minister has rejected my amendment. The amendment I now want to propose will have the effect that land and sites purchased by Indians after the first Broome report, can be bought back by Europeans. This will therefore counter the infiltration which became so dangerous that legislation was necessitated. The amendment is as follows—

We want to put the position in that way. We know that we had to do with the evil of a sudden of flood of Indian purchases in such a measure that the Government had to introduce this legislation to stop it. Now I say that we must give the Europeans a chance of buying back the land that was purchased by the Indians since the date which is mentioned in the amendment. Such purchases on the part of Europeans must be free from the restrictions of the law. The amendment means that agreements contracted in respect of that land, when it is purchased by a European, shall be valid.

For the reasons which I gave earlier on, it is not necessary for me to say much now. There will be no doubt as to the issue of a permit. If a European seeks to purchase property in a predominantly European area owned by an Indian, there will obviously be no difficulty.

Is that an undertaking?

Definitely. I shall do my best to encourage the purchase of property by Europeans in predominantly European areas.

Then why don’t you release these areas?

I am attempting to maintain the principle of non-discrimination, and if I accept this amendment I shall be departing from that principle. I am quite prepared to give an undertaking that if the Europeans are prepared to buy from Indians, and Indians are prepared to sell in predominantly European areas, if the Europeans are prepared to buy property in such areas owned by Indians, a permit will be given at once.

I cannot understand the reasoning of the Minister of the Interior, and I cannot understand how he can be so illogical. He admits that what we now propose in the amendment is desirable, and he says that he wants to encourage those properties being bought back by Europeans. But then he says that he does not want to incorporate it in the Bill because it will mean discrimination. He says that we can take his word for it that every European who wants to buy those properties from an Indian will get a permit. Is that then not also discrimination? It appears to me that the Minister is illogical. I do not want to say he is headstrong. I can think for myself what he is. The Minister says that he can grant permits for such purchases, and he gives us the assurance that he will give the permits. He says that we can accept it that he wants to encourage this. Then why cannot he incorporate it in the Bill; and why must the people take the trouble of obtaining a permit for something that he wants to encourage? It strikes me as completely illogical. The Minister must again think the matter over. What kind of impression must such a thing make on this House and on the country? We come here with a proposal to help him out of the difficulty and to enable him to do what he would like to have done. If the people are now left at liberty to buy the property then the difficulty no longer exists. He says that he would welcome it and would like it to be done, and yet he does not want to release that land so far as the Europeans are concerned. I cannot see what discrimination there is, and how the Indians can say that it is discrimination. No, the Minister must think the matter over again for he has apparently thought about it in haste. This proposal is reasonable, and we only want to help him to put his Bill in proper shape.

The attitude of the Minister of the Interior is so typical of his own attitude and also of that of members on the other side in respect of the coloured races in South Africa. On paper there must be beautiful principles as to how they should be treated, but in the dark they must be pinched. The Minister does not want to incorporate this provision in the Bill, but he tells us that he will allow Europeans to buy the properties from the Indians. That is the whole difference between us and members on the other side. We say frankly to the people what the position is. We do not come round corners. We do not like that British colonial policy which postulates high principles for the treatment of aborigines and then gives them opium and strong drink in order to exterminate them. We say no, we act strictly, but those people know what we do and what we want to do. Here in this Bill the Minister is now putting the Asiatic on the same footing with the European, but surreptitiously gives him a kick in the pants. The Minister should accept this amendment so that the Indians will know what the position is going to be. He must not come with deceit. I am sorry, but I can give it no other name. It must not be put in the law because that will affect the principle that there must be no discrimination in the law! It must on no earthly account be put in the Bull, but he will do it all the same. No, the Minister must come to light honestly in the matter, and put the position frankly.

The hon. member has obviously not thought out the full implications of his amendment. He says this is a deception, he says in effect that administratively I shall be discriminating. He forgets that the permit provisions cut both ways. It will be necessary for Europeans to obtain permits before purchasing from Indians and for Indians to obtain permits before purchasing from Europeans. I have given an assurance that if a European seeks to purchase property from an Indian, in a predominantly European area, and the Indian wishes to sell, a permit will be given; but similarly it may be found that a European may seek to purchase a property at present owned by an Indian in a predominantly Indian area, and in that case it seems to me that a refusal would be obviously necessary. But unless one has the permit provisions in the Act one would not be able to deal with cases of that sort. There may be cases in which Indians will seek to buy properties in predominantly Indian areas owned by Europeans. If they seek to do so I give an undertaking that the permit will be granted on the same principle as I gave the assurance in respect of the other case. If Indians seek to buy property in predominantly Indian areas and Europeans owning such property are prepared to sell, then permits will be given. But this permit provision is necessary. There is no hidden policy behind the written word of the Act. These provisions are necessary in order to allow the Department to have a flexible discretion, to deal with each case in the light of the circumstances of the case.

The Minister says that there is no deception. He says if a European wants to buy in a predominantly European area, he will immediately give the necessary permission. If an Indian wishes to buy in a predominantly Indian area he will probably get that permission. But he says what he wants to protect is the Indian; he wants to protect the Indian from a European buying in a predominantly Indian area. Now, what is he protecting him from? Nothing. He knows there is no desire on the part of the European to buy in a predominantly Indian area. The whole object of this Bill is to protect Europeans from Indians who are buying in European areas. So now he says: “I am holding the balance completely. I am going to give out certificates, or withhold certificates on the same ground” but he knows that he is only going to apply this provision to the Europeans—the European is the only one who is going to get a certificate. That being so, why not put it in the Bill? The Minister knows it works one way, but the Minister wants to pretend that he is holding the scale of justice evenly in his hands, and then he puts a lump of lead in one hand and stands in front of the regulation so that no one can see the lump of lead. And what has happened to the Dominion Party? They are still torn between their principles and expediency. Surely they agree with us? They fully agree with us. They attack, and they bark, but they don’t bite. Yes, we know they cannot bite. They have an Election agreement as to how many seats they are going to get, and they yap as much as they like so long as they don’t bite. The Minister knows they are muzzled. They can bark all around the Minister’s legs but they cannot bite. They know what they have to do but they have not got the courage to do it. Yes, they have strong principles—I don’t agree with their principles but I admire them. But what I don’t admire is that while they have these principles they won’t live up to them. And they have sold Natal for a couple of seats.

Yes, and those seats may be taken by some independent candidates.

Anyhow, they are out of the fight. Look at them! They know that we have moved something which is in their interest and in the interest of Natal. We have not moved it because it is in the interest of Natal per se—we have moved it because it is in the interest of the Europeans, and that is the principle which this Party wants to carry out. They know it is in the interest of the Europeans in Natal, and I am prepared to make a bet with you, Mr. Chairman, if the rules of the House will permit me, that one of them will bark but he will not bite.

In answer to what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has just said, that no European will ever buy in a predominantly Indian area, it strikes me that he may wrong. It might be profitable for speculative purposes for the European to buy or to want to buy in an area in which only Indians can buy today. Surely that sort of thing should also be dealt with. They may want to buy and thereafter charge the Indian a very stiff price. I think the Minister is quite right in putting in this clause, so that what applies to the one section will also apply to the other.

The hon. member does not know about the speculation that is going on. What happens is this, if Indians buy in a European area, the property does not go up, the value of the adjacent property drops. The European is not going to buy in an Indian area as a speculation. No European will do it because it cannot be a profitable speculation. Which European wants to live in an Indian area? He may go there for a time but he will very soon get out. But what the Indians do is to buy property in a European area and the fact of their doing so immediately depreciates the property in that area, but it does not work the other way round. Of course the hon. member only knows Parktown and the Indians do not buy there. Parktown is a very superior place in Johannesburg—it is the home of the idle—or the more or less idle rich. They live there in secluded conditions, they do not come into touch with the realities of any problem like this. But let a number of Indians come to Parktown and start buying property among Johannesburg’s super aristocracy. Let members of that aristocracy get into their beautiful limousine with the chauffeur opening the door for them and have a crowd of noisy little Indian children all around, living on adjacent property. What will the hon. member say then? If that were to happen the hon. member would come into contact with the realities of life. No, the Indians keep away from this secluded aristocratic home of snobbism. But is might be a good thing if some of them did get into an area like that, the hon. member would then know the realities of life. I think we should subsidise some Indians to go and buy property in Parktown so as to bring the almost idle rich of Parktown into contact with the realities of our problem. If that were to happen I am certain that the hon. member, if she did not join our Party, she would certainly support our efforts.

I do not want to prolong the discussion of this matter, but this section seems to me to present an appropriate opportunity of bringing up a matter which the hon. Minister may wish to consider. In meditating upon any solution to this question which would be effective and more or less permanent, I wish to mention that in the course of the tour that a Parliamentary delegation made in India, we came across a very useful experiment that was made both in Bombay and in Calcutta—an experiment which was known as the Bombay Improvement Trust and the Calcutta Improvement Trust respectively. A body was constituted there which acted very much in the way in which the Minister proposes to act under this Bill, as a sort of referee. Under this Improvement Trust in Bombay and Calcutta, it became necessary to expropriate large areas which had become unhealthy and unsanitary, and those areas were reconstructed by an expenditure of millions of pounds, in a manner that was approved by people who were competent to advise the Trust on replanning and rebuilding. I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of considerable areas being bought back for the European community, to which they properly belong, and reconstructing and rebuilding other areas in regard to which there is considerable complaint, on the same lines as was done in Bombay and Calcutta.

The First amendment proposed by Mr. Swart put and negatived, and the amendment in lines 14 and 15, page 4, dropped.

Question put: That the words “any party to the agreement”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—51:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—24:

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the second amendment proposed by Mr. C. R. Swart dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Molteno put and negatived.

Proviso to the Clause proposed by Mr. Swart put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24:

Bekker, G.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—49:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. C. R. Swart put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

We had amendments to this scheme, but we have now virtually voted on the principle of those amendments, and therefore I will not move them again.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I want to move the following amendment, which appears on the Order Paper—

There may be a Minister with a wrong inclination and he may simply allow numbers of Indians to purchase land. This amendment will have the effect that it will be made known to the public. The public will then have the opportunity of lodging objections, and it will not be necessary for them to wake up one day and to find out that it is too late.

I regret, I cannot accept this amendment.

I just want to say straight out that I do not think that the Minister ought to get the right to grant permits.

But your Leader also did that.

Two wrongs do not make a right. When we have to deal with an important matter such as this and permits are issued, then the person who has an interest in the matter should have the right of indicating his feelings to the Minister. This Minister may perhaps be beaten at the forthcoming election and we may get another Minister.

We will.

