I move—

This is a very simple Bill, but it is a Bill behind which stands every woman in this country. And it is as their mouthpiece that I am introducing it today. Every post has brought to members convincing evidence of that. Every post has brought to members of this House the demand that they shall support the principle of this Bill and shall endeavour to see to it that this Bill is accepted and passed by this House. That demand and that fact prove the awareness of the women of this country to the position in which they stand in relation to their children in the eyes of the law. Every post has proved that the women of this country overwhelmingly — and I use the word advisedly—want equal rights of control over their children with the fathers of them, and so this Bill which I am introducing today sets out just to establish that simple principle. The basic point of it is contained in clause 2 which lays down that the father and mother of a child shall be equally entitled to the guardianship of such child, and shall have equal rights, responsibilities and obligations in respect of such child. That is the principle of the Bill. But the Bill further provides that in the event of dispute the courts shall have jurisdiction to decide, and the test shall be what is in the best interests of the child; not whether the father has prior rights of guardianship, or the mother has, but the simple test of what is in the best interests of the child. And I cannot believe that this House which is the guardian of the rights of the citizens to be, can deny to the country and to the children of this country the fact that their interests shall be considered paramount by the courts. Looked at objectively it seems to me that the principle of my Bill is a very fair and just one; it takes nothing from the father which he has now, but it seeks to give the mother equal rights. It is a principle which is fair and just to both parties. It is not a new principle, either in this or in any other civilised country, but it is a principle which the law in this country has hitherto denied to the women of this country. Not because cur law is less humane than the laws of other countries, but simply because the law which governs these matters has not been revised for centuries. It is because the law which governs the relations of persons in marriage is still the same as it was when Van Riebeeck brought it to this country nearly 300 years ago. And however right and just that law might have been in the Holland of the early 17th century, there is no doubt that the status of the matter as set out in that law does not accord in any shape or form with the economic and social position of the women of today in regard to their families. It is because of that lack of revision, that lack of any attempt by the Parliament of this country hitherto to bring the position of women in relation to their children into some kind of line with the economic circumstances of the country, that this Bill is being introduced today. And to begin with I would like the House for a moment to consider the position that exists. I want the House to remember that according to the law as it stands at present, the mother who brings a child into the world has, as long as the father lives, no equal rights of guardianship or custody or control over that child, and even after the death of the father she is not necessarily the guardian of her child. She only becomes the guardian if the father does not appoint another guardian by will. So absolute is this right that I desire to quote to the House a case—an extreme case I admit—but a case that has fallen within my own experience, where a man who had been separated, not judicially, but had simply left his wife and had taken a mistress, by his will appointed that mistress the guardian of his three legitimate children. He took, in other words, by his will the guardianship of her own children from the woman he had married, and handed them over to the guardianship of his mistress, and that man was enabled to do so by the law of this country as it stands. It sounds almost incredible, but I do assure the House that it is so, and any practising lawyer will confirm every word I have said on that point. Now when you have a law that goes to such extremes in denying to the mother any human rights over her own children, then I say, and say as strongly as I can, that this House cannot any longer tolerate such a position, that this House must alter that position and raise the mother from the position in which she stands, simply because of the lack of revision in our law. The facts I have given are the facts of the law today, and this Bill, let me repeat again, simply seeks to remedy that position. It does so not in any feminist spirit, but by fairly and justly apportioning equal rights to both parents, and, sir, if that Bill is accepted by this House, as I hope it will be, it will also put an end to the present evil whereby husbands, in many instances, use their prior rights of guardianship over their children as a means of blackmail, and I use the word advisedly, as a means of blackmailing the mothers of their children to fall in with their wishes. To show I am not exaggerating, there is not a single social agency in this country that deals with children, there is not a single social agency in this country that deals with soldiers and their dependants, which has not hundreds of cases on its books in which the father’s rights of guardianship have been exercised in a way that has been disastrous to the best interests of the children. Not only must the women of this country be helped by this House out of their evil position, but I say this House must rescue the children of this country from the position in which they stand, as a result of the prior rights of guardianship of the father being a basic factor of the law of the land. I would like to remind this House that we have a considerable machinery of social welfare in this country. We have a Children’s Act and a Children’s Court, we have children’s societies, committees looking after soldiers and their dependants, and with one voice all these agencies declare that the father’s prior rights of guardianship over his children are an almost unmixed evil. And of the absurd difficulties that the present position of the law inflicts on the mothers of the country, those agencies have also given convincing evidence. To take an example, as the House is aware, many men of an age old enough to have daughters who desire to marry, have gone North. The mothers of the daughters living here desire to enter into ante-nuptial contracts on their behalf when they marry, but because they have no rights of guardianship or control over their children, then cannot either consent to their marriage or sign ante-nuptial contracts on their behalf, and