I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) employment for all able to work, at an adequate wage based upon an adequate civilised standard of living, or otherwise for an unemployment allowance sufficient to maintain an adequate civilised standard of living;
2. (b) old age pensions, disability allowences allowances for orphans, widows and deserted wives; and
3. (c) free medical and hospital treatment, and maternity benefits;

The object of this motion is to create by means of legislation a social order in which the State provides, maintains and guarantees to all its citizens complete security of existence, and in which every individual renders reciprocal service to the State to the utmost of his or her ability. At this stage, in a few words, I briefly want to give the House the history of social security as far as it concerns this House. It was raised for the first time in this House by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) on the 12th May, 1939. The following year it was again brought up for discussion by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), at that time member for Umbilo. I further want to point out that in May, 1938, at the request of the hon. member for Durban (North) a full statement on social security, as it is in operation in New Zealand, and as it was explained by Mr. Savage, the then Prime Minister, appeared in the New Witness, published by my hon. friend, the member for Durban (North). In the same year, 1942, when the question was brought before this House by me through the medium of a motion, a similar motion was introduced in the other place a little earlier in the session. The motion, as we introduced it at that time, on the 6th March, 1942, was accepted in principle by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and I want to admit readily that it was as a result of the fact that he accepted the motion in principle, that this matter was brought to the fore, in so far as the committee charged with investigating the matter, actually made investigations, went into the matter, and enabled the Prime Minister yesterday to submit to us a White Paper dealing with this matter. We want to thank the Prime Minister for it. Hon. members may complain that this document was submitted to us rather late, but we are thankful for the investigation which has already taken place up to the present. It would be unnecessary for me again to ask this House that hon. members and the Government should consider the question of social security, because, in my opinion, it has already been accepted fully in this House, and no objection has been raised to the acceptance of the principle involved. After this House and the Prime Minister had accepted social security in principle, motions in connection therewith were discussed in different parts of the country. It was generally endorsed by resolutions which were adopted at meetings which were specially called for that purpose. Even those people who in the past did not fully understand what we meant by social security, informed themselves about it and convinced themselves that it was something which was a necessity to our people. Apart from these meetings of a private nature, which were convened to discuss this matter and where these resolutions were adopted, we also find that motions were discussed at party congresses, and in that way we got an indication as to the conviction on the part of the people of South Africa that social security was something which was necessary in our country. It was an indication to us that it was no longer an open question to the people of South Africa, but, as I have explained in my statement, the claim was that it should now become reality. It is also perhaps necessary for me to remind this House of the fact that this is not a new policy. Social security is not a new thing, which we learnt only the other day, but it is something which we have reaised in this House for years and years by means of motions. I need only remind the House of the amendments which the hon. the Leader of the Labour Party, the Minister of Labour, has introduced every year on the Estimates’ They were motions similar to this one, and when one analyses them, one sees that’ they aim at one object only, and that is social security. The party congresses to which I have referred were also from time to time an indication of that. In other words, this House is fully convinced, as shown by the acceptance of all those resolutions at congresses and in this House, that it is no longer something which the people desire or for which the country is ripe, but the question is whether these ideals which have been proclaimed for years, should not immediately be placed on the statute book of the Union of South Africa. Let me immediately take hon. members to the motion standing in my name. You will notice that we deal with the most important question first. The biggest and the most important matter comes first. We are following the example of the Prime Minister, and that is to mention the most important matter first. You will notice that in the first instance this motion aims at employment for all who are able to work, at an adequate wage based upon an adequate civilised standard of living, or otherwise for an unemployment allowance sufficient to maintain an adequate civilised standard of living. You will all agree with me that if we can solve this problem of employment for all, then we shall have solved 90 per cent. of the potential problems of our country. You will agree with me when I say that as long as the citizens of the country, the inhabitants of the country, are kept in employment, we will not experience those dislocations which come from time to time, not even the dislocations caused by droughts and other factors, because the nation would then not feel the effect of those set-backs. I still have to be convinced that it can be said that there was any financial pressure on the country at a time when all the citizens were in employment. The reverse is also true. All other measures are out of the question unless we take steps to see that all the citizens are provided with employment. What do we mean by employment for all? When we use that expression, we fully take into account the composition of the nation, and we fully take into account the fact that some people are employed in industry. We take into account the fact that other people have to earn a livelihood on farms, etc. So that, in using these words “employment for all,” we mean not only employment in industry, but also the labour required by the farmer, because he is unemployed if he has to give away his products without payment, because then he cannot produce. He is then in the same position as the man who is unemployed in industry. For that reason, when we speak of employment for all, we refer to the whole nation, and to work of all descriptions in the country. Employment for all is not an accomplished fact until such time as every man, whatever his calling may be, is fully occupied in the calling to which he has devoted himself. It is also necessary, in dealing with this question of employment for all, that I should bring to the notice of the Government an important matter at this stage, and that is that War Supplies is today the greatest transgressor in the country in creating unemployment. I want to say to the Prime Minister immediately that War Supplies causes people to be discharged—and amongst them there are many returned soldiers who work on the land—without concerning itself about the effect of its action. I know of no employer who has caused as much unemployment, especially among the returned soldiers, as War Supplies, which in a reckless manner, simply tells manufacturers to get rid of people. It has happened in my own constituency, where 43 men were discharged, amongst whom there were more than 30 returned soldiers, and unless they have been absorbed during the past fourteen days in some sphere of work, they are still walking about unemployed as a result of the reckless attitude adopted by War Supplies. There is enormous scope and field for employment in the Union of South Africa. Will you hold it against me if I say that there is a large army of workers in our factories, and they are making all sorts of goods which we require for war purposes, and that we could use those very people to manufacture goods which are required for other purposes in the country? If we can use those people in the factories to manufacture war material, why cannot we use them in the same factories to manufacture agricultural material, for example, for South Africa? If we use them for the manufacture of war material, what is there to prevent us, and would it not be a logical policy to take them into employment in order to manufacture what this country needs so urgently, namely agricultural implements, ploughs, spades, and similar articles which are so essential, and the prices of which are ruining the farmers today? There is a tremendous scope for employment in that respect. When we speak of this field, we do not want propagandists, as in the past, to tell us that the country cannot do this, that or the other. They must stop spreading the story that we cannot do this, that or the other thing. We can do it. At the outbreak of the war it was said that there were certain things we could not do. But the war had not been in progress for more than eight months when we did those very things which they had been telling us for 30 years we could not do. Today we are using South African labour and South African material to manufacture those articles. In that connection I again want to emphasise that that army of men and women which is today employed in South Africa to manufacture war material will not be discharged, but that their numbers will be added to, and that after the war their work will be so converted that they can manufacture those things which are so essential in South Africa for primary production. I could suggest many schemes but there is probably not a single hon. member in this House who has not thought out schemes for himself in order to employ a large section of the people. But let me come to another employer, again affecting a government department. Of all the government departments it is only the Department of Lands which up to the present has made a blueprint of what it is going to do after the war. The Department of Lands has at least gone so far as to say that after the war it will take up a certain number of families for land settlement. But not one of the other departments has done so. Take the Department of Labour. This department is subject to the goodwill of War Supplies, which is an unsound position. The present position is not due to the inefficiency of the Department of Labour, or to lack of energy on the part of the department; it is not due to the fact that the department does not make an attempt to place more people in employment, but to the fact that the department is subject to the goodwill of War Supplies. I could go on from department to department, and we would find that it is only the Department of Lands which has drawn up a sort of frame to indicate what it is going to do after the war. The Department of the Minister of Mines, not his office but the industry over which he has control, has not lifted a finger to provide employment in the country, except to take into employment a man or a woman deemed to be essential in the interests of the department. In the interests of South Africa the department does not and has not yet taken into employment a single individual during this war, or before this war. This is one of the industries which succeeds in bringing under its influence and control all other industries, and to such an extent that it is able to bully the other industries, if I may put it that way. This industry can simply import natives from across the borders at the expense of the South African native. But as far as European and native labour is concerned, this big and rich industry has never gone out of its way to provide employment for a single individual except where it was in its own financial interests to do so. It has never done so in the interests of South Africa. There we have a rich field of labour for the European population. When we look back to the days before 1922, we remember that there were 5,000 men in employment as bore-sharpeners, and as the mining industry stands today, it could immediately say to the Minister of Labour that it can absorb 8,000 men. But, as far as I know, they have not taken into employment a single man for that purpose. They will say that they have a number of men for that work, but that applies only to men whose services are essential. But as an industry they have not gone out of their way in the least to provide employment for the inhabitants of this country, but whenever they expect to derive any benefit from the Government, they are very quick in reminding the Government how much they contribute to the country. I am afraid that in this instance it is a case of the weak carrying the strong. I want to suggest immediately that the mining industry could employ an additional 8,000 men above the ground, and they could do without some of the natives whom they have imported from across the border, and first take care of the people for whom this House is responsible. I studied with interest the report which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has submitted to us, but may I be allowed in passing to make a few comments in connection with it. The first is that not the slightest account was taken in the financial estimates of the money which will be brought into circulation the moment this social order, which I have proposed, is introduced. In these calculations account is taken of the money which will be spent, but the money which will be brought into circulation and the reciprocal prosperity which will be brought about in the country for the producer, the distributor and the consumer is not taken into account at all. That is not taken into account. Let me immediately remind the House that shortly before the war there was a large number of unemployed in the country, and there was a large portion of our agricultural products for which the farmer could not get any price at all. I think you will all agree at once that the fact that today the farmers are receiving a stable price for more or less all their products, is due to the fact that as a result of the war money has been brought into circulation. Now I want to ask you what the effect will be if after the war money is brought into circulation in the same manner for constructive work. Today £100,000,000 per annum is being spent on the war by South Africa, and a large portion of that goes into material which is wasted in the form of ammunition, and in material which is destroyed. We are nevertheless expending this money. Compare that position, however, with £100,000,000 which is spent in peace time on constructive work. Today a large portion of the money which is being spent on battle goes up in smoke, but if one spends this money on constructive work, the greatest portion of it would remain in the country and come into circulation to the advantage of producers and consumers and business men. This report does not take into account this important economic cycle of money. The report simply deals with the expenditure involved in such plans of reform and security, but the reciprocal prosperity which will be brought about in the country if the money is brought into circulation is not pointed out. I want to emphasise, and emphasise with all the power at my command, that if £100,000 or £200,000 per annum is spent on social security, it will not be money which goes up in smoke