I do not say he will be defeated. I feel sorry for him because he will also have his difficulties. But there may be another Minister in his place, and that Minister will then have the right to refuse permits or to grant them as he likes, without the persons who have an interest in the matter being able to express their views on it. I may also be that a difference may arise about what an area is, whether it is an Indian area or a European area. I cannot see what objection the Minister can have against this. If application is made for a permit—well, if he perhaps lived well the previous evening and he feels bad the next day, he can simply refuse to grant a permit. It all depends on his attitude. I believe in the democratic principle that the people should have the authority, particularly the people who have an interest in the matter. Apart from the fact that I feel a permit system to be quite wrong, I also feel that the people should in any event have authority. If the Minister is really as democratic as he pretends to be, he will surely give the interested person the right to lodge objection. The Minister will probably say, as he said just now, that he is prepared to accept the principle, but he does not want it in the law, that he will do it without the law. He must not tell me that, for the law is not made for him, and the promise he makes may not be implemented by a succeeding Minister. That has happened all too often. The Minister bluntly refuses to give the people a chance to lodge objection, and his action makes me think that he is afraid that we shall tempt him into a trap. He does not know what the consequences are going to be, and he simply says “no”, no matter whether it is good or bad. But nobody can blame him if he exercises his intellect, neither the Indians nor the Europeans. If he thinks it is right, then he ought to accept our proposal.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I want to move as an amendment—

This means that if areas are proclaimed in the rest of Natal, the law will operate there.

I cannot accept it.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—21:

Bekker, G.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—48:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson. R. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

This time I really hope that the Dominion Party is going to support us.

You have not got a hope.

I have tried, you do your best now.

Well, hope springs eternal in the human breast. Whether they will be blessed when they get back to Natal I doubt very much. It was our ancestors who came to Natal and made it a white man’s land. Now we will have to go again, and we would go if only hon. members from Natal will give us their support when we get there.

But if we have to go down into the beautiful province of Natal and make Natal a province fit for Europeans to live in, and if we are to be treated in the way we have been treated by hon. members for Natal … .

Will the hon. member come back to the clause.

I am trying to persuade the hon. members where their duty lies. I was only half way across the floor when you started putting this clause, and I have not got my amendment as nicely drafted as I would like to hand it to you. I want to change “£100” to “£500” and then I want to delete “six months” and substitute “two years”. I move—

What about lashes?

No, we are not so frivolous about the position of Natal as the Minister is, and that sort of remark, only shows us the frivolous attitude he is taking up towards one of the most serious problems in the country. It is a frivolous attitude which the whole Government is taking up. They are toying with the problem. Here is a problem which is becoming more serious day by day, and what is the Government doing—pegging, pegging, pegging! You cannot peg a problem. If someone is suffering from a disease do you go along and peg that disease? No, you cure it. The hon. Minister has not got the courage to operate on the patient. No, he is going to peg the disease, and then he says he is serious with this matter.

I don’t like your anaesthetic?

No, but you do not like the disease either.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended, I had just moved an amendment to this clause, to increase the penalties under the Act. My reason for doing that, I can explain very shortly and that is that this problem that we are dealing with is a very serious problem indeed, and it seems to me that the fines and the punishments are not commensurate with the gravity of the offences which can be committed under this Act. Another point we have to remember is that we are dealing here to a very large extent with an organised community, and anyone who is convicted under this Act will probably be supported in his misdeed by the whole community organised as such, and if you are going to impose a maximum fine of £100 and six months imprisonment., which usually means that it is only the fine or the alternative imprisonment, it is not going to be commensurate punishment for the misdemeanour, and if we want to make provision in this Act by way of punishment to stop people from contravening the regulations laid down under this Act, we are not going to be successful unless we increase the punishment to such an extent that the people could really be afraid to contravene the regulations. If you leave the fine at a maximum of £100, many attempts will be made to get round the Act, and what we want to do is to stop people from attempting to get round the Act. If we increase the fine as I suggest here, we will have greater success in preventing people from attempting to get round the Act.

I do not think it is necessary to go further than the provisions in this section, as they stand at the present time. If, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) fears, there are going to be a series of contraventions, the Courts of Law, which will have to deal with these cases, will be able to inflict appropriate punishment within the terms of the present section. The punishment provided for is a fine of £100 or six months imprisonment with hard labour. If there are an increasing number of offences, it will be competent for the Courts trying these cases to impose not a fine but imprisonment, and one knows that imprisonment without the option of a fine is a very real deterrent indeed, even if it is only for a week or fourteen days.

Why do it in other cases where the offence is not so serious?

The provisions seem to be perfectly ample. The Bill itself is a warning. Its provisions are in many respects far-reaching, and I do not think it would be wise, or that it is at all necessary, to go further than we are going at the present time. The hon. member for Humansdorp objected to the principle of pegging in this Bill. He said that that was not dealing with the question at all, that it was merely tampering with the question, and he now seeks to augment the pegging provisions by far-reaching penalties. I do not think that is necessary. At any rate, we have a definite policy. In the old days there was a policy—what I might term the Piquetberg policy—but then the emphasis was not even on the first part of the name. That policy was a policy of wait and see. It may have been the correct policy, but if that policy was the correct policy, the hon. gentleman must not complain that the Government at the present time is dealing too slowly with this matter, along the lines of this Bill.

I do not think it will help to ask the Minister to put the fine higher, but it is nevertheless my duty to say what I think about it. Last year, when the Excise Law was adopted, provision was made for a fine of £500 for contraventions of a less serious nature. In Act No. 5 of 1924 you have the same thing. When a farmer makes himself guilty of an offence then a fine of £500 is imposed, but when you deal with these people then a fine of £100 is adequate.

It may be Europeans who contravene the law.

If it is Europeans, then they must be punished even more severely. But they are not farmers. The farmers have no money to buy land in the cities. It is the speculators who buy the land. Those people are dealt with gently. In their case provision must be made for a maximum fine of £100, but when it comes to the farmer the fine is £500. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he does not view as serious a contravention under this law; if he views it seriously then the person who contravenes the law ought to be heavily punished. If a maximum fine of £100 is stipulated, then the magistrate will quite possibly impose a fine of £25. Where the maximum fine is £500 however, the magistrate will quite probably impose a fine of £200 or £250. I know it will not help at all. I said this morning that the Minister is afraid to make any alterations. He does not know what repercussions it is going to have. He is afraid that we may lead him into a trap. I just want to tell him that I have no intention of leading him into a trap. I think he should accept the motion of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). It is a great pity that the Minister should perpetually refuse to accept reasonable proposals from this side. He wants to go his own way, and he will pay for it.

I do not want to go into this matter again, but I just want to say this: The Minister has now thought fit to go out of his way to make a cheap attack on the first effort which was made in connection with this matter by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) when he was Minister of the Interior. The Minister himself knows that that was the first attempt that was made in connection with the sort of thing that is happening now; and where the Minister made that cheap remark, it was made with the full knowledge that what the hon. member for Piquetberg did was right, and that it was as far as the hon. member could go at that time. If the Minister does not want to go further because the hon. member for Piquetberg could not go further years ago, then we cannot, expect a man who wears a coolie fez to go further than he is going now.

Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the Minister in this matter of the fine. We have stood by him right through this debate, and I know that he appreciates our support, but I would like to ask him to reconsider this matter and make the fine £500. In dealing with property, the figures run into thousands, and a mere fine of £100 is not sufficient. I do ask the Minister to reconsider his decision and make it £500.

Question put: That the word “one”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—43:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A, P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—24:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Sauer dropped.

Remaining amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clause 5 (Afrikaans) put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 21st April.

I have a few questions I would like to reply to, and the first is one by the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Henderson). He asked me about freehold titles in certain townships on the Reef in the Transvaal. The answer is that the question of the conversion of leasehold title to freehold in certain townships is a matter which is closely bound up with the Township Board, and the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal has the matter under consideration. I will again bring the matter to the notice of the Administrator.

†*Then the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) asked me certain questions about permission being granted to certain hire purchase occupants of farms in the Northern Transvaal to cut wood on those farms. He mentioned various types of wood and he wanted to know whether we could not allow those people to cut this wood, and in that way give them an opportunity of reducing their liabilities. The answer is that the Department cannot in any circumstances allow wood and timber to be cut on these farms held under hire purchase agreement. And the reason is this, if they are allowed to do so those people, instead of carrying on their farming operations, will cut down the trees, they will destroy the forests in order to cut firewood, and once the forests are destroyed we know that soil erosion starts. If the hon. member knows those areas he must be aware of the fact that at one time there were magnificent forests round about Kimberley. The farmers then started cutting the timber for firewood. They cut down millions of trees, with the result that the whole of that country eventually became entirely bare, which is one of the main causes of soil erosion in that particular part of the country. If there are certain types of wood which can be used for war purposes, application can be made and the Department will then be able to decide whether it will be advisable to allow the farmers to cut down certain types of wood and not other types. Ths hon. member also asked me what the position was in regard to certain farms in the New Belgium Block, and whether we were going to allot those farms to tenants. The reply is in the negative. There are some tenants on those farms but on other farms, again, we have removed the tenants on account of the land being over-grazed. Those farms have been trampled out and destroyed. Some farmers have ploughed the land from the one end to the other in a most injudicious manner. There has been considerable soil exhaustion there. As the hon. member knows we cut out about 34 farms there, we erected houses and those farms have been prepared. If we were now to allot those farms to tenants and allow them to be destroyed, well, when the day comes that we want to finally allot those holdings, it would mean that the future tenant would get land which had been completely destroyed. I have been there recently and I must say that it appeared to me that half of the block had been burnt out. The grass has simply been fired and half of the 30,000 morgen has been burnt out.

That will happen every year.

We have a supervisor there now.

He won’t be able to stop it because the grass is fired many miles away.

We cannot simply allow the grass on those lands to be fired and then leave things to right themselves. The hon. member also asked me a question about my officials and intimated that there were political motives. He particularly made mention of this in connection with bywoners and young men, grown-up sons of the men living on those holdings, who had been forced to leave the holdings. He complained that some of my inspectors only interfered with the sons of people belonging to one particular party.

I said nothing about that. I said that the people who had been temporarily allotted some of those farms under a lease, are now given notice to vacate those farms. I said that it was very striking that it was only the Nationalists who were given notice. I did not say a word about grown-up sons

Very well, assuming that is what the hon. member said. The hon. member spoke about people who were given notice to leave the farms, and he said that my inspectors—he did not want to mention them, but that is what it amounted to—only took action against people of one party. Let me at once say this to the hon. member. He mentioned the name of Maj. Averr and of Mr. Swanepoel. Maj. Averr is a man of 75 years of age. He was manager of the block when it was bought from the previous holders and part of the farm was let to him. He is an old man, and we cannot simply send him away. I can assure the hon. member that people are not differentiated against because of their political convictions. We have given notice to all these people who have rented land and who have over-grazed their farms—we have given them all notice to quit. So far as the allegation is concerned that only people with Nationalist tendencies are interfered with. I can tell the hon. member that as against that I continually get the complaint that my inspectors only interfere with the bywoners and the sons of people who support the United Party. If the hon. member will come to my office I can show him stacks of letters from Government supporters, who complain that when a holding is allotted, or when the inspectors do their work, people belonging to the other party get all the benefits and that supporters of the Government get nothing at all. I get complaints from both sides, and that being the case I must take it that I am pretty well doing the right thing. If both sides complain, if both sides accuse us of favouring certain people, then it is a sign that we are following the middle course. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) asked whether nothing could be done in connection with the movement which had lately been showing itself, that people, specially companies with a lot of money, in trying to evade excess profits duty, were going round and renting large numbers of farms. They were paying excessive amounts by way of rent; they were paying uneconomic rents for those farms in order to get hold of them, with the result that there was a terrible scarcity of land. Well, that actuality is the position. About a week ago a letter came to my office from a man at Naauwpoort in which he asked me whether something could not be done to assist him and others who were in the same position. He was a man who rented land and he found it impossible to compete with those rich people. He mentioned an instance of one individual who had already rented 26 farms. Well, I know of similar instances in my own district. We cannot do anything to stop it.

