I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

When this debate was adjourned I was dealing with the position of Germany, and I was endeavouring to show this House that Germany over the past 100 years had proved to be systematically and consistently an aggressor nation. Whether it was under the time of Bismarck or under the Kaiser or under Hitler, it was shown by history that there had been a consistent policy of aggression. I would like to show that under the Hitler regime there was a determination by Germany to continue to challenge the world. I think we can show this, as I have already in the main, if we take the history of Germany in its approach to the Balkan states. When it approached these states in 1935 and 1936 Germany established trade treaties with Bulgaria, Rumania and Jugoslavia. These treaties were based on the barter system and payment had to be made by Germany by supplying manufactured articles, whereas the Balkan states had to supply agricultural produce and other raw material. The Nazi technique in this case was that after a period the credit balances of the Balkan states piled up in Germany, because she did not send sufficient of the manufactured goods, with the result that in 1936 the frozen credits in Germany, that is money owing to the Balkan states, was an amount of 31,000,000 reichmarks, 18,000,000 to Rumania and 13,000,000 reichmarks to Bulgaria. The technique of the Nazis was to freeze these credits and then to enter into new agreements, which they did with such success that before 1940 the position of Bulgaria was that there were amounts to their credit totalling £22,000,000 in Germany. The position therefore was this that the large sums of money due to the Balkan states gave to the Germans that influence over financial interests in those countries, and thereby commercial control, and through that they were enabled to exert pressure on the Government. After the Czechoslovakian tragedy the Balkan states were in a position of having to accept any bargain Germany put across them. We know King Boris in his control over Bulgaria, was throughout a pro-Nazi. Similarly, in Rumania we had Antonescu, who was a pro-Nazi. Thereafter the position was further secured by the appointment of Von Papen as ambassador at Ankara. In this way those states were kept apart in pursuance of Germany’s policy to see that they were divided, and when the German technicians went into those states there was little opposition, and further control beneficial to Germany was accepted. Therefore, I think it can be clearly shown right through history, both prior to the attack on Poland and since then, the policy of Germany in the building up of the German Empire was based on force and based on coercion. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved his motion, he endeavoured to advance the view that the position, as he saw it, was that the danger lay in Russia, that Russia was a danger to Europe. I submit this—I shall deal with Russia in a moment—

What about the Prime Minister’s speech?

It did not refer to Russia.

It did refer to Russia.

It did refer to Russia as a Colossus; it is a very different matter to be a Colossus. It is a very fine thing to have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use a giant’s strength, and it has yet to be seen whether Russia is going to use that strength. Up to now she has piled up her strength as we know for defence purposes, and she has done very well indeed.

What about Poland?

I will deal with that in a moment, but I want to say this: When Russia formed her government she built up with the knowledge that she had not got a friendly government in the whole world. She built up because she realised she had to defend her country and her nation against all systems. She was suspicious up to the outbreak of the war that there was some trap with which all nations would still turn on her. That was right up to the attack on Finland; that was right up to the agreement with Hitler. The Stalin policy was a policy to ensure that whatever happened they would be in a position to defend themselves.

Why did other nations turn on her?

Why should they?

America turned on Russia too.

Why did you not complain when they agreed with Hitler?

When Russia built up her strength she did so because she realised that she could depend only on herself. It was not so long ago, at the time of the Czechoslovakian-Munich affair Russia offered Great Britain a full military agreement; that was not accepted, but a bilateral agreement was proposed by France and Britain. That was the time when Stalin said he would not pick the chestnuts out of the fire for any other nation. To suggest that the Soviet avalanche is something threatening Europe is nothing else but trying to sidetrack the question as far as Germany is concerned. We have it from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself when he said that: “To the surprise of the Allied nations the military machine of Russia has developed to such a wonderful extent.” I wonder whether there was in the mind of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition something to the effect that Russia should have been good enough to let Germany know that they had a strong army, a strong air force that they had built up, and thus save Germany from making the blunder she did in attacking Russia. But the very fact that Russia secretly and carefully built up to defend herself—if you like, wickedly deceived Germany into attacking her …

Look at your capitalist friends enjoying it.

Russia today is a National and an Imperialistic State according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. A National and an Imperialistic State is not the same kind of thing as a Communist State. What a contradiction in terms, but that is what he said. Then I say this: That when Russia built up, when she proved that she was able to stand on her own legs and was able to defend herself, then it was we saw the change coming over some of our friends in South Africa; then it was that they must save the position for Germany. And how can they do it? By raising the bogy—and I use the word advisedly—that Russia is still threatening Europe. Before I conclude, I have to answer one important question, that arose when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that we knew the attitude of Russia towards religion. In that connection I want to quote a passage from the Dean of Canterbury’s book “Soviet Strength” (page 96)—

I am quoting from the Dean of Canterbury. He is a high prelate in the Church of England, and I think the reputation of the Dean is well known and his books are valuable, and the hon. member’s supercilious smile, if I may say so, does not alter the position. What is the danger that would come from Russia? In the Soviet charter there is this statement of the foundation of the constitution that was worked out in 1936—

I submit that already these things are spreading from Russia, and we hear of them in this House through our White Paper, and in England through the Beveridge Report. All these things are already established facts in Russia and have been attained in a peaceful way and are influencing many nations. These ideals clearly demonstrate that their objectives in this sense at any rate, are good and that it would be foolish to read any danger into them. I wish to say this, that in whatever post-war settlement there is we must see to it that there shall be a strong Poland, free and democratic, that there shall be a security league in the Balkans, also based on free and democratic foundations, and there I agree with the Prime Minister that on the western side of Europe there should be an economic pact or league between Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Great Britain, and also a free and revitalised France. We would then have Germany in a position that we would never again have to fear that her system and her methods would plunge this world into another blood bath. I want to say this in conclusion, that with reference to the suggestion that the establishment of a republic here is going to help the position, or will in some way secure a better outlook for South Africa, that in 1919, the Nationalist Party asked the Peace Conference for the re-establishment of the republics of the Transvaal and Free State; in 1926 they agreed that at the Imperial Conference South Africa had secured sovereign independence. Again in 1934 as a result of the Status Acts, they acclaimed the absolute independence of South Africa. But in 1944 they come back with a demand for a republic for the Union of South Africa. This cry comes at a time when we have built up huge industries, when we should be preparing to become the workshop of Africa, this war has caused the establishment of industries for the production of war requirements, with the danger ahead that these industries may, without markets, have to shut down when peace comes, with the absolute necessity that we should ensure that this country should be indeed the workshop of Africa, surely we should as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, cultivate warmer friendship with our neighbouring territories—with the Rhodesias, with Tanganyika and with East Africa. By following such a policy we would be doing a service to the population of this country, we should be enabled to raise the status of the poorer sections of the community, and we should be enabled to ensure a high standard of living and a reasonable level of prosperity for every South African.

If one analyses the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition one finds that the whole of it turns on the speech made by the Prime Minister in the British House of Parliament and I feel that to a large extent it is a question of interpretation, an interpretation is placed on the Prime Minister’s words today which, of course, suits one side of the House and not the other side, and that is what the motion is based on. Where the Prime Minister said that England would emerge from the war weaker than she was before we all agree that that is so. But that does not mean that England has lost the war or is going to lose it. But that is what the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is based on. I think the intention of the Prime Minister’s statement first of all was that England financially would be weaker than she was at the beginning of the war. That we accept. Primarily, because England was not prepared for the war and therefore had to get ready at a very difficult time, and England had to spend millions of pounds to get ready for the war for her own protection, the protection of democracy, and the protection of South Africa. England must not only be prepared to spend millions of pounds for her own protection, but also for the protection of South Africa by means of her Navy. Consequently, England must become financially weaker. I will now leave that point. The other part of the motion deals with the Russian danger. The Opposition has repeatedly exclaimed, “What about Poland?” The question which we have a right to put is, “When Russia for the first time invaded Poland, whose ally was Russia in those days—was not she Germany’s ally?” But none of the hon. members opposite at that time asked, “What about Poland?” No, they thought it was a good thing because it would assist Germany to conquer a small state, it would assist Germany to come victorious out of the war, and as a result South Africa would become a Republic. But when we come to territorial delimitation and to rights after the war, then I do not think that the Leader of the. Opposition has the right to interfere. The Opposition so far has never concerned itself about that, because at one time the Leader of the Opposition declared that Germany had won the war, and because it had won the war Germany would lay down the boundaries of the various countries, and he relied on Germany to give South Africa a Republic. So in those days the hon. member did not worry about territorial delimitation, or the rights or wrongs of the case. But in that connection the question was continually asked, “What about Poland?” Russia invaded Poland to secure its own rights and to drive the enemy out of Russia. Why is Russia in this war? Did Russia enter the war at the request of the Allies? Did the Allies ask Russia to help them, or is Russia in the war as a result of the barbarous attack made on her by Hitler and his followers? Russia is today fighting on the side of democracy to save herself and to protect her own rights. That is a fact which cannot be denied. Russia, in order to be victorious and to protect its rights, has to pass through certain other small countries and drive out the enemy.

What about Finland?

The reply to that question is that when Russia attacked Finland, Finland was also one of Hitler’s allies.

It that so?

Well, hon. members opposite in those days heartily welcomed the attack on Finland. They were very happy about it because it meant that Finland would assist Germany and South Africa would then be brought nearer to a Republic, which Hitler was going to give us. The Leader of the Opposition stated from time to time that England had lost the war, and as a result of England’s downfall South Africa was going to get a Republic. On the 18th July, 1941, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking at Graafwater, said this—

What did your Leader say when America was asked to come and help?

My Leader has always said that we were fighting for freedom and that we were going to bring about the downfall of Germany. My Leader has always been consistent. Now let me quote what the Leader of the Opposition further said—

And then he went on to say—

Hon. members will notice that the Leader of the Opposition said that we had lost the war and that Germany would want to negotiate with a Government which was friendly disposed towards it, with the Re-United Nationalist Party, and with Daniel Francois Malan. And he went on and said this: He said it was clear that Great Britain had lost the war. Those were the statements he was making. He did not qualify his statements in any Way. He did not say that it was possible that these things might happen, but he said that that definitely was the case. At Lichtenburg he made a similar statement, and at Stellenbosch he talked about the so called Nazi-Intelligentsia, and he said we must be honourable and unanimous if we wanted Germany to give us a Republic. And recently, during the Hottentots-Holland By-Election, speaking at Epping Garden Village he said—

Imagine!

That shows what the ambitions and the feelings of the Nationalist Party were in those days. Such were the feelings of hon. members over there that when Tobruk fell hon. members opposite celebrated the fall of Tobruk and the fact that so many South African young men were taken prisoner there. Such was the spirit among hon. members opposite that they celebrated every defeat suffered by the Allies. They used to sing and dance whenever the Allies suffered a defeat, and instead of singing “Simbamba, Mama se kindjie” they used to sing “Simbamba, Hitler se kindjie.” Now, let us come to the question of a Republic, and let me say this to my hon. friends opposite—I notice one of them is having a good laugh.

I am laughing at the nonsense you are talking.

My hon. friend talks about nonsense. Well, let me draw his attention to the nonsense talked by his own Leader about a Republic with the result that his own followers are talking the same sort of nonsense. He has never succeeded yet in laying down a policy regarding a Republic in South Africa, which would be acceptable to the country, and that is why he had to go and buy a policy from Germany. He cannot deny that. When he talks about a Republic and about a form of government for the future, I say that his policy was so feeble and so unacceptable to the electors of this country that even his own followers could not accept it; that is why he had to try and secure his object with the aid of a murderer like Hitler. It is a very sad state of affairs so far as South Africa is concerned, but let me come to the policy proclaimed by the hon. member. The Youth Committee of that Party met in Pretoria. The question of the future policy of South Africa was raised, and the first point to be discussed, apparently with a view to the Republic of the future, was old Father Christmas. Father Christmas is no longer acceptable to them. He was too English. So they are now to have an Oom Voortrekker. That is the policy which we are to pursue in the Government of this country. That is the kind of policy which the Government of the future is to adopt when it takes the place of the United Party Government. I am speaking subject to correction, but I have been told that the question was raised: “Who was to be Oom Voortrekker?” I should like to know who is going to be the Oom Voortrekker, who will take the place of Father Christmas. But another line of policy was proposed by this Youth Committee—a line of policy to be pursued in this ideal Republic which we are going to have. Guy Fawkes was also to be abolished. I believe candidates for the new Guy Fawkes were also invited to come forward. I don’t yet know who the new Guy Fawkes is going to be.

I am sure it’s you.

I am mentioning these things to show the type of ideals that are being held out to this country in a Republic of the future. The third point in connection with that policy dealt with the declarations for the Christmas celebrations. Well, the proposals were all turned down. Christmas celebrations such as the farmers used to enjoy in the past are no longer to take place. There are to be no more Christmas crackers. I don’t blame hon. members opposite for being opposed to Christmas crackers, because if a Christmas cracker is pulled there is a noise, and hon. members opposite are apt to be afraid of anything that sounds like shooting. Now let me come to the fourth point in their policy. This fourth point concerns Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I understand that Sylvia Moordyk of Pretoria is to be Snow White, and I am sure they will easily get their seven dwarfs. But now let me come to the question of a Republic. The Leader of the Opposition on the 4th March, 1941, said this—

But when he introduced this motion now before the House the Leader of the Opposition remarked that a Republic was wanted for all sections of the community in South Africa. I merely mention this to show how the Leader of the Opposition has changed his views—and what is more, he has not only done so now but right throughout his past he has continually changed his attitude. He has done so again now; and I want to ask hon. members opposite what they really think of a Leader who does things like that. I want to know whether they are going to continue following him. Today he makes one statement when he thinks things are going one way, but when the war was going badly for us he made a very different statement. The greatest change in his attitude throughout the whole of his career was when he openly admitted in his motion that Germany had lost the war. This motion by the Leader of the Opposition is nothing but a frank admission on behalf of the Opposition that England and the Allies have won the war, and that Germany had lost it.

What about Russia?

But now those hon. members, as I have said, tell the world frankly that Germany has lost the war. Now I want to know whether they have not broken faith, not only with their own supporters on the platteland of the Union, but have they not also broken faith with Goebbels and Zeesen—and what are they now going to do with the Leader of the Opposition? Is that the reason why, now that he has no more faith in a victory by Germany, and because he can no longer look to Hitler to give them a Republic—is that the reason why he now approaches the Prime Minister and the United Party Government to ask them to give him a Republic? We are entitled to put that question to the Leader of the Opposition. This side of the House has the right to ask that question—it has the right to ask whether it is a fact that because he no longer has any faith in Hitler being able to give him a Republic, he now approaches the Prime Minister and asks the Prime Minister to do what he wanted Hitler to do? Those are questions which will be put to the Leader of the Opposition. He knew that those questions were going to be put to him this morning; that is why he is not in his seat today. He cannot answer those questions, nor can any member opposite answer them.

I shall answer you.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member talks about nonsense; he gets up here and talks as though he stands there with a Bible in his hand. And then he tells the House things which are not correct. He got up at a dinner in the dining room of the House of Parliament and called out: “Heil, Hitler”.

I said: “Heil South Africa”.

Let me go into that a little further. I do not believe that he meant it. He meant: “Heil Namaqualand”, and now he is squealing. Let me say this to my hon. friends opposite, and they can accept it or not: When we think it will be better for South Africa, when we think it will bring about greater peace among the community to have a Republic, we shall not come and ask them for a Republic. Let me say this, that South Africa has exactly the same right today to make treaties and to enter into agreements with other countries as it would have if it were a Republic. South Africa today is freer to do these things than it was in the old Republican days, because I agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that Clause 4 of the Republican Constitution tied down the country in that respect. But even if we were to decide to have a Republic, and even if we were to feel that it would be more acceptable and more advantageous to South Africa, then, according to hon. members opposite, it will have to be a Boer Republic, and then I say that there is only one man who can be the President of such a Republic and that is my Leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and not the Leader of the Opposition.

How about yourself?

In reply to that interruption let me tell the hon. member that we don’t search for leaders in our Party, we don’t quarrel, we don’t form groups which are always at each other’s throat, we don’t knock each other about, we don’t commit political murders for the sake of leadership. We have our Leader and we are proud of him. The world is proud of him. We do not have to go and collect half-crowns from poor people to buy ourselves a system of government. Our Leader is able to lay down our system of government for us, without payments and without half-crowns; we are proud of him and we are not jealous, because we know that the greatest Statesman in the world is the Leader of our Party. He has never yet changed his attitude. He has never had any cause to do so. He stands by the principles which he has stood by from the very start. That is the difference between our Leader and the Leader of the Opposition, and that is why I say that if we are to have a Boer Republic in South Africa, there is only one man who can be the President of such a Republic and that is the Leader of the Party on this side of the House.