in many instances the fathers are not able to be reached in time to give their consent. One result of that is that there have been dozens of applications to our courts, an expensive business, to give the mother a special standing, so that, for this particular purpose she may have a special right of guardianship and sign the ante-nuptial contract. Another result is many girls have married without an ante-nuptial contract. Then there is another point, whilst the courts as upper guardians of all children have the right once a divorce or judicial separation has been granted, basing their appointment on the best interests of the children, to award the custody of the children to the parent they consider best qualified to look after them, the position is that it is only when a judicial separation or a divorce order has been granted, that the courts, even though they are the upper guardians of the children in theory, have the right to base their order on that ground. Let me quote the most recent decision of the Appellate Division on that point, a decision which I may say has mainly motivated this Bill. It is the case of Calitz v. Calitz and the facts in that case briefly were as follows: A man and his wife had an unfortunate marriage, and as the outcome of that marriage there was a child of two. The mother left the father as she could no longer live with him. Later she sued the husband for a judicial separation on the ground of ill treatment. The Cape Court in the first instance decided that though the husband had a bad temper, and was rather intemperate, the amount of ill treatment that had been proved did not justify a judicial separation, so the mother lost her action. But inasmuch as the mother declared nevertheless that she could not live with the father and refused to go back to him, the Court, considering the best interests of a girl of two, awarded the custody of that child to the mother considering, very rightly, that it was in the best interests of the child that the mother should have it. The father then appealed to the Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division ruled that it had no jurisdiction, until a divorce or judicial separation order had been granted, to consider as the sole basis of its decision what was the best interests of the child. It said that in such circumstances as Calitz it could not exercise its jurisdiction as upper guardian of the children of this country and take a child from its father unless the father was so hopelessly unfit that if the guardianship of the child were vested in him the health or the moral interests of the child would suffer. Nothing short of that. That was the Roman Dutch Law. As a result the Appellate Division reversed the decision of the Cape Court and gave the child to the father, and it went on to point out that since it could not base its decision on the best interests of the child alone, but had to consider the prior rights of the father, if the mother who had unlawfully left the father, desired to consider the best interests of the child, she always had the option of returning to the father. In other words, the decision of the Appellate Division has, in fact, legalised the father’s power in any quarrel to use the guardianship of the child as a means, of making the mother return to him, even when she does not want to do so. That seems to mean an intolerable and indefensible position. It seems to me that if the law is such that the Appellate Division cannot accept as the sole test as regards children not the father’s right of guardianship, or any rights the mother has, but simply what is best for the children, I say that if our law is in that condition it is high time for this court, the highest in the country, to come to the rescue of our courts of justice and give them that right. It is for that that this Bill, I say once more, is being introduced. I am convinced and the country is convinced, that the only real and adequate criterion for a decision as to who should be guardian of the child is who is best fitted to look after that child. And it seems to me that a special duty rests upon this House, to see to it that it is so laid down, because the greatest concern of any country must, and should be the welfare of the children, the citizens of tomorrow. So it is this House sitting as a court of equity, that should rescue the children of the country and the mothers of the country from the impasse to which our ancient and venerable Roman Dutch law has driven it. It seems to me that to allow a condition of affairs to continue in which not the best interests of the children but the father’s prior right is the criterion, is to perpetuate an injury to the children, is to perpetuate an injury to the helpless. And I am quite sure that neither the country at large nor the mothers of the country are prepared longer to tolerate that position. Certainly the women are aware today, as perhaps they have never been before, how they stand in the eyes of the law. Many of them have had bitter experiences owing to war conditions. Many of them, owing to war conditions, have gone out into the world for the first time and for the first time have realised some of the indignities and some of the inequalities that our present law imposes on them. And the women of this country have made up their minds that they will no longer endure this. The women of the country have worked and laboured and suffered and in many instances died in the war for the making of a better world. They are entitled to share in that better world. They are entitled to ask this House to consider them too. They are entitled to demand as they do demand that this House will give them equal rights and equal control with the fathers of their children; equal obligations have always been there. The law has always been that the mothers of the children have equal responsibility with the fathers to look after them—to feed them, to clothe them, and go out and earn money for their maintenance if need be. But till now they have had no rights of guardianship. This Bill in the name of the women of this country, asks that this House in justice and equity will remedy that position. It demands that the mother’s human rights over her children be recognised equally with the father’s. It asks that this country grant to its women that standing and status in the eyes of the law with regard to their children that the women of other countries of the Commonwealth have enjoyed for a very long time. I quite realise that our Roman Dutch law is an old and venerable structure, but when an old and venerable structure breaks down, it is for this House to recognise that fact and mend it by amending the law. That is the right and just thing, and I cannot believe that at this day and now this Government, this House, will reject that claim.