Why not?

An individual is at liberty to rent farms and the owners of the farms are at liberty to let their farms. I admit that the position is becoming very difficult and I am afraid that if matters continue in this way something will have to be done.

But surety we can limit it somewhere.

These people we have to deal with are independent people. I know of one instance where five brothers have five farms and where the whole block has been let, at an exorbitant rent. Of course, it is a scheme aimed at evading excess profits tax. We have no means of stopping it. All we can do is this. Nearly all the farms which the Government owns today, and which are being held back to be allotted later on, have been temporarily let for the duration of the war. The Government cannot assist by allotting Crown land, but I want to make this recommendation, that people should avail themselves of Section 11 under which the Government advances nine tenths of the purchase price. That assistance has so far always been available. If the price is approved of, and the holding is not uneconomic at the price, the person concerned can rest assured that the Land Board will recommend it and that the necessary money will be available under Section 11 to enable the person who wants it to take up that farm or holding.

But the valuations are too low.

Hon. members in this House have in the past time and again contended—and that contention has been made particularly by hon. members opposite—that we have allowed people under Section 11 to pay unduly high prices for land, and also that Crown land has been issued at unduly high prices. The accusation has always been that since the war settlers had bought farms at prices that were too high. My hon. friend will admit that prices are very high again now.

And that is why they cannot avail themselves of Section 11.

The Land Board will not allow anyone to buy a farm if it is of opinion that the price to be paid for that farm is uneconomic. The Department will no longer allow people to start farming on uneconomic holdings,

The whole position is due to the fact that the other settlements are being held up.

Possibly that is so, but that matter has been discussed over and over and there is no need for us to go into it again. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman)—my member, although I have never seen him there yet—asked me some questions in connection with two farms, namely “Vaalbank” and “Poortjie,” in the Venterstad District. He wanted information from me on two points. He wants to know why that farm which originally was intended for three settlers was first of all divided among three people and afterwards among two, and why 300 morgen of land was cut off from “Vaalbank” and added to “Poortjie.” He added that it had been done in order to equalise the bearing capacity of the two farms, and he then asked me how we could imagine that 1,000 morgen farm (Vaalbank) could bear the same amount of cattle and stock as the 1,700 farm (Poortjie). The land Board had stated that both those farms were able to carry 800 head of sheep and 50 head of cattle. Now, this is one of those instances which we have discussed in this House, namely instances of uneconomic holdings. I can assure the House that I have been doing my utmost during the last few years to try and make holdings economic. In this particular instance holdings which were occupied by three people were realty divided between two. In order to make these two farms economic undertakings the Land Board went into the whole question and I had to accept the Land Board’s advice. The Land Board stated that the 300 morgen which we cut off “Vaalbank” were the poorest part of “Vaalbank.” It was a point of the land running into “Vaalbank” and it was not of great value to “Vaalbank.” The Land Board assures me that the carrying capacity of the two farms is now equal, namely 800 head of sheep and 50 head of stock. The hon. member now says that that is wrong. Well, I prefer to accept the advice of the Land Board to that of the hon. member.

If we both went to visit the place you would agree with me.

That may be, but I have to accept the advice of the Land Board. Now the hon. member also wants to know this. “Vaalbank” has been alloted and the hon. member asks me why Mr. van der Walt, one of the original tenants, and subsequently one of the two tenants after the original contract had been cancelled, was not given a chance to get part of the land. Mr. van der Walt, together with a certain Mr. van Rensburg, hired the farm for which they paid £40—Van Rensburg paid £20 and Van der Walt paid £20. A year later it was decided that the Land Board was to place a valuation on the farm, to ascertain what rent it could carry, and then to ask for applications. The applications which were received were for £80 and the farm was alloted to a certain Van Straaten. Now let me say this at once. This holding was allotted under Section 11 and I want to tell the Committee what the position is if such a holding is uneconomic, and I want to show more particularly what the position was in regard to this farm. In 1935 an amount of £704 was written off in respect of arrear rent and interest. In 1940 a further amount of £579 was written off. On that farm alone £1,283 was written off. Now this is a Section 11 farm. The holding had to be cancelled, and applications were thereupon invited, as I have explained, on the basis of a rent of £80. Four applications were received, one of them from Van der Walt. Those applications were referred to the Land Board for recommendation and the Land Board recommended Mr. van Straaten’s application, which was accepted. In regard to Van der Walt’s application, the Land Board made the following remarks—

Did the Land Bank say that the other man was a better man? Is it fair, seeing that the holding at first was too small, now to put this man on the streets and give the larger holding to a new man?

Well, that is the information which I have got and those are the reasons why the Land Board did not recommend Mr. van der Walt. I have quoted from the Land Board’s report. Now that is the position in regard to Vaal bank and Poortjie. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) asked me what has become of the amounts written off and how much has been written off in connection with the settlers on the Karos-Buchuberg scheme? An amount of £28,700 has already been written off the accounts of the settlers there, and possibly a further amount of £44,000 will be written off now—that is the amount in connection with orange trees and peach trees and certain vineyards which have been planted there, in respect of which I explained the position last year. In regard to the reorganisation of the allotments, where allotments are uneconomic through having become brackish and the drainage being bad …

Is the valuation being reduced?

Yes, in regard to uneconomic allotments an investigation for revaluation is taking place so that they may be placed on an economic basis. We want to put those people on an economic basis. We are also going to reorganise in respect of allotments where people are unable to cultivate the whole of their holdings. It is our intention to increase the size of the holdings, to improve the drainage or to make other plans. We hope to put through the reorganisation of those holdings as soon as possible.

What about the interest? They are now adding the interest to the amounts that are written off

After the amounts have been written off we shall not call on them to pay interest on those amounts. If there should be such cases they will be put right. We don’t want interest to be paid on amounts which have been written off. The hon. member for Ventersdorp criticised me severely because he said I was competing with the farmers so far as the growing of potatoes was concerned, and he wanted to know how many seed potatoes we had imported and how many would be available for the farmers. He also said that my Department had sold large quantities of potatoes at Government expense and that we had obtained fertilisers which he could not obtain. Let me say at once that the potatoes we are planting are being planted in consultation with the Department of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is Controller of Foodstuffs. The hon. member, when speaking about our production of potatoes, should remember one thing, and that is that the production of potatoes and of any type of food, including wheat and mealies,—and we are producing large quantities of wheat and mealies—is a war effort. When we entered the war there was a tremendous shortage of potatoes, vegetables and all kinds of foodstuffs. Here in the Peninsula people were even growing vegetables in their back yards—that shows what a demand there was for vegetables. That also is a war effort. The hon. member was one of those who put himself right in the forefront and declared that we must remain neutral, and he declared that he was not going to turn a hand to support the war effort. How then could we expect him to produce potatoes for the soldiers and for the prisoners and the internees? If we had relied on members opposite and the time had arrived for us to supply food to convoys and to soldiers, and to the internment camps we would have been very foolish indeed. Where would we have landed? But the peculiar phenomenon is that while they don’t want to have anything to do with the soldiers and the war effort they now want to have a monopoly on all production.

The Jews have the monopoly.

The Jews support our war effort.

You have kept very quiet and not kicked over the traces for twenty minutes. Why must you now start a fracas again?

I am not going to let the hon. member tell me what I should say.

I am your member of Parliament and I have to keep my eye on you.

Let the hon. member go and produce potatoes; he will get good prices for them—provided always that he produces good potatoes.

What are good prices?

The surplus we had was caused by thousands and thousands of bags of potatoes which were grown by so-called neutrals who threw potatoes on the markets which were only fit for pigs. It was an inferior quality of potato which was responsible for the overproduction. The hon. member asked me what we got for our potatoes. The potatoes produced by my Department did not compete with those produced by the farmers, and let me tell the hon. member why not. We sold a small quantity of potatoes at 12s. 6d.

To whom?

To convoys and internment camps. A small quantity got on to the market.

So they did come on the market.

We would not allow a monopoly to be created. We got up to 25s. and 27s. 6d. per bag.

On the open market, or did you sell to yourselves?

A small quantity got on to the market; we got 25s. for part of our potatoes. At Pongola, where we produced large quantities, we grew potatoes during Winter, and it is self evident that those potatoes did not compete with those produced in the Western Transvaal.

When you spoke of 25s. were you referring to Winter or Summer potatoes? ?

What about Vaal-Hartz?

There we also grew potatoes, but mainly for seed purposes.

Did they compete?

Let me tell hon. members what the position is. We owe a debt of gratitude to Vaal-Hartz because we shall now be able to get seed potatoes which we can no longer import. Vaal-Hartz will be able to supply us with seed potatoes. The hon. member asked what kind of potatoes they are—they are Irish Up-to-Date and Scotch Up-to-Date. I assume the hon. member is satisfied with that. At the request of the Department of Agriculture we got about 6,600 cases of imported seed potatoes in January or February and they were planted at Vaal-Hartz and the Riet River Settlement, which is alongside Vaal-Hartz. Those potatoes are very promising and unless something unforeseen happens we expect to produce 40,000 bags. These potatoes were grown in specially prepared soil under the best technical supervision, and strong control has been exercised in regard to selection. The seed potatoes will be available under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture on the following basis: (a) for settlers for their own use; (b) for seed potato societies, and (c) for farmers not belonging to seed potato societies.

And what are you going to do with those potatoes which are not suitable for seed purposes?

We shall use them of course. We have a very large camp at Vaal-Hartz which we are supplying with vegetables and potatoes. The distribution of the seed potatoes, first of all of the imported ones, will take place in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Forestry during the coming Winter, and the price will vary from 22s. 6d. to 35s. dependent on the quality and size and ruling market prices. The seed potatoes will be supplied as Government potatoes, and the imported ones will come first. These, I believe, were the questions which were put to me before the House rose lasts night. Now, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to fully discuss this Kakamas question. Some very grave and serious attacks have been made on me. “Die Burger” has characterised my statement as one of the most slanderous expressions I had ever been guilty of. “Die Burger”, of course as usual, has distorted everything I said in that connection.

We heard you ourselves.

I am sure you did not see how I was reported. Important things I said were left out. They distorted my speech and they accused me of having exceeded myself by making slanderous statements. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo), in the same way as “Die Burger,” stated that I had attacked the Church… .

Well, you usually attack the predikants.