I do not think I need take serious notice of the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. I should advise him to join one of those groups of people who go round the country entertaining the soldiers. But I want to say a few words to the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) in regard to two points which he mentioned. The hon. member for South Rand went out of his way to try and defend the attack which Russia made on Finland. For the edification of the hon. member may I be allowed to quote to him the opinion expressed by his own Press in South Africa when Russia attacked Finland? On the 2nd December, 1939, the “Cape Times” among other things, said this—

And then we find another article in the “Cape Times” on the same subject under the heading of “The Moloch of Bolshevism,” and “Shameful Act of Unprovoked Aggression.” In a further leading article, under the heading of “Stalin’s Crime,” the paper says this—

That is not my opinion, but the opinion expressed by the “Cape Times,” one of the mouthpieces of the United Party in this country. The hon. member for South Rand also went out of his way to try and make out that Russia had suddenly become religious, and in that connection he quoted the opinion of the Dean of Canterbury. The hon. member will admit that, the opinion of an Archbishop carries greater weight in regard to a matter of this kind than that of a Dean. Recently in a Sapa message, we found the opinion expressed by the Archbishop of York, and I should like to quote that opinion for the edification of the hon. member—

That is the opinion, not of the Dean of Canterbury who made a personally conducted tour, but the opinion of the Archbishop of York who recently visited Russia, after Russia had recognised the Orthodox Church. Now that is the position with reference to the alleged religion story. Now let us come to the subject of this debate, viz., the motion proposed by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The basis of this motion, the kernel, the essence of it, is the speech delivered by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister at the secret meeting of British members of Parliament. It is in that sense that the motion of the Leader of the Opposition should be discussed, and it is in that sense that it should have been answered by the Prime Minister. One should remember that the Prime Minister went to England in his official capacity as Prime Minister of South Africa. He did not go as a private individual, he went at the expense of the State, as Prime Minister of South Africa, and when the Prime Minister addressed that meeting of British members of Parliament he did not do so as a private citizen or as a philosopher, or as a botanist; he did so in only one capacity, namely, in his capacity as Prime Minister of South Africa. And it is in that capacity that his audience listened to him. In that speech of his he made important statements, statements affecting the position of South Africa. He made statements in respect of which it immediately appeared that there was a considerable difference of opinion. Consequently, one might have expected that the Prime Minister, on his return to South Africa, would have realised that at the first possible opportunity of his appearing before Parliament he would be called upon to give an explanation of those statements. And what was the Prime Minister’s attitude? He got up here and dealt with the matter in a jocular fashion, and he ridiculed certain of the remarks that had been made. When the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked him why he had gone to London to make such important statements affecting the future of South Africa and why he had not done so in his own country he insultingly asked whether we expected him to make such a statement in the backveld. That was his comparison between London and South Africa. The Prime Minister did not speak of a small platteland dorp. When he used that expression he made a comparison between London and South Africa, and South Africa is looked upon by him in comparison with London, as the “backveld.”

That, is a scandalous distortion.

It is not a distortion, we know exactly what the Prime Minister meant, and the hon. member can turn up the Hansard Report. We had expected the Prime Minister in his reply to have given us an explanation of his speech. We have often listened to the Prime Minister in this House, but if ever there was a case where he tried to feel his way, it was on the occasion when he had to reply to this motion. He tried to get hold of a point here and a point there but he did not touch upon the real essence of the motion, this important declaration of his in London. Not a single hon. member opposite can contend that he touched the essence of the speech, and later on in my remarks I shall prove that he did not do so. I shall come back to this aspect of the matter. But before doing so I want to refer briefly to one particular matter which the Prime Minister mentioned. Referring to that part of the motion dealing with a Republic the Prime Minister said—

He said that the people had given their verdict at the elections. If the Prime Minister is under the impression that the people are behind him, and that his own followers agree with him, then he should be disillusioned. In this connection I want to refer to a very interesting article by a certain Prof. J. L. Gray with reference to the election figures. Prof. Gray has made a scientific analysis of the figures and he comes to this conclusion—

That is his conclusion after a scientific analysis of the election figures. That is not my opinion, but the opinion of the Prime Minister’s own friend. But as I have said, there is still more. I have before me a copy of an overseas paper, “The New Statesman and Nation” of October 30th, 1943. In that there is an article from the South African Correspondent of that paper on the subject of the General Elections in South Africa. Under the heading “Looking ahead in South Africa” he writes as follows—

I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here because I am convinced he will be interested in the subsequent part of this article—

And then we have this significant remark—

That’s a joke.

Yes, I know, it’s not pleasant for the hon. member to hear these things. I can only tell him again that what I am reading here is not just an expression of my own opinion; it’s the opinion of his own people. Now let me go on, because it really seems necessary to disillusion hon. members opposite. I have before me the January issue of the paper “Commonsense”. In this there is an open letter to Gen. Smuts containing, inter alia, the following—

But if the Prime Minister is not yet satisfied with that I shall come a little nearer home, and I shall come to his own ranks opposite. I want to read to him what one of his own supporters, one of his own members of Parliament, said. This speech which I am going to quote was made by one of the hon. members opposite before he came here to this Session. It is a speech by the hon. member for Parktown, Mr. Stratford, and I am quoting from the Sapa report, and this is what he says, inter alia—

This follower of the Prime Minister goes further and says this—

I am sorry the Minister of Lands is not here because he should hear these remarks of the hon. member—

And then he goes even further—

I thought it necessary to bring these matters to the notice of hon. members opposite, in view of the boastful attitude of the Prime Minister when he said that it was unnecessary to answer part of the motion, because the people were behind him and that the whole world knew that the people were behind him. In the circumstances it is necessary for me to disillusion them. Now I want to come to that part of the Prime Minister’s speech which he called the “explosive part”. The Prime Minister, among other things, said that the Leader of the Opposition had come along with the pious story that England was exhausted and that we could no longer look to England for protection, and he went on to say that on the back of that weak and exhausted horse we were going to achieve one of the greatest victories in history. In other words, he pretended that the Leader of the Opposition was the man who had stated that England was exhausted and poor, but these are his own words which were quoted. In a speech he made before the British members of Parliament he said this—

He must not come and complain now if we bring the words which he himself used to the notice of this House and to the notice of the people. These are not our remarks but his own. He went further and said that we were going to ride on England’s back, but what is the position today? Who are the people fighting England’s battle? If England is victorious, England will ride on Russia’s back and on the back of the United States. Is not that actually the position in this war today? We have heard a great deal about this so-called second front. Fighting is going on in Italy and we see what the position is there. All the British troops have succeeded in doing so far has been to drive a small lot of Germans out of Africa, but in Italy they are making no progress. If the war is won it will be won by America and Russia. Now I come back to the motion and to the Prime Minister’s reply. The Prime Minister as a rule is very astute. Whenever he has to answer a difficult case he gives the impression of dealing with it, but in actual fact he does not do so. In this particular instance the Prime Minister has not touched the question at all. He has dropped it like a hot potato. Why? Because, as he himself has described it, the Opposition motion deals with explosive material. The Prime Minister realised that he was not speaking before a lot of British members of Parliament who sat and listened to him with their mouths open, but that he was speaking in the House of Parliament in South Africa with a strong Opposition facing him. Another reason why he did not touch the matter is that there is not the slightest doubt that as a result of the Prime Minister’s speech his prestige has gone down in the world. There has been criticism, of his speech in England, America and throughout the world. Another reason is that since he discussed this matter during the last Session of Parliament, the Prime Minister has changed his front—he has changed his front very clearly. My time is limited, but in Hansard hon. members will find what was said on the 12th February when the motion in regard to Communism was before this House. On that occasion I said, in the course of my speech—

And what was the Prime Minister’s reply when afterwards he spoke on this subject? He said that the member for Beaufort West had seen a ghost. Then he went to London and he saw the same ghost. He not only used the words quoted in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition but in his speech before the British members of Parliament he also said—

He went on to say that other countries would be exhausted, and that Russia would be the master on the Continent of Europe. There the Prime Minister used exactly the same words as I used during the last Session of Parliament Russia is the master of the Continent. When I said so last year he replied that we were seeing a ghost. Now he is using the very same words and he himself is seeing the ghost. It is understandable why the Prime Minister, under those circumstances, prefers not to discuss this subject. I have very carefully read the Prime Minister’s speech made to the members of Parliament in London and if ever there was a confusion of ideas, that confusion of ideas came out in that particular speech. The Prime Minister expressed four different thoughts. First of all he said that the four big powers, England, America and Russia—and he added China—must have the leadership in any future organisation which might be created. But he had hardly said that before he let that idea go and said that there must be closer union between the United States of America and the British Empire. He had hardly expressed that idea, when he said: “Such a partnership will produce difficulty in Europe,” “The Lion in the Path.” And then he came along with a new idea and said: “We must revert to the tripartite and adhere to that,” but that idea, too, he abandoned, and he said that England would be in an unequal position, and eventually he came along with the idea of the consolidation of the British Empire, and he included certain small nations, and he proposed a sort of British Empire-small nations combination. That was the conclusion of a speech full of confused ideas: a combination of the British Empire and certain small nations in Western Europe. He had hardly said that before there was an immediate reaction. The first reaction came from Mr. Van Kleffens, the Nederlands Foreign Minister in London. After that Mr. MacKenzie King, the Canadian Prime Minister, expressed himself against our Prime Minister’s ideas. When, by way of interruptions, we drew the Prime Minister’s attention to this fact during his speech he denied it, but since then Mr. MacKenzie King has stated very clearly what he thinks of the Prime Minister’s suggestion. But worst of all was the statement made on behalf of Stalin. What the Prime Minister has actually proposed is what is known as a “cordon sanitaire”—a series of buffer states against Russia. That is really what the Prime Minister’s proposal means. Not long after that Stalin very emphatically told the world not only that he would tolerate no interference in the determination of the boundaries of Eastern Europe, but also that Russia would resist any cordon sanitaire. Yes, we admit that what was contained in the Prime Minister’s speech was explosive stuff, but what has happened? This so-called explosive stuff has turned into what people in England would call a damp squib, or what we here in this country would call a “wind bomb.” There is another point which is very interesting, and which I want to draw attention to. I am convinced that when the Prime Minister made this statement regarding a cordon sanitaire he made that speech with the full knowledge of the Prime Minister of England. He has denied it. I should perhaps not have put such an uncomfortable question. It was too much to expect the Prime Minister to admit such a thing. It was a state secret. We were given what is known as a diplomatic denial. Mr. Winston Churchill’s whole career, since the Russian revolution, shows that he is still opposed to Russia and to communism, and I do not think that Mr. Winston Churchill holds any other opinion today, in spite of his birthday party at Teheran where he proposed the health of “Stalin the Great.” There were 43 toasts. Possibly his was the last of the 43 and in the circumstances one should perhaps not take his toast too seriously. But that has always been Mr. Winston Churchill’s attitude. I want to refer to an interview which Mr. Winston Churchill gave the Press in 1927. Hon. members opposite are laughing. It was a long while ago but that is what makes it so important, because it was shortly after the “castor oil” period of Fascism when the whole world was shocked by the events in Italy. Mr. Winston Churchill had an interview with Mussolini and after that he read out a statement to the Italian Press representatives. What did he say? After referring to his interview with Signor Mussolini he said—

That was Mr. Winston Churchill speaking. One can hardly believe that he is the same man who described Mussolini as a hyena and a jackal, and who used all these other epithets. On that occasion he spoke of his “gentle and simple bearing.” And then he went on—

And then he went on—

Let hon. members recollect that it was in the “castor oil” days that he said that. And then he went on—

That was Winston Churchill’s attitude in 1927. And now let me come to the 17th October, 1938, just a year before the war, less than a year. In a speech he made he referred to a certain standard of living which he said England had to maintain—

Thus Russia from day to day seeks new victims. First it was Finland, then the Baltic States. And I proceed with my quotation—

Now we understand the true intent of the Prime Minister’s proposal. He was in close touch with Mr. Winston Churchill, and we know exactly what Mr. Winston Churchill’s attitude is, in spite of the toast proposing the health of Stalin the Great. What we got from our Prime Minister was nothing but the cordon sanitaire principle which he wants to call into being because, as he said, Russia would be the master of the Continent.

When business was suspended I was showing the House that one thing clearly emerged from the speech made by the Prime Minister before the British House of Parliament—that speech of confused thoughts—and that was that what he proposed actually amounted to a cordon sanitaire, a security belt between Great Britain and Russia. I further indicated that I was convinced that the Prime Minister of South Africa on that occasion was the mouthpiece of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, because Mr. Winston Churchill right throughout his career had always been the enemy of communism and of Russia. I also showed by quoting certain statements made by Mr. Winston Churchill that in actual fact he was an admirer of the Fascist system, and that he described the Fascist system as the antidote for the poison of communism and Leninism. The Prime Minister’s proposal amounted to a free combination of the British Commonwealth of Nations together with certain other small nations, to put the so-called cordon sanitaire into operation against Russia. If one thing is clear, and emerges from the speech of our Prime Minister to the British House of Parliament, it is that in England today there is a feeling of great and serious anxiety in regard to Russia. There is not the slightest doubt about that. England did not go into this war because she stood for all those fine sounding ideals of protection of religion, democracy, small nations, and all the rest of it, but England went to war to preserve her power-position in Europe because Germany threatened her power-position. From the British point of view we can quite understand it, but now Mr. Winston Churchill, and our Prime Minister, too, find that a serious condition of affairs has been created by the strength displayed by Russia. Stalin played his cards very cleverly. First of all he came along with the so-called dissolution of the Komintern, the greatest bluff ever perpetrated. The whole object remains the same—only, certain names are changed. Comrade Stalin has become Marshal Stalin. Certain concessions are made in regard to religion, but I have shown what the Archbishop of York has said in that regard. The Prime Minister in his speech spoke of a certain psychological change, of a change in heart which had taken place in Russia, but in almost the same breath he said: “It is possible that Russia is becoming Imperialistic.” Now that Stalin’s troops are pushing the Germans back Russia is beginning to feel strong and is beginning to show its strength. Stalin has stated openly that he is going to tolerate no interference in regard to his Eastern boundaries. That is Russia’s affair, and it is not going to stand for any interference. We also see what Stalin’s attitude is in regard to Poland. There is a Polish Government in London which is pro-British, and Stalin has made it clear that he is taking no notice of it. We see what has happened in Jugoslavia. Stalin has given his support to the Communistic minded General Tito, and King Peter who was called “Peter the Great” by our Prime Minister has been pushed aside, and the British Government is compelled to play along with Stalin and to support Tito. And what has happened about Czechoslovakia? President Benes has entered into a special agreement with Russia which has caused the most serious alarm, not only in England but also in the United States of America. We notice what’s going on in Greece. There there are also two sections, the one a pro-Communist and the other not. Stalin is playing the same game in Greece as he has played in Jugoslavia. We see what is going on in the Balkan States, in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. There is no doubt as to what Stalin’s plans are there, and now to crown everything Stalin comes forward and declares that all these so-called sixteen Soviet Republics are independent. In other words, he will have sixteen votes at his disposal at the peace conference. [Time limit.]

There is not much life left in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition has not been able to infuse much enthusiasm into his Party for the motion he introduced, and the little life he has been able to give it has been easily and quickly destroyed by the Prime Minister’s reply. The reason is not far to seek. The reason is that nobody today has any confidence in the hon. the member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) as a commentator on international affairs. This is due to the fact that at the time of Hitler’s successes he became intoxicated by these successes, and he was overcome to such an extent that he told his followers that he would request Germany to leave South Africa’s form of government untouched, and that if Germany wanted a friendly government here he could form that government. He even boasted that he had received a reply over the German radio that Germany would not touch our form of government and would not interfere in our affairs. We even know that he went so far that at one stage, after Hitler had announced that Stalingrad would be taken by the Germans, the Leader of the Opposition went to Klaver where he announced that the next important event would be the fall of Stalingrad. After all the mistakes the Leader of the Opposition has made nobody believes in him as a commentator on international affairs, or as a prophet of events to come in the history of the world. I therefore do not want to elaborate on that point. I do not want to elaborate on his motion on international affairs. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition to my great surprise, however, made a serious allegation against us, and the English Press. He said this—I shall quote his own words—

It is very easy to make allegations but it is a different thing to prove them. The Leader of the Opposition made no effort to produce proof of this serious allegation against us and the English Press. Who is he to make such a charge? Does he not know that his own official organ in the Transvaal, “Die Transvaler”—I don’t know whether he is a member of the Directorate, but several members of his Party who are members of this House are directors of that paper, and I believe the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of that paper—does he not know that a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal has found that that paper indulges in a process of falsification of current news and that it does so in support of Nazi propaganda?

Do you know that the “Cape Argus” systematically deletes parts of overseas news?

We are dealing here with a verdict of the High Court. I know it is not pleasant for hon. members to have to listen to this, but none the less it is a verdict of the High Court, and let me say at once to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that his friends, the directors of “Die Transvaler” or the Nationalist Party—I don’t know who—or Dr. Verwoerd, the Editor of that paper, went so far as to lodge an appeal against the verdict, but that that appeal was not proceeded with. They must therefore have been conscious of the fact that the judgment of the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court was a true one. Now, let me inform the House what were the grounds for the action. The Johannesburg “Star” in the course of a leading article said this—

And then the “Star” gives an instance of what “Die Transvaler” has been doing, that is to say it has published a statement sent out by the Information Bureau, omitting however an important sentence.

It was comment which was omitted; you are misleading the House.

I say that an important sentence in the message from the Information Bureau was omitted by “Die Transvaler”. If the hon. member wishes me to do so I am quite willing to continue my quotation.

You are misleading the House.

Very well, then I shall read the whole thing.

I repeat that you are misleading the House.