and which is wasted, but money which will remain in the country, which will be spent and which will ensure the creation of a state of affairs in which the spending power of the nation is placed on such a basis that, as the Minister of Finance has said, the total national income will be increased. I do not think there is a single hon. member here who will vote for a state of affairs where a small minority will make higher profits. But it is essential to increase our national income, to start with those people having the lowest income, to raise the lowest level, and to increase the national income gradually, and then the country would gradually be able to bear a higher burden. The report does not take this aspect into account, and it is a very important aspect. The report completely overlooks this. In our country there is tremendous scope for industrial development, and if we tackle the development of our industries on the right lines, the whole population, everyone who can work, will be employed. Is it waste of money to have to give a certain allowance in respect of a person who works? I know that you will at once agree that the highest efficiency which can be obtained, is obtained when everyone gives of his best, according to his ability. But if one section of the people has to work and the other section has to be educated and maintained, as it were, on the dole system, one finds the sad state of affairs which we have known in the past. If, however, the whole national machine is inspanned, if every individual contributes to the best of his or her ability, I still want to meet the economist, I still want to meet the progressive thinker, who will tell me that it is a waste of money, or let me put it this way— I still want to meet the man who can prove to me that the country will not be able to bear it. Let me ask hon. members in all seriousness whether they are really taking up this matter seriously. I think you will all reply: “Yes, just as seriously as you do.” Well, there was a time when we had to declare war, and not a single member suggested that we should first meet and calculate what the war would cost. We did not do that. We decided that it would be in the interests of the continued existence of our country and in the interests of freedom, for us to enter the war. We did not ask whether we could afford to pay for it. Now I ask myself whether I shall be able to get this House to agree with me. I may possibly be regarded as an optimist. But I do think that I can say that hon. members will agree. Let us take up arms, in spite of all costs, against the national evil which claims so many victims from time to time, just as we took up arms against those who threatened our national freedom. Let us declare war on poverty, with all its misery, which has already claimed so many victims in our country. I know that you will agree with that. The only question which makes one hesitate is whether the country will be able to bear the burden. I shall come back to that point in a moment. I repeat that unfortunately this report which the Prime Minister has given out for publication does not sufficiently take into account that important aspect, that every man in employment means that there is one person less who will have to receive an unemployment allowance and a family allowance. When one thinks of the potential costs one must not lose sight of that important aspect, and if all the people who are healthy and who are able to work are inspanned, and give their services to the state, it is productive expenditure and not a waste of money. Then there remains only what may be called ambulance services which have to be provided. There remains only derelict humanity out of the past to be taken care of, and if it is not possible to round up and to look after that derelict humanity, then it is really a sad state of affairs. This derelict humanity cannot be left unprovided for. In this connection I want to say that prevention is better than cure, but once you have accomplished all this, you are strong enough effectively to render that ambulance service which still requires to be given. But now it may be said: “But all these things for which you ask are already in existence in South Africa.” For example, we have old age pensions. That is so. We have allowances for the blind. We have allowances for practically everything for which I ask in this motion. But you will not hold it against me if I say that when one compares South Africa with other countries, with countries such as New Zealand, for example, which has not the rich mining industry that we have, South Africa lags far behind in comparison. I want to ask hon. members to listen attentively for a moment, while I compare the old age mensions of New Zealand with those of South Africa. In South Africa the maximum is today £3 10s. plus a cost of living allowance which varies from time to time, and which is paid in war circumstances. But what is the position in New Zealand? There the old age pension is £6 10s. without a means test, and today they are also paying a cost of living allowance. Apart from that, the majority of old age pensioners in South Africa are today not receiving the maximum of £3 10s., but many of them get £2 10s. and £2, or even less. In my opinion the means test is being wholly abused today. The responsibility which the state has taken upon itself is thrown on the shoulders of the children of the aged people. It is not necessary for me to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that when application is made for an old age pension the following information has to be furnished: How many sons and daughters there are, what their income is, etc. The burden is placed on them, whether or not they can bear it. The responsibility which we have undertaken as a state, we are continually placing on the shoulders of the children. We compare very very badly with New Zealand. There, without the application of a means test, they receive £6 10s.—whether or not the father and the mother live together. In so far as the widows’ allowances are concerned, we also compare very badly with New Zealand. The question of old age pension is so well known, and the effect of it so generally known, that I do not want to enlarge on this. There are a few other important matters with which I want to deal. In New Zealand they have other privileges, other social services which we do not provide here at all. Family allowances to the extent they are paid in New Zealand, are unknown to us. One of the most important things which is engaging the attention of the whole world today and in which the whole world takes an interest, is free medical services and free hospital treatment. In New Zealand that has been made a reality. And may I draw the attention of the House and of the Government to the fact that when legislation was brought into operation in New Zealand, there was not such a very long, extended investigation, nor was there this great cry that the country could not afford it. They brought it into operation, and it is functioning today. Let me also say in passing that to a certain extent one can still understand the fact that, even if it is only from the point of view of tradition, the responsibility for taking care of the aged is placed on the shoulders of children to a certain degree. It ought to be done out of the state coffers, but to a certain extent we can still understand the children being taxed. But when one finds the same tendency in connection with industrial legislation, as for example in connection with compensation for miners’ phthisis, whereby the rich mining industry is relieved of certain allowances and the burden is placed on the shoulders of the children of these old people, then I say that the whole House will agree that that does not fit into a progressive world, that it is not in harmony with the progressive thoughts which most hon. members of this House cherish in regard to this question of free hospital treatment and free medical treatment. I think hon. members will join me in protesting against it. I also think that hon. members will raise their voices against the state of affairs in which the continued existence of a hospital is dependent on the goodwill of ladies who collect pennies and threepences in the street in order to keep the hospitals going. That no longer fits in with our ideas. It no longer fits in with the times in which we live. The state as a whole must provide this valuable service to the people of South Africa. It is not necessary at the moment to lay further emphasis on this important question of medical treatment. There is a large number of people who never receive medical treatment because they cannot afford it. Consult any district surgeon and any doctor, and they will tell you that the time has arrived for the state to accept the responsibility. I do not, however, want to pursue that, because it is being dealt with today by a very important commission, but I want to urge that we can no longer keep the hospitals going on the begging system. It is not to our credit. I know that hon. members may get up and say that this, that or the other question is not referred to in my motion. They will be able to ask, for example, what happens to a man when he meets with a fatal accident? There are many little points which might still have been included, and I do not say that this motion is all-embracing. If one wants to go into minute details, many things could be mentioned specifically, but that is not necessary. I refer here to a few big items, which the whole population includes, and it was not necessary to mention everything specifically. The spirit underlying my motion is that we aim at including all possible contingencies. We notice, for example, that in New Zealand provision is made in the existing security code for miners’ phthisis. We do not refer to it here because we have separate miners’ phthisis legislation. It is not necessary to mention it here. Then there is the important question of housing. That question is already being investigated by commissions, so that we may expect that this important matter, too, will be tackled. It is important enough to be dealt with on its own, without including it here as a small, specific item. With regard to land settlement, in my opinion that is one of the corner stones of national welfare. I do not want to go into that, because the present Minister of Lands is already far ahead of his colleagues with regard to plans for the future, and I am convinced that we shall make tremendous progress in the future in the sphere of settlement; it is also sufficiently important to be dealt with on its own as a separate matter. If there is any possible contingency to which reference has not been made here, I have included it all under the motto “Employment for all.” Now we come to this important question. The press has already gone so far as to comment on what is being dealt with here now, and I notice a number of newspapers say that the sky is now being brought to earth. I have never lived in the sky, but always on solid earth, but there were times when a number of hon. members thought that we were building castles in the air. But throughout that time we were able to accomplish these things, if only we abandoned the idea that they were impossible of accomplishment. To say that a thing is impossible is only the language of a man who does not want to do anything, but if this House and the Government are determined to do it, it can be done. If we display the same courage as we displayed when we entered the war, we should also be able to exterminate poverty. Hon. members ask whether my ideas are capable of practical execution, whether one can do these things under the capitalistic banking, system. There is a challenge to us. I say that it can be done. New Zealand, which has not got a social banking system, discovered that it was practicable, and this report, which the Prime Minister has handed to us virtually admits that it is a practicable thing, although according to the plans which are suggested here, our chances of getting a good funeral are better than our chances of making a good living. I think we all prefer to make a good living. We now have a great deal of literature on the subject, and I think that many of those who hold the same views as I do, are convinced that even under the present banking system this scheme is practicable, and it is for the senior Government party to say that we shall no longer hesitate, that we shall tackle this matter at once. I think you will discover that the majority of the hon. members on the other side of the House subscribe to our views, and I want to make bold to say that members of the Opposition too are prepared to do what we suggest, that is to give the scheme a trial. Does the present Minister of Finance want to tell me that he is not as capable as the Minister of Finance in New Zealand? I would tell him quite frankly that I do not believe him. He may possibly experience a considerable measure of opposition; tremendous pressure may be brought to bear on the Government not to give effect to those things which are in the interests of the country, because there are certain interests in the country which are definitely opposed to measures of this nature. Whether one analyses this from an academic point of view, from a political point of view or any other point of view, the fact remains that the large profits of big capital in certain big industries are being made out of the labour of the workers. As soon as unemployment disappears, they will no longer hold the whip and be able to dictate and to keep wages at a low level. The lower one keeps the standard of living, the bigger the effect on national welfare. The higher the profits, the lower the standard of living of the nation. At this stage I also want to remind the Government that it has been stated on various occasions in responsible quarters by Government people, that no one who takes up arms in the name of South Africa will suffer want, that he who takes up arms and his wife and children will not want; but even today there are men who were wounded, men who were in the army for many years and who have since been discharged, who find themselves in needy circumstances. There are some of them today who are eagerly watching to what extent we are giving effect to our promises. If we find that under the existing system we cannot carry out these promises, the time has arrived to revise the financial system of South Africa and to replace it by a banking system under which it will not be necessary to ask where the money is to come from. May I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the longer the war lasts the bigger our national debt becomes. When the war ends we shall have a big national debt. If we are victorious, as we hope to be, and as we feel reasonably certain we shall be, we shall lay down the peace terms, but we shall be saddled with an enormous debt. We shall not complain about the debt, because we were prepared to pay that price for our freedom. I want to point out to hon. members, however, that if we have a state bank, even if the war lasts ten years, we would not have a penny debt when the war ends. That is the difference. Is this not a subject which is worthy of our consideration? Is it not a question to be considered, when we ask ourselves what the country can afford? Say, for argument’s sake, that the war lasts ten years. The debt would then be fairly high. It is possible that the war will last ten years, although we hope that it will not. If it lasts ten years no one would move that we should capitulate because our debt has become too great. We shall continue to fight, whatever our debt may be after the war.