I have in the past attacked the predikants of the Ossewa-Brandwag and I can give the hon. members the assurance that I shall continue to attack the Ossewa-Brandwag predikants in regard to their activities in the Church. I am convinced of one thing, and that is that they have done a great deal of harm to the Church. Let me say that I, too, am a member of the Church and I am quite willing to compare the services which I have rendered to the Church to those any other member of the House has rendered. I say that Ossewa-Brandwag predikants have done great harm to the Church—irreparable harm. The hon. member for Paarl declared that it was an act of Godlessness on my part to dare to attack the Church.

Hear, hear!

If I state bare facts in regard to the administration at Kakamas I am accused of attacking the Church. They stretch their necks and say: “Look at the disgraceful way in which he is attacking the Church.” Let me tell hon. members that they are simply putting up a smokescreen in order to cover up the facts which I have brought to light and which I am going to bring to light in connection with the administration of Kakamas. I am not going to be deterred by hon. members. I have certain duties towards the settlers of Kakamas too, and my Department is closely linked up to the Constitution under which Kakamas is administered today, and I am going to do my duty. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is not in his seat. He is a member of the Labour Colony Commission and after his biting attack on me he should have been here this afternoon to hear the other side of the case. I expected him to be here. As soon as anything in connection with Kakamas happens the Chairman of the Labour Colony at Kakamas (the Rev. Mr. du Toit) is appealed to and he is asked to tell the “Die Burger” what the facts are. I am also going to state facts., The hon. member for Fauresmith compared me with an imported bull which had been off-loaded at the docks here and which had been so stupid and foolish, and so arrogant, that it wanted to rush a moving ship, with the result that it finally fell into the sea. That, the hon. member said, was also going to be my fate.

The poor thing was drowned.

Yes, and the hon. member intimated that I, too, would be drowned, and would disappear into nothing because I dare take it upon myself to state certain facts, disclose certain facts about the administration of Kakamas, and the hon. member exclaimed: “Behold his fall, he dare attack the Church!” I don’t know what the hon. member had in mind when he compared me with a bull. It reminded me of the legend of the frog and the ox. Hon. members know the story. The hon. member has been posing as an ox for a long time. What did he set out to attack in his guise of an all destroying ox? He wanted to stampede the country. But let me remind the hon. member that in the legend of the ox and the frog it was not the frog which was destroyed but the ox. The hon. member sneeringly referred to the shops which I used to conduct in the past and he told the House that the Kakamas shops had only made a gross profit of 18.53 per cent., and he explained that if I had run my shops at a profit of 18.53 per cent. I would long since have landed in the bankruptcy court. Well, it is a most peculiar thing that those Kakamas shops which, according to the hon. member, at that profit should have landed in the bankruptcy court, made a colossal profit of £16,000. The hon. member jeered at my shops and sneeringly referred to the way I ran them. It might be a good thing to remind the hon. member of his own experience. The hon. member spoke of a monument of the Church. The hon. member is also leaving a monument behind as a result of his enterprise in the business world; not so long ago he tried to establish butcheries in Cape Town. One of them is still left in Long Street. In his days it was known as the “Helpmekaar Vleismark”. Today it is the “Helpmekaar Meat Market”. How did the hon. member show his business talents in that particular enterprise? I am quite willing to compare my record as a shopkeeper and the success I achieved with the short lived activities of the hon. member in connection with his butcheries. What has become of those butcheries?

When are you going to speak about Kakamas?

I am taking my time. The hon. member does not like to hear this. These butcheries were primarily established to get the Jews out of the market, but when the hon. member’s butcheries were given up, what happened? The Jew got them, and what is the Jew doing?

He joins the South African Party.

Yes, he has always been with the South African Party; he leaves the word “Helpmekaar” but instead of “Vleismark” he calls it “Meat Market” and now it is the “Helpmekaar Meat Market,” and I have no doubt that hundreds of Afrikaners patronise that butchery thinking that they are patronising an Afrikaner business. The hon. member afterwards became a member of the Labour Colony Commission which is running one of the biggest shops in the country. They needed his business talents there, and his qualifications probably lay in his business success with his butcheries. I have pointed out that the Labour Colony Commission, immediately after the outbreak of war increased the prices in its shop by 10 per cent. The hon. member says it was only 7½ per cent. Well, I accept that. And he says that it was good business to do so, and he asked the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) as a big business man what he thought about it, and he said it was good business. I asked the hon. member for Hospital whether he had ever said anything like that and his reply was that he knew nothing about it. Anyhow, when war broke out, the Kakamas shops put up their prices by 7½ per cent. I say it was a criminal action to put up prices at a time when there was no question yet of an increase in the price of goods that were coming in. I go so far as to say this, that with the exception of the Labour Colony at Kakamas there was probably not another shop in the country which acted in that way.

There are many which are making 100 per cent.

I am going to show just now that they have been charging up to 300 per cent. profit. I said a few things the other day which resulted in most malicious attacks being made against me. I was accused of sacrilege and all the rest of it. I said in the first place that Kakamas had degenerated as a Labour Colony, and secondly, that the only interest which the Church had in Kakamas today was their shops and their business concerns, and I am going to prove that that is so. I am not apologising for anything I have said, not by any means. Kakamas was established in 1907 and it was established with the object of it being a Labour Colony. Just let me give the background. On page 107 of the Minutes of the Synod we find this—

The Government of the time handed the land in trust to the Labour Colony Commission and the land, which was some of the most valuable land along the river, was 56,000 morgen in extent. It is one of the best islands in the River. It is laid down that the land is given to the Church in trust on the definite condition, and with the exclusive purpose, that it shall be used for the establishment of a Labour Colony for poor whites. That was the object of the enterprise and if the Church has carried out that object and given effect to it, one cannot be sufficiently grateful to the Church and one cannot pay high enough tribute to what has been done. I have often said so myself. The object of uplifting poor whitism which had sunk into conditions of misery, and in respect of whom the Government had no policy at that time, so far as settlement was concerned—the scheme of uplifting those people and reclaiming them at Kakamas, of teaching them to work, was a noble object, and the scheme was an excellent one. Most of these people who went there were very poor farmers, and the object was to uplift them from the misery of poor whiteism, and the scheme of turning them into independent citizens and to rehabilitate them was an excellent one. The scheme therefore was that this was to be a labour colony and that these people were to learn how to work and to make a decent living, and then, at a certain stage, when they would be able to help themselves, they would be passed out and the Church would take other poor people and help them along. That was the aim and object. Reclamation work, uplifting work, was what the Church termed it.

And they are still doing that every day.

That was what people were supposed to have been taken to Kakamas for, but that policy has never, never been carried out. They made an appeal to the congregations throughout the country, and thousands of pounds have been given by the congregations, from a charitable point of view, in order to enable the Church to do these things, and to rehabilitate these people and help get them on their feet again. Instead of doing so they took those people there—they took only one lot of people there—and there are 450 families there today. But I am going to give the figures shortly to show what those 450 families signified to the Church. They have brought into being a tenant system. They have pegged off allotments, each six morgen in extent, and on those six morgen they have settled one family. This tenant system is a perpetual one. Never, never is the man to regard that piece of ground, those six morgen, as his property. These people can never obtain that land as their property. They have to pay rent from generation to generation, and I want to say here that most of the work in connection with the building of the canals has been done by these labourers. Naturally they have been paid for their work but they have done all that development work. There are holdings today at Kakamas which have been developed and on which there are houses worth up to £1,000—and do hon. members know whom those houses belong to? To the Church. These people don’t own them, they can never possess them.

What compensation do these people get for the improvements they have made.

These people have to sell all their products to the shops. That is the compensation they get.

Are those tenants allowed to sell their properties?

No, they can pass it on.

Are they not allowed to sell it at all?

No, it is the property of the Church, and all those improvements effected by them belong to the Church. They live there under the strictest regulations. There is no other body in South Africa applying such strict regulations as those which are applied to those settlers. Some of those people have been there for 40 years. They have not the right to elect a member of the School Commission. They have not the right under the ordinary laws of the land to elect a member of the School Board. They are not allowed to do so. I believe there are three congregations there and the Church has not got the right to select its own parson. They are not allowed to do that. When these people recently asked whether they had any rights at all the Church went to the extent of saying: “We shall send you two names and you can take one of them.”

They are imitating Hitler,

I suppose they wanted to appoint you.

I say that those regulations are so drastic that if a settler commits any kind of offence, the Church can immediately put him off his land, and then what becomes of all the improvements which he has effected? If a man is in arrear with the payment of his debts and they cancel his holding, the amount of compensation he is paid does not exceed £200. That is the maximum. They take £200 for developments which may perhaps be worth £1,200. Hon. members opposite asked me why during the past twelve months 30 holdings had been cancelled by my Department. Last year there were about thirty cancellations and cessions at Kakamas, and most of those cancellations took place because the tenants were in arrear in regard to their debts. There have been instances of cancellations where the people have had no compensation paid—hard cases where the people have been put off, and there has been no question of any reclamation work, of uplifting work, by the Church. Under the policy of the Labour Colony the poor man cannot get a place there, and let me tell hon. members why. They only give a holding to a man who is able to take over the debt of the other man, and who is able to pay cash. Which poor man is in a position to do so? The Church has completely departed from the policy of uplifting the poor. The man who wants to obtain a holding there has to be a well-to-do man—the poor man cannot find the cash, and the reason for this is self evident. I am going to tell the House about the turnover of the shops there. I will come to that later on. The value of the Labour Colony, according to the valuations of the two divisional councils in whose districts this Labour Colony is situated, was £315,000, but that valuation was made six or seven years ago. The tenant in that Labour Colony never becomes a major, so to speak—they have no say whatsoever. There are strict rules which they have to observe most rigidly. They have to pay their rent on time and for the rest their labour provides the Church with a safe investment of money at 5 per cent.

It is a disgrace.

How much say have your settlers got?

Your afforestation workers are in a worse position.

I am not going to allow myself to be detracted by interruptions. I say that this is a safe investment for the Church. These people are nothing but bywoners. The menace of cancellation is always there; they have to carry out strict rules and if they are in arrear with their payments, the contract can be cancelled and the maximum compensation to be paid is £200. And for the rest they get nothing at all for the development work they have done. That is the position in which those people find themselves today.

But are there any people left, there?

Now, in regard to the financial policy for the running of the shops there are certain conditions laid down in the Constitution. As my hon. friend has said, they have a Constitution. In Paragraph 7 of the Proclamation of 1910 there are two conditions laid down—

1. (1) That the profits shall be 2½ per cent.