The fact that the hon. member repeats his statement does not make it any more true. But I prefer to read the whole article—

Hon. members will therefore see that the allegation made by “The Star” against “Die Transvaler” was a straightforward and unqualified one that “Die Transvaler” was falsifying its current news in support of Nazi propaganda. The article in “The Star” did not stop at that; it went further, and said that “Die Transvaler’s” behaviour was dishonest, and it identified the paper with Nazi propaganda, and declared it was the instrument of evil powers, from which this country had everything to fear. Those briefly were the allegations made against “Die Transvaler.”

Who was the judge?

Does the hon. member want to make a reflection on our Judiciary? Dare he do so? Did not “Die Transvaler” refuse to take the case to the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein?

Why are you ashamed to mention the judge’s name?

I say that it was an outspoken and direct allegation on the part of “The Star” against “Die Transvaler” that that paper was indulging in a process of falsification of current news and that it was deliberately doing so; that it was dishonest and that it did these things to support Nazi propaganda. When the Editor of “Die Transvaler” sued “The Star” and based his complaint on the leading article published by that paper, the defence put up was one of justification. In other words, “The Star” had to prove the full truth of each and every part of its allegation. In order to do so it had to produce evidence. The case lasted five weeks, and the judgment given by Mr. Justice Millin—I am not ashamed to mention his name—was to the effect that the learned judge held that “The Star” was right in its contentions. He found that it had been proved in evidence that “Die Transvaler” did indulge in a process of falsification of current news and that it did so in support of Nazi propaganda. As I have already said, the directors of “Die Transvaler” or the Nationalist Party lodged an appeal but they did not press their appeal. After due consideration they withdrew their appeal. Under what circumstances did they do so? A statement appeared in “Die Transvaler”—I think the hon. member for Waterberg, who is Chairman of the Board of Directors, knows it—stating that it had been decided not to proceed with the appeal but that the directors had full confidence in Dr. Verwoerd, the Chief Editor of “Die Transvaler.” I only want to say that any self-respecting board of directors of a newspaper would immediately have dismissed a chief editor who had been guilty of what the court had found the paper to be guility of. The very least one could have expected the directors of “Die Transvaler” to have done was to have rapped the Editor over the knuckles and to have warned him that henceforth he must tell his readers the truth and nothing but the truth. Nothing of the kind was done. The only thing they did was to tell the readers of “Die Transvaler” that they had every confidence in Dr. Verwoerd as Editor, and that was the end of it. Now, I ask the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) whether he expects us to believe him and whether he expects us to attach any value to his statement when he tells us that the English papers distort matters and deceive their readers? He cannot produce any evidence to prove his contentions. On the contrary, it has been proved in the High Court, in the judgment which I have quoted, that his official organ in the Transvaal indulges in a process of falsification of current news. If I wanted to detain the House I could quote from the report of the case to show the type of falsification which one has to contend with in “Die Transvaler.” The charge made against the paper was a very far-reaching one. I don’t want to go into it because I know there are new members who still want to make their maiden speeches. I don’t want to stand in their way, but I could not leave this allegation of the Leader of the Opposition unanswered. We shall know from now on that he is not only a false prophet on international affairs, but we shall also know that we cannot attach any value to allegations made by him in this House. We shall not attach any value to those allegations.

Before discussing the motion on the Order Paper, I may be permitted to say a few words arising out of the speech to which we have just listened. Possibly that speech may be regarded as the maiden speech of an aspirant Minister. If that is the case, I am afraid I cannot really congratulate the hon. member on his effort. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) is a member of the Bar, and I assume that as a Learned Friend of mine he will readily admit that the judgment of a Court and especially the judgment of a Lower Court is not always infallible.

Then why was the appeal not proceeded with?

I am not aware of the reasons why the appeal was not proceeded with, but I want to add that even the findings of the Appellate Division are not always infallible—as admitted by the Appellate Court itself, and in times such as these in which we are living it is extremely difficult to get very much objectivity in a court when cases of this kind have to be decided.

I am sorry to hear the hon. member make such a comment.

I am not casting any reflection on the impartiality of the court, but I do say that it is difficult under present conditions to get the amount of objectivity which we are anxious to have when a political case is at issue. It may be that considerations of that nature caused the appeal to be withdrawn. May I just add another small point which perhaps was not so clear from what the hon. member quoted here? Had there been actual falsification of news? A certain broadcast was received from Zeesen and the information officer was asked to let the Press have it and that was done. He did not just give the statement made by Zeesen, but he added a bit of comment of his own—a bit of propaganda.

I read that out.

I am prepared to assume that it is very difficult now-a-days to distinguish between propaganda and news. I am prepared to believe that there are people who are very easily deceived into believing that propaganda is news. It reminds me of the saying “Propaganda, yes, it is only good for a proper goose.” Now, if the hon. member has been led to believe that propaganda is current news, I am really sorry for him. I am also sorry because if that is so, then he really is not going to prove a prop to an already very weak Cabinet. Now, let us go a little further. We had another interjection here, that of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. N. Conradie) about which I want to say a few words. He said that it was a misrepresentation to say that the comparison which the Prime Minister made between South Africa and London was comparing England with the Backveld.

I say so again.

The hon. member repeats it. May I refer him to the Hansard Report of the 26th January, column 100—

The Prime Minister therefore compared London with South Africa, and then he went on—

The word “there” therefore refers to London and the “backveld” refers to South Africa.

On a point of explanation, I still deny that what appears there is correct. The explanation is that the Prime Minister said it in reply to an interruption by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), which was not recorded in Hansard, and not in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister replied to an interjection by the hon. member for Waterberg and he asked whether he should have made his statement in the backveld, meaning thereby the Waterberg backveld.

The hon. member for Rustenburg puts the motion the wrong way round. The interruption by the hon. member for Waterberg came later on. After what I have quoted here had been said by the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Waterberg interjected: “Is South Africa the backveld so far as you are concerned today?” The Prime Minister’s words did not follow on what the hon. member for Waterberg had said but the interruption by the hon. member for Waterberg followed what the Prime Minister had said.

Read a little further.

I can quite appreciate that hon. members are feeling ill at ease, but I don’t intend reading my speech. I can quite appreciate the hon. member for Rustenburg saying that he does not believe it, but none the less it is in the Hansard report. It reminds me of the man who was called a sea-cow, and when one day he actually did see a sea-cow he said he still did not believe there was such a thing. The hon. member for Rustenburg has the actual words that were used before him, but he cannot believe that the Prime Minister could have used such an insulting expression about South Africa. I admire the hon. member for Rustenburg for feeling like that about South Africa, and I admire his protest by implication against this insult of South Africa by the Prime Minister.

Why don’t you read the whole incident?

Just one more word to the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). He told us what a paradise Russia is today. Has the hon. member ever read a book about the condition of the workers in Russia? This man visited twelve of the best factories in Russia and he says that if we take all the social services the workers get, which are calculated at more than 32 per cent. of their wages in cash—the position amounts to this, that the maximum wage paid in more than a dozen of the best factories is less than £1 10s. per week per worker. And that is the worker’s paradise, which the hon. member told us about.

What is the position today?

I am sorry that I had to interrupt my own speech by these few comments. Now, I want to come to the subject of this debate and I want to lodge my most emphatic protest against the way this motion has been treated by the Government. To me it is another instance of the increasing contempt shown by the Cabinet towards Parliament. There are other instances of the same thing which I am going to mention. First of all we have this fact, that we had a general election on the 7th July, and it took more than six months before the Government called Parliament together. Is there any precedent in any other country in the world which has Parliamentary government, where a general election was held and the government waited more than six months before calling Parliament together. It is a clear instance of the Government’s contempt of Parliament. It is contempt of Parliament, in which members opposite are just as interested as members on this side of the House. We are here as Members of Parliament, as representatives of the people, and we are here to stand up for the protection of national government, and to see to it that the principles of national government are not trampled on by the Government in its mad rush towards bureaucracy, because by doing that the sound principles of national government will be undermined. Let me come to another example. This Parliament has given the Cabinet the right to make certain regulations. We admit that in time of war such rights must be given because urgent matters may crop up at a time when Parliament is not in Session and they may have to be dealt with immediately. But what has our Government done? Many of the more important regulations have been issued while Parliament was in Session—regulations affecting the individual freedom of people. Such regulations have been issued while Parliament was in Session. These are important matters, and even if the Government has the legal power to do so, it still was the Government’s duty to bring those matters before this House in the proper way so that we could discuss and criticise them as we should do.

The hon. member must not elaborate that point too much.

No, Mr. Speaker, I have just given two examples and now I shall proceed to deal with this important motion which deals with the post-war policy to be pursued by the Government, a motion which was proposed at a particularly important juncture. The Prime Minister returned from overseas a short while ago and while he was overseas he made a speech which apparently dealt with the question of the future of the world after this war. One would have thought that he would have welcomed the first opportunity to take us into his confidence, and to tell us what was going on overseas. It is not only important to the overseas people but it is of the utmost importance to this country that it should be given the opportunity of keeping in touch with what is going to happen after the war. But the Prime Minister made his “thinking aloud” speech overseas, that “explosive speech” as he called it. He is not a member of the British Cabinet and consequently the British Cabinet does not accept any responsibility for his speech. But it makes us think that the Prime Minister was deliberately put up to make that speech. He was used for the purpose of flying a kite to see which way the wind was blowing without any responsibility resting on the British Cabinet. The Prime Minister, however, is a member of the Cabinet in South Africa, and whatever he says—whether he says it here in South Africa or whether he says it in England—is said on the responsibility of our Cabinet. Even if he speaks in England, he still speaks as a member of our Cabinet, as the head of our Cabinet, and whatever he says there should be discussed across the floor of this House because he is responsible to this House for whatever he has said. We also had a speech from Lord Halifax. That speech which was also a very important one was meant to be an invitation to Canada to come back to the course which leads to the old idea of an Imperial Federation. In reply to that speech we had another important speech—a direct reply to Lord Halifax’s speech, and we also had a speech reflecting the reaction to our Prime Minister’s speech, viz., the speech by MacKenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, in which he very definitely stated that he rejected the invitation Of Lord Halifax and that he also rejected the policy proclaimed by the Prime Minister of South Africa. All these things make this a particularly important juncture for the discussion of the subjects contained in the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And what makes that motion even more important is that in Russia recently Mr. Molotov’s plan was accepted to give independence to everyone of the composite Russian states. This is the first time foreign countries, through people who have never yet been able to understand the logic of the British Constitution, who have never yet been able to understand the complexity and may I also say the astuteness of the relationship of Great Britain towards the Dominions—I say that this is the first time those people in foreign countries, even though they do not understand the relationship in the British Empire, have been sensible enough not to try to understand them—they have simply imitated them. What are we going to get when this war is over? If we are to have another League of Nations, Russia will not have just one vote but Russia will have as many votes as there are provinces and states in Russia. They are to all intents and purposes telling England that she—England—always used to boast of the unity of the British Empire when it suited her to do so, but when she wanted to have votes in the League of Nations she pointed out that the various Dominions were independent and thus she claimed six votes, one vote for each of the composite states. We have now seen the steps Russia is taking and I want to warn hon. members that this constitutes one of the most important amendments of the Soviet Constitution. I want to utter another word of warning, and that is that we must not be surprised if America follows Russia’s example and gives each of its 48 states independence, so that at international conferences it will be able to have additional votes. Instead of having one vote at an international conference the United States of America will have 48 votes. These are things which are going to happen after the war and which render it particularly important for us to have this debate so that we may ascertain what South Africa’s position is in respect of all these matters. But instead of our being allowed to have a frank and continuous debate on this motion, very little time has been allowed for the motion. This motion has been “fobbed off” so far as time is concerned, and the Prime Minister’s speech was also in the nature of a “fobbing off” speech. The discussion has not been adjourned from day to day. It has had to be carried on in bits and pieces. Let me show exactly how the Cabinet has treated this motion. The first debate took place on the 25th January when it started at five minutes past three. The debate was continued until 6 o’clock, when it was adjourned until the 28th January; on that day it started at four minutes past four and continued until 6.15. It was then adjourned until the 4th February when it started at twenty-two minutes past four; it was continued until about 6 o’clock, after which it was adjourned until today, the 18th February. We started today at 11.30 and at ten minutes past 4 the debate will have to be stopped. We therefore find that the debate has run over a period from the 25th January to the 18th February. Instead of three or four days being set aside for this motion we have had a debate in bits and pieces. I say that if one considers the importance of the subject we are dealing with, the way the Government has treated this motion is nothing short of contempt of Parliament and of the interests of the country. The Prime Minister himself admits that this is an important subject, yet that is the way we are treated. Time is found for other unimportant party political matters but a subject like this has to be disposed of in bits and pieces and the discussion has to be cut into, and I do not know whether any further opportunity will be given for the discussion of this subject in this House. If the Cabinet did have a proper appreciation of the responsibility towards Parliament it would have decided on Government time being devoted to the discussion of this important national matter. It is no use quoting the Bible to Satan, but the only thing worth quoting to this Government is what happened in the Mother of Parliaments in England, and I want to ask hon. members to see the attitude adopted there so that they may realise that even for subjects of minor importance the Government is prepared to set aside time for discussion. And there they do not have to wait six months for a Session, as we do in South Africa. Parliament is continually convened and is continually kept informed. In England the Government realises that the Cabinet cannot rule the country on its own, but that the Cabinet rules in the capacity of the servant of Parliament. This House, our House of Parliament, is the country’s ruler; the Cabinet is not the ruler.

But you have always been anti-England. Why do you quote England as an example now?

If the hon. member would use his intelligence he would realise that the only Bible I can quote to him is the English Parliament, and that is what, I am doing. I don’t know whether this important matter has by any chance been discussed in the Caucus of the United Party; I do not know whether they are prepared to allow the Government to continue its intrigues, whether they are prepared to allow the Government to carry on without telling them anything about what is happening. The Government of the country is not carried on by the Caucus meeting of the United Party but is carried on in and by this House, and matters of policy must be discussed here. No preference should be given to one or other political party in regard to supplying information. The Government is responsible to this House as a whole. Now, to come to the subject of the motion before the House, I want to say that of late we have been faced with a very dangerous principle and a very dangerous phenomenon, and that is that there is a movement in the direction of the old idea of an Imperial Federation, as contemplated by the late Joseph Chamberlain. That, of course, is denied, and we are told that there has never been any idea of forming a super state, but if we study the principles which are now being put forward, for instance the principle of a joint foreign policy for England and the Dominions, then we must ask what are the implications of these suggestions? I want to say that a joint foreign policy is the thin end of the wedge of Imperial Federation which, so to speak, has now to be raised from the dead; because where is one to draw the line between foreign policy and internal policy? Take a question like immigration. Many years ago a Canadian lawyer pointed out that it was practically impossible to separate foreign affairs from Dominion affairs. He said that it had never yet been possible to do so, and he asked whether immigration from a foreign country, for instance, was to be regarded as a federal or as a Dominion affair. If Canada had to maintain its control of immigration into Canada, would it be possible then to have federal control in London? He also gave this example: Canada might perhaps want to exclude the Hindus from its territory, but if there was a Central Authority, that Central Authority might possibly have to take account of the susceptibilites and the interests of India. No, a joint foreign policy is a very dangerous matter. I have mentioned immigration, but let us take tariffs. These are questions inseparable from foreign policy. One cannot separate them. Yet we are told that we are seeing ghosts. If we are seeing ghosts it is not this side of the House only which is seeing ghosts. Let us hear what MacKenzie King says in the Canadian Parliament. He can see the way things are moving. He sees the danger point, and that is why he has made unequivocable statements to the effect that Canada is not going to deviate one inch from the constitutional course it has followed so far. He says so openly and frankly. A joint foreign policy would henceforth mean a joint defence scheme for the whole Empire. Now, in this connection I want to make a few quotations. Our motion says this—

On this point I want to make two quotations. The first one is this—

The other question is this—

When was that said—25 years ago?