Even though we have to continue paying double salaries?

Under the systems in vogue in Germany and Russia, if the war were to end tomorrow, they would be free of debt, except for the debt which is imposed by their enemies. I do not want to give a lecture on banking, but it is a subject which must receive our attention, and as far as I understand the position, the only guarantee I have in the distant future, when the taxpayers strike—even today there are some of them who want to do so—is that we pay attention to the systems which I mentioned a moment ago. That is our only salvation. We must have a state bank which functions like the private commercial banks, but instead of functioning for the benefit of a few individuals, the system must be devoted to the benefit of the state. Let me give an example. If this parliamentary building had belonged to a private bank, the bank would have been entitled to print and to issue notes on the strength of the fixed asset represented by this building. The money which comes into circulation in that manner will never be covered by gold. I want to go further and point out to the House that since 1815, since the Napoleonic wars, the British Empire has never been on gold in practice. In theory, yes. Commercial banks may expand as they wish, depending on how well or how badly the government of the day treats them. If a private bank is able to print so many notes on the strength of this building, with this building as security, why does the state not take the matter into its own hands, and if the Government were to bring notes into circulation on the existing state assets, which I estimate at £700,000,000 or £800,000,000, it would have available all the necessary money for expansion in the industrial sphere and for any other scheme, and it would be able to cover even the war expenditure. I am not a financial expert, but I am using a little common sense. It is often argued that we cannot even cover the war expenditure, and that we are saddling posterity with great burdens. For the same reasons we are warned against schemes such as those I have suggested for social security, but I say that it is not necessary to place great burdens on future generations. In any case, I want to draw this distinction between war expenditure and expenditure in respect of social security, that the money which is spent on social security is not wasted, but creates reciprocal prosperity for producers and consumers in South Africa. One cannot compare the two, war expenditure and expenditure on social security. Even if it were found after investigation by commissions or planning councils that these things cannot be done, the fact would still remain that they must be done. We have accepted responsibility towards the men who have gone forward to fight, and we cannot break our promises. Even today an appeal is still being made to our men; it is said that their fatherland needs them, and in my turn I say that the men and women who take up the cudgels for the freedom of South Africa, cannot be left in the lurch. We must keep our promises. I know there are many hon. members who want to discuss this subject. I know that I have left many gaps for anyone who wishes to score debating points, or to find fault. But the spirit and the object of this motion is to create a social order in South Africa of which every member in this House and every government in this country can be proud.

I beg to second the motion, and in doing so I want to make the obvious comment that everyone is in agreement that social security as it is called is long overdue, and we feel that this is the moment when we should make a supreme attempt to incorporate a social security code in our legislation. Never has there been a clearer mandate received from the people to deal with a matter. The world in which this thing is to be planned has been built up on what we call private enterprise and that private enterprise has until now had full range to shape the kind of economy which we have today. And that private enterprise has only been interfered with from time to time by government because compulsion has been brought to bear on the Government. That compulsion has come from two directions—on the one hand from the people, who were conscious of the need for reform, and who have built up a conscious opinion among the public, opinion which has prevailed on the Government to do something to remedy grave injustice, and on the other hand the urgent calls from those who having started enterprises under this present system have tended to fall by the way and the Government has come to their aid, and has propped up the thing they have started, but for the moment have not been able to carry on. Now we have here a summary of reports on social security and its cost. Hon. members have these summaries before them and I want to draw the attention of the House to the significance of this particular heading Of this report because the scope and cost of any social security code which the House can put on the Statute Book must be limited unless this House takes a very radical view, more radical than they done so far, and any steps taken must be limited by the inhibitions that are inherent in the present system. Now I want to say that the people who really dictate the terms in this system of private enterprise are a coterie of people—I think that, is the correct expression—who have been allowed by Government to get control of the means of credit and currency. They are the people who ultimately will dictate the scope and the cost of this code, and it is a fact that these people who dictate the terms in our system of private enterprise have never yet been able to demonstrate that they were able to give the people in any country social security. There are some people today among the members of this House who sincerely believe that although it is dear it is yet possible within the means of private enterprise to make a considerable step forward in the direction that social security indicates. I sympathise with these people because I realise that they are people of good intentions. They are people for the most part who are content that their particular participation in the good things of this world should be curtailed in order that the participation of the common people may be magnified. One must respect them for their good intentions. But the facts do not show that these good intentions have had any results. I think we have to look at. Great Britain and America—two countries organised, if any countries were, to the top of the bent of private enterprise—to realise how ill founded the good intentions of my friends are. The position—prior to the outbreak of this war— in America was that in spite of the high organisation, in spite of the existence of the Rotary Club, a body which has wonderful ideals—they think in terms of service, they want to relate the interests of the employee to the interests of the employer—in spite of that master organisation, in spite of the fact that in America there was more goodwill propaganda, I suppose, than in any other country, the fact was that there were twelve and a half million people out of work (immediately prior to the outbreak of this war). In the case of Great Britain one must admit that although there has been a gradual rise in the parliamentary system whereby the man in the street by the exercise of his vote was able to exercise some power in the ruling of his country—where the ideal of Kingship and Lordship have been severely curbed from time to time, it is true that private enterprise is supreme—and there we had a total of 3,000,000 people out of work immediately prior to this war breaking out. And even if we look at Germany which at the moment is the fly in the ointment and which we think is responsible for the great conflict—we find that in spite of their flair for organisation, in spite of their inventive genius, in spite of their application to the task in hand, they could only employ their people to full capacity by indulging in a total war effort which resulted in the war in which we find ourselves today. It is apparent that if the system which we call “Capitalism” is to bear the burden of the code which will really meet the needs of the people of this country, that system itself will have to be divorced to a great extent from the control exercised upon it by that coterie of people who rule in the sphere of high finance. If private enterprise is to bear the cost of an adequate code for the people of South Africa, it must be divorced from a large measure of the control that is exercised upon it by that rule in the world of high finance. That is evident to everyone, and we are prepared, I am prepared, if people have good intentions, if people are earnest in their endeavours, to believe that if that severance can take place, if that control by this small body of people whose old fashioned ideas of currency and credit are a particular inhibition can be relaxed, then private enterprise can in some measure take steps to bring about some amelioration of the problem which we are considering. It must be obvious that the primary consideration in an approach to a social security code is that you do make the ultimate attempt to employ all your people who can be employed, because on that basis you then, as has been pointed out in this report, get that national income which is equal to bearing the strain. But there will still, I am sure, although these good intentions may have their way, and these earnest people would make these steps forward—there will still be a gap and the people who were employed up to their limit of begin employed would be burdened with the task of providing for those who even under those favourable conditions could not be employed. We all know that in connection with employment and unemployment Sir William Beveridge said very clearly that his assumptions and calculations were based on a minimum employment level, and I think I am right when I say that he placed that figure at 85 per cent. of the employable population of Great Britain. I quite fortuitously happened to be listening in one evening, when he spoke over the wireless after he had presented his code to Parliament, and he said these words in effect: That if Great Britain, if those people in Great Britain whose duty it was, whose care it was, to provide employment, were not able to attain a minimum of 85 per cent. of total employment then his particular proposals were not the answer to Britain’s problem. I should very much dislike to think that we are contemplating at the beginning of our consideration of a social security code something that is mean and unworthy of us as a community. Because I believe it can be said to be a law that any country, if it is determined, can, out of the resources of that country, provide for what may be called the primary needs of its citizens. I am not prepared to go further than that, but I say it can be laid down as a law that in any country the Government can by the control of the country’s resources and rightful exploitation, provide at least for the primary needs of its people, and those primary needs are food, clothing and housing, and of course, a job of work in order that the human being may not degenerate into something less than a human being—the job of work always being in the background. Despite the fact that up to now the Government has not seen fit as a Government to interfere scientifically in the running of industry, the fact remains that if the Government saw fit to interfere scientifically, to my mind you have the basis upon which you can start to deal with the problem, which will mean that no one in this country will starve or be without clothes or a job. But I come to this conclusion, that it must be the Government ultimately who is going to make that possible. I have come to that conclusion because of my participation in investigations during the past twelve months or so into the scope and into the cost and the means whereby social security can be brought about. And I want to say this again, that this particular summary which hon. members have before them is to my mind the presentation, the honest presentation of a sincere attempt to carry out an investigation, but it falls short here. The report is the subject of an investigation which was carried out not with the idea of finding some radical means by which we can carry out our desire, but it was inhibited by the fact that the investigation took place within the bounds of our present system, and all it means. I want to say in this House that this summary and the reports with which it deals simply do not go outside the present control of finance, and the inhibitions it sets upon industry to find a solution of the problem. That is why we have to note with disappointment the possibility of having to wait until 1947 before even a start is made in what is generally agreed to be an inadequate approach to the problem. That is why we experience that disappointment. There is not at the moment that radical intention to do something extraordinary to meet the problem. I suppose the Minister whom we would have to chivvy—I think that is what it would mean—would be the Minister of Finance, and for that Minister I have a certain amount of sympathy, but on the other hand this is the truth of the matter— if there is in this House resident somewhere that kind of authority that can at the appropriate moment do the extraordinary thing in order to meet the extraordinary case, then I feel that that authority sits somewhere within the bounds of some Ministry, and in this particular case I think it must be seated within the bounds of the Ministry of Finance, and I am very concerned to know what will be the opinion of the Minister of Finance regarding the cost of this particular scheme which is much less than the cost of something which would be more pleasing to many of us and more satisfactory to the people of this country. But I am prepared to say this, that if the Minister of Finance is not prepared to step outside the bounds of orthodox finance, if he is still determined to pursue the course which he has pursued in the national emergency before and during the war, and is content to indulge in the orthodox methods of raising money, he will not be able to raise enough money to pay for this scheme. Now we must face that fact. These things cannot happen unless the Minister of Finance is prepared to set aside the normal operations of finance. And now I want to quote for the comfort of those of my hearers who are firm believers of the capitalist system, something from the words of one who calls himself a capitalist. His name is V. C. Vickers and he was for nine years Governor of the Bank of England, and for 21 years a director of one of the greatest insurance societies in Great Britain, and this is what he has to say—