At a later stage they applied for the 2½ per cent. to be raised to 6 per cent., and this was granted. Now let me quote from the Constitution—

Have they done so? Have they established a single reading room? Have they adhered to this agreement of 6 per cent? Oh, no. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said that their average profits were 7¼ per cent. over a period of fifteen years. The profits vary between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. and the hon. member asked me whether a gross profit of 12½ per cent. was an exorbitant profit. 2½ per cent. was laid down in the Constitution, and the Government of the day agreed to that. What was the intention? Was it the intention that they should make huge profits out of those people, that they should build up a large reserve fund? No, it was felt that the shops should not be large, and that was why it was laid down that all profits should be applied to the establishment of reading rooms and other permanent undertakings for the improvement of the social conditions of the Colony. But what has happened? Huge profits have been accumulated, and those accumulated profits so far amount to £129,000. I ask the House, was that the intention when the State presented the Church with those 56,000 morgen? Was that the intention when the State wrote off huge amounts of their debt? It is expressly stated here that the profits are to be applied in a certain manner. Was it ever the intention that those shops should make huge profits? It never was, and from that point of view Kakamas has completely deteriorated. The Synod which was responsible in the first instance has never complied with those conditions, and I say that Kakamas deteriorated because instead of uplifting the workers, instead of improving their conditions, the whole concern has been switched over into a capitalistic monopoly such as this country has never seen before. I make this statement, that these shops at Kakamas are a gold mine, and I know what I am talking about. In 1919 I was the Chairman of a Commission at Kakamas.

If you were the Chairman of that Commission it could never have been a success.

What was the enquiry about?

I had an accountant with me and the accountant wanted to ascertain what, more or less, was the average profit made by those shops.

What did the Commission do?

The accountant took 200 articles of daily domestic use—articles such as sugar, coffee, boots, clothing etc., and he found that in respect of those 200 articles a profit ranging between 5 per cent. and 300 per cent. was charged. From 5 per cent. to 300 per cent. was added to the cost price of those articles. The average profit amounted to 39.5 per cent.

I suppose that the profit on a box of matches was 400 per cent.

What did you say—was it 39.5 per cent.?

Yes. Now let me quote again from the Minutes of the Synod. It appears from those Minutes that in 1940 the accumulated profit was £81,000. That was in 1940. They say that the average net profit for the past four years was £12,213. I know that last year they made a net profit of £16,000 and I know that they are making very much more now; now in respect of last year I have added £12,000, and I take £12,000 for 1943: That makes the amount up to £117,000 in 1943. Add to that the £7,500 which is standing to the credit of the Reserve Fund, and then add to that the £4,500 which they got out, of the pockets of those labourers immediately war was declared, by adding 7½ per cent.—all these figures together show an amount of £129,000 by way of accumulated profits. Where does that money come from?

Over how many years is that?

That is over 40 years. I ask again where do those profits come from? They come out of the sweat and the labour of those workers. Was that ever the intention?

What is the capital invested there by the Church?

I shall tell the Committee a little later how much the Church has invested. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said that they built schools there, but he did not tell the House that those schools had been let to the Labour Department for large amounts, and he did not tell the House that those schools were eventually sold to the Department of Education for large sums of money. He pretended that the Church had done all this for those people. He did not tell the House that the price of those schools was added to their capital. Now let us compare that position with the position at Vaal-Hartz, for instance. I can tell hon. members this, that at Vaal-Hartz not a single tenant has been passed out yet. All of them are still probationary tenants. They have an amount of £60,000 today in a Trust, Fund with my Department. That money does not belong to the Government. The Government does not invest it in a Church at 5 per cent. interest. That money belongs to those people, and let me further tell the House this: my Department has made advances to those probationary tenants to buy draft cattle, implements etc., to an amount of £38,000.

That comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Here they tax those poor people—the poor of this country. We have about 350 probationary tenants. We have advanced them an amount of £38,000 and we have advanced them that money over a long period of time at a cheap rate of interest, namely 3¾ per cent. They have not been passed out yet, and entirely voluntarily they have now paid off £21,000 of this £38,000 and all that is left of their debt is £17,000. But those poor people at Kakamas have been there for forty years and today they are still bywoners to all intents and purposes. They are still strangers on their own land, and they have no hope of ever becoming owners of that land, and not only that, they have no hope of being allowed to use their votes as independent citizens. The hon. member for Fauresmith—and not only he but other members too—rely on the 1940 Report. I have said before, and I want to say it again: The Rev. Mr. du Toit was a member of that Commission. The Chairman of that Commission was Mr. Deas. I wanted to appoint an impartial and unprejudiced person. When Mr. Deas brought me the report I saw at once that it was the old worn out argument of the Rev. Mr. du Toit’s, and I told him so. It was the voice of Jacob but it was the hand of Esau. [Laughter.]

The Jews and the Khakis are laughing at you.

You told us a little earlier that Mr. Deas is a unprejudiced person.

I say again that that report is the Rev. Mr. du Toit’s report. I could see it at once. After all the disgraceful and slanderous attacks made on me in this House from time to time, which I reject with the contempt they deserve …

What are you doing now, are you not attacking the Church?

I am determined to stand up for the interests of those poor bywoners who are always going to remain bywoners. I am not going to rest until the Church as such complies with the conditions laid down in respect of Kakamas.

Look at your own settlers.

My hon. friend opposite quoted from the scandals which had occurred at Kafferskraal in the Defence Department. Yes, I am not going to deny that. We know that some very bad scandals did occur there, but my hon. friends know as well as I do that those scandals took place as the result of sabotage. But let us assume that there was mismanagement and that things went wrong there. Let me tell hon. members what happened in 1919. When I arrived at Kakamas the Labour Colony Commission was there too. The late Rev. Mr. Botha was Chairman of that Commission and he was there as well. I had the balance sheet before me which was submitted to the last Synod shortly before 1919. The late Mr. Conradie in those days was in control of the shops. We went to the office with that balance sheet. I wanted to test certain figures in the balance sheet. The late Mr. Conradie brought me the books. I told him that the balance sheet was not drawn up from those books and Mr. Conradie had to admit—that was in 1919—that after a few years the books were in such a condition—to put it mildly—that they had been lost and that new books had to be opened. They had to depend on the data they were able to obtain. And let me tell hon. members something else to show that the interests of those people have never been looked after. They had a system in those shops known as the “good for” system. No single individual received cash for the products he sold. They had the system of “good for”. Say a man brought five bags of wheat to the shop, and assuming that he was to get £1 per bag, the first thing they did was to see whether there was any debit against him in the books, and then his debt was deducted. Assuming that they still owed him £2 after that, the clerk would then write a note reading as follows: “Good for £2”. Many of those slips of paper were lost and the worst of it all was this, that when I asked how much the shops owed under the “good for” system it was found that they had never kept any account of those amounts. They did not know whether the amount was £1 or £10,000. Some of the “good for’s” issued were in respect of large sums of money. I asked them whether this sort of method did not lead to disgraceful extravagance and waste. They were supposed to teach those people to be diligent and thrifty; instead of that they were encouraging extravagance.

Are you now accusing the Church of theft?

I say that it must lead to waste and extravagance to give a man a slip of paper, of which no account is kept, and which he may easily lose.

What you are saying now practically amounts to accusing the Church of theft.

My hon. friend can put any interpretation he likes on it, but the fact of the matter is that it encourages wastefulness. Now there also were a number of branches of those shops. The clerks in those branches would go with their wagons to the shops and they would take what they needed by way of goods for their branch shops. What happened was this. The clerk would come along and load up the goods on the wagon and then he would return to his branch, but no entry was made of the goods which he took away.

Where do you get that; you know that that is not true.

That was the type of business which was being done. One of the settlers approached me some time ago with a statement and this is what he said to me: “I produced 100 bags of wheat and when the last bag was threshed the shop belonging to the Church loaded up my wheat. They loaded up 94 muids of wheat and they left me eight muids. They have now credited me in their books with 16s. per muid. When the six muids of wheat which I kept were finished I had to go to the shop and I bought wheat there at £1 10s per muid.”

When was that statement made?

That was in 1919.

And you have kept silent about that until now.

If the Jew makes a profit like that it’s alright, but the Church is not allowed to do it.

Those tenants were in despair. They simply had to accept the price the shop was prepared to give them. I believe the system has now been changed. But it is nothing but a monopoly.

What kind of an investigation was that? Was that a personal investigation which you made at the time?

He was Chairman of a Commission.

They thereupon established a co-operative society there.

That was in 1919.

The hon. member is not at all funny.

But tell us, what kind of an investigation was that?

I am not going to allow myself to be detracted by constant interruptions. On account of their being in a state of despair it was eventually decided to establish a co-operative society for the purpose of handling and selling their products. Do hon. members know how much interest the Labour Colony Commission took in the welfare of those people? They were unable to prevent those people from establishing a co-operative society, but they refused to give them land to put up a shed where they could store their goods. The result was that those people had to go outside Kakamas, and the Railway Department had to give them the facilities for a shed. Some of their officials, who became members of that Society, were prosecuted. And I say this openly, they were prosecuted because they took part in this co-operative society at Kakamas. Let me tell hon. members that last year this co-operative society of Kakamas paid out £17,000 in cash to its members in Kakamas and elsewhere who belonged to the society. Here we have this position now, that the Church says that, its aim and ambition is to promote and protect the interests of those people. Those people want to co-operate in order to get the best prices for their products, and also in order not to be compelled just to take what they are offered, and the Labour Colony Commission bluntly refuses to give them an inch of ground for the purpose of erecting a shed! On the other hand we have this fact, that the State has given the Church 56,000 morgen in trust, and the object of that Trust has been clearly laid down. Is that the way in which that gift by the Government has been made use of? A gift which was intended for the benefit of those people—and yet those people have been deprived of their rights, they have been denied the right to build a shed when wanting to establish a co-operative society. I say again that in view of the interest which the State takes in this matter because of the land which it has presented to the Church, I am going to have a thorough investigation made to see whether the Labour Colony has the right in such a case to refuse to give a piece of land to a society or an association of the settlers who are anxious to put up a shed. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) stated that it was laid down in the Constitution of the Labour Colony that all the profits were to be spent to the benefit of the settler. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) stated that I have made a malicious attack on the Church. He said that the Church bought these people’s products without making any profit on them, and that the profits made on the shop business were returned by way of services rendered. I have tried to prove that these settlers at Kakamas have no rights whatsoever. For 40 years they have been treated like minor children; they have to work and the fruit of their handiwork goes through the shop as a result of which huge capital reserves are accumulated, and the Church invests money there. I propose later on to quote from the report of the Synod to show that the Church has invested its money there at 5 per cent. It reminds me of the days of the Pharaohs in Egypt. The people have to labour and work and they have to see to it that the Church gets a good interest on its investment. I stated at Kakamas, and I say it again, that the Labour Colony Commission farms with those settlers exactly as I farm with my sheep. The State in the first instance gave Kakamas 56,009 morgen of land, and the State has written off an amount of £30,000. The Department of Social Welfare under the Rural Housing Scheme made a gift of £9,600 to Kakamas. In this respect the Synodal Commission has reported as follows to the Synod—