No, that is a speech which was made in 1934 and that speech was made by your Prime Minister at the end of 1934 before the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Those are sober words. In those days they fell on deaf ears. But because the nations of the world have made mistakes in the past, is that a reason to continue making mistakes? And my plea, while we are discussing this matter, this question of reconstruction after the war, is a plea for sobriety. Let us get away from the war basis and from the war obsession, and let us try soberly and clearly to look at the future, and let us realise that when one is dealing with human beings one must not pursue a course of violence and extermination. I see the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) wants to interrupt me. Let me say this to him in anticipation of what he wants to say: The great powers had a grand opportunity of coming together and of saying: Certain powers have territories and possessions which they acquired in days gone by. They are rich. Let us put it nicely—they got rich in the past—no matter how they managed it—but there are a lot of virile, young, rising nations today and they see that the spoils have been doled out between the old nations. Had there been any common sense and any vision in the world, these great nations would have come forward and would have said that the time had come to divide the spoils. They would have realised that the young, virile nations must be given the opportunity to develop and to achieve a position in keeping with their self-respect and for the good of the world. They allowed that opportunity to slip, and the Prime Minister of this country raised his voice—but his voice in those days was like a voice crying in the wilderness—against the injustice, against the Treaty of Versailles. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here today. This is an important matter affecting his department, but we have to carry on this debate in his absence. That shows the contempt in which Parliament is held. Only the Minister of Finance is here. I must pay him this tribute and say that he is always loyally at his post. The Prime Minister’s voice was heard by the world in those days. May that voice once more gain strength to make itself heard in these times when mankind is carried away by war obsession. Nothing is so popular today, nothing calls for applause so easily, as to talk about revenge and hatred. In the olden days it was the cry of “hang the Kaiser” which won an election. But the peace was lost. The opportunity of making a fresh start was lost, and if I see the signs of the times I am afraid we are again taking the same course, I am afraid we shall land in the same morass; I fear we shall produce a Versailles which will be even worse than the first one. If that happens there will be no future for the world, and no world peace. I don’t want to quote sub-clauses (b) and (c) of our motion; I have not the time to do so. But the principles contained in those subclauses are principles which should also have the support of the Prime Minister. He himself once declared himself against the idea of the world being ruled by three or four big powers with the exclusion of all the small nations. Those were not the ideas which led to the inspiration of the League of Nations. The Prime Minister today puts forth a similar idea, but he resisted that idea in 1917. If one reads that small booklet of his on the ideals he cherished for the League of Nations, one finds that his ideals of those days are very similar to the proposals contained in our motion. He said that peace could not be assured by an armed alliance of three or four of the victors, and the whole idea of the League of Nations was wrecked because the League of Nations became a means of power in the hands of a small clique which ruled it. Instead of being representative of the world as a whole, it became the machine of a few big powers which emerged as victors from the last war; and that was the cause of the next war. Sub-clause (d) of our motion contains the principle of separateness. As testimony in support of the principle contained in our motion on this point I again want to rely on the Prime Minister. In a speech in 1917 in the Savoy Hotel he said this—

I quote this in support of the idea which we have expressed here. Now I want to say a few words on the last point—the ideal of a Republic. There was an article in the journal of the Minister of Finance or rather the Editor of his paper published an article in another paper and said that the people in South Africa who were in favour of a Republic could be divided into three groups—those who were in favour of a Herrenvolk Republic, those who were in favour of a Republic, and those who wanted to maintain the British connection, and he said that the Nationalist Party belonged to the first group, and that it was the strongest of the three individual groups. I want to say here, and it is also said in the motion, that it is an absolute untruth to say that the Nationalist Party stands for the first group. The Nationalist Party does not stand for a Herrenvolk Republic, and that is why we speak of equal language and cultural rights for the English-speaking people in the Republic.

What, another policy again?

If language has any meaning, it is stated clearly and it is only a repetition of what appears in the constitution of the Nationalist Party, but it is misrepresented. If we could only make our English-speaking citizens realise that we do not want a Herrenvolk Republic.…

We don’t trust you.

I think the hon. member confirms the old saying that empty barrels make most noise. I am discussing a serious subject. I was referring to the fact that the House is treated with contempt, and I must say that the example set by the Cabinet is apparently followed by certain hon. members. They are setting out to treat the House with contempt. This perhaps is not the right occasion formally to raise this matter, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have two papers here which I understand are published by members of this House, the one member calls himself a “frontbencher of this House,” and the other heads his articles, “From the floor of the House”. I merely wish to bring this point to your notice, Mr. Speaker, and to ask whether this does not constitute a breach of the privilege of the House—whether it does not show contempt for the House if a member uses his position here for journalistic purposes. It is stated in this one article that the Nationalist Party stands for isolation.

Hear, hear.

I just want to say this to the hon. member who insists on making a noise, that many years ago Mr. Duncan Hall visited this country. He is the author of “The British Commonwealth of Nations,” and afterwards he was connected with the League of Nations in Geneva, and he travelled all over the world as liaison officer, and he also visited this country and he remarked that the only newspaper in the whole of the British Empire which every day had a column dealing with Foreign Affairs was “Die Burger.”

That must have been “The old Watch Tower.”

Yes, I quite understand the hon. member. He laughs out of sheer ignorance. I am talking about people who know something, and I want to issue this challenge to the hon. member. Let him bring me one other paper in the whole of the British Empire which regularly every day comments on Foreign Affairs; if he can do so I shall be prepared to admit that Mr. Duncan Hall’s information was wrong. We in this country want racial peace. That is what we require here most of all. We are face to face with great problems and we shall never solve them unless we have racial peace here. We have English and Afrikaans-speaking people here; providence has cast us together in South Africa, and we have to make the best of the position. Only if we do so, shall we be able to solve the great problems of reconstruction and social security after the war. We need racial peace for the solution of those problems. We have been trying for thirty-four years to bring about racial peace and to build up racial peace on the basis of the British connection. The English-speaking people say they have done their best and the Afrikaans-speaking people say the same thing, and yet we have never been so widely separated as we are today. [Time limit.]

As a new member of this House, it is an honour and a privilege to me to participate in the discussion of a matter which deeply affects South Africa and the people of our country. I fully appreciate the responsibility of a member of Parliament, and I want to try to speak accordingly. I participate in this debate as a born republican, and as an Oudstryder who struggled during the war and fought for the cause we are discussing today. I am one of those people who discusses this question not as a matter of sentiment, but as a matter of interest and as an ideal. I do not want to throw stones, but when one climbs a mountain one sometimes dislodges stones which roll down, and if I hit anyone he it at liberty to retaliate. This political sentiment started in 1912 when the wedge was driven in amongst the Afrikaner nation by the Nationalist Party. I must be pardoned for saying anything in regard to that wedge of sentiment which was driven in by a certain section of our people, and which led to a set-back, to dissension and loss of a sense of duty and of respect. That section of the people who were engaged and are still engaged in driving in this wedge base their arguments on sentiment, and they do so to their own advantage and to the detriment of the country. That sentiment proved destructive to our nation. From 1899 we had the goal of a republic to fight for, but later on it led to an exploitation of national feelings, and the outcome is that our people no longer have any respect or sense of duty, with the result that our moral customs and habits have retrogressed. That was the course which was adopted in 1912, a course which led to the division of the people. Until 1910 we gradually built up our land, but in 1912 that other course was adopted through jealousy and sentiment; the Afrikaner nation suffered, our principles were undermined and great damage was done to our people. I am not indulging in politics now; I am discussing a matter which causes great concern, and I address my remarks to those members on the other side of the House who are deeply humiliating the Afrikaner nation. When I think what the Afrikaners have achieved and how they have gained the admiration of the whole world, and I see what has been taking place, it makes me feel very sad. There are men like Gen. Hertzog and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who fought for the greatness of our country and people, but did not maintain it. I have been in this House from the 22nd January and have been interested to see how matters develop. To my surprise I noticed that the Opposition continually invokes sentiment. I hear the pleas which are made for a republic and how the Government is attacked and held in contempt, while they, as Christians, should respect the Government. They adopt the attitude that they are the only people who are Afrikaners. I challenge them to test the feelings of the Afrikaans-speaking members of this House, and even the feelings of English-speaking Afrikaners who are truer Afrikaners than some of the Opposition members. When we look around Cape Town we see many monuments. We see the monument of Jan van Riebeeck, the monument, of Cecil Rhodes and the monument of Gen. Botha and many others. I want to ask hon. members on the other side whether they see their way clear to build a monument of which they can be proud, if they carry on in this way. From 1912 to 1914 they have played on the sentiments of the people. Even today they are doing it. I as an Afrikaner respect the “Vierkleur” in the right spirit, but not when it is held out in order to cause mischief. In 1914 that sentimental wedge which was driven in caused a rebellion in this country. Brother fought against brother. A feeling of bitterness came into existence amongst the people as the result of that sentimental wedge. That side of the House respects no one, not even themselves. They are the great Afrikaners; that is what their Press tells the platteland. Now they are making an attack on hon. members on this side who are proceeding to build. Since 1899 up to the present time I have been following the same man, who throughout that time has followed one course. I come back to 1914. In 1914 we experienced the greatest bitterness which we have ever known in South Africa, and things go so bad that the sentimental wedge between fathers and children caused such bitter feelings that eventually they shot one another. Those are the consequences of that sentimental wedge which is still being driven in deeper and deeper today. During all these years the other side has been playing on the feelings and the sentiment of the people. In 1918-’19 we had an influenza epidemic in this country. I want to show how the Nationalists invoked sentiment. In Pretoria a pamphlet was sent out by the Health Department telling members of the public how to guard themselves against this disease. Do you know what happened? The late Mr. Tielman Roos got hold of a number of those document and printed these word on them: “To guard you against the khaki pest.” The strike of 1922 was also the result of this sentimental wedge, and the position became so serious that I could hardly go into the house of my best friend. Mr. Tielman Roos and Mr. Moll told them to be firm. He said: “We shall provide you with the necessaries of life.” Who is being accused now?

Give him a little water.

In 1924 that wedge was driven in so deeply that the Nationalist Party had to sell its birthright for a mess of pottage When they had an opportunity to declare a republic while the Nationalists were in power, they did not avail themselves of that opportunity. Why did they not do so? I will tell you what the reason was. They were perfectly satisfied from 1924 to 1933, because they were then in power, and at that time we did not hear that we needed a republic in this country. Hon. members know that the period 1924 to 1939 was one of quiet and peace in this country. In 1924 I asked the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) this question: “General, it seems that you are going to win this election. What are you going to do with South West? His reply was this: “We do not like stolen goods; if we win this election we shall hand back South West.” What happened then? In 1933 we stood on one platform, and I then asked the hon. member what they had done with South West. He replied that South West fell under the Union and that it would be foolish on our part to give back the country to Germany. In reply to a question he said that there was such a thing as a beginning an an end, and he expressed the opinion that the Nationalist Party had reached its end. Well, I admire that statement which he made. It was one of the few genuine and honest statements which has ever come from that side. In 1933, when the party did not know where it stood, they formed a coalition government. But immediately afterwards they started with the same wedge of republicanism through the purified Nationalists. During that election of 1933 or 1934—I am not certain of the date—we had one of the finest organisations which we have ever had at Witbank. When I think back of those days, I feel proud of the spirit of co-operation which existed amongst the people. From 1933 to 1939 they were driving in the wedge deeper and deeper. In 1939 the Leader of the Opposition drove the wedge in so deeply that it resulted in the political murder of the only Nationalist leader for whom I had any respect. Just look at the members on the other side today, the new heirs of nationalism. These are the men who preach on the platforms of the country that they are defending South Africa’s interests, that they and they alone are protecting the farmers’ interests, that they and they alone are promoting the country’s interests. I say that that is nothing but sentiment to drive the wedge in more deeply towards the destruction of the Afrikaner nation. Now I want to say a few words on the war. I started in 1899, when the motion was introduced by President Kruger. As a small boy I took part in that motion. In 1899 there was a threat in this country that the republic would be destroyed. President Kruger suggested that we should stand firmly and fight for the continued existence of the republic. He said that the Afrikaner people were entitled to retain their freedom in this country. We fought for that freedom for three years. I am convinced that the Leader of the Opposition is an older man than I am, but he was not present, and I take it therefore that he was hot entitled to move this motion which is now before the House. A motion can only be moved by someone who is great, and by a man who knows how to handle a motion. In 1899 we moved a motion, and we fought three years for the acceptance of that motion. (Laughter.) Hon. members may laugh. In 1899 we moved this motion.…

He gets no further than 1899.

Give him a little water.

We fought for three years and we lost that motion.

What year was it?

At that time we had the same stories that we have today. They also said: “Stand firm, the Germans are coming to help you.” Even at that time we had this false propaganda that the Germans loved Afrikaners, and that is why we carried on and fought for three years. The Germans never lifted a finger to help. After the war had lasted for three years, it was decided, sensibly, to attempt to make peace under certain conditions. It was decided that if those conditions could not be obtained, the war would be prosecuted. The present Prime Minister had the right to make proposals at that peace conference, and to amend the motion. Subsequent events have proved that it was a motion which resulted in great progress in South Africa. Great progress was then made until 1907. In 1910 we made an arrangement with the people in the other parts of the country, and Union was brought about, making South Africa a great country. In connection with the present war, hon. members may say that I am communistic.…

Hear, hear!

.… if I say that Russia is not yet in the war but is fighting against tyrants who invaded her territory, and who are still in Russia, engaged in destroying the country—for example, the battle of Smolensk was fought on dead bones. While Russia was still at ease during the course of negotiations, Germany fired the first shots. From the beginning of the war up to the present time Germany has always fought on Russian soil. I want to make an appeal to hon. members on the other side. The present Government is always accused of having recklessly interned innocent Afrikaners. I now want to accuse hon. members on the other side of being responsible for those internments. It is they who taught those boys disobedience and misled them until they found themselves in prison. At first hon. members on the other side held protest meetings against the war. At night they drilled in the bushes and taught those young men to have no regard for duty and order. And it is due to the action of the other side that those boys committed the most serious acts of sabotage. I want to ask those hon. members what they would have done if they had been the responsible government and sabotage had been committed against them. Would they not have taken the same steps which this Government took? They would have imprisoned those boys, would they not? And quite rightly.

Yes.

No.

Hon. members on the other side know well enough that it was because they were misled by them that those young men were interned, and I want to suggest, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition should withdraw his motion.

Why not introduce such a motion?

I shall move it if you will second it.

You must write it out and bring it to the Table.

It was in consequence of the German propaganda which they made that those young men proceeded to commit sabotage and are today in prison, and today hon. members are devoting days to accusing this party of having innocently imprisoned men. I want to challenge them to admit these facts, and to joint this Government, and immediately the internees will be released.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has involuntarily reminded me of a fly sitting on a turning wheel and exclaiming: “Look how I am making the wheel go round!” As a great Afrikaner he has informed us of the political developments in the country so that one gains the impression that he is the hub around which all Afrikaner activities revolve, just as the little fly makes the wheel turn. We expected that when such a comprehensive and important motion relating to questions such as Communism being the dominating factor in European affairs, the formulation of the Allied peace plans, the economic exhaustion of England and her resultant decline as a first-rate European power, the creation of an international policy for the promotion of world peace as also the extension and development of South Africa’s political freedom—we expected that when matters such as these were discussed in this House that the discussions throughout would be on a high plane and should remain on a high plane of respect and esteem. But what did we find? We expected that the Prime Minister—a man who thinks in international terms, whose mind is not merely fertile but often generates and has recently generated explosive ideas in London which are closely associated with this motion—would have treated this question of national and international policy in an unprejudiced manner. And now I should like to say something to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) in reference to his contention that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a weak commentator on international affairs for that was the reflection he cast on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When the hon. member for Germiston (District) talked about “intoksikasie” and said that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was a feeble commentator on international affairs, I expected that he himself would turn out to be an intellectual giant who would propound international conceptions “full of sound and fury”. But instead of members on the other side of the House approaching the matter without prejudice, we find that they as well as the Prime Minister have come along with somewhat minatory observations about the objectives of the Herenigde Nationalist Party. The Prime Minister wanted to create the impression that the Herenigde Nationalist Party was not honest in outlining its republican objectives, that their methods had been somewhat camouflaged and that the Herenigde Party was consequently guilty of political hypocrisy. Let me, as one of the backbenchers, say this, that we have always felt that one of the foundation stones of the Herenigde Party was not only the protection of the republican ideal, but a conscious striving with visor lifted towards the realisation of an independent republic separated from the British Crown. We as young members on this side of the House have always regarded the Nationalist Party as the accepted constitutional means at hand to direct the development of the ideal of freedom for our people. Freedom will only mean true freedom to us when political freedom is embodied in a republican form of government. The opposite side of the House must not accuse us of dishonesty in connection with our political objectives. Woodrow Wilson once said: “Let their be light,” and I also want to say to the other side of the House in reference to their shock tactics: “Let there be light.” We on this side of the House will not tolerate them posing as moral pedagogues presenting us with ethical political principles. If there is a Party that has always formulated its objectives with crystal clearness it is the Herenigde Nationalist Party.

[Inaudible.]

And now I should like to say to the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler), who has just interrupted me, that before he again talks lightly about a republic he must remember that republicanism is indelibly inscribed in the heart of Afrikaans-speaking South Africa. Republicanism radiates an emotional glow for all right-minded and right-thinking Afrikaners. Let me just add this. The hon. member says we are sheltering behind the Union Jack. Young South Africa will not for ever be tied to the apron-strings of a foreign power. When it stands as a republic it will fulfil its Heaven-appointed destiny. I should just like to say to the hon. members on the other side of the House when they accuse us of an isolationist policy in regard to world affairs that they have a very distorted conception of what constitutes isolationism. They say that we are not serious over the Republican ideal. I, in turn, say that they are not serious when they accuse us of subscribing to a policy of isolationism. Are they really serious when they suppose that we want to cut ourselves adrift from the rest of the world, and that we shall then have to experience a period of fossilisation. The real isolationist party in this House are the Dominionites; they are the constitutional fossils. As the result of the introduction of powerful means of communication such as the press and the wireless the world has shrunk in size and isolationism is impossible. We are a small nation with a duty to ourselves and to the rest of the world. We want to make a national contribution as well as a world contribution, but what hon. members on that side of the House have in view is an Empire contribution. We first want to be sound nationally and then sound internationally. We know that we must make a national contribution and also that we must fulfil our purpose towards humanity. The Herenigde Nationalist Party stands for a wholesome-borrowing from all vital cultures—

Now you have become a fusionist.