I should like to support this Bill, and my first reason for wishing to do so is a natural inclination to accede to the wishes of the women of South Africa. As the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has pointed out there has been ample evidence that the women of South Africa desire this Bill to be passed, and earnestly desire it to be passed. It has not been possible during the last few days to go into the Lobby without finding at least half a dozen members busily engaged in reading the latest message from the women’s front. Sir, I think we can take it that the women are very solidly behind this Bill, and that alone is one very good reason why this House should adopt it. On the other hand, the attitude of the men of South Africa is not so clear. If there is such a body as the Federation of Fathers, we have not heard of it. They have not made their voice heard in connection with this Bill in any way. The men of South Africa have remained silent, but that, Sir, is not without significance. One may, I think, assume, if the men of South Africa are silent, that, if they are not definitely in favour of the Bill, they are at all events not opposed to it. However, Mr. Speaker, before we draw conclusions with regard to the attitude of the men; before we draw conclusions from their silence, I think it is as well to remember man’s natural timidity in expressing his views on matters of this kind, where they may run counter to the wishes of the women; that we must take into account, and not pay too much attention to the fact that the men of this country have been silent. Despite their silence one feels there may be some men, both inside and outside this House, who have some misgivings about the possible consequences of passing this Bill. There may be certain feelings of uneasiness that if this Bill becomes law the men will find that they have made a tremendous sacrifice of their authority in the matter of guardianship of children. It is that uneasiness and those misgivings that I should like this afternoon to try to allay in some way. It seems to me that the plain fact is this, that the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Jeppes will not effect any profound, radical or revolutionary changes in the common law of South Africa as it stands today. It will effect changes; it will effect important changes, but they cannot be described, as I hope to show in a moment, as either radical or revolutionary. What this Bill will do, I think, is to eliminate some of the anomalies and some of the weaknesses which do exist. It will tidy up the position, clarify it, and put it on a satisfactory basis, and that is very necessary and very desirable. As the law stands today, there is no doubt that in certain circumstances—by no means in all circumstances—the law operates very unjustly, not only towards the mother but also towards the children themselves. I would like to explain more what I mean when I say that the Bill will not really produce any very radical or revolutionary changes. Let me take first the position that arises where the husband and wife are divorced or judicially separated, and both of them claim the guardianship of the child or children. As the law stands at present, if such a situation arises, the courts can intervene at the instance of either party and can award guardianship of the child to either parent, and in doing so they can be guided, as a main consideration, by the welfare of the child. As far as I understand the law, Mr. Speaker, when divorce has taken place, or judicial separation, the father, despite the fact that he is the natural guardian of the child, does not stand in a superior position to the mother. I say I think that is the common law, and I say “I think” advisedly, because although I can quote various passages from judgments which justify such a statement, there may well be, indeed there are, other passages in other judgments which throw some doubt on it. I think it only fair to say that one cannot be quite dogmatic about it. But if the law is as I have just stated, this Bill will serve the very excellent purpose of putting the matter beyond any doubt for the future. Although as I see it, the Bill will not effect any