This, again, was a gift for those houses belonging to the Church. They are not the property of the settlers, but they are the property of the Church. They have therefore received a free gift from the State amounting to £39,600. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) criticised me and stated that they had asked for a loan of £5,000 to be written off and for another loan of £1,000 and he said that we had refused to write off those loans. While he was speaking I interjected with the remark that he should tell the whole truth. It was not a loan of £5,000. It was a loan of £10,000, of which £5,000 had already been written off by way of subsidy. The £5,000 is the amount they still owe and which they do not want to pay and now I am taken to task for not having agreed to its being written off. And that is how the whole matter is represented to the public, and the blame is put, if not on me, then at any rate on my Department. As the hon. member for Fauresmith has not made the position clear, I should like the House to be quite clear in regard to the position of this loan. In 1938 Mr. Beyers, the Superintendent of Kakamas, conceived the idea of building a few dams to store water above Kakamas. He applied for a loan of £10,000 for the construction of those dams. That loan was granted. One of my engineers, however, after investigation, warned him that he should first of all make sure that he was not trespassing on the rights of riparian owners above Kakamas. He did not take any notice of that warning and he went on with the building of the dam. He even started building before the money had been officially granted to him. All he had had was a letter from the late Mr. Fourie that the loan would be granted. By the time he had spent an amount of £1,200 or £1,400 he received a letter of demand from a certain Mr. Stemmet claiming damages for the building of the dam. Do hon. members know what Mr. Beyers did then? He wired for an advance of £1,500 to enable him to proceed with the work. He pretended that that would be an advance to enable him to carry on with the dam. What he did not state was that when he got the letter of demand he immediately decided to give up the dam and to cut his loss. In spite of that he asked for an advance. Now, what was the object of writing off this money which the Government was asked to agree to? This £1,000 and this £5,000 are the two amounts which the hon. member attacked me about because I had refused to agree to the money being written off. Is that the way the interests of the State are to be looked after? Am I to agree to money which has been wasted in such a reckless manner being simply written off? Am I simply to allow money to be written off under those conditions merely because I am asked to do so? Now, let me come to the Report about Kakamas which was submitted to the Synod and agreed to by the Synod. This Report is a Report of the Commission about the future policy of the Kakamas Labour Colony.

For which year?

It was submitted to the last Synod namely in 1940. That Commission makes these remarks—

The interest on capital is paid to the Church. Now let me say here that for many years, even before 1919, the Church had year after year, allowed the profits to be paid into the Church office by way of interest on the money it had invested in Kakamas.

At what rate?

At 5 per cent. That is laid down in the Minutes of the Synod. The Commission further said this—

So £32,000 in cash had been paid to the Church office out of the profits—

And those recommendations were accepted by the Commission—

1. (1) that it be an instruction to the A.K.K. to conduct matters in such a way that the revenue and expenditure of the administration shall balance without the assistance of the shop profits.

All the profits made in connection with the shops have to be kept on one side. The Administration expenses have to be met out of the rents. The shop profits had to go to the Church—that is the way in which things had to be conducted, and if I say that the work at Kakamas has degenerated I am told that I am committing an act, of sacrilege.

1. (2) That the capital liabilities at the Church office be reduced to an amount of £90,000, excluding Rhenosterkop at which amount the debt shall be left at a rate of interest of 5 per cent.

In other words, they can make as much profit as they like but that £90,000 is to remain as an investment for the Church at 5 per cent.—they cannot reduce that. They want to retain the investment at 5 per cent.

1. (3) That the shop business shall be conducted with a view to:
   1. (a) supplying all reasonable requirements as cheaply and fairly as possible to the Colonists;
   2. (b) buying or helping in the marketing of all products of the Colonists at the best available market prices.

Yes, at the best available market prices, but on that £90,000 5 per cent. has to be paid and it has to stay there until goodness knows when. But listen to this—

Not for the Colony, but for the expansion of the shop business—

It already stands at £12,000 now—

Exactly.

And if any mishap occurs they wire me for assistance and then the State has to come and help—

And that is not all. Listen to this—

Their constitution says that they are not permitted to take that money away. It has to remain there, but now they want to take it away. Let me say this. What has compelled me to say that the shop business is the business in which the Church has most interest, is this: In the Free State we also have a Church settlement, namely at Goedemoed. The Church there does not carry on business, and on two occasions I have had deputations of predikants calling on me to ask that the State should take over Goedemoed. The people there are poor and old. The Church is not sufficiently interested to look after them, but the State is asked to take over the Settlement.

Who runs the shop at Goedemoed?

It is a Church Settlement and two deputations of parsons have called on me asking that we should take over the Settlement.

But who runs the shop there?

I don’t know who runs the shop. I say that the Church is not carrying on business there and now it wants to get rid of the Settlement. But let me continue with this report about Kakamas—

Then we come to a few other matters in connection with Kakamas. A deputation waited on the Synodal Labour Colony Commission and the report contains the following in that regard—

These people asked for representation but the recommendation was that their wishes should not be granted. The deputation also asked for expansion of the powers of the Local Supervisory Commission. Now listen to this—

In the tird place they put forward a request in connection with the composition of the School Board, and this is the recommendation made to the Commission—

This Report was signed by all the members of the Commission, and then we get this resolution from the Synod in regard to the Commission’s Report—

Now I wish to try and deal briefly with the other activities in regard to Kakamas. A short distance above Kakamas the Church a few years ago bought Rhenosterkop for £15,000. That was at the same time as we gave a loan of £10,000. Rhenosterkop was also irrigated. Now I should like to quote from the Minutes of the Synod in regard to Rhenosterkop. They describe Rhenosterkop and they say this, inter alia—

It is a safe investment for the Church.

What’s wrong with it?

I shall tell the House what’s wrong with it. I told the Committee on a previous occasion that the State had already donated £50,000 in connection with Rhenosterkop. It is stated here that those thousand morgen would be worth £70,000, but the major portion of that money had been given by the State. Now, let me quote further: The State subsidised the enterprise for the purpose of doing the work there, for levelling the ground, for irrigating it, and for turning the land into useful holdings. Let me quote—

Here the Church is merciful—

The Department of Social Welfare has built those houses at a cost of £150 each and it has not asked the Church to give them title, so that those houses belong to the Church—

That is done by the Department of Social Welfare.

I want the hon. member to listen a little further—

The Department of Social Welfare has to pay £70 for administrative expenses in connection with those twenty-five families. Charity!

And now I want to mention this fact, that this subsidised labour for the work at Rhenosterkop has been paid an amount of £45,531 by the State. In addition, the Department of Social Welfare has paid £3,678 for those small houses and these contributions of £3 per month. And for rent in respect of those holdings—for that the Church has been paid £40. That is rent. In the Minutes of the Synod we find an amount of £23,000 as owing by Rhenosterkop in respect of expenses incurred by the Church and to that amount they add the £5,000 which the Government has lent them, consequently Rhenosterkop owes £28,000. Shops have also been established at Rhenosterkop. I have drawn attention to the huge amount spent by the State. The shops are after those people’s money. In four years time the turnover of the Rhenosterkop shop has increased from £600 per year to almost £14,000 per year. All that money goes back to the shops of the Labour Colony Commission, and I want to draw the attention of the House to something else. The Labour Colony Commission employs about 80 officials. When war broke out they immediately raised the prices of their goods by 7½ per cent. The Government officials who are there, and the Government officials right throughout the country, are paid a cost of living allowance in view of the increase in the cost of living, but the officials of the Church have not been paid any special allowance in consequence of the increased cost of living. Not a penny. It is true that they receive a bonus for the first few years. Let me give the full facts. They were given a bonus, but last year, strangely enough, they were told that they were not to expect a bonus in 1943. I do not know what the wages of these people are, but in 1919 when I was there the average salary of their clerks was £9 per month, and almost every one of them had a family. The prices in the shops were increased by 7½ per cent. as a result of which £4,500 was collected, but the officials get nothing in spite of increased cost of living. Let me further say that the officials who dare join farmers’ associations are prosecuted. There are teachers who have joined, and I can tell the House that as a result they have been prosecuted. After the disgraceful and false charges that have been made against me and the accusations flung at me, I felt that the time had come once and for all to clear up the position in regard to Kakamas. The people and the country should know how the Administration is carried on there, and this House should know it too. I say with all the responsibility imposed on me that as I am the man who has to look after the administration of the Trust of these 56,000 morgen, and also the administration of Kakamas, that the position of subjectiveness, I can almost say of slavish subjectiveness, of a part of our Afrikaner people can no longer be tolerated. The position is one which can no longer be tolerated by our civilisation. We can no longer tolerate the Church using a section of the people for the purposes which I have described. A change will have to be made. I feel it is in the interest of the Church itself. Kakamas has long since ceased to answer its purpose, it has reached a dead end, and it is no longer there for the purpose for which it was established, and I feel the time has arrived when the Church should consider surrendering Kakamas and handing it over to the State. One can no longer tolerate it being administered in the way it is done, with the accumulation of capital and money, while the poor people there continue to remain in the miserable, subjective, inferior position in which they are today. It is not the Church’s place to do that sort of thing. I want to make an appeal to the Church. The State has long since stepped in to do its share in regard to the uplifting and rehabilitation of poor whites in this country, and I think the State should realise now that its work there is over, and that it should follow a different course for the future.

I now want to leave the notes I have made and speak about another point. My principle in the first place is that I must be grateful for what my Church has done in our country. The Church must be the dearest of all things to me here on earth, because it has done for us Afrikaner people what we can never be sufficiently grateful for. I want to speak briefly, out of my heart, from the depth of my feelings. I feel that there is one thing that comes next to my Church, and that is my family, that is my wife and children who are dear to me, and my people and my country, but my Church is number one. If my wife should do me an injustice or something of that kind, would it be right for me to go on the street and to tell it to the world and to besmirch her, if she has not been unfaithful to me? I do not say that the Church made a mistake, but if there is something that is not right, Mr. Chairman, is it then right to brandish it here across the floor of the House in such an unreasonable way? Is it love, is it gratitude that we should entertain towards our Church? It is shameless ingratitude that is shown by the Minister. Let me say this to you: What can you expect when you look at the mixed team on the other side, with any sort of race and feeling and conception among them. What can you expect? The Prime Minister came to Ventersdorp, and said there: We must pray that Bolshevism should not gain the upper hand in the world. That was in 1920. He said that Bolshevism destroyed and eradicated the Church, and that God must protect us from such a thing. Today the Prime Minister has in his Cabinet a man who is the best agent of Stalin that one can have in South Africa, a man who attacks and undermines our Church. What is going to happen to our Afrikaner people if this happens? That Minister is sowing the seeds of Communism and Bolshevism to undermining our Church. He reminds me of what I thought when I was small when I saw a fowl decapitated and jumping about, without the fowl knowing that it is dead, but it is definitely dead. That is what the Minister reminds me of. He is also jumping about without knowing that he is dead. If the Church had made as much money as the Minister professes, then I ask why it is that persons who, as the Minister has said, have lived on the settlement for 40 years, are still there? If there is slavery there, why do they remain there? They remain there. And what is done with the money? The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has told us that the money is used to build up reserve funds that are intended to be used in the interest of the settlers themselves. The Minister himself has said that the report of the commission states that the money is kept for catastrophes that may happen. We know that we are living in a period of apparent temporary economic resuscitation, and we know that it is well to look to the dark days, to the period of the depression that stands at the door. It will be a foolish man who does not see to the day ahead. So much the more the Church, with the responsibility that it has to shoulder, must build up reserve funds on behalf of the people there. I do not know if the Minister will still be alive when it will become necessary to use those funds, for his conscience will bother him so much that I do not think he will be able to live long. But if the Church had not made provision, he would have been the first to attack the Church and to say: Why did you not provide in the good time for the difficult time ahead? He would have reminded the Church of the history of Joseph and the seven fat years and the seven lean years. But everything the Church makes there will be used for the settlement. We should be filled with gratitude. But of course as soon as a man deteriorates and gets into bad company then he rejects everything that was formerly dear and precious, everything that was dearest to one in one’s younger days. That is what the Minister is doing. He is in bad company.