The hon. member talks about fusion. I shall tell the hon. member on what basis he advocates fusion. He says: “Lazybones, old chap, give me your hand, we are citizens of a yellow country”. While the Herenigde Nationalist Party says: “We extend to each and all the hand of brotherhood and we shall forge a bond of union of South African steel.” That is the difference between the fusion which we represent and the fusion which that hon. member desires. No, I say this, that I am convinced that when we are accused of isolationism and of not meaning this seriously, then it is only because the hon. members opposite have an erroneous conception of isolationism and also because they have, as they so often do, hurled the reproach at us that our political objectives have not been honestly formulated. They must not charge us with isolationism. Rather should they remember that there are other countries with an isolationist policy, or rather that are in danger of being isolated. We have in mind a country like England which is running into this danger, and it is little wonder that our Prime Minister had to go overseas to endeavour to strengthen England’s circle of friends and her foreign relationships. What is the position of England today overseas? As far as the Dominions are concerned we know that Australia today is in active co-operation with the United States of America and that she will in the future co-operate even more closely with the United States. As regards Canada we recall what Mr. McKenzie King said in his recent speech. In regard to South Africa I am at the moment taking part in the debate on a motion that presses for separation from the British Crown. No, as far as England is concerned, we find that she is betaking herself, or is being forced, more and more into the camp of the isolationists. It will perhaps now be remarked, yes, but what about the powerful friend that she has in Russia? Russia may be her friend today, but I fear that the day will soon break when England’s prayer will be: “Save me from my powerful friend.” Further, I say this, Mr. Speaker, that it is not right that members on the other side of the House should accuse us of being out for an isolationist policy. We on this side of the House stand for a wholesome borrowing from vital cultures of those things which we can turn to account in the building up of our civilisation. We do not want to be a slavish dependant of a foreign country. We shall however thrown open our doors to admit the invigorating breezes from a civilisation across the seas that can give us strength. It is in that spirit that we want to build up our nation, and those that have been casting reproaches at us do not really appreciate what the objective of this party is. But in view of the fact that the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) interrupted me on several points I think I had better dispose of him first. In the speech he made on this motion he declared that we must solve our economic and social problems before we busy ourselves over a republic. My answer to that is that when we bring a motion of this character before the House then we are actually presenting our republican objective in relation to the economic and social problems. We say that we stand for a republic—anti-capitalist and anti-communist. From the very nature of the case we admit that we regard the solution of our economic and social problems as inseparably inter woven with our political problem. Then I come to another idea that was expressed in the question that was put to us, whether we are not really a capitalistic party or whether we are opposed to capitalism. That was a question that was put to us in this House, and let me reply to the hon. members responsible for it that we are not antagonistic to capital nor to the possession of capital. But what we are definitely opposed to is the capitalistic system which has so degenerated that the State is developing economically in such a distorted way that we are today saddled with this formidable evil, that on the one hand you have a great accumulation of wealth, and on the other hand a condition of distressing poverty. This result that we have in our country today is nothing else than an admission that this system is not the proper system for our country, and if we regard the matter in that light then it will be realised what the objective of hon. members on this side of the House is. We do not want to have the profit motive only; we also want to see the motive of service. Let me put it this way: On our aspirations we want the motive of service to be predominant and not the profit motive. We want to establish a proper relationship between the profit motive and the social motive of service, and then we will have indeed a sound foundation for the economic life of our country. I think that every reasonable person will share that view, and that it will be the best system for our country. We are not hostile to personal initiative; nor are we ranged against private possessions, for we would be communists if we were. But we are anti-capitalists in the sense that we are opposed to that system of capitalism in which capital has so degenerated that it has produced this development, that the wealth of the country has fallen into the hands of a small group of people to the detriment of the general welfare of the country. If there was ever an immigrant with a bad record in South Africa then it is the capitalistic system as it has been revealed here. It came to this country with the opening of the gold mines, but it did not restrict itself to the development of those gold mines; it permeated into every branch of our economic activity. Furthermore, it did not confine itself to economic matters, but that capitalistic system became the foundation of political authority in the country. It gathered power into its hands; it got those in authority in the country under its control, and in this connection I should like to quote what Dr. Meyer has said—

On this side of the House we make the allegation that financial power and capitalism have developed along altogether wrong lines, that capital has not confined itself to the economic development of the country, but that it has aimed at the acquisition of political power and has in fact obtained it. In this connection I should like to read what Hobson says—

And then the reproach is levelled at us that we view the solution of our economic and social problems in conjunction with the solution of our political problem. We realise today that capitalism in South Africa is the power behind the throne, that it pulls the strings, and that our Cabinet are just the puppets who must dance when those capitalists pull the strings. Hon. members on the other side of the House must not reproach us on the ground that we have introduced the political objective in this connection. Recently a great deal has been said about social security. I feel that much of that is mere twaddle and theoretical speculation. These things can never pass into reality; we shall never be able to achieve social security for our population unless we take steps to disengage ourselves from the chaotic economic condition that imported capitalism has been responsible for in our country. As I have said, we do not want to eliminate the profit motive root and branch, but we want to make use of it together with the service motive. We are not opposed to individual initiative. If that is alleged against us then it is unjustly done. We, on the other hand, want to retain Individual initiative; we want to have responsible leadership; but we will not tolerate the profit motive being predominant and the elimination of the service motive. We want the service motive to dominate, and to make use of the profit motive. That is the foundation that we should like to have for the economic system in South Africa. I have endeavoured briefly to indicate what our economic objective is when we talk about a republic that will be anti-capitalist in character. Another thing that strikes me as peculiar is that we find that hon. members on the other side of the House now blossom out as people who want to go the whole hog and create an atmosphere of glorification around a country such as Russia. The Prime Minister talked about Russia not only as a great military power and a great diplomatic power in Europe, but he went further and talked about a great psychological change that had come over Russia, and that is reflected in what Russia is today doing for the world. Let me tell the right hon. the Prime Minister this, that a distinction is to be drawn between the inward life of a nation and the external manifestations of its power. We Afrikaners are not going to allow ourselves to be bewitched by the mighty achievements of Russia. The Afrikaner has not been so deadened spiritually that he is unable to differentiate between the internal and the external in civilisation. We shall make a distinction between that exhibition of power by Russia which is external, and those things that are internal, that are inherent in the country itself and which must find expression in other ways if there has really been a psychological change. Despite the external achievements of Russia I say that we are looking under the surface, and in doing so we cannot but maintain that Russia is atheistic, and we say that hon. members on this side do not want to see South Africa, as a small nation, dependent on a great country of that sort. In these days of tremendous propaganda a big effort is being made to place a halo of glory around the head of Russia. We in South Africa have our own national outlook on life, and we maintain that that national outlook is in conflict with that of Russia, and accordingly we cannot agree to be a satellite of that mighty colossus, Russia.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd March.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second Agreed to.

When this debate was adjourned on Tuesday I had reached a point when I said that the procedure of granting subsidies could not have the effect of lowering the cost of living. That must be obvious because it becomes in its final effect a drain on the community. When the price of bread is stabilised, the poor person going into a shop pays the same as the rich, but the money to stabilise the price of bread comes from the taxpayer. The main remedy is to produce at a cheaper rate. Now, I want to examine this question of social security in a general way. I want to deal with the question of the expansion of industries. Now, the first thing which strikes us forcibly in our national economy is our lack of purchasing power. Our total national income is in the region of £480,000,000 to £500,000,000, and if we consider that our total population, European and non-European is 10,000,000, we find that the average income of our 10,000,000 people is about £50 per year per person, an amount which is hardly sufficient to maintain anyone just above the bread line. That will give the House some idea of the immensity of the problem which we are facing when we attempt to achieve this object of providing a decent living, a decent home, and a decent environment for all members of the community. To revert to this question of our total national income, that at the same time denotes a low purchasing power, and there lies one of our main difficulties. If we want to increase our national income, we have to increase our purchasing power. We want to expand our secondary industries—that is one of the main essentials. We find in this country that directly we go in for mass production, and try to put our products on the market, we are very soon faced with a state of saturation—we cannot market our products. That is due to the fact that our population has not got the purchasing power to buy these things, and there lies our greatest difficulty. But there are, of course, adjacent markets, such as the Belgian Congo, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, and possibly further North as far as Tanganyika. But when we attempt to market our secondary products in those export markets we are not protected by tariff walls, and that brings us back to the point I made the other day—the price of steel. If we are asked to pay a price of 100 per cent. above world price for our steel, it will not only endanger our own internal markets, but it totally excludes us from the adjacent export markets. When I come to consider the other side of our national economy, namely the agricultural side, then I think the prospects appear to be a great deal more promising. I think in other words that the solution of our problem lies in our land. I think in our agriculture lies the ultimate solution of most of our problems. I feel that there will be a ready market, after the war for our agricultural products, such as meat, fruit, wine, grain and all the other things, dairy produce and so on. There will always be a market for that, and although at the moment we do not appear to give serious thought to our agricultural economy, that still is the position. I want to refer to soil erosion, and soil erosion is the most serious matter. The soil is our greatest national heritage, and I feel that this country should divert as much as possible of its capacity to the improvement of our agriculture, because therein, I feel, lies the eventual solution of this great problem, social security.

I feel that I should say, at the outset, that I have observed that this House extends the courtesy of an uninterrupted hearing to a new member when he makes his maiden speech. I have selected the subject of social security on this account so that I in my turn can observe the tradition of this House, in that it will enable me to avoid anything acrimonious and anything which may deeply affect, or offend the susceptibilities of any of the sections of this House. The question of social security is no new subject. It was referred to as long ago as the latter part of the 18th century by Tom Paine in his classic treatise, “The Rights of Man.” I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) in making the subject so topical and bringing it to the forefront of political issues in this country, and in doing so, I should also like to make reference to the fact that this Government, over a period of years, has introduced legislation of a social nature which has had in its effect the securing of a degree of social security, but nevertheless we do feel, as does the Government, whose intentions are obvious in the White Paper, that that in itself is not enough and something more comprehensive is needed. It is possible, and if I do so I crave the indulgence of the House, that I may traverse in my contribution—and I say with all humility—my humble contribution, that I may traverse old ground which by now is well worn, and I plead that this has occurred through the wealth of oratory and the flood of knowledge which has already been liberated on this epoch-making subject. I fully appreciate that the great problem of social security is dependent on our various resources, and by that. I refer to our industrial resources, our agricultural resources, and last but not least our human resources. Now, taking the first item—our industrial resources, one does appreciate that the basic feature of our social security in relation to our finances is the augmentation of the national income, and augmentation can only result through the medium of a marshalling of all the resources which I have mentioned. One appreciates that augmentation of the national income will imply increased productivity, and that in increased productivity manpower is a factor, in the shape of healthy human resources. One does feel, too, that in relation to our national economy one should emphasise the point that our national economy is closely interwoven with international economy, and so the social legislation which we are discussing today becomes of paramount importance, because it has a close connection with the provisions of the Atlantic Charter—the Atlantic Charter which postulates two fundamental requirements—first of all security of trade and finance as between nations, and secondly internal security born of freedom from want, improved living standards, improved health and increased working efficiency. I have stressed that, because in our international economy the question of import and export trade is of outstanding importance, since the balance of indebtedness must be in our favour if we are going to augment that national economy. And again I wish to emphasise that point because already the Commonwealth and the United States of America have taken steps to see that social measures, social security measures, are already put into effect, because the first of the provisions of the Atlantic Charter has been designed to stimulate national economy and so to enable nations to put into effect through financial stability social legislation and social security measures for an improvement of the living standard. In this country also it is imperative that we take steps to implement that second provision of the Charter and so to create that social security legislation, the monetary benefits of which are necessary as soon as possible. If we do not, we shall not be able to share in the provisions or the requirements of Section 1 of the Atlantic Charter, and so when distribution takes place after the war to enable us to get our portion of export trade and thus a balance of indebtedness in our favour, we shall be classed in the category of a nation with a low standard of living unless we uplift and raise the living standard of all sections of the community in this country.That I must emphasise and I think this latter is a point that so far, notwithstanding the spate of oratory and knowledge that has been let loose on this important subject, has not been stressed. The second point, and I am pleased to stand before this House as a townsman—and I am gratified too that I was preceded by I think the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams), also a townsman, who stressed the inter-relations of our agriculture in our national economy, is that industry and agriculture are closely interlocked with our human resources. It is only by close inter-association of all these factors that we can secure a sound national economy which is linked up with our national health, our standard of living, and I am almost tempted to say, our national character. I think at this stage I should refer to the question of our national resources. I have mentioned the three resources—our industrial resources, agricultural resources and human resources, and in that connection I should like to use the word complacency because it is a word that is most topical. It is a word that has been employed in relation to the war effort, and quite rightly so, but I think on our home front in relation to our national economy that we are justified in warning against complacency in relation to our long range economic policy. I think hon. members will appreciate the significance of what I say even though I deal with this in the summary fashion, which I intend to. We are told that it is true that in our two basic industries erosion takes place—I refer to mining as a primary industry. Mining has been referred to as a wasting asset—and in regard to mining it is true that a degree of erosion goes on. It is limited, and it is due to the artificial interference of man in his pursuit of wealth. We have too, in connection with agriculture, that canker which is limiting the progres there, referred to as soil erosion, and I say without fear of contradiction that in relation to our national economy we cannot have social security unless we ally it with that soil security which is so linked up with nutritional problems in this country. In connection with our agricultural economy I mentioned the question of soil erosion, and it is important as our soil fertility is being affected. It is necessary, too, to plan irrigation so that our water can be conserved, and in this connection I listened with interest to the remarks made by an hon. member. Education is a very important factor in connection with social security. In relation to that education we must consider it purely as education of an academic character. I feel, too, that the farmer requires education, education not on a basis of growing what sells best, but growing what is most necessary to the country, especially in relation to the protective foods. I come now to try to shake the country from that complacency in regard to what I have mentioned as the third and most important of these factors. I am referring now to the human resources. We have heard in this House a lot about malnutrition, and a great deal has centred around the question of tuberculosis. Reference has been made, and rightly so, to the question of venereal disease. And again reference has been made to the vicious living which is practised by a large mass of the people of South Africa who are living in the lower economic levels, and that applies particularly to our non-European races. That is linked up in our social security in relation to manpower. We cannot have real social security unless every section of the population is actually concerned in it as regards monetary benefits, and in relation to health benefits. This is of fundamental importance and we cannot stress this important point adequately or emphatically enough. I speak from experience—from a practical knowledge of the subject. But from a European standpoint,. I must at this stage refer to our evolution—hon. members need not fear I am going back to early evolution—I refer to the evolution which started at the end of the eighteenth century, gained impetus in the nineteenth century, and which today has brought us face to face with the mechanical age, an age in which man may yet be dominated by the implement he has created, namely the machine. There is a tendency in life—and I desire to stress this point, the machine is tending to increase our leisure time and reduce working hours, and unless in our social security scheme we direct, and through propaganda and example, stress the importance of the right use of leisure time, then I am afraid that our manner of living in that leisure time will continue for the large mass of the people to be vicious. You will consequently have a vicious cycle, lowering physique and lowering the standard of health. In connection with the non-European population, let me stress in connection with the lowered resistance of our non-European population, that although today epidemics may only be sporadic, there is a possibility that an epidemic may break out, which, owing to increasingly lowered resistance, may affect the health of the whole community. I do not want to emphasise my experience in this connection and the steps I have taken to counteract it. I trust this hon. House will accept my word. I have had this experience and I have tried to put forward constructive measures to counteract lowered physique and lowered resistance, and to improve living through the more rational use of leisure time. Mechanisation in this mechanised age definitely implies that we must counteract it physically, morally and spiritually if we are going to attain to that goal of social security and a new social order. The discussions so far have centred principally around the monetary benefits employed in the White Paper. Those monetary benefits are material. There must be something more than that if we are going to utilise such a scheme, and I think we can utilise the scheme as outlined in the White Paper, which provides for this to build up a new social order, an order which will secure some national advantage. I am sorry that we have not at this stage got a knowledge of the recommendations of the State Health Services Commission, because their report is so closely interwoven with the question of Social Security. The absence of that report is unfortunate, and I rather like the suggestion of the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Goldberg) that an interim report should emanate from this commission, and we could then see how we can interweave this question of State health services with social security, which we all so earnestly desire. Let me stress this very important point from a medical aspect. I pay tribute in this House as a medical man for services medicine has rendered in the furtherance of security. In the early stages the curative aspect was important. We have made great progress in that. Following on that in the industrial era in the last century we had the gravitation of the countrymen to the towns, with emphasis on the importance of collective medicine—public health medicine, in relation to sanitation and hygiene. I trust that the State Health Services Commission will, through the medium of their report, create a new era in medicine, an era that will carry us one step further in that it will stress the attainment of a state of positive health in relation to the individual—not merely a negative state of no illness—but a state in which cognisance is given to the environmental condition of man; and in that environmental condition I stress with emphasis that the most important unit in our social security scheme is the family unit, which is tending to disintegrate owing to the mechanised age in which we live—with the motor car, the cinema and other factors.

Cocktail parties.