Now here is another quotation—

He is referring to Britain but of course it equally applies to this country—

And then he goes on to say—

And then my final quotation is this—

And that capitalist person makes as his first suggestion for monetary reform, State control and State issue of currency and credit by a Central Organisation managed and controlled by the State. Now, sir, to conclude, the people of South Africa only expect that this House and its Ministers will get together to erect the shelter in which they, may find sanctuary in times of economic, and physical distress. They have the right to expect it, and we shall only have discharged our conscience when that is achieved.

I rise to propose an amendment to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). My amendment reads as follows—

1. (a) Security of employment for all sections of the people;
2. (b) extension of national health services so that health services shall be free to all citizens;
3. (c) a National Housing Corporation to organise, direct and finance adequate housing facilities, in particular for sub-economic families and demobilised service men;
4. (d) a War Service Rehabilitation Council to provide for the rehabilitation of service men and women and their orderly resettlement in civil occupations;
5. (e) comprehensive Social Insurance designed to protect the families of all the population against age, sickness, disability, invalidity, widowhood, orphanhood, unemployment and other contingencies; and
6. (f) a Social and Economic Planning Council to advise the Ministries concerned in the administration of social security.”

Mr. Speaker, my reason for moving this amendment is, in the first place, that the motion moved by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is strictly not a comprehensive social security motion at all. I feel that it is only right that this House and the country at large should have a clearer and more definite picture as to what social security really is in its full comprehensiveness. In the second place, I want to say that today the thought of many thousands of people throughout South Africa are centred on the debate that is now going on in this House. The organisation of which I happen to be chairman at the moment has many thousands of members and large numbers of committees throughout the country; and the public of this country is looking to the Government, in the desperate position in which our people are today, to take some definite steps towards establishing a socially secure South Africa after the war. I want to mention a third reason, and that is, that I may be able to make some contribution towards urging the Government to take steps, not in 1945, but immediately, to give the people an adequate form of social security. Mr. Speaker, this war has been described as a war of survival. If that is so, then its aim and its issue must surely be the survival and the extension of the fundamental rights of the common man: the right to live, that is work security; the right to adequate food, that is table security; the right to a decent house to live in, that is home security; the right to have freely all the services that medical science can give to him and his family, that is health security; and the right to family insurance, that is income security, covering the family against those social and economic hazards always incidental to our social life. Once these fundamental rights are honoured in their totality, then only will the families of this country be adequately protected; and the integrity of our family life be preserved. Then only will this Government subserve the moral law of God; and justify its existence and its policy. It is the insistent will of the South African people today that the Government of this country will entrench, in the social fabric of South Africa, a people’s charter of Social Security, which in its impact on every farm, and factory, and business, and on every family, will create the means to enable our people to enter the post-war period with the same tempo in work and with the same rising standard of living as they are enjoying today. It is the responsibility and the duty of the Government to provide the pattern and the motive and the instruments for a people’s new bill of rights as early as possible. If that is done, if that is planned for, if that is prepared for, with all the ingenuity at our disposal, then our people will reaffirm their faith in democracy as an instrument of social justice; they will have no reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of our leaders to give people the post-war security that has been promised them. Our people demand the right to live, that is, work security, the right to a permanent place in the working life of the people, the right to enjoy through work, man’s social and spiritual and physical heritage. The carrying out of that right is going to depend on the provision of full employment for all our people as the most pressing duty of our Government today. As in war so in peace; if it is possible for us to have full employment in order to kill, dreadful as that necessity may be, it is equally possible for us to have full employment in peace in order to live in peace. We are not shaping up to that fundamental requirement with vision or courage. I believe that indictment in the No. 1 report of the Social and Economic Planning Council still holds good today, namely, that the question of providing employment after the war is not being taken seriously. In fact, many Government reports —I am glad to say this White Paper is not one of them—and many statements made in high quarters, are tending to induce a dangerous depression psychosis amongst the people. If that happens, and if we drift into the same conditions as in 1921, with high interest rates, with an overvalued pound, with mass unemployment, with industrial and business collapses, and with large numbers of men on the demoralising dole, as happened in the world at that time, then the consequences will be due entirely to the inactivity and the lack of courage and vision on the part of our Government. Our people must be assured that this bogy of depression will be laid. If we break down as we did in 1920 on the fundamental issue of providing work then the tide of revolution, already beating on our shores, will inundate this land with catastrophic results. A post-war policy, based fundamentally on the provision of human needs, will be so beneficial and so revolutionary that the Government should call in the aid of all the elements in private enterprise, in order to make it a reality. That demands the undertaking of a gigantic programme of social reconstruction. That would mean giving us a substitute market for the war market, maintaining our national income and our volume of work. The Government having accepted that aim, I believe it will then be a reasonable duty to expect from our Department of Labour that some definite regulation be introduced to guarantee all workers against arbitrary dismissal, whether by Government or private employers, that is to ensure that workers are not deprived of their jobs unless they have another job to go to. In addition to that, in order to prevent the introduction of a dole system, it might be wise to guarantee industries some degree of minimum profitability, and by these methods impose a code of conduct both on employers and employees. In that way the State will stand as the guarantor of the people’s right to work, the right to live decently. Then there is the right of food, or table security. This must be guaranteed. In this House hon. members has unmistakably evinced their impatience of the denial of the right to adequate food particularly to our lower-paid workers and to the majority of our families. This is not due to our physical incapacity to provide food for them. It is not a question of the goodwill of our farmers; that is assured. It is due entirely to the ineffective organisation centred in the State. I believe that, if in 1939, we had set up a Stabilisation Council in this country, to peg wages and salaries and costs and profits and directors’ fees, instead of a system of cost of living allowances and timid hit-and-miss control methods—and if there had been planning and quotas and discipline in regard to agricultural output, we would not now be confronted with the tragic position into which the Food Control Department has thrown thousands of our families, aided, as that tendency has been, by the uncontrolled inflation which is lowering the value of our money and driving many deserving families below the poverty line. It is not yet too late to set up such a council. It is a matter of the greatest urgency, and the urgency is of an explosive character, that we do something immediately in regard to the question of the better control and distribution of our foodstuffs. If we go into an unplanned peace without a Social Security plan to guide us, with our money depreciating day by day, with a shortage of housing and food, with inadequate control over our economy generally, then there is a certainty that in this country there will be social chaos, political unrest, industrial strife, and our men and women now on service will ask in anger: “Is this what we have been fighting for? Is this the new order of democracy?” I want to be frank, and I want to be practical and helpful. So I would suggest that in framing our People’s Charter, we plan without delay to achieve farm security in South Africa, in order to ensure an adequate flow of food at proper nutritional standards to the people of this country. By the establishment of a farm security council we can insure the farmer against drought, disease, hail and so on; guarantee him minimum prices or a minimum profitability; and undertake an exhaustive land usage survey in the Union. Through the council we could impose quotas and discipline in regard to agricultural production, and We might even consider taking over under the tutelage of the Department of Agriculture, going even to the extent of nationalising them, the uneconomic farms of the country. I believe if measures like these were undertaken, we would conserve our rural economy and ensure adequate food for all our people. To provide that requirement, that vital right to food, we need at least 300 per cent. increase in the production of food from our soil. We have 10,000,000 people, but we produce enough milk for only 3,000,000; cheese for only 2,000,000; meat and bread for only 5,000,000. Only in fruit and sugar are we producing enough for all. And in regard to fruit, we are in a desperate muddle, as to how we can best deal with any surplus. So badly organised is our agricultural industry today that, at this moment at least 20,000 gallons of fresh milk are a daily surplus, because families who are in need of it are unable to buy it because of the high market price. I believe that we are losing something like 600,000 cattle and 3,000,000 sheep every year through undernourishment, the same number as we slaughter. It is estimated that during the ten years ending 1940, our farmers lost £150,000,000 in income due to over-capitalisation, uneconomic prices, and sub-economic farms. Our Native peasantry, increasing at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum, is pressing to breaking point on the fertility of the soil, which is diminishing at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum. That is largely the result of our policy of congesting 80 per cent. of our rural population on only 5 per cent. of our 200,000,000 acres. Is it any wonder that though 70 per cent. of our total population lives on the land, the total contribution to the national income from our agricultural industry is only 12 per cent. In the face of this disruption and chaos in our primary industry, I am sure that every hon. member will realise how desperately necessary it is to have some centralised authority to rationalise our agricultural economy; otherwise social security is going to be impossible. Only in that way can we save agriculture from deterioration and ultimate eclipse; only in that way can we make it a business in its own right. That is not so today; for up to 1940 this House had voted something like £80,000,000 for agriculture, £16,000,000 of which is irrecoverable. A national food policy, undertaken as an integral part of the Social Security plan, directed by a farm security and nutrition council, and based on human needs, is the obvious spearhead for agricultural and economic prosperity. It will be one of the effective ways of meeting the requirement for an increased national income. Then there is the fundamental right to decent housing; that is essential to family security. We only vaguely recognise that right today in our South African social system. We still work on the basis that housing must be an economic proposition; for thousands of our people, that has never been so, and today cannot be so; they have inadequate incomes, and no savings are possible for people doomed to depend on mere subsistence wages. Housing for them, therefore, becomes a social service to be undertaken by the State. We have nearly 1,000,000 families requiring adequate housing. The State estimates that we require 250,000 houses; we need at least 750,000. The State proposes to spend £400,000 to build 15,000 houses a year. At that rate we are never going to catch up with our housing needs. To do the job properly we require to spend at least £20,000,000 a year for some years ahead. And that is the suggestion made in this White Paper. While Cape Town has its District Six and pondokkie settlements, while Johannesburg has its Vrededorp; and Durban has its Black Belt and its Indian squalor; and similar conditions exist in other parts of the Union, we should bow our heads in shame that these abominable conditions should be found in any Christian State. To clean up districts like these all through the country, to undertake to give to every family the right to a decent house, that is a State responsibility just as much as the war is a State responsibility. Mr. Speaker, if we are determined to meet the housing challenge, we must set up a national Housing Corporation in place of the present Housing Board. We want a general housing scheme, directed by an authority to co-ordinate all plans on a Union basis; to finance building by grants through the local authorities, or loans at low interest rates, for the benefit of our ex-soldiers and our sub-economic families. If we appointed someone like the present Director of War Supplies in charge of such a national Housing Corporation, we should pretty soon stop the humbugging and frustration; we should soon evolve a real national housing scheme and get on with the job. Such a scheme would be a work-creating factor of tremendous significance. Moreover, a wide market, would be created as a present of the building of the houses, and providing their equipment and their furnishing. That would tend to off-set any depression and would create the environment in which social security would become possible. And every family in our midst—and we must build our social security planning around our family life—every family in our midst has an indisputable right to health security, to health services, provided by the community. This also we must regard as a social service, not as vested interest, not as monopoly in medical, chemical and surgical supplies and services. Today we deny, on a wide and disastrous scale the right of free access by our families to health and medical care. The need is very urgent. Our South African community is reeking in social diseases; our infantile mortality and our tuberculosis rates are probably the highest in the world, greater perhaps than that of the countries of occupied Europe. One-third of our European children and three-fifths of our non-European children are suffering from starvation. I am not going to call it malnutrition. We stand as a people convicted of colossal and wanton waste of the precious life force of our people; and we shall continue to ruin our working efficiency until we have a state-organised health service providing medical, hospital, dental and allied services, free to all; only then shall we come to grins with the great problem of disease. Unless we put our health services on a free basis from kraal to city bourgeois home, we, shall not maintain white civilisation in this sub-continent, because we shall be wilfully destroying to a calamitous extent the productive powers of large numbers of our 11,000,000 people. Truly ours is a homicidal civilisation. It is to be hoped that the Health Services Commission will be courageous in their recommendations. In the meantime it is the duty of this Parliament to decide that, not next year but now, arrangements be made to give free medical services wherever they can be provided; these services should be provided through the Health Department as a national liability even though the cost may run into some £6,000,000 a year. And with the right to work, the right to food, the right to a home, the right to health services, all guaranteed under a people’s charter, there is another right, and that is the right of every family to income security. This is termed social insurance; it is often mistaken for social security. In England, as suggested by Sir William Beveridge, in Australia as now about to become law, in New Zealand as in operation since 1939, in Canada also, social insurance has become the basis for social security. And in this great crusade for providing security for our families and our people, South Africa alone of the big units in the Commonwealth, lags behind. The principle of social insurance—and I am very sorry that the White Paper does not emphasise this—is that it must be based on compulsory savings and not on taxation. The contribution to social insurance is not a tax any more than the payment of a premium to get an endowment policy is a tax, or a contribution from salary into a government fund for old age pensions, or other benefits. They are not taxes, but in a sense the very best form of savings. We want through social insurance to give every citizen of this country a vested interest in his own welfare during working life; and enable him to make provision against retirement when age demands this step. In the full operation of social insurance, by personal provision through saving the citizen will be afforded protection against the major contingencies of life, that is against age, sickness, orphanhood, invalidity, widowhood, unemployment, disability and death. I believe that is as far as it is necessary to go in our social insurance plans at the present moment. Many sections of the population will undoubtedly have to come into the scheme for a time being on a non-contributory basis. Such a plan will probably cost the country £30,000,000 a year, but of this amount, the compulsory savings of the people will contribute to the extent of about £26,000,000. Obviously some form of state contribution, probably involving £4,000,000, a year will be necessary to supplement those savings. I want to emphasise that this is not going to be new money; in fact, very little, if any of it, will be new money; that consideration is also omitted in the summary of the Social Security Report presented to the Government. It will not be new money because if we were to make a calculation today of what it costs the people in the form of charges for services similar to those for social insurance, in connection with age, sickness, invalidity and unemployment; if we consider the forfeited insurance, the burden of charities, municipal and other help to the poor, and if we add to that the tremendous burden of private medical debt, my own estimate is that the present cost is not far short of £40,000,000 a year. In fact, I believe if we had a unified plan for complete and adequate social insurance on a fair and equitable national basis, we would be able to make a considerable saving in the early stages of the scheme, provided we limited the benefits as I have suggested. Social insurance as part of social security, as part of the South African people’s charter, would provide family coverage to protect every family against the menace of want, of debt, and of unemployment. The case for social insurance, covering all races is admitted by the Government; the Government committee has reported: in a comprehensive way. As one who has taken an active part in propagating social security ideas, I rejoice to read a White Paper so comprehensive as the one that has been presented to this House. And I believe the right hon. the Prime Minister will determine to crystallise that report, and whatever may emerge out of the debates in this House, into legislation. It is the hope of 100,000 neglected aged people now living on a pitiful dole, of 10,000 needy and neglected widows, of many thousands of deserving families deprived today of the ordinary decencies of life, of workers everywhere who, on account of sickness and unemployment, lost something like £120,000,000 in wages in the period 1932 to 1939, of thousands who are carrying a heavy burden of medical debt—it is their fervent hope that the Prime Minister will give them a new social contract after the war to guarantee them against want. I believe, Mr. Speaker, they are not going to look in vain. Now in all our plans for social security, we must not repeat the tragedy of World War No. 1, when to our disgrace we neglected the ex-service men who served us then. Our people’s Charter must make that impossible. It will do so; for all essential human rights will be protected and assured. But that is not enough. We must do more than the minimum for these men. They stand as a special group. They have given social status, preferment, and life itself for national security. We have made promises on a lavish scale; but hon. members know how woefully short of these promises we have fallen, in this high public duty. The Government, this Parliament, in 1939, on behalf of the people of South Africa, sent them to the war; and the people of this country, through this Parliament, must see that this Government guarantees them Social Security when they return. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for us to guarantee them statutory rights, not promises or war regulations; not anaemic Bills like that now proposed by the Minister of Labour, but rights to claims on the State for careers, not jobs; for protection against exploitation; for subsidies, grants and loans for vocational training; for physical and social rehabilitation; for assistance in regard to farms; for the purchase of businesses; for the acquirement of tools of trade; in short, full compensation in every way for all forms of loss, and loss of apprenticeship and civil promotion. Those claims must be expressed in terms of Social Security, and they must be administered by a War Service Rehabilitation Council, consisting entirely of ex-servicemen; and we can get efficient ex-servicemen and women in all walks of life. Only in that way shall we be able to ensure full confidence on the part of these men and women that they will be looked after when they return. When in 1939 this House took the momentous decision to declare war on Germany, we did not ask, the House did not ask, can we afford it? Is the country productive enough to wage war?, Is our national income big enough for the purpose? No, but in a splendid gesture of faith we accepted the dreadful imperative of war, without reservations, without equipment, without an army. We mobilised our army. The first thing we did was to give the men and women in it Social Security; i.e. we gave them housing, food, clothing, health services, pensions and family allowances as well as a guaranteed family income. It is costing us £100,000,000 a year to provide Social Security for them; and I have never yet—and I say it to his credit—heard the Minister of Finance complain about having to find that money; and he will find the same amount during the next ten years if the war lasts that time. I say, too, that the country does not complain, will not complain, if the same money has to be found for a Social Security plan. To the Jeremiahs, to the non-belligerents in our midst, and some of them are in high places, wail that we are too poor, too unproductive, to undertake this war against poverty, disease and low living—for that is what our crusade for Social Security involves —I say, have courage to match the courage that was displayed in September, 1939. Drop the Munich mentality which lost us the peace after the last war, and nearly lost us this war, until Churchill came with a gospel of hope and courage and resolution and sacked the appeasers, and made the impossible possible. Give our people their Social Security and they will ensure such productivity from farm and factory and business as will win the peace, as our men on service are now helping to win the war. Let us be warned against neglect in this great issue. I believe that if we demobilise these men and women into an environment where they are not going to enjoy the same extent of social security as they are enjoying in the army today, we are going to have serious trouble and unrest in South Africa. I know that we are going to be asked how we are going to pay for this Social Security. I have indicated that our social insurance can be paid through the compulsory savings of the people, and if the cost is offset against the cost now involved in various services to which the State and the people have to contribute, the burden is not going to be so heavy as we realise. But the housing and the nutrition and the health and the rehabilitation services must all be regarded as social services; and they can be paid for out of taxation; even heavier taxation than that indicated as necessary in the White Paper. This means we shall require £30,000,000 for the Social Insurance coverage I have suggested, plus, on my own estimate, £40,000,000 to provide for social services and capital construction therefor. I submit to this House that this country, paying as it does £100,000,000 every year for war, and building up capital equipment and prospering by the war, can continue to find the resources from its taxable capacity, can find the means to finance social security. As an economist I believe that to be possible without adding to the funded debt of the country and without financial embarrassment. I want to say as one who has no party affiliation, and as one who has the support of many thousands of people in this country, for this programme, that I will gladly offer my services to the Government in order to carry out to the full a social security programme on the lines I have indicated; there are many members of this House who will do likewise; and I make an appeal to every party to drop party shibboleths, and party interests for the time being and make this House into an action committee representative of all sides of the House for the purpose of bringing about and putting into working effect this great People’s Charter. This Parliament can, if it wills, if it is wise, make a reality of our People’s Charter. On a four year plan on the lines I have indicated, can lay the foundation of a productive and distributive system so that all who serve the people, from the humblest native to the richest citizen may do so without fear of poverty, unemployment or neglected ill-health. I hope a select committee will be set up to formulate a plan and draft legislation. Mr. Speaker, I say this with all due deference, that the best memorial we can create to the Prime Minister’s life of devotion to his people, is to enact, during this session, a People’s Social Security Charter which shall bear his imprimatur, which shall make him God’s minister to our South African community, and which in its ungratified honouring of the fundamental rights of all our families to work, to food, to health, to homes, to family security, will carry us a very considerable step forward towards the goal of civilisation: the Kingdom of God, on earth, for all races, here, in our own South Africa.

I second. I think we may claim that the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) is probably the pioneer of social security in South Africa, and I feel sure the House would not be taking the action it contemplates taking had it not been for the actions of the hon. member for Berea, and I am sure I express the views of the majority of the members of this House when I say that we are indebted to him for the speech he made this afternoon. He mentioned that we should drop all party spirit in this connection. I have received a number of telegrams from individuals and from influential organisations in South Africa asking me to support social security. I feel I am quite in order in drawing attention to the request of the Social Security Organisation, the Social Security Council, and also to draw attention to the lack of action on the part of a prominent member of that Council—a member of this House. Why should it be necessary for the hon.

member for Berea to have a seconder from another party when he has in this House a member of the Social Security Council. That member, like others, has travelled round with the hon. member for Berea and he has said that he would give him every support and if necessary compel the Government to take action in regard to social security. Yet, when the opportunity presents itself, where do we find that hon. member—I am referring to the hon. member for Durban Point (Dr. V. L. Shearer)? He is not in his seat. One does not like to say it, but it seems that he has not got the guts to support a motion of this kind.

I want the hon. member to withdraw that objectionable word.

I withdraw it, but I do feel that we should have a little sincerity and honesty.

The hon. member is making reflections on another hon. member.

It is somewhat regrettable that we have members in this House who will travel from meeting to meeting with a leader of an organisation of this kind, and will stand on platforms and talk with their tongue in their cheeks, and when the opportunity arises.…

The hon. member must refrain from making these reflections on hon. members. He must at once cease from doing so.

Well, I hope the leaders of the Social Security Organisation will take note of the people from whom they expect to receive support. Evidently they have not done so. That is all I wish to say in this connection. It is my desire to expedite this debate today and do all that is possible to bring about a social security code for South Africa. I hope the Government will be able to adopt the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea and endeavour to give to South Africa a social security code on the lines put forward by the last speaker. I have pleasure in seconding the amendment.

About two years ago, during a debate in this House, a few remarks were made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, to which I should like to draw the attention of the House today. I read his speech with interest, and the fundamental changes which he then noticed have apparently progressed further today than was the case two years ago. Amongst other things, he observed that there was a tremendous gap in the relationship between poor and rich, a matter which has enjoyed the attention of this country for years. He further observed that to a certain extent there was in progress a class formation throughout the country, and in this connection reference was made especially to the poor whites who came into existence as a result of poverty in the country, a class which really came into existence as a result of new competition, new development which had not previously existed in the society of South Africa. It was further remarked that unless steps were taken to counteract the maladjustment in the relationship between wealth and poverty, we must expect the social community to crumble, and finally the remark was made that unless we took steps to counteract the maladjustment and to place the relationship on a better footing, which can only be done by co-operation and control of production to a certain extent, we would inevitably have to face the road to destruction. The Prime Minister therefore drew the attention of the House to the possibility of a co-ordinating body, a planning board. I mention these facts at the commencement of my speech because I believe it is of fundamental importance to draw the attention of the House thereto. There are certain conditions which must be resisted, and if the present Government does not do so, if the nation is not prepared, or the House is not prepared to pay attention to these conditions, then there must inevitably follow a crumbling of the social conditions in South Africa, apparently following the example of some European country or other. I think that we all noted with interest the determination with which notice was being taken of altered conditions, which should really be called “evils” and for that reason we all look forward to measures which can and must be taken to counteract these evils. The attention which the House has given to the motion before the House and also the amendment, is proof of the seriousness of the House and the necessity of taking steps to put a stop to the existing conditions. For fully fifty years South Africa has made investigations into the causes of these conditions. From time to time reports have been submitted. In the past I have given a great deal of attention to dozens of these reports. The time has now arrived—the time is overripe for active steps—to put a stop to these conditions. In view of that. I want to move the following further amendment—

1. (a) the establishment of a truly representative and capable Central Board of Economics which, in collaboration with a reformed control board system, will advise the Government on all aspects of our economic life as far as may be necessary for the systematic development of all our resources, the coordination of the different economic interests, the elimination of parasitic activities and the preservation of social justice by means of profit restrictions and wages and price determinations;
2. (b) effective State control of the gold mining industry and, where it proves to be in the interest of the people, also of key and other industries, including the representation in the directorates of such industries of the Government as representative of the people and the sharing in the profits by the State, the shareholders and the workers on a basis determined by the State;
3. (c) effective State control of all credit facilities and of banking, with the object inter alia of promoting our own economic development and destroying the domination of foreign capital;
4. (d) the rehabilitation of the farming community by ensuring payable market prices for farm products and the elimination of over-capitalisation of the agricultural industry by means of a State-aided mortgage redemption scheme;
5. (e) the settlement on a large scale on agricultural land of landless farmers who apply for such land and have the required ability, inter alia, by the expropriation of company-owned land which is held solely for speculative purposes and is not profitably occupied by Europeans;
6. (f) the introduction of our own separate currency;
7. (g) the effective protection of all workers against unfair competition from foreigners by means of a radical revision of our immigration regulations;
8. (h) the introduction of an equitable segregation and quota system in respect of the employment of Europeans and non-Europeans respectively in State and other industrial enterprises together with a system of minimum wages for Europeans, coloured and natives;
9. (i) provision for healthy and inexpensive housing on a national scale together with the removal, within the shortest possible time, of slum conditions;
10. (j) the establishment of a national health service in order to organise instruction on health matters on a national scale and to bring medical treatment in all its aspects within the reach of all classes of the population;
11. (k) the total improvement and modification of the existing systems of social services and pensions, including old age, mothers’, oudstryders’ and miners’ phthisis pensions, disability allowances and workmen’s insurance against accidents and illness; and
12. (l) the acceptance by the State of full responsibility for the employment of the unemployed, inter alia, in undertakings in the public interest in accordance With an extensive and previously designed scheme.

I listened with interest to the movers of the motion and the amendment, and I think the House was pleasantly surprised by the level on which the discussion took place. As one who feels that this is an exalted occasion, I do not want to contribute in dragging this subject into the sphere of political controversy. Although there are fundamental differences in the views of this side of the House and the views of the other side, it is still necessary, as far as possible, to keep these tremendous social problems outside the sphere of political controversy. In dealing with and in considering the remedies which have to be resorted to, in approaching and judging the big problems affecting the existence of the nation, we must remain objective as far as possible, and not regard these questions from a sectional point of view, although it is unfortunately a fact that that section of the people which is faced with the greatest struggle, is the section of the population I belong to. I hope it will be possible for this House, motivated by the seriousness of this matter, once and for all to convince the Government that it must take the necessary steps. Today there are three motions before the House or rather four, namely the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) the amendment which was placed on the Order Paper on behalf of this side of the House, and then there was also laid on the table of the House, and distributed to hon. members, a summary of the Social Security scheme recommended by the Social Security Committee and a Report in connection therewith by the Planning Council. At this stage I do not want to say anything in regard to the proposals of the Planning Council. I do not think that it would be desirable for me at this stage to level any criticism against any aspect of the report, until such such time as the Government has had an opportunity either of accepting the proposals or of accepting them partially, or of rejecting them, and thereafter of making proposals in regard to what the Government intends doing in connection with these social evils. I said a moment ago that it was clear that there were differences between the proposals emanating from the various sides of the House and also the memorandum of the Planning Council. There is, however, no difference in motives. Everyone is convinced that the evils which exist must be eradicated. The differences which exist between the various proposals are, firstly, in respect of the scope of the proposals. It is clear that there is a difference in scope with regard to the plans and the measures which are contemplated—the objects generally speaking. I repeat that I do not doubt the motives underlying anyone of these motions. They are based on the firm conviction that there is want. In the second instance there is this difference, that we hold different views with regard to the execution or possibility of execution of the various proposals. There is another difference, and that is that the hon. member for Krugersdorp adopts the attitude that the policy in respect of the transformation of social conditions in South Africa is closely connected with the World War. My opinion is that the social conditions in South Africa are so acute and that it is so essential to tackle them, that it is not at all necessary to link up the matter with the present war. On the contrary, I am convinced that it will be better for everyone concerned not to link up with the war the proposals which are before the House today for the improvement of conditions in South Africa. The world has lost faith in measures which are promised during war-time, and for that reason I believe that we should rather confine ourselves to the motions as such, in order to find measures for the rectification of the conditions which exist. I again want to give the assurance to the House and to the people in the country, on behalf of the members on this side of the House, that the men and women Who are in uniform today, who are in military service—although we as a group declared ourselves against the war—will not be subjected to discrimination because they donned uniform. I should like to point out a few aspects where my proposals differ from those which have already been proposed. In the first place my amendment differs, as far as its scope is concerned, from the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, but he has already explained that it was not his intention to introduce a comprehensive amendment but only, as it were, a nucleus for reform. For that reason I do not want to emphasise this point. I do, however, want to express surprise at the fact that the hon. member for Krugersdorp accepted by implication the existing economic system and that he regards that system as suitable for the solution of our problems. Well, if that is his opinion, he will be disappointed and he will remain disappointed. The present economic system is not adequate to meet the demands of the country, to solve our problems, and for that reason we differ fundamentally to this extent that I adopt the attitude that in approaching these problems, that in an endeavour to create new social conditions, we cannot carry on with the present system. For the purpose of solving the problems of public health and welfare and housing, the present system is not adequate. The present system, unchanged, cannot meet the present-day demands. And in this respect we on this side of the House are not without support. I want to refer the House to paragraph six of the memorandum in regard to social services — the scope and costs involved. It proposes assistance to certain non-productive forces in the country. Three groups are mentioned, but it is stated towards the end that it is essential that a direct attack should be made at the same time by means of constructive measures upon poverty which has its roots in the inadequate earnings of the large majority of people who are in remunerative employment; in other words, the elimination of the big gap which exists between the national income of the different groups. Here we are not dealing with a case of unemployment but with people who are employed, who render services according to their ability, but who, by virtue of the services which they render in the various branches of co-operation, are nevertheless not able to be independent. It is, therefore, confirmation of our attitude on this side of the House that the maintenance of the financial system presents no prospects of solving the problem, that a change must be brought about. I have said that I did not want to drag this matter into the sphere of political controversy, but if there is one matter in respect of which the hon. member for Krugersdorp will be bitterly disappointed, it is in the expectations which he cherishes of a statesman, if he regards him as the panacea for all ills. Practically speaking, South Africa has three State banks, namely the Central Bank under State control, the Land and Agricultural Bank, and for all practical purposes there is also the Industrial Development Corporation which also gives long term loans. There are three State banks. Of course, they can be altered very much, but the question is what the hon. member for Krugersdorp and his seconder really expect of a State bank. There is only one sound basis for a bank, and that is that it should advance loans against good security, and if further funds are required, those funds should come from the pockets of the public. The belief that a State bank can do wonders in creating credit, except to the extent provided for by the production sources of the country, is a myth — it does not exist. The hon. member mentioned New Zealand as an example. It is true that New Zealand has progressed a great deal in regard to its services, but the prosperity of New Zealand existed years before a State bank was introduced in New Zealand. I just want to say that that section of the House or the people in the country who expect the conversion of social conditions in South Africa through the magic means of a State bank, will be bitterly disappointed. The awakening will certainly not conduce to the building up of a sound state of affairs, and it will bring about the very upheaval which we want to prevent. So much with regard to the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. All the various motions have the same object in view. They differ in scope and basis and with regard to the measures to be taken. I just want to say in passing that it was interesting to listen to the eloquent statement by the hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Sullivan). We know how much attention he has paid to this matter. But South Africa is not in favour of the creation of boards. I do not want to be frivolous, but I think we can afford to export some of them. With regard to the motion which we have submitted to the House, I want to point out a few outstanding characteristics. In the first place it is comprehensive. It makes provision for all the elements of the social programme to combat existing evils; it makes provision for the combating of unemployment—we regard it as an obvious truth that unemployment is a responsibility of the State, but then the State must also have a greater say in industries, in the productivity and distribution. Not only do we accept the responsibility of the State for unemployment, but the motion goes further and aims at a state of affairs, in which there will also be protection for the workers, accompanied by a measure of self respect. At this stage I do not want to go into details. There is another motion which will prevent me from doing so, and, Sir, I should like to obviate in anticipation the necessity for you to call me to order, but the workers in South Africa who want to be happy, can never be happy by virtue of their earnings alone. There is this fact that the worker cannot live on bread alone, and for that reason, apart from health services and housing services, etc., there is the condition which we stipulate that he must be protected, still retaining his self respect. That appears in sub-paragraph (12) of our motion. The following paragraph refers to the position in reference to national housing—

1. (i) provision of healthy and inexpensive housing on a national scale together with the removal, within the shortest possible time, of slum conditions.