I think you are.

No, there was a time when I was with you on the other side, but I am glad that I am back here where I again feel at home. I was with you people, but what did you do? You plunged the country into a war, and I was pushed out. Fortunately I am again here where I feel at home. I think Stalin will feel happy when he sees what the Minister is accomplishing here. We on this side interpret the Afrikaner’s feeling. But that team on the other side … mixed. Look, even if a person does not believe in divinity, then he must at any rate have respect for the Church. For what does the Church stand? I take off my hat to any Church. I shall go to any Church. The Church stands there to improve humanity on earth. Now the Church is being attacked here, and that by a member of the Church. If I am perhaps an elder or a deacon of a congregation to which the Minister belongs, I shall certainly propose that he be placed under censure. I now want to speak about more material things, about the tenants who want to buy land under Section 11. [Time limit.]

The Minister has succeeded excellently in getting rid of as much gall in a two-hour speech as I have ever heard anybody do in this House. Perhaps the Minister will sleep happily and think that he has achieved success, but I can give him the assurance that the Afrikaner people and the Afrikaner Church in South Africa will look down upon him as the man who has made the greatest attempt to libel and to injure the Church. If he had been motivated by any good motive, and if he intended to benefit the plot-holders and the settlers of Kakamas and to do good by them, could he not have chosen a better way than the one he chose this afternoon? He told how he paid a visit to Kakamas as far back as 1919, and how he noticed certain things even then. We were also informed that he had appointed a commission, the Deas Commission, which brought out a report. We also know that the Irrigation Commission must report to the Minister on Kakamas every year. Thus there were three opportunities which he had of obtaining information in connection with the activities at Kakamas. He is the responsible Minister. Now I ask him what he has done in view of the three opportunities which he has had to improve matters at Kakamas Has he instituted a personal inquiry?

No.

He was there in 1919. Why did he have an enquiry instituted? He appointed the Deas Commission which, like the Irrigation Commission, reported.

Read the report.

Then what did the Minister do to improve the position if it was so terrible. I shall tell the Minister what any other man with any sense of justice would have done under such circumstances. He as Minister of Lands is also responsible in a measure for the administration there, and any man with his responsibility would, if he had been convinced that things there were wrong, have approached the Church in the first place and said: “There are certain things that are wrong and must be put right.” Did he do that?

Read the report.

Did he have an interview with the Church? Did he point out to them things that were wrong? Did he tell them that matters should be altered?

I reported.

When?

In 1919.

In 1919. But then you were not Minister of Lands. The Minister became Minister only in 1939 and now he says that he reported certain things in 1919. Then the Minister had no responsibility, but in 1939 he became Minister and had all the responsibility, and if he was so terribly concerned he could have acted immediately, called the Church to account and negotiated with them. But what does he do? His Deas Commission did not report that there was anything wrong. The Irrigation Commission had nothing to report. Now he suddenly comes in this House and makes a bitter attack without precedent in political history. It redounds to the everlasting shame of the Minister. This is scandalous behaviour of the Minister.

The hon. member must not use the word “scandalous”.

I can think of no better word. I think that the country will know the Minister better than hitherto, after the Minister spoke this afternoon. The country has had no high opinion of the Minister.

Not even his own people.

But this afternoon the Minister has revealed an incredible lack of responsibility. The people of South Africa will realise it. All that time the Minister sat dead still and did nothing to improve conditions. He said he was convinced of the wrongful conditions, but only now in 1943 he comes and levels accusations against the Church in the most reprehensible manner, without doing anything to improve conditions on his part as the responsible Minister. If there are charges let him have an enquiry conducted. The Minister says that the people are being kept subsidiary and dependent and can never become independent at Kakamas. But the Minister forgets one thing, namely that Kakamas was the first attempt at land settlement in South Africa. It was an attempt made by the Church, because the State had up to that time neglected its duty.

And also thereafter.

And the Church could not levy taxes to tackle settlements, but had to find the money from contributions, and the Church had to report on how the money was used. The Church is not the State. The Church is not a wealthy body with inexhaustible funds at its command, or a body that can levy taxes. The Church had to collect the money. It did not make profits from the investment, but naturally the Kakamas Commission had to ensure as far as possible that the funds invested there were protected, and that if possible the funds should yield interest. Originally the Church had to borrow the money, and if it tried to obtain interest on the money which it had to lend for the purpose then where is the great sin? The State can easily acquire money by way of taxation, but not so the Church. The Minister wants to make a comparison between Vaal-Hartz and Kakamas. Vaal-Hartz is supposed to be such a wonderful success. He told us what is being done for the people there. But where did the Government find the money to do those things. It has unlimited funds available. But the Minister knows very well what the settlement cost, how many hundreds of thousands of pounds it has already cost the State, perhaps close to £1,000,000. That shows how expensive an undertaking a settlement is. And the Church had tackled the matter with limited funds and made a great success of it. Can the Minister then blame the Church for also trying to make a financial success of the scheme, while at the same time the interests of the settlers themselves were fully considered. I have never heard anything so unjust as the allegations of the Minister against the Church. If the Church must act so altruistically towards the people then let the State provide funds for the Church. The Church will make a much bigger success of it than this Government. The Minister has not proved that the Church demands unfair interest, or makes unfair profits at Kakamas. The Minister has said nothing to prove that the Church makes unfair profits. It stands to reason that the Church was obliged to charge rental and that the Church has to try to make a profit in its shop. It cannot do otherwise. It has not unlimited funds. It is a business undertaking for the Church. And now I challenge the Minister to compare the shop at Kakamas with any other business in the country. Is there any other business in the country that treats its customers as fairly as the shop of the Kakamas Commission? Is there any other place where people can buy more cheaply than at that shop. [Time limit].

I want to revert to the position regarding the farm “Vaalbank” in my constituency. The Minister has now given precisely the reply that I expected of him. I asked him why the 300 morgen was cut off from “Vaalbank” and added to “Poortjie”. The Minister replied that it was for the purpose of making the holding economic. I expected the Minister to put his foot into it beautifully, for he has before him the report of the Land Board which states—

With this information before him, the Minister comes and says that the 300 morgen had to be cut to “Poortjie” to make it economic. Your own Land Board says to you, and you have all the information before you, that they can do such a thing, but that they do not want to do so in this case. I see the Minister in the light of the attack which he has made on the Church. He alleges that “Vaalbank” was made more economic. I ask him to go into the figures and to go into the report of the Select Committee on Crown lands and the report of his own Cape Land Board, where they make the calculations. You have the documents. Then you will see that according to your own report the value of the land worked out at £2 15s. per morgen, and if you, I do not know for what purpose, cut away 300 morgen ostensibly for making “Vaalbank” more economic, then it comes to £3 2s. per morgen. I will take your own argument, namely that you wanted to make it economic. Your own argument collapses. I want to indicate immediately that I view this case with the greatest suspicion. The argument that one farm needs two morgen for a sheep and that the other needs one morgen for a sheep is an argument that I view with the greatest suspicion. No, other reasons lurk behind it. Take the case of Mr. van der Walt. You do not want to let land to him. Today he has to do odd jobs of masonry. He is a man with a wife and four children. I asked the Minister to give him a chance on “Vaalbank”, but I know the Minister will not do it. I also know what reasons he will adduce for it. Now I want to tarry a moment at what the Minister said about the Church. I just want to touch on a few points. He said that the Church has also a settlement at Goedemoed. He said: “There, where they could not do good business, they asked me to take the settlement over.” Now I ask: Who has the shop there? You cannot tell me that. But you are so prejudiced against the Church that you say: “There where they cannot do such good business they ask me to take over the settlement.” You do not even know if there is a shop.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

It is a nightmare that is pursuing the Minister. It is a spook that is riding the Minister. He is one of my constituents. For that reason I can speak to him in this way. The nightmare that is haunting him is the attitude that he adopts towards the Church. He knows how a Church looks from outside, but he does not know how it looks inside. The Minister comes here and he drives boys from the settlements, for when they reach the age of 21 they must clear out and go to fight in the North, and the Church does not want to permit this. That is one of the reasons why he now sees in the Church such a “gogga” The Church comes to complain to them on the other side against the godless communism. That is the Minister’s nightmare. His friends who sat and laughed when he made the attack on the Church were the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet), the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander), the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis). I was watching them well. Those are the members who enjoyed his speech when he made a bitter attack on the Church. But the Minister also has friends who are commercial people. He knows what gigantic profits they make, and he is sorry that they cannot also make these profits. Does the Minister concern himself about the people who made £80,000 profit on building contracts? Did he speak about that? Has the Minister any conscientious objection to the £80,000 profit made by the Big Four on building contracts?

Do you want to compare the Big Four with the Church?

I am glad that hon. members on the other side feel that one must not drag the Church into these things. You cannot compare the Church with the Minister, nor can you compare the transactions of the Church with the transactions that take place here in the harbour. You must beware of the things that cling to yourself, and then you must ensure first of all that you have a clean conscience about the things that are happening here in the harbour.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

Now I want to ask the Minister this; he is very concerned about the property rights of his settlers. I want to ask him if the settlers have the right today to sell land registered in their name? Are they entitled to sell that land? No; the settlers must first of all come and obtain permission from the Minister before they can do so. That is what is happening today, and the Minister is busy applying this strictly. How many settlers have sold their farms since he became Minister of Lands? Not even their children may remain on the farms. [Time limit.]

I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with his refusal to allot a certain piece of land for the building of a parsonage to the Dutch Reformed Church at Grootdrink.

I cannot recollect ever having refused to meet the wishes of the Church.

A deputation went to see the Minister, and I understand they have not yet received permission.

I shall obtain the information and go into the matter, but I cannot remember ever having refused a request by the Church.

I specially ask this because I notice that the Minister has allotted a piece of land there to another denomination for building a Church there.

I shall go into the matter.

That must have been a grant to a Malay church.

That is where you belong.

I listened to the Minister in the House this afternoon. He at once gave me the impression that there are people in this world who have no sense of proportion, who have no regard or respect for the higher things in life and who simply —I hope you will allow me to use the word—contaminate everything with which they get into contact. In English there is an expression about “a bull in a china shop”. Can you imagine what happens when a bull enters a shop packed with china? The Hollanders talk about a monkey in a china cabinet. I leave it to the hon. members to judge whether the Minister is a monkey in a china cabinet or a bull in a china shop. The fact remains that he tries to destroy everything exalted, with which he comes into contact. The Romans had an expression for it: Quem dei volunt perdere.