An hon. member mentions cocktail parties, and that is true. I have no proof, but I think there is a tendency to overdo it. Well, we would initiate this new era of positive medicine. I would stress not only the physical aspect, but the physical aspect together with the moral and spiritual aspects, because it is only by a clear combination of all these factors that we can secure national character and a good citizenship in this country. Before I pass on, I feel as an ex-serviceman, that it is my obligation to stress the claims of the ex-serviceman in connection with social security. I know there are differences of opinion in relation to the war effort. One respects a man’s deepest convictions, but in saying that, I feel, too, where a man has the courage of his convictions and he goes forth to war, that although in this House there may be a degree of difference on political grounds—I do feel that we are united in admiration for courage as a characteristic of human nature. I feel, too, on that basis, that when we come to consider a scheme for the re-absorption of our ex-soldiers, that it will be considered with a degree of sympathy from all sides of the House. We must remember this very important point in relation to the soldier who has been on active service. He went forth and when he went forth to serve his country and to fulfil his obligations to the State, he was assured that his civil interests would be regarded as “sacrosanctus.” In that connection he fulfilled his obligations; the State now has an obligation to fulfil to him. I mention this point because his future is definitely wrapped up with Social Security; and again I would like to refer to one aspect, and that is the aspect of the soldier who has gone out, and has come back a physical and mental wreck, who has come back incapacitated in both these ways. One feels that the War Pensions Act might be overhauled, and in that connection, that adequate consideration should be given to those men who as a result of their service, are precluded as a result of the fulfilment of their obligations to the State from enjoying life. It is the State’s obligation to see that they are well cared for for the rest of their days. One observation in conclusion; that observation is this: I come from a predominantly English-speaking province and I stand before you as a unilingual man, unilingual by force of circumstances, and I mention this because I feel that through our social security measures, through sporting and cultural achievement—and that after all is the rational use of leisure time, we can stimulate a pride in our sporting and cultural achievements in this country which will facilitate the evolution of our sound nationalism as South Africans. It is interesting by way of observation in this House, that in this province, this so-called parochial province of Natal, when we have international contests, for example an international contest in rugger, we have on the basis of the composition of those teams a team with predominantly Afrikaans names. This particular so-called parochial province does not concern itself with a narrow racial outlook as is testified to by the predominance of those Afrikaans names. On those occasions the people are doubly touched—sub-consciously because their sense of South African citizenship is touched, and too, a sense of pride in their nationality is touched. They shout and they shout vehemently for South Africa. That is a happy augury for the future. Let us go forward. We have the potentialities. Let us have the will and let that will be goodwill.

Judging by the attitude of the Minister of Finance, there are today two dominating factors. The first is that the war must be seen through, and the second is that money must be found to see the war through. Notwithstanding that, I am convinced that at this stage a discussion on a subject like social security is very important, and that it will certainly contribute towards bringing about something in the future. I say that social security can only be undertaken and carried out successfully and on a permanent basis on a republican foundation. Why do I say that? I want to draw a comparison between what happened in the Free State and what took place in Natal. At the time when the Free State was a republic we found that there was penetration by a foreign race, a coloured race. The Free State Government prohibited Asiatics from entering the Free State, and I believe that there is not a single Free Stater who does not look back with gratitude to the wise decision of the old Volksraad to keep Asiatics out of the Free State. As against that, let us see what happened in Natal. There these foreigners were admitted. With what consequences? Hon. members who represent Natal will know better than I do what the position is. Even in these days they had to come to the Government for protection, because this foreign race was driving them out of the cities. That leads us to the conclusion that at that time the majority of the people in Natal did not look on South Africa as true Afrikaners should. They could not see South African affairs from the South. African point of view. They were looking at South African affairs from another point of view, and that was to fill their own pockets. That was the attitude of the sugar kings. They had a large population of native tribes; they had sufficient labourers, and it was not necessary to admit this foreign element for that purpose. They admitted the Asiatics with disastrous consequences. I have said that I am convinced that social security in South Africa can only be realised on a republican basis. What is the position today in regard to the relationship of the various races? The position today is chaotic. Europeans, coloureds and natives are inextricably mixed. There is only one sound policy, and that is the policy of the Nationalist Party to put a stop to this chaotic condition. What is its policy? The first requisite is that the European race in South Africa must be maintained. The second is that the Re-United Nationalist Party does not want to evade its guardianship; it wants to give the coloured element their due rights. The Nationalist Party would like to see that the coloured people are able to make a living, to enjoy their rights, and to live. It would like to see that the natives are able to make a living. It does not want to evade its guardianship, but today we have a chaotic state of affairs. Why is that so? There is a certain element in our country which is exploiting the coloured people for political purposes. Even in the days of Cecil Rhodes the coloured people of the Cape were exploited for political purposes, and the question is whether the coloured people will continue to be satisfied to be used as voting machines, because that is the only purpose for which they are being used. The Re-United Party says that a stop must be put to that state of affairs. The Europeans must be a separate group, the coloured people a separate group, and the natives a separate group. One of the better educated coloureds asked me once whether something could not be done for them. I then asked him what he wanted. He said that the position was becoming intolerable for the coloured people. In certain places, as for example, in the bus, they come into contact with Europeans, and they feel at once that they are not wanted. He told me that they know that they are not Europeans, nor did they want to be Europeans. Providence so ordained that they should be coloured people. They want separate buses. On the other hand, they do not want to be associated with the natives. The natives must also have separate buses. Then the Europeans would be satisfied, and the coloureds and the natives would be satisfied too. That is precisely what the Re-United Nationalist Party is aiming at. We do not want to evade our guardianship. We want to give each of the three communities their proper rights, and to enable them to live up to their own traditions and to lead their own lives. Then there would be an end to the chaotic position which exists in our country. But when I say that, I hear another voice, and that is that the Europeans must first put their own house in order. Until such time as we do that, we cannot accept guardianship over the non-Europeans. We are called upon to give the lead. But we ourselves are in a state of chaos. That has become apparent in this House. When important matters are discussed, matters affecting communal interests, we find that we differ from one another. We must put our own house in order, and as I have said, that can only be done on a republican basis. Why do I say that? What was the position and the relationship of the races in the Free State republic? There we found that the English-speaking people in the Free State had the same rights as the Afrikaans-speaking people.

The hon. member must not go into this matter at great length, but confine himself to the motion.

I just want to point out what the position is. We must put our house in order and adjust the racial relations. The accusation is often made that we on this side are racialists. I deny that. There is no one here who is a racialist. What is a racialist? Someone who is not prepared to respect what is dear to another. We on this side are all bilingual. I ask whether that can be said of the other side of the House, and until such time as the European population reaches the stage where they know each other’s language, they will definitely not understand one another. It has also happened in this House that there have been misunderstandings because the one does not understand the other. We must, in the first place, get to know each other’s language and understand each other. Then we shall have a basis for common understanding. That is where the Re-United Nationalist Party stands. It still adheres to the two-stream policy.

I must ask the hon. member to come back to the motion which deals with social security.

Thank you, Sir; and I just want to ask that we should realise that we too have a duty towards the non-Europeans, towards the coloured races. The coloured races must not be exploited for political purposes. We must come to the full realisation that they are here permanently and that we are responsible for them. The sooner we find communal ground, therefore, the better it will be for South Africa. We are being accused of exploiting these people, and it is high time for us to practice what we preach, namely, to aim at their continued existence and their welfare. We must give the various races their due rights, because the sooner we do that the better it will be for South Africa. We feel that that is only possible on a republican basis.

The hon. member must come back to the motion.

That is a duty which rests on us. Then there is the health of the people, and everyone must admit, especially as far as the coloured people are concerned, that an improvement is called for. Certain races are being destroyed by disease, and no provision has been made to combat and to prevent those diseases. That is proof of lack of responsibility. For that reason I make an appeal to this House to see that a stop is put to this chaotic position, and that we cease tolerating these conditions which are not a credit to South Africa.

As a newcomer to this House I found it interesting to listen to the speeches which were made in the course of this debate, and I must say that I came to realise fully that our Christian civilisation, at any rate, was making progress, because on no side of the House did we hear anyone dissent from this idea of social security. We all feel that it is urgently necessary. The only difference, as far as I can see, between the various parties is that the party which is responsible for giving effect to this social security, is slightly more careful, while the parties who will not be responsible, are fairly reckless, reckless in this sense that they are practically reaching for the moon. Personally I feel, because I know that the whole nation of South Africa, indeed the whole civilised world, is demanding social security, that if there emerges from this terrible war in which we are now involved, something in the direction of what we are discussing here today, it may appear in the future that this war was a blessing for humanity instead of a curse. Our people demand that everyone shall enjoy a measure of social security—employment for all and food for all. And we on this side of the House feel that since that demand is being made, we must in the first place take care of the returned soldiers after this war. This is one of the first duties which rests on us as a party and on this House. But at the same time we feel that every inhabitant of South Africa must have the right to know that it will be possible for him to lead a happy life in our country—not that everything should be provided in abundance—but nevertheless such a life that everyone of us will have that measure of social security to which every citizen is entitled in his fatherland. This subject has been so fully discussed in this House on all sides that one hesitates at this late stage to make a long speech about it. All the aspects of it have already been discussed. But as far as I am concerned, in my opinion not sufficient stress has been laid on one aspect, and that is social security in so far as it concerns the platteland. When we study our pre-war history, we notice in South Africa and practically in all parts of the world, that there is a steady movement to the cities and more particularly to the big cities, and that is happening in the first place because in the cities the conditions were and are perhaps more attractive to the labourers than on the farms. I am not referring to the labourers only, but also to the farmers’ sons. A very strong tendency is evident in South Africa for the farmers’ sons and daughters to refuse to remain on the farms; they want to go to the cities because farming is not sufficiently profitable and the conditions are not sufficiently attractive for these boys and girls, not to mention the labourers. This aspect of the matter must be thoroughly considered in connection with social security measures which may be brought before the House, that conditions on the farms and on the platteland must be made just as attractive for the farmers’ sons and daughters, and also for the labourers, as they are in the cities. We feel that since practically half the European people of the Union of South Africa are living in the large cities, it is an unsound state of affairs, and if these measures which we are going to introduce do not make proper provision with a view to rendering the conditions in the platteland attractive for the farmers’ sons and daughters and labourers, it may be that, with the best will in the world and in spite of all our plans, the effect of this social security will be that our very existence will again be unsafe, and more unstable than it was in the past. We all realise that employment must be found for all, that a reasonable means of livelihood must be found for all, and we know that if our platteland is properly developed, there is work for thousands—I would almost say for hundreds of thousands—of people in addition to those at present living in the platteland. It was stated here by an hon. member that those who live below the breadline, belong principally to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community. It was said that there are 400,000 poor whites in this country. I think that must be the pre-war figure, and if we were to go into the matter thoroughly now, I think it would be found that instead of 400,000, there are no more than 200,000 as a result of the prosperity which has come about through the war. Nevertheless it is a fact that those who live below the breadline, as far as the Europeans are concerned, are for the greater part the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community. Why is that so? The farming community of South Africa is largely Afrikaans-speaking. As a result of the policy which is being followed in consequence of the outbreak of the war—and indeed for the last twenty to twenty-five years—we found ourselves in this position that 12 per cent. of the national wealth was produced by 64 per cent. of the population. That is, of course, based on the prices which the farmer receives for his products. If we assess it on what the consumer has to pay for those articles which are produced on the platteland, I am convinced that it will appear that it is not 12 per cent. but 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. But the fact remains that the poor whites come from the platteland. Why should that be so? What facts, what sound arguments, can be advanced to explain that? Is it that the farmer does not get sufficient remuneration for his labour? The fact that the poor whites come from the platteland is in my own opinion one of the aspects of the matter which we shall have to take into consideration, otherwise we can never hope to make a success of this social security. In this short speech I do not want to suggest everything that might be done. But we thought, since we have sub-economic housing in the cities, that we could think along those lines as to whether it is not possible to have sub-economic housing on the farms in order to give our labourers better housing and to make conditions more attractive for them. Through the control boards which we have and the fixation of the price of products we could bring about an increase in the remuneration which is being paid to the labourers. In the past the farmer was often reproached that he did not give his labourers adequate remuneration. My reply is that since 12 per cent. of the national income is produced by 64 per cent. of the population, if the labourer’s wage is increased by two shillings per day, nothing would be left of the profits of the farmer, and in that case the platteland of South Africa would by now have been depopulated. We all feel that South Africa can only progress if we have close co-operation between the cities and the platteland. The platteland is as dependent on the city as the city is dependent on the platteland. It will not pay South Africa in the future to say that we are going to develop large strong industries in our country but that we are going to neglect the platteland. It will not pay South Africa if our other industries develop and if we neglect the farming industry. Then we shall find ourselves in the position in which England found herself before this war, when it had big industries but far too few products from the platteland, with the result that there was a great food shortage. Personally I feel that in South Africa where there is still such great scope in the platteland in the farming sphere, and since we can probably produce three times as much as we are producing today, everything which can possibly be done by this House should be done to afford the farming industry in the platteland and not only the farming industry but also other industries in the platteland an opportunity of expanding. I feel that in our future development we shall have to decentralise to a great extent. That would contribute to the health of our people, because instead of concentrating the people in the large cities, we should try as far as possible to spread the people over the whole Union, and having proper regard to our farming and to the standard of living it is possible and must be possible instead of having an influx from the platteland to the cities, to turn the tide from the cities to the platteland.

In the course of this debate we have heard very many eloquent speeches and ponderous pronouncements and recommendations that this, that or the other should be done—all in an abstract manner, but I have not yet heard anyone come down to brass tacks and say that there should be special provision made for this or that, and where the money is to be found. All this oratory in the House does not pay rents, and does not fill empty bellies, and what I propose to do is to repeat what I said last year when the motion of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) was before the House at the beginning of the Session. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) postulated in his first scheme that was before the Congress £8 per month for all those who are unable to earn an income, and I am a firm believer in that, as a minimum, and I suggested last year that we should immediately consider first things first. The Prime Minister has said that there will be no revolutionary plan for Social Security—we are going to build on the present basis, and on the present basis those cases calling for first attention are those unable to earn an income; I refer to the old age pensioners, the blind persons, the invalids and the war veterans. I suggested at that time that we should immediately increase the old age pensions, the invalidity pensions, the blind persons pensions, and the war veterans pensions, to £8 per month, and that in regard to the means test there should be no enquiry into the first £60 per annum of income derived from any other source. That would give a minimum of £8 to people who needed it and a maximum of £13 per month. If we con sider the cost of living in the country today, £3 10s. plus £1 cost of living allowance does not go anywhere. It does not keep people above the breadline, more especially if they have rent to pay, and throughout the country there are people who find it extremely difficult to arrive at the end of the month with a sufficiency of nutritive food. We will immediately say, “But this is going to cost a lot of money”. Well, of course it is. But the whole House and the country are perfectly persuaded that we have to endure additional taxation to that end. Everyone is convinced of that but we need not labour the point, and we need not go into party politics. There is this to be said. An hon. member said the other day that there were £70,000,000 in the Treasury and that the money was coming in so fast that they did not know what to do with it. A statement like that made within a fortnight of the Minister’s budget statement does not appear to me to have any foundation. It was said that the Treasury could do without our poor deposits in the savings bank, that they had so much money that they did not know what to do with it. I cannot conceive that the Minister of Finance would have informed any member of this House or any member of the public that such was the position. He would not commit hara-kiri in that way. No, I think that these tales of mythical money have their origin in the fertile brain of the hon. member who mentioned it. So what I do commend to the Minister of Finance and to the Government is this, that they immediately consider the grant of these increased pensions to people who are unable to earn income and I commend to the Minister that he boldly announce in his budget statement that this will involve a 30 per cent. increase in the income tax, and I am perfectly satisfied that members of this House will willingly entertain such an idea, and that they would be quite prepared to contemplate such an announcement of an increase in the income tax. Let us get down to first things first. There is the need and there are the means to satisfy that need. This is nothing new to members on these benches. We have pursued this object since 1933. There is a lot of hot air talked about social security having been born in the last few years. Nothing of the kind—it was born in the Dominion Party in 1933 and it is now coming to fruition.

You have waited a long time.

Yes; but we are within measurable distance of our objective. I commend to the House and to the Government the suggestion that we immediately increase the old age pensions, the invalidity pensions, the blind persons pensions and the war veterans pensions.

There are so many motions and proposals in connection with this matter that one requires a whole day to read through all the material and to study it. But we members who sit on this side of the House fully realise that nothing will be done.

To whom do you refer as “we”?

You are included. When one reads the White Paper in connection with this matter and one reads the motions which have been introduced and all the explanations which have been given—when we examine what is said in the White Paper in regard to the cost of these proposals and we ask Tom, Dick and Harry whether they are prepared to hand over so much of their salaries in order to make these things possible, then we would hear a different story. The man who has something is expected to give, and I am afraid that, as the motions now read, we shall get no further than we were in the past. We shall increase the old age pensions to some extent, we shall give the coloured people a litle more and give the natives a little more, and there it will end, What is so remarkable to me is the fact that here we have a commission which sat for days in regard to this matter, and when I read these motions and these proposals in the White Paper, I find that there is not single proposal which is original. There is no originality in connection with the matter, and it seems to me that the people have no imagination. The ordinary man in the street does not want Government charity. He is prepared to work for his livelihood. The fundamental basis is that there must be proper control so that every worker will be able to make a proper living, and so that the farmer too will be able to make a living, and to pay his employees. The farmer should not have the experience which was described to me yesterday by a person from Riversdale. He sends a calf to the market for which he usually gets £1 4s. 6d., but on the day in question he receives 10s. 11d., The farmer cannot exist, if that sort of thing happens, and he cannot understand why it should happen. We shall not make the people independent by giving them pensions and alms. But at the moment the position is that we know that nothing will be done. The people in the platteland do not know it yet, but they will still be disillusioned. That reminds me of the story of the Jew who wanted to go insolvent. He summoned his creditors and said that in six months time he would pay them 5s. in the £. One of his friends said: “But I lent you hard cash; why do you now want to pay me 5s. in the £ ?” He called him outside and said: “Just sign this document; I shall give you preference.” Shortly after that he told this man that he could not pay him anything, and when he was asked how he could do such a thing, because he had said that he would give him preference, the reply was: “Well, I am giving you preference; I am telling you this now, and the other creditors will only know it in three months’ time.” We know at this stage that we are not going to get anything. The people outside will discover it only later. Nothing will come of this matter judging by the manner in which it is now being tackled, and the people in the country will be disillusioned only later on. But. I want to say this to the Government, that the people in the country are expecting something. They are already becoming restless. They expect something to happen, and we can expect trouble if nothing happens. I hope that I, too, am a responsible person, and I shall have to pay something. But steps must be taken to guarantee these people social security, and we must not merely talk and leave matters at that. It take it that the Government is going to accept the motion and refer this matter to a Select Committee. Well, if it goes to a Select Committee, we might as well forget about it. The Select Committee will sit until this Session is almost over, and then they will tell us that they did not have time to deal with everything properly.