During the past few months, since I have been a member of this House, I have probably received half-a-dozen pamphlets from organisations which emphasise the housing needs in South Africa. I myself had the privilege ten years ago of making investigations into the labour and housing conditions in the platteland. I have not been able to confirm my remarks again today, but at that time I described the conditions as disgraceful. I know of conditions in the platteland which are a disgrace to civilisation, and which are a disgrace to a Christian country for tolerating such housing conditions. I am not referring to cities like Cape Town and Vrededorp, but I am referring to the city where I live, where we find buildings in the best residential areas—fortunately not many —where a whole family has to live in one room. That happens in the heart of the capital of South Africa. I say that the proposal which I make is comprehensive and makes provision for housing conditions, a state health service, for social services, etc., and then I come to this point that my motion makes provision for state control of credit. That is really what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) had in mind in his motion, namely, that there should be provision for the control of credit, so that severe restrictions will not be placed from time to time on credit, as has frequently happened in our economic history. My motion makes provision for state control of industries. It makes provision for the bases of systematic development. It is linked up with the central economic board. I notice in the report of the Planning Council that it is proposed to make certain changes in the composition and period of office of the council. No one can be disappointed in the work of the Planning Council on the ground of the work which has been performed in the circumstances, because however highly qualified the members may be technically, and however industrious they may be in their work, the composition of the board is such that apart from the personnel—and I have the greatest respect for the secretary—it is difficult to expect the best of the council. The members are expected to render part time service only. As I have said, I have the greatest respect for the secretary. I do not know whether there is any other technical personnel. As far as I have studied the composition, the individual members may be the very best, but having regard to the manner in which the council has to operate, we cannot possibly expect the same degree of board efficiency that we could expect from a central economic board. I say that a radical change must be brought about, and that we should make provision for a permanent council with a technical personnel, so that it will be able to function in various directions. I repeat that the motion which I am introducing here is, in my opinion, a comprehensive one. But any motion which aims in any way at meeting the requirements of the times, must in the nature of things, view matters from the point of view of domestic needs. We have one weakness in South Africa, and that is to view our needs in relation to other problems overseas. Unless we are prepared to regard this matter as a domestic measure—I have taken over this word from what the Prime Minister said the other day, namely, that conditions in South Africa were a domestic matter—we shall not be able to make much progress. I want to emphasise the fact that the view must not only be a domestic one in origin, but it must be exclusively domestic, and overseas problems must not be introduced in connection with the solution of our problems. If I interpret the development correctly, a considerable change will have to come about in the policy which is followed before national attention can be given to this matter on behalf of the nation. I said a moment ago that the State accepts responsibility for unemployment. But in terms of my motion the State also accepts responsibility for the conversion, supervision, control and division of our economic life and our social life. Yes, it goes further and even accepts responsibility for the re-classification of the national income. Unless the State accepts that, if we remain on the economic system which is in vogue today, we cannot make any progress, and for that reason I want to bring to the notice of the House the fact that unless the Government intends removing these evils and is prepared to go much further than the statement we have had today in regard to the Government’s duties, the Government will get nowhere. I maintain and believe that unless free reins— and now I want to choose my words carefully—unless the measure of freedom which the capitalistic system now enjoys is curtailed by the Government, it must inevitably render impossible the conditions sought to be established by the motions which are before this House. And unless the State assumes responsibility for the control of our industries and of all the allied branches of industry, the State cannot expect to bring about social reform. I am not proposing for a single moment that the right of private ownership and initiative and control should be weakened. I still believe that human values can best be increased by individual responsibility. I do not believe in a super-state which takes everything out of the hands of the individual, but unless the State is willing seriously to curtail the powers of the capitalist, the ambition of my friends on my left cannot be satisfied. It is fundamental that that should be done, and I am thankful that in my motion I was able to insert that the bases of the approach to this problem should be fundamentally changed in comparison to what they were in the past. The capitalist has had his day. At any rate, the experience of the world for the past 50 years has been that its effect has had to be seriously counteracted by means of both legislative and administrative measures. I do not want to allege that the measures which were taken, and which were also taken by this House—at one time I was co-responsible—did not actually produce a good effect. But those measures were most certainly not adequate, and merely to expect measures of that nature to comply with the demands of the times, is an idle expectation. Since the need has become so urgent, as admitted by all sides, and since conditions are such that one cannot find language to describe them, I want to make an appeal to this House to instruct the Government to adopt these measures. I appreciate the difficulties of the Government. I realise what the composition of the parties is today. I know that there are quite a number of people in the country who do not want these things. We have seen what the experience of the British Government was in connection with the Beveridge Report. If the requirements of the nation have to be complied with, quite a number of the powers behind the throne will have to be negatived, and quite a number of plums will have to be picked. In South Africa, where we want to maintain a Christian civilisation, we must pay more attention to the poverty and misery which exists, and if we want to maintain Christian civilisation in this country we must pay attention to fundamental reform. The question has been put here as to whether our financial and other resources in this country are sufficient. I believe that the commission which was appointed a few years ago to investigate our agricultural and industrial requirements, expressed the opinion that the resources of South Africa were adequate to ensure the welfare of the whole population. There is not a shortage of resources, but there is required a radical re-shaping of our economic system. Since there is an outcry throughout the world today for an improvement in conditions, and since there is divided attention, and since sufficient money is being found for the prosecution of the war, there is a very strong reason why the government of the day should not be weak in considering the claims of Social Welfare. Those claims aim at the reconstruction of the values of the human being. Since force now triumphs, the human being must again be given his value, and any Government of the day which does not want to heed the outcry which is going up in the country for the reform of conditions, will have to yield to the demands of the people, or it will have to yield to violence. I move my amendment.

I second.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that paragraphs (b), (d), (h) and (k) of the amendment which has just been moved anticipate certain motions of which notice has already been given, namely:

Strictly speaking the paragraphs in the amendment to which I have referred are blocked by the motions of which notice has previously been given and should therefore be disallowed. I think, however, that an amendment of such a general and comprehensive character could embrace the specific points raised in the notices of motion. It seems to me that the best course to follow is to allow the paragraphs to remain in the amendment and as far as possible to avoid discussing the notices of motion. The members who have given the notices of motion are of course at liberty to withdraw them, and if they do so, full discussion will be allowed on the amendment moved by Dr. Stals.

If there is one matter on which the public of this country has made up its mind it is that it wishes this Parliament during this session to grapple in a practical way with this problem of social security which has been discussed in this House this afternoon. One knows that that is so from one’s contact with public opinion outside this House, but if any further evidence were required of that fact, one had that evidence here this afternoon when no less than three separate motions were moved — two of them in the form of amendments — in each case asking for an elaborate social security scheme. There is no doubt about it; the public of this country has become social security conscious, and it wishes some practical step to be taken this Session. The Government has had no need to take part in this great competition, this race which has taken place here this afternoon. It has had no need to bring forward its own motion setting up its social security scheme, because the Government of this country authoritatively declared some two years ago through the Prime Minister where it stands with regard to social security, and more than that, the Government has taken steps in pursuance of that policy. The Government has appointed a Social and Economic Planning Council and a Social Security Committee, and that Social Security Committee, with the report of the Economic and Planning Council thereon, has been placed before this House in the form of a White Paper. We have had the spectacle this afternoon of no less than three different social security motions placed before the House. It is difficult for Parliament to deal with a social security scheme when there is this competition, and it seems to me that the only practical way of dealing with this question and dealing with it on the basis of the appeals —two appeals have been made here to handle the matter on a non-party basis — to send this matter to a Select Committee of this House so that this House can then grapple with the matter. I therefore want to move as a further amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg)—

The point has been made at another time before this House that members of Parliament do not get sufficient opportunity of assisting in the shaping of policy for the country. If this amendment is accepted, there will be an opportunity for members of Parliament in all Parties in the House to come to grips with this great problem. There is no need to convince this House that there is a very urgent need indeed for a social security scheme and for other social measures to grapple with the problems of malnutrition, lack of education, lack of housing, and better provision of health services. There is no need for me to convince the House for the great need there is for these measures. The White Paper which has been placed before hon. members makes the position quite clear, and shows quite clearly that the time is due for steps to be taken. So the position is that not only is there a very insistent demand that something should be done, but there is also a very urgent need indeed. A comprehensive social security scheme has been worked out by the Social Security Committee, and hon. members have seen the report thereon of the Economic and Planning Council, which is to the effect that ultimately the scheme will cost the sum of £160,000,000. That is not very far short of double the amount which this country is at present spending on its war effort, and the Economic and Planning Council, in the realistic way it has dealt with the problem, in the sober way it has looked at the problem—which contrasts to some extent with the way in which some of the motions were introduced today—have indicated that the resources of the country at the present time are not sufficient to foot that bill, and the country is faced with the further disadvantage that producers’ prices are higher in the Union than in other countries. In addition, our national income per head of the population is considerably lower than that of a number of other countries. Taking into consideration the fact that our national income per head of the population is relatively very low, the fact that producers’ prices are high and the astronomical figure which the scheme will cost, it is clear that the challenge presented by this report is perhaps the greatest challenge that this country has faced, apart from the war in which we are now involved. Fortunately the Committee does not, because of these great difficulties, advise that the question should be tackled; it has advised that it should be tackled in the first instance by a short range policy, by starting in 1947, and in the second place by having a ten year plan during which there will be an intensive production drive in order to increase our national income by 50 per cent. by the year 1955. But what is very important is that the Council draws attention to the fact that the nation ought to have brought home to it the magnitude of this task, the tremendous challenge that is facing the people. It is important that one should stress that in contrast to what is often done by political speakers throughout the country, namely, to emphasise not the magnitude of the task facing the country but rather to emphasise the magnitude of the benefits which they propose to give to the people under their social security scheme. For instance, I think the hon. mover of the amendment which was moved on behalf of the Nationalist Party has not given any indication to the House as to the cost of his scheme, if it were accepted. I make bold to say that if that scheme were introduced, it would cost a great deal more than the schemes suggested by the Social Security Committee and the Social and Economic Planning Council. And it was also evident from the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp that he was dealing largely with the tremendous benefits which the people ought to get. His seconder took a more realistic view of the position. He is a member of the Social and Economic Planning Council, and he realises that there has to be a limitation to the cost of any scheme that the country can be asked to shoulder, and his way out of the difficulty was to make a plea for the abolition of private enterprise. The same line was followed to some extent by the hon. member who moved the amendment on behalf of the Nationalist Party. In these matters one has to take the position as it is and as it is likely to be for years. In this country we have the system of private enterprise, and any social security scheme that is introduced has to fit in with that system, and the scheme that has been worked out by the Social Security Committee and the Social and Economic Planning Council is a scheme based on private enterprise. If my amendment is accepted, it will be possible to take the full report as a basis for discussion. It will be possible to hear all the different views on that report, and it will be possible for a committee of this House to come to practical grips with this question, and in that way something definite and constructive can be done. I only want to say this—I do not want to detain the House at this late hour—that the fact of this problem being referred to a Select Committee need not, in my opinion, make the Minister of Finance or any other Minister feel that his hands are tied in giving greater social services in other directions in the meantime. For instance, I can see no reason, if a case is made out for an increase in the old-age pension, why that should not be done whilst this matter is still before the Select Committee. I beg to move accordingly.

I second the amendment.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned, to be resumed on 2nd February.