Please translate that to us.

That means that if the gods are bent on destroying a person they first make him mad. I cannot condemn the Minister more strongly than that. As far as his arguments here are concerned, I want to ask him the following question: This afternoon he made a shameless attack on the Church. He made certain ex parte allegations against the Church. I now want to ask him whether he ever went to the Churches and discussed the allegations with them.

I drew up a report.

The Minister drew up a report, but he never, as a member of the Church, as a member of Parliament or as a responsible Minister, went to the Churches and told them: This and that allegation are being made; what is your side of the case in this regard? No, like a monkey in a china cabinet he shatters what the Church has built up over a period of years. I have here before me the report of the Deas Commission, After the Minister started with his allegations against the Church, this Commission was appointed in 1940 in consequence of those allegations, and do you know who served on that Commission? First of all Mr. Deas, who was Chairman of the Commission. The Minister himself said that he appointed Mr. Deas because he was convinced that this gentleman was quite unprejudiced. The other members who served on it consisted of the following: The Rev. P. du Toit who apparently is to the Minister like a red rag to the bull we spoke about. Then there is Mr. F. P. S. le Roux, the Chairman of the Minister’s Land Board. The other member of the Commission was Mr. M. M. Louw, M.P.C. and its secretary was Mr. J. Fourie. This Commission investigated the Minister’s allegations. This afternoon the hon. Minister wanted to put the blame on the Rev du Toit. He said that it is a one-sided report and that he could perceive the hand of the Rev. du Toit in it. But what about Mr. Deas, that competent and unprejudiced official of his own department? What about Mr. Louw, a prominent member of his own party? That is the Commission which brought out this report and those are the people whose report simply refutes everything the Minister told us here today. Allow me to read out a few passages from that report. The general finding of the Commission was as follows—[Translation]

The hon. Minister said that the settlement did not fulfil its purpose. The Commission appointed by him furthermore says—

I now ask you what remains of the Ministers allegation against the Church that this labour settlement has never yet fulfilled its purpose. The Minister asserted here that the shop there has only one aim, viz. to extort and exploit the labour settlement. I now want to read out again what the Commission’s opinion is in regard thereto—

The Minister wanted to pretend here that the Church was abusing the shops there. His own Commission recommends that the shop should remain under the control of the Church until such time that the Church should decide to withdraw altogether from the Kakamas labour settlement. I now come to the matter of profits. You have heard here that the Minister spoke of the scandalous profits which had been made there. He created the impression in this House that exorbitant and improper profits had been made there. Listen to what the Commission says about it—[Translation]

The net profit amounts to 7½ per cent. You called to order the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) a short while ago because he used the word “scandal”. I ask you now: When the net profit amounts to 74 per cent., can one call it anything but scandalous for the Minister to come here and accuse them of making undue profits? We passed legislation in this House to tax excess profits. That legislation lays down that excess profits will mean everything you make above 8 per cent.

And that is excess profit.

The profits of the Church are so small that it can not even be considered for excess profits duty and in spite of that the Minister talks of undue profits.

Is that 74 per cent. on the turnover or on the capital?

On the turnover. The capital amounts to far over £100,000. Calculate what 8 per cent. on a capital of £160,000 amounts to and then see what the percentage here is. That places the Minister in a still more unfavourable light than he has already been placed in. The Minister raises objection to the profits of the shops there being used in the first instance to cover interest. I now ask you for heaven’s sake: The Church invests thousands and tens of thousands of pounds there, but the Minister does not want the profits to be used to cover the interest; he also does not want the profits to be used as the church is using them now. The Church is using it to cover interest and for expansion work. Does the Minister object to that? Has the Minister any objection to a further expansion at Rhenosterkop? [Time limit.]

After the Minister’s tirade against the Church this afternoon, we just want to remind him that the Church realised the difficulties of settlements and they did pioneer work in regard to settlement areas. In those days the then Government disgracefully neglected its duty by not looking after its landless farmers. Afterwards the Government had enough sense and used that sense to fulfil its duties and they then started with land settlement work and they proceeded along the lines indicated to them by the Churches. Today, however, we have a new kind of Minister of Lands who tries to destroy all the splendid work done by the Church and for which the people and the country owe gratitude to the Church. What are his motives? His accusations do not hold water. He started looking for some pretext, and it seems to me that the Minister has become an ally of Bolshevism and he is already so possessed by bolshevist ideas that he starts attacking the Church. He said that within 40 years the Church built up a reserve fund of £129,000. There are 470 settlers. What does £129,000 mean to 470 settlers? No rank exploitation took place as the Minister wanted to make us believe. But the Church was far-seeing enough to provide, as they put it, for the lean years to come. The Minister should listen to what the Minister of Finance is advocating through the length and breadth of the country. We hear continually that we should save for the time is coming, and is coming most definitely, when there will be an unheard-of depression; here the Church is doing its best to build up a reserve fund in order to assist the people when that depression comes along. Now a responsible Minister gets up and irresponsibly attacks the Churches for doing so, and accuses them of exploitation. I am surprised that he did not use his favourite expression of “bleeding white”. How much philanthropy did he show towards his own settlers? There are large numbers of old settlers on his settlements who are old and decrepit, who pray and beseech him to be allowed to keep their sons there in order to assist them to develop their holdings, but the Minister’s reply is an inexorable “No!”. So worldly has he become. I would nearly say that he has become so un-christian that he now prohibits the son to assist his old father. Furthermore there are old people staying with their sons on the holdings and the sons are willing to have their decrepit parents with them on those holdings and to look after them in their old age. But the Minister again inexorably declares that they shall not be allowed to remain there. And then the Minister dares to attack the Church on account of its settlement policy at Kakamas. I predict that the world will condemn him. I want to assure him that 75 per cent. of his own people belonging to the Church condemn his actions. The other day he spoke about the Pongola scheme, and on that occasion he told us with a smile on his face that he had put 22 young men at Pongola. Why did he put those 22 unmarried young men there at Pongola?

I did not put them there.

These sons have now to be removed from the holdings. Why? Are they not good enough to work there? Furthermore the story has been going around that the area is unhealthy. In this respect the Minister is really most humane! He maintains that the people there become very ill. In 1922 I was in the Pongola area and at that time they also told me the old story of malaria being very bad there. We went to a house situated only a few hundred yards from the river. The man and his wife and children lived there for two years and not one of them got malaria. During that year only 4 children in the school had malaria. That story also does not hold water. He said that this scheme does not pay, but I think it did not pay because palaces were built there for the officials, instead of spending the money on creating better conditions for the settlers. The main reason, however, is that the Minister in fact wants to compete against the farmers and I believe that that is one of the greatest mistakes that could be made. The Minister quoted that the Government had already made £150,000 out of Pongola and all this by competing against the farmer. He told us that they had been planting potatoes for the internment camps. Instead of assisting the farmer to make a decent living, the Government is now busy destroying the farmer’s market by competing against him.

It is with trepidation that one gets up to reply to the Minister of Lands. But to a person who has attended political meetings when the Minister of Lands travels through the country, his speech of this afternoon is nothing new. I do not think I have ever been at a meeting addressed by the Minister of Lands at places where the people were prepared to hear him—for in many places they did not want to hear him—when he did not make some attack or other on the Church. Members on both sides of this House will admit that when the Minister of Lands gets up he tries in one way or the other to ridicule or misrepresent in a laughable manner the Afrikaans Church or its parsons and to attack them. There is a reason behind it. There is an important reason for these continuous attacks on the Church by the Minister. I believe that every person who has a vestige of national feeling within him has to admit that if it had not been for the Afrikaans Churches in South Africa, nothing would be left of the Afrikaner nation. If somebody should succeed in breaking the Afrikans Church and bringing it into discredit with the people, if he were to succeed in some way or other to arouse contempt for the old traditions and customs of our forefathers, or if he should succeed in imputing other motives than religious ones to the Church, such a person would have gone a long distance towards breaking the back of the Afrikaner. That is the main purpose of the Minister of Lands. He is not worrying so much about the settlers at Kakamas, whether they have to struggle or not—that is not his principal worry—but he wants to use Kakamas as a tool to bring the Church into discredit with the people, knowing well that in that manner he can do much to break the back of the Afrikaner. Let us, however, consider the facts the Minister gave us here. He became rather personal and I shall also have reason to become somewhat personal towards the Minister. He spoke here of colossal profits which were being made, and he said that every penny of those profits came out of the pockets of the poor oppressed settlers, people who should become independent and who have to produce all these profits. He spoke of scandalous and colossal profits which had all to come out of the pockets of the colonists. I want to read out to him what appears on page 15 of the report of his own commission—[Translation]

All the money does not come out of the pockets of the colonists only; money is coming in from the farmers of the surroundings and also from coloured persons, who, according to the commission which was appointed by the Minister himself, transact their business there. Let us go further and look at par. 59 on page 15. The Minister was talking of the manner in which everything was being used to make bigger profits. What do we find in this report?—

[Translation]

The Minister never got as far as the capital. The Minister forgot to mention it. I want to read another paragraph from this report for the benefit of the Minister. I do not think the Minister could have been serious when he said that this was a report of the Rev. P. du Toit only. When the Minister says that, it simply means that the other members must have been dishonest by merely agreeing with the Rev. du Toit without going into matters. Then they must have allowed themselves to be led by the nose just as the Cabinet is being led by the nose by the Prime Minister. On page 24 the commission in its report states inter alia—[Translation]

The report clearly states that a reserve fund is being built up for the lean years. The Minister closes his eyes to all these things. He simply must make an attack on the Church. He tries to bring the Church into discredit with the people, for he knows that if he does that, he will weaken the position of the Afrikaner. The Minister also knows that he is sometimes saying things which are not correct and which bring him into difficulties. The Minister knows that he recently said something against political predikants, and that Dr. Rossouw won a court case against him …

That case is still pending.

If that case is still pending, I shall not go into it any further. I shall rather proceed to another case, which is not pending any more, and I quote it here to show that we should not believe the Minister unconditionally when he makes statements here.

The hon. member must not make such allegations.

Even not when I can prove them?

No, the hon. member may not do so.

Well, then I want to say that we have to take the Minister’s statements here with a pinch of salt, and that he says things here when he is not acquainted with the actual facts. He repeatedly read here from a report of 1919 and he told us here that certain things happened before 1919. None of us on either side of the House can say whether those statements are correct or incorrect. The Minister therefore made an ex parte statement for nobody is able at the moment to refute it or otherwise. It is impossible for us to have facts and figures here about 1919. The Minister also knows that to be the case and we on our side know that we cannot always believe what the Minister states here. His memory is playing him false. I have here before me a report of the Supreme Court for the year 1930. It deals with a case in which the Minister of Lands was one of the parties and I should like to read out what the Judge had to say about the Minister of Lands. He said in the first instance—

The Judge therefore states that, the evidence of the Minister of Lands and that of another person, a certain Coetzee, did not correspond, and then goes on to say—

This shows that the Minister can easily tell us things which are not correct.

At 5.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 26th March, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 21st April.