You may perhaps serve on it.

I have had a few years’ experience in this Parliament, and I know what is going to happen. I am very sorry that it is going to happen, because we have people in our country who are really poor. Hon. members on the others side do not know those people as we know them. In my constituency there are married people with children who work for 10s. per month, three slaughter animals and three bags of meal per year. I can mention numerous cases where that is the position.

Are these Europeans?

Yes.

I suppose they work for Nationalists.

I did not investigate whether they were S.A.P.’s or Nationalists. It does not matter whether they are S.A.P.’s or Nationalists; what is wrong must be put right. It is of no avail appointing commissions in order to postpone matters. Whether a person be an S.A.P. or a Nationlist he has to eat. When I see the houses in which these poor people have to live in my constituency, and I come to Cape Town and I see the houses in which people live who are not as well bred as those people, I feel ashamed to go back to my own constituency. The people who exploit these poor people live here in luxury, while the people in the platteland have to live in small houses with their wives and children, on small pieces of land, and make their living by the sweat of their brows. As far as I personally am concerned, I have the greatest sympathy for those people. I have no time for the rich man, because he can make his own living. But these poor people who require assistance must be helped. They find themselves in a sad position, and I am afraid that nothing will be done. Those people were asked to join the army and they were told that they were going to fight for a better world. That is what they expect, and we can imagine how disillusioned they will be when they discover that very little is going to be done for them. What can they expect after this war? It makes me shudder, because I know and I feel it in my bones that nothing is going to happen. I receive numerous letters from people who ask for work or money to study. Those people are not being assisted, and how will they be assisted after the war? This matter is now being pushed on to a Select Committee. The Select Committee is expected to find a solution. All I can say to hon. members is that I do not expect anything from this Select Committee. Here and there people will get a little more, but I expect no substantial assistance from this Government. The war has been in progress now for four years. The Government has made all sorts of promises, but it has not yet been in a position to come forward with a policy. All it does is to refer matters to Select Committees and commissions. Well, from such a Government I do not expect anything. That, however, is not my responsibility. The Government will have to give an account to those people to whom it made these promises, and it is they who will be disillusioned. But the trouble is that in the meantime we are making no progress. The Minister of Finance issued a warning two years in succession that we are spending so much money on the war and that we must remember that every pound which we spend on the war makes the country poorer. It detracts from our power to make provision for our people after the war. He told us that on two occasions, and we cannot blame him. But I do not like this hypocrisy. Everyone now comes along with this, that or the other proposal, but we realise that nothing will be done. If this Government is not able to come forward with plans to assist those people, it is its duty to retire and to give the opportunity to people who are able to do what the present Government is unable to do

The first remark I would like to make in connection with Social Security is that I do not like the term “Social Security” and I am sure the public and many who will eventually benefit by this form of security would prefer it to be called “Economic Security”. Secondly let us forget who first thought of it; whether it was the Dominion Party, the Labour Party, the Opposition or this Party, is a matter of very small moment. What we should consider in the future is how we can get together to solve this problem and to do something practical in the way of Economic Security. Judging by the tenor of the speeches made in this House, particularly the last one by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), the opinion seems to be current that, because this White Paper is to be sent to a Select Committee, the whole matter of Economic Security is to be shelved. That is not so. That is definitely not the intention of the Government. There are many elements, social and economic, which go to make up this problem and which must be considered in solving this problem. It would be idle for me to reiterate the various aspects which have been dealt with very adequately by different members of both sides of the House—the need for employment; for old age, disability, widowhood and orphanhood pensions; for health and nutrition services; education; and all the other necessary things including all too-pressing housing provisions. These problems have not been shelved and are not being shelved. Many of them have been dealt with in the past—inadequately I will admit; and in my opinion they were least adequately dealt with when certain members opposite were in power. They are being tackled now, and we are taking steps to deal with them, in piecemeal, I admit, but more adequately than in the past; and I am sure this Session will show that we are tackling the different elements of this problem and tackling them with a background of acquired knowledge which should help to solve them at least in part. I think all sides of the House are with me in this: that we should do something immediately in regard to a number of these matters, particularly in regard to old age pensions. How we can ever expect any man or woman, old or young, to drag out an existence on an amount of £3 10s., plus a cost of living allowance, per month, must be beyond the comprehension of any sane thinking person? Broadly I think the Government should not leave unexplored any way of assuring that the mass of the people of all colours and races should be fed, clothed and housed and educated adequately, and that before 1947. I have said that this question is being tackled effectively, if in piecemeal. We have before the House certain legislation such as the Fisheries Bill, and we will have the Volunteers’ Re-Employment Bill. These are just first stages. It is not for me to criticise them. They are the first stages towards securing economic and social security for different classes of people in different circumstances of living and all these particular elements will be eventually fitted into the general framework of economic security as envisaged in the White Paper. I am sure—and I will go further and say that on behalf of returned soldiers I demand—that this Session some plan comes into operation in connection with returned soldiers. I would like the Hansard writer, if he is not too weary, to underline that word demand. Something must be done this Session in connection with returned soldiers, whether white or coloured or native, men and women. It is not for me to foreshadow anything in the way of legislation, but I would like an assurance that the plan that will eventuate will deal adequately with rehabilitation; re-employment; a revision of the war pensions; and which will deal in a generous way with gratuities and grants; and that those gratuities will take into account length of service and that there will be no silly nonsense about rank, and that every man from a private to a general will get the same benefit after the war and the same chance of rehabilitating himself, and the same monetary help to do so. I think the land grants and the university and technical college grants should be, and will be, generous. I hope that all these things will be made retrospective, and that the soldier who has been demobilised before these things come into effect will be able to take advantage of them afterwards. Not only the gratuities but any plans for rehabilitation or re-settlement or re-employment that may seem to him more attractive than that which he has been forced into now owing to the immature stage that our mobilisation has reached and his possible insecurity in the immediate future. Whoever eventually works out these schemes for the soldiers should have in mind that the predominant aspect of the whole thing is the machinery with which it will be worked. I hope that they will not attempt to use the rusty and inadequate machinery which is at present being used, and I hope they will take note of the remarks which have been made in this House, particularly by the hon. member for Nigel (Mr. Ueckermann) on this very same point. I think that we should make the first plank in our social security problem the securing of Economic Security for all those men who have won for us national security. I do not think I am far wrong in saying that we might not be discussing this very subject in this House tonight if it had not been for those men who fought to secure our national security. Even if, as I think it will, its costs no less than £100,000,000, which is just one year’s war expenditure, we should face the prospect of that sum being allotted to see that the soldiers are properly and effectively and happily made secure economically as well as socially. I do not want to go over the ground of all those other speakers who dealt with the subject, except to point out that the main problem is for us to increase our national wealth in such a way that we can find the money to bring about economic security for every man and woman and child of all colours and races in this country. Before we will ever be able to do that, we must settle once and for all our quarrels regarding the very contentious matter of State enterprise versus private enterprise. Here we have a quarrel which threatens, I think, to split us in what should be the single aim of increasing the productivity and wealth of South Africa. I am a protagonist of neither of these two schools of thought. I think they should come to some understanding, with the main idea of building up in this country healthy, sound and lasting secondary industries—particularly those secondary industries which depend on South Africa’s primary products—those primary products which unfortunately in the past have often been sent overseas and sold at a price far below for what they could be purchased in this country and sent back to us in the form of finished goods and sold in competition with our own finished articles and at a lower price. The Government has announced its intention of interfering to shape the course of South Africa’s economic development. I think they are right in so doing. There are, however, some of us who fear that they will proceed ruthlessly to socialise all industry to the exclusion of private enterprise. I hope—I think—that is no so. I am a firm believer in State enterprise to provide us good schools, good roads, good hospitals, post offices, courts and even gaols—and referring to the Minister of Economic Reconstruction’s new Bill—to protect such people as the inshore fishermen of the country. But I do hope and pray that State enterprise will not encroach too far on private endeavour, upon private enterprise. I do think that many of us in this House on both sides do not realise the danger of a complete system of State enterprise. I do not think the farmers have thought, when they advocate State enterprise, of the possibility of being forced into collective farming under a system where they will be told where to grow, what to grow and how to grow. As our farmers are mainly made up of that “race” who showed their private enterprise during the Great Trek, I do not think that they visualise a condition of total State enterprise. Nor do I think that many of us recognise that, whether we like it or not, in a condition of total State enterprise the “politician,” the man in Parliament, is the boss, as he should not be. The “politician” tells every man where he should work and what he should get paid, and he tells every farmer what he should grow, where he should grow it and how he should grow lit. No! These two elements of State enterprise and private enterprise must work together in an immense partnership. We have Russia and South Africa on opposite sides of the Pole in this respect. We have each working on a different system towards a “golden mean”. We are trying to work from a previous state of predominant control by private capitalism towards a system of increased State enterprise, and we are gradually evolving into a condition where these two, private enterprise and State enterprise will be combined towork together. Russia had a system of totalState enterprise and is working away fromthat and will, I believe evolve a system which will be much the same as that towards whichwe are evolving. They have introduced a system of private capital again; of differentiation of wages to reward extra merits. I think we should realise that it is a partnership we want in this country between these two elements. It is a partnership which will result, I think, in the greatest efficiency in creating more wealth for this country. There are many reasons, I think, why private enterprise sets the pace for State enterprise, and I think one can sum it up in that one word “loss”. Human nature being what it is, there is always some “purge” needed for laziness, inefficiency or bad management. Under the system of democracy that purge is “loss”—loss of money, loss of jobs, loss of prestige. In a country completely run by State enterprise, that purge is blood; and I think that when the “profit motive”, which is by no means inconsistent with service, goes the “loss purge” goes, and the “loss purge” is much more desirable than the firing squad. A well-known pro-Russian writer whom you all know, mentions in a part of his recent book the fact that a factory manager in Russia said to him: “If I were inefficient I would be eliminated.” That is not, I think, modern Russia today. We must admit that the ideal is a combination of State enterprise and private enterprise, both working together, both realising where their best endeavours will get the best results. And I think we should get down to a stage where both of these produce the greatest amount of wealth that can be produced in this country to make sure that we will eventually get Economic Security. With your permission, Sir, I would like to read some words that I wrote in a pamphlet several years ago which may act as some guide as to the way in which our industries can be developed for the welfare of South Africa. This is what I said—

I wrote this before the war, and I maintain that if, with these objects and aims and limitations, private enterprise and State enterprise get together, they can produce a condition of affairs in which they are more likely to produce economic security for every single person in this country. I think that thus, and thus only, can we build up economic wealth in South Africa in such a way as to ensure the full realisation of the programme outlined in the White Paper. Lastly, and with due deference—I see the hon. the Minister of Finance is here—I would suggest that we need, if we are to build up an economically secure South Africa in the immediate post-war future, to review our taxation policy. The Minister has informed us that he does not intend to change our present war-time basis of taxation—of course we must, and we will, first win the war. I think his contention is absolutely right there. But, as a man-in-the-street, I can say that it seems to me that everything in our economy is now being adapted to our future post-war needs except our taxation policy. I think that in everything we have in mind—after our first object of the winning of the war—we are attempting to prepare for the conditions which will come after the war. We have a Minister of Economic Development and we have a Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. For what purpose? I think the purpose is to prepare for tomorrow today. The purpose is to prepare for tomorrow now even while the war is on. I think all our plans—our plans for economic security—have been and are being geared to a changing set of circumstances—all except our taxation policy. That, too, should change now for tomorrow. And I have two objects in mind in asking for that change. I cannot go into detail as to how taxation should be altered, as quite frankly, I have not the ability, but first I think we should take steps to release for post-war reconstruction, by State and private enterprise, all the millions of pounds that now lie idle, haunted by the fear of only 8 per cent. maximum profit. What use will it be to alter taxation after the war and to release this capital perhaps onto a market that is inflated, when it will not be able to purchase as much machinery, as much wealth producing facilities, as it can today. Secondly, I say the whole policy of taxation should be altered to a new set of circumstances because our economy is changing from a monoculture of gold to a reign of the Secondary Industry. We must take into account the waning life of the gold mines, the fact that their life is limited. Various experts vary as to how long they will last, but they definitely have a limited life, and I think we should concentrate on building up our industry and making it strong and healthy in time to coincide with the time when our gold mines fall off in production and to come to its maximum before our mines are finally lost to us economically. I think it is generally known that many mining companies are awakening to this fact and investing more and more of their money in commercial and industrial undertakings. Industry, to my mind, is the coming thing, and taxation must be revised and reformed with the object of building up and developing South Africa’s greatest future asset, the Secondary Industry, and incidentally to help bring about the set of circumstances, which will cause the realisation of the dreams which many of us have for the practical enforcement of the White Paper and all it means in the way of Economic Security to all the people of this country.

I rise to say a few words on this debate, not because I feel that the subject has been thoroughly debated but because I represent a constituency in which there are a large number of poor people, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), and that these people regard the movement for social security as a hope for the future and as security for the future, and I would be failing in my duty if I did not take some part in the debate. There are four resolutions before the House, but I find the most confusing is that of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, because he asks the Government to implement its promise made some years ago in favour of social security and then he goes on to say: “If you are unable to give us social security please give us a State bank.” Well, I must say that I do not see how a State bank is going to give social security and how anybody but a well-to-do man can go to a State bank unless that State bank is to become insolvent within a very short period. It is one of those specious ideas which it seems to me the hon. member clutches at in the hope that it may capture the imagination of the people. The first amendment is the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan). I intend to come back to that amendment because that amendment is an evangelical amendment, and as far as this House is concerned, I think we can say that we are determined if social security can be secured to this country to secure it, and if it cannot be secured to the full extent, to give it to the full extent that this country is able to give it to the people. Then I come to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). That amendment completely ignores what is taking place in South Africa today. It is one of those resolutions which seeks to throw dust into the eyes of the public and tries to make political capital out of the ignorance of the followers of that side of the House. I want to refer to a few of the provisions. The first thing the Government, if called upon to do is to establish 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; but in this very Session we have a Bill before the House to amend the Board of Trade and Industries Act, which specifically provides that the Board shall advise the Government in regard to all matters relating to the development of the economic resources of the Union in its trade and industries. Then the amendment goes on to ask for special control of the gold mining industry in this country and the representation thereon of Government nominees. If there is one industry in South Africa which is well run and which plays the game with its employees it is the gold mining industry. It is an industry that this country is not only proud of but an industry which compares favourably with any other mining industry anywhere in the whole world, and the Miners’ Phthisis Acts today, as far as they go, contain in them the germ of social security as far as the employees of that industry are concerned, and in the recently published report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission principles are laid down for the protection of the employees of that industry. While this report was being prepared the Beveridge report came out in England and an addendum was added to the report which showed that the conclusions arrived at by this Commission were in accordance with the conclusions of the Beveridge report. Section 197 says this—

And those conclusions are specifically referred to in the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission; so that when members of the House come along and say: “We want the mining industry to be controlled by the Government,” they are pointing to an industry which requires less Government control than any other industry in South Africa, an industry which embodies in itself some of the best principles of social security, and which will, if the present report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission is adopted, extend the present benefits in accordance with the report made by Sir William Beveridge. To show the speciousness of the proposals of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), he wants among other things the introduction of our own separate currency. I always understood that we have our separate currency in this country, although lit is la currency based on the sterling system. But in the old republican days the republics were not blind enough to have their own currency. Their currency was also based on the sterling system, because they recognised that their interests, as far as trade was concerned, were linked up with the other provinces of South Africa. Canada, it is quite true, has departed from the sterling system, because her commercial interests are bound up with America, and their interests are closely inter-related with those of the United States. But for us to break away from sterling would be suicidal and opposed to our interests; it would, moreover, be opposed to the traditions of South Africa, even back to the republican days. I pass on to the other matters referred to, many dealing with schemes that are actually being carried out by the Government. For instance, in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ceres we have this—

All these things are being done today, and for the hon. member to bring an amendment of this nature is simply to ignore the facts of the case and to appeal to the ignorance of the public. I was coming back to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), and I want to refer to an article which he wrote in December, 1943, on social security. In that he points out that our economic structure does not rest merely on a European basis, and that it is only by raising the economic status of, and establishing social security for, all the lower strata of our population that we can lift our nation to a higher and more equitable (standard of wellbeing—which I do not think there is any doubt about. He goes on—

Dr. van der Bijl also made some pertinent observations on this point in a recent statement He said—