considerable change, if any change at all, in the circumstances I have mentioned, it will at all events serve the purpose of putting the matter beyond doubt and putting the law on a satisfactory footing. So much for the position where the husband and wife are either divorced or judicially separated. I would like now to come to the position where they are not, where no order of divorce or separation exists. There, if there is a dispute between the parents regarding the guardianship of the child, the jurisdiction of the courts is by no means so wide. It is by no means so comprehensive, and it would appear very definitely that in such a situation, where no divorce or separation order exists, the courts are bound to pay attention to the superior rights of the father as natural guardian. The hon. member for Jeppes has drawn particular attention to that and has cited a number of examples from her experience where that position has given rise to very serious injustice, not only injustice to the mothers but injustice, hardship and unhappiness to the children. It does strike me, Mr. Speaker, as a singular and unfortunate anomaly that the law should be different where the parties are separated or divorced from the law where they are not divorced or separated. It seems anomalous that the jurisdiction of the courts should be complete in one case and limited in the other, bearing in mind, of course, that the main objective which one considers the law of the land should aim at, is to provide some machinery by which the happiness and the welfare of the children can in all circumstances be safeguarded. I should explain that the position as I have just outlined it, namely, with regard to proceedings between parties who are neither divorced or separated, has been to some extent mitigated by section 58 of the Children’s Act of 1937. That section makes certain provision for depriving the father of the guardianship of children when he has proved himself to be an utterly unsatisfactory and incompetent person to look after the child. I hope the House will accept my assurance that that section deals with only very exceptional cases; it certainly does not cover the whole ground. It leaves the position that many instances may arise such as those outlined by the hon. member for Jeppes, where the position of the father is predominant, and where the courts are powerless to intervene. So, in short, all the Bill sets out to do is first of all to set the position beyond all question where divorce or separation is in existence, and secondly to abolish a serious anomaly, a grave injustice, where the parties are not divorced or separated; in other words, to bring the law in those two respects into harmony. And as the hon. member for Jeppes has said, one asks for support for this Bill not only because it puts the position of women on a more equitable basis, but because it is the only way in which the welfare and happiness of the children can be amply safeguarded. In conclusion, I have, in supporting the Bill, referred only to its main clauses, in other words to the clauses which bring about equality between husband and wife. The Bill has certain subsidiary clauses which deal with the machinery which it will be necessary to set up if that principle is accepted. I do not propose to deal with these subsidiary clauses. I think it may well be when the Bill goes into Committee, that those clauses may have to be modified in certain minor respects. I think therefore it would be premature to deal with them at this stage. I confine myself, therefore, to the main clauses, to the principles of the Bill, and for the reasons I have given, I ask the House to support it.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) in her eloquent speech here today, ably supported as she was by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), has stated that this is a very simple Bill. I do not want to dispute that, but it raises questions of very grave importance, and I think that these questions and these issues should be thoroughly examined before the House is asked to express an opinion on them. The Government is not opposed to the principle of the Bill, but I wish to move an amendment to this effect, as follows—

I second.

I very rarely agree with the hon. the Minister of Justice but on this occasion I agree with him a hundred per cent. We are dealing here with a very important principle of law which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) is tampering with. This principle of law which has existed for many centuries, especially among the Germanic people, and it is to this effect, that the father is the guardian of his family. And now the hon. member wants to interfere and she wants to alter this important principle by dividing the guardianship which would bring about a divided responsibility. If we look at what Grotius said about this matter we must realise how ill advised it will be to bring about such a division. I have here an English translation of Grotius’ work and in it we find, among other things, that he said this—

Now, that principle has prevailed for many centuries. The hon. member for Jeppes has referred the House to a few cases which were tried in our courts. Those are cases which could be solved under the ordinary Common Law in accordance with existing principles. She told the House of a father who in his will provided that the woman with whom he had been living in sin was to be the guardian of his children. The mother was entitled to object to that, and to go to court and put forth reasons to show why in that case effect should not be given to the conditions of the will. In 1939 there was the case of Calitz vs. Calitz in the Appeal Court, and the judgment in that case contained the following—

If the hon. member for Jeppes had devised some procedure or other under which there would not have been so many applications to court, so that the power could have been given to some other party — which could not have been a good principle — we could still have considered the proposition, but we find at the moment that the position is such that in every instance where difficulty arises and the parent is anxious about the welfare of the child, the court is there for the parent to appeal to. Under the Roman Dutch Law the court is the supreme guardian, and if the mother thinks that the child’s morals will be adversely influenced by the guardian appointed by the father, she can apply to court. That is the principle contained in the judgment in the case of Calitz vs. Calitz from which I have just quoted. There are other cases as well. We come across the same principle in the matter of Cook vs. Cook in the Appeal Court in 1937. In that case it was also laid down that wherever circumstances arose as a result of which the parent became anxious about the welfare of the child, or wherever there were influences adverse to the wellbeing of the child, the parent could apply to court. The hon. member for Jeppes also gave the House to understand that South Africa was the only country in the world where this particular problem had to be dealt with; she gave the House to understand that the mothers in this country were the only mothers in the world who were placed in such a subordinate position. If the hon. member will read the case of Calitz vs. Calitz she will find that the appeal judge, Mr. Justice Tindall, mentioned that the law which was in force in South Africa, was also in force in Scotland, and the hon. member will find that in the matter of Cook vs. Cook the very same thing was said as regards the law in England. There the law is no different from what it is here. Legislation was introduced but even there the court is the supreme guardian of the child. The hon. member, however, thinks that quite possibly there is no remedy in a case where the mother’s life is made so unpleasant that she is forced to leave the father, and to take her children with her, and the father in such a case refuses to maintain the children. We have the Children’s Act, Act No. 31 of 1937, and I think the hon. member should read Clause 58 of that Act which lays down the procedure in regard to depriving the father of his authority as a father. The mother has a right to lay the facts before the court, and she has the right to tell the court that the father is neglecting the children, that he is not supporting them, and that conditions are such that she is unable to support the children, but that she and the children are unable to stay with the father. If she satisfies the court that the position is as she states it to be she is not only given the custody of the children but the father has to contribute to the support of the children. This Bill, therefore, is quite unnecessary, and I again want to emphasise that the mothers in South Africa are not the only ones who are in a subordinate position. There are other nations in Western Europe where we find an exactly similar position. Now, touching on the Bill itself I want to say that it will be a paradise for the lawyers, because the parents who are living together today and who are carrying on may quarrel about something; say, for instance, about the education of the children, and they will at once apply to the courts. The one parent will sue the other. Take the appointment of guardians. Both will have the right of appointing guardians in their wills. The father has the right and the mother has the right. Assuming both parents die, there will then be two guardians for the minor children, and if they quarrel we shall again have this whole procedure of their having to apply to court to put an end to their differences. No, the hon. member should rather go into the history of the whole case and she should carefully study the complications and the implications of this Bill, and if she does so she will find that it is an impracticable proposition. Our community has been built up on the system which has prevailed over the last two or three hundred years, and the supreme guardianship which rests with the Court acts to the protection of the child. That is the safety valve which exists to see to it that the rights of the parents are not unnecessarily interfered with. That being so, I want to appeal to the hon. member to accept the Minister’s amendment.

I have heard with a great deal of pleasure that the Government is not against the principle of the Bill. Therefore, I am going to accept the Minister’s amendment. I would have preferred that the House should first accept the principle of the Bill and then the details might well have been settled in Select Committee. But nevertheless I am prepared to accept the amendment because the Government has made the statement, which I am sure the women of this country will hear with pleasure, that it is not against the principle of my Bill. For these reasons I do not think that I need deal with the arguments put forward by the hon. member who has just spoken.

At any rate you cannot do so at, this stage.

No, I shall leave him to put those points in Select Committee.

I am supporting the second reading of this Bill on behalf of my party, not merely because