The problem that presents itself in order to furnish us with any adequate amount of social security is to see how the national income can be maintained on a basis of £480,000,000. There are very few authentic figures which can tell us what the national income was before the war, but there is an article in the South African Journal of Economics in 1940 by Prof. S. H. Frankel and Mr. S. D. Newmark of the University of the Witwatersrand which shows that in 1934-’35 the national income of the Union was £327,000,000, and we can assume that in 1939 it had developed probably to a maximum of £350,000,000. So in consequence of the war the national income has developed to probably £480,000,000, an additional £130,000,000 directly attributable to the war. If that is the position we can see at once that the problem is how to maintain our national income on a basis of £480,000,000. I want at once to deal with the question which has been raised in this House that if we are spending £170,000,000 today, in time of war, we can spend £170,000,000 in time of peace. Well, I doubt that; I question that very much; in fact, I go further and I say that we cannot spend that amount of money in peace-time. Of that £170,000,000 about £103,000,000 is raised by way of taxation and about £66,000,000 is borrowed. It is borrowed from people who make their money in this country in consequence of the war, but who have been unable to invest it outside, and who do not wish to invest it in this country because of excess profits duty and for other reasons, and the consequence is an abnormal state of affairs. There is an extraordinary amount of money waiting for investment, for which no suitable investment can be found, and it is in consequence of this that the money is lent to the Government. More than that of the £103,000,000 which is being raised by way of taxation includes a large amount derived from excess profits duty, fixed property profits tax, and increased production in consequence of the war, as well as increased income. You must realise that it is impossible to maintain our national income at the necessary level unless we find a market for our products after replacing our war products by peace products; we shall have to sell them abroad. Our income today is the fruit of war conditions. The question of production prices does not arise; there is no competition as far as we are concerned; we can produce as much munitions as we are able to turn out, and there is no limit to the requirements to satisfy the consumption caused by the war. We know that everything that we can produce in this direction will be taken up without regard to price. But the moment the war ceases and we have to switch over our industry to a peace time basis, the position will alter, particularly because the element of competition is at once introduced. You will have a starving Europe, where people will be producing goods at starvation wages. You will have competition from the East; you will have competition from Britain and you will have competition from America. We will be faced with competition from the most highly organised industrial countries of the world, with industrial populations of a most highly efficient character. Those are the elements which we have to consider; and at once one asks: What can be done in order to protect us against the consequences of these conditions? It seems to me what we have to face is that it is vital that our framework for peace must be so designed as to protect us in those markets that are natural to us. That must happen. Our markets are in Africa. I do not know how it is going to happen, whether a quota can be awarded or certain markets assigned to us, or whether certain products can be assigned to South Africa. But unless something is done on those lines our industries must dwindle, and we must inevitably be faced with a considerable amount of depression after the war. So I maintain that it is our duty to urge upon the Prime Minister, who is bound to have a very strong voice in the peace conference, to see that something is done not only to protect ourselves but to secure to every country its legitimate markets in respect of its legitimate products. Our natural market is of course Africa, and if we can have some zoning system, if we can have some cartel system, or if we could have some quota system which could be allocated to us to ensure the consumption of our goods, that we should then have some form of security. Those are matters which we have to consider and which I hope will be considered when the time comes. These are not original thoughts. These are thoughts that have been referred to by Sir William Beveridge in an article which he addressed to Americans. This is what he says in his book “Pillars of Security” (page 178)—

So we see how a policy of isolation would kill South Africa, and how necessary it is for us to have friends and to keep those friends with a spirit of goodwill and co-operation in order to maintain that measure of prosperity we have been able to achieve. The whole of this question of social security has arisen in consequence of the report of Sir William Beveridge in 1942. The people who have read extracts from that report do not realise that in Britain social security has been developed over the course of the last 50 years. I will tell you of some things that have taken place in Britain. The year 1906 was the date of the introduction of meals in schools, the precursor of the scheme for milk in schools which was introduced in 1934, and which in 1942 was extended to all schools. Today in Great Britain the meal scheme serves eight out of every ten children and the milk scheme one out of every four. In 1907 school medical services were first established on a nationwide basis. Today hundreds of school clinics provide routine medical inspection three times between the ages of five and fourteen, as well as more frequent treatment for delicate children. The year 1908 saw the beginnings of a scheme for national provision for the aged, and today the old age pension begins at 60 and over 3,000,000 people draw it, while over 1,250,000 receive a supplementary pension. In 1911 we had the introduction of unemployment insurance in England, and it was followed in 1912 by national health insurance. The first scheme applied to 22,500,000 people or half the population of the country, and the second scheme to 90 per cent. of the people. During the period between the wars, that is between the years 1919 and 1939, the most outstanding advances were made in respect of maternity care, housing and nutrition. In 1918 maternity care, and the welfare of children under five years of age became a public service. Today these services have assumed very large proportions. Medical treatment is provided free in infant and child welfare clinics to children up to the age of five. It is remarkable in this connection that infant mortality during the twelve months ended March, 1942, was the lowest on record. The benefits that these services bestowed on the nation were reflected on the outbreak of war; when the war commenced, in consequence of the tremendous state services enjoyed by the British people there was an extraordinary high percentage of efficiency amongst the people of Great Britain. Now it must be remembered that the Beveridge report only extends the services at present existing in Great Britain. I have the report here and it is pointed out on page 15 of the report that the next addition to the burden on the national exchequer in the first year the scheme would be in operation, that would be in 1945, as compared with national expenditure under existing arrangements, will be about £86,000,000; and the amount which they are spending under present arrangements is £611,000,000. So that the total amount of national expenditure in Great Britain in 1945, if the Beveridge plan were adopted would be £86,000,000 plus £611,000,000, or a total of £697,000,000. It will be clear to you from the figures I have quoted how far they have progressed in England in this direction, and the main increase in expenditure as far as Great Britain is concerned will be in connection with the abolition of all means tests for old age benefits and so on. So that everybody will be entitled to participate. I think that the public of this country must realise that while this House is anxious to do its best in order to secure some form of social security, and as adequate a measure as our resources will allow, we cannot compare our position with one of the richest countries in the world, and a country which has for two generations developed its social security programme. I think that must be realised. There is another subject on which I should like to say a few words. People will go on saying that South Africa is a rich country. I should like to point out that in Great Britain the national income per head, man, woman and child of the population is £145. In New Zealand the national income per head, man, woman and child of the population is £113; in South Africa the national income per head in 1934, according to the figures which I quoted from the South African Journal of Economics, was approximately £38 10s. per head, and if we take the present national income of about £480,000,000 it works out approximately to £45 or £48 per head. I do not want it to be thought as far as I am concerned, or as far as any hon. member of the House is concerned, that we are not anxious to build up a strong and healthy and intelligent and prosperous South African people. That is our aim. That is what the people expect of us, and it is what they visualise. The first thing we have to do in order to secure that is to build up a healthy people and an intelligent people and an industrious people, to increase our national production as far as it possibly can be increased, and to see to it that as a result of our efforts and expenditure we will secure for every man, not only income security but social security as well, giving to the industrious citizen a fair chance in life, and an opportunity for bringing up a family in decency and to provide him with security and reasonable comfort in his old age.

I wish to thank hon. members on all sides of the House for their participation in this debate and for the views have contributed on this important subject. I wish also to express my sincere appreciation to the Government for having allowed the time that was necessary for this motion to be discussed as fully as the House has done. We appreciate that very much indeed. It indicates moreover that the Government is not prepared to treat this matter as lightly as some people imagine they would do. I wish to say this too, and I think everybody will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that in general the standard of discussion in this debate was fairly high, higher, I think, than the standard to which this House is accustomed to in debate. What I also greatly welcome is that with a few exceptions the House appreciated the substance of the motion, as was clear from the tenor of the numerous contributions to the debate from all quarters of the House. It is very remarkable that not a single member expressed himself absolutely opposed to the contents of this motion, not one; and for that also I wish to thank hon. members in every quarter of the House. It appears to me that the majority of the speakers, though one must make an exception of the last speaker, had carefully studied the motion; but it was clear to me that the last speaker had not read the motion because he put it that I said that if we cannot have social security then we must be given a state bank. Every member who has read the motion knows, of course, that that criticism is entirely without foundation. I only make this state bank issue here a proviso, because it was in this instance a challenge to the present system; and the Prime Minister has given an answer to that challenge. My motion sounded a challenge to the present system. In effect it said: Are you capable of carrying out such security. That was clearly a direct challenge to our present system. The Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, replied: Yes, I am. I accordingly responded: If you can, you are going to have the opportunity, you are going to have the opportunity to put social security into practice. The Prime Minister gave us his assurance that it could be done, and if the Prime Minister says: Yes, my Government under the present system can do this—then we are prepared so say: Go ahead and put this into effect. The Prime Minister, as the most important spokesman on the side of the Government and on behalf of the United Parties gave it as his opinion that the question of our returned soldiers is No. 1 issue. So say all of us. That is the reason why we have included this very important clause in our motion—“full employment for all,” because once you have achieved employment for everybody surely the returned soldiers will be dealt with properly and get what they deserve, and that is the opportunity to find suitable employment to earn a decent living. Therefore the Prime Minister will agree with us, and the whole House will agree with us, that the motion framed by our Party is broad enough to include what is priority No. 1 as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, namely, the welfare of the returned soldier. Then again, I appreciate that the opinion was expressed by so many members that the employment question is the most important and most vital part of social security. But at the same time it appears to me that some members of this House do not realise the tremendous effect on the economic structure of this country if everybody is kept constantly in full employment; because it appears to me there are still certain members—I am very glad to say very few—who are concerned about the potential cost of social security. In our party we are not concerned about how to meet the cost of social security. I know the question will again be hurled at me: What is it going to cost, and why do not you submit a scheme to finance the plan? I am not going to do it. Because it seems to me to be an issue of as vital importance as the war issue, and not a single hon. member present has asked the question: How are we going to finance this war? We simply decided that we must see it through, and I know there are members on all sides of the House, who in the same way, maintain that social security must be carried through—and the Prime Minister says he can do it. The first amendment I come to is that of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) My hon. friend moved for what was, in his opinion, a better scheme than mine. His main criticism against me was that my scheme was not comprehensive enough. Let me assure my hon. friend if I take his amendment together with the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and all the other amendments, I could keep on expanding the plan for a very long time, making it more and more comprehensive: and I challenge anybody in this House or indeed anybody in the world, to produce a scheme which cannot be made still more comprehensive. You have just to go on expanding, and including more benefits, and filling in more details; in this way it continues to be more and more comprehensive. But my hon. friend will agree with me, in spite of the fact that he found it necessary to move an amendment, that after all his idea is practically the same as mine. It is just a question of different words. But I think you will agree with me you cannot ask the workers and the people of South Africa to accept his amendment in preference to my motion, because although mine perhaps contains fewer words, I think it is more constructive and far more definite. It tells you exactly what we want instead of trying to set up a large number of boards which practically exist already under the present Government. The argument applies to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ceres. I could keep on adding to these amendments a further series of amendments to make the motion more and more comprehensive, but I give credit to the members of this House for the exercise of their intelligence, and for being able to read into the motion what my intentions were regarding this matter of social security. And, Mr. Speaker, I want this House clearly to understand that the social security motion moved by me on behalf of my party, does not represent to be the be-all and end-all of the policy of the Labour Party. We only ask the Government here to provide what are for most people the barest and most vital necessities of life. We are not asking for the moon; nor on the other hand are we saying that is all we want. But there again we come back to this, that the motion is a challenge to the present system. The question is, can you do it. The Prime Minister says yes. I am inclined to say that there was determination in that “yes,” and that he can do it. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) says this Government will be on trial. I should say that this system is now on trial, that a challenge has been flung at this system. The Prime Minister says that under the system you can do it. Therefore this system is on trial, and I say, see if you can do it. If the Prime Minister and his colleagues say that they can do it I think it can be done, but allow me once more to say in this House why the subject matter of my motion constitutes an attack on the present system. I want to say this, that the Labour Party has never attacked any individual, but it has attacked high finance as such, and claims that it is the dominating power over the Government, making it absolutely impossible for the Government to carry out its policies, or at any rate obstructing the Government from time to time. That is organised finance, or as we know it, under the collective term of capitalism. That is where we clash with the present system, in regard to the dominating effect of that power on the financial system of the country. Will you allow me, Sir, just to point to the roots of the present system. That, I think, will place the members of this House in a position to decide whether it is necessary to worry very much about the present system any more, or whether we should not say: “You have been on trial long enough.” After all, what is responsible for the present war? If we really go deep enough to trace the roots we will find there a system of capitalism. The system is such that in the first instance it provided the aggressor nations with all the material to arm and to come and attack us. If it was not for the capitalist system, if it was not for the vested interests who sent Germany all the steel she required to arm to the teeth, I do not think we would have seen this war. What is the reason for the present maldistribution—I call it maldistribution. How often have we not seen in this country over-production at one end of the country and starvation at the other. Who is to blame for that? Is it not the capitalist system, is it not the present system? Who is to be blamed for the depressions that so frequently occur? Is it not the present system? Who is to be blamed for agitations of various kinds that have taken place? Prior to the fall of the Government in 1933 there was a depression in South Africa, and the present system can bring the present Government to a fall whenever the people behind it come to that decision. The Government can be kicked out by the wielders of power under the present system whenever it pleases high finance, and they will keep our present Government in office so long as it pleases them. And the most important thing, the very same issue which we are attacking in this motion, is unemployment. Unemployment is inevitable under the present system. If the Prime Minister can assure me that this system can abolish unemployment, well, I should like to take his word. If the present Government could do that—I am afraid—no, I would be pleased to say that if they could do that they would be entrenched for many generations in the control of this country. Failing that it will once more be a question of choosing between the Government and the system. Who is responsible for all these industrial upheavels which we have had? I say it is the present system. The Labour Party has never found it necessary to attack individuals, because we realise that individuals are forced by circumstances to do things which they don’t like, but it is the system which is responsible for upheavels, civil wars and such things. Industrial poverty is another important feature of the present system. The inability to combat disease is another feature. Ever since I have been in this House, Government after Government has brought forward reports to show how disease is spread. Governments have tried their utmost to deal with these evils, but under the present system you have been unable to provide the necessary housing accommodation for the people in order to prevent the spread of disease. The present system has also failed to give proper education to the people, technical or academic. The present system has failed to give us free hospitalisation. Ever since I was a child our hospitals have had to depend on the goodwill and willingness of people to stand at street corners to collect money, and I have many a time heard women say: “Were it not for the fact that we pity the poor who cannot pay, we would never go so far as to collect money for the hospitals.” That is another feature of the present system. Well, you are on trial there—this system is on trial. And it is up to the Government to see that the present system can give social security. In the past it could not be done—how it is going to be managed in future will be a revelation to me. If the Government can do it it will be entrenched for many years. If the Government cannot do it then I say the system has no right to continue. I think an hon. member said that the first object of the Government was to win the war. First, this war has now lasted four years and before you can prosecute the war any further you must show the people fighting this war what they are fighting for. You must show them what they are fighting for. At least show them the blue print—let them know exactly what they are fighting for. If the Government cannot do that it dare not say that the first object is to win the war. The Government must show them what it is going to do for them. Do we, as a House of Parliament, honestly expect our young people to go on fighting the war and when they return find that conditions are the same as they were in the past? Or are we going to say we have promised you a better world—here is the blue print for the better world. If we cannot do that, then I say that this Priority No. 1—this first object of winning the war will disappear. Now, I want to appeal to this House and to the Government, whatever they do, not to allow themselves to be influenced by the propaganda which has shown its head recently—the propaganda which has been spread since this motion was introduced, namely that social security would impose a burden on the people of South Africa which the people cannot stand. I say that the very contrary is the truth—it will not do that, it will bring prosperity, greater prosperity than we realise today, but if we don’t do what we have promised—if we don’t introduce this social security, we may rest assured that we shall bring depression to this country again, and that is why I appreciate the improvement in the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (South) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss). If the matter is referred to a Select Committee the question of employment must be included. If we had referred this matter to a Select Committee without that very vital portion of social security we would have started social security and we would have made a failure of it. Employment is the most important thing. And in conclusion I want to drive home again, with all my power, and I want to impress on the Government, that they must go even beyond the scope they were prepared to go, to guarantee employment to everyone in the Union, and then, instead of creating a burden they will create permanent prosperity for the people of South Africa.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—10:

Burnside, D. C.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Payne. A. C.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Tellers: C. F. Miles-Cadman and G. H. F. Strydom.

Noes—98:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Bremer, K.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Faure, J. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Hare, W. D.

Haywood, J. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Lawrence, H. G.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Maclean, J.

Malan, D. F.

Maré, F. J.

Mentz, F. E.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P.‘ J.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, C. F.

Steyn, G. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Warren, S. E.

Waterson, S. F.

Wilkens J.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

With leave of the House, the amendment proposed by Mr. Sullivan was withdrawn.

The substitution of the words proposed by Dr. Stals put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—29:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens. J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes—77:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire. J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maclean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payne. A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Words proposed to be substituted accordingly negatived.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. Pocock to the amendment proposed by Mr. J. G. N. Strauss, put and agreed to.

Substitution of the words of the amendment proposed by Mr. J. G. N. Strauss, as amended, put and agreed to.

Motion as amended, put and agreed to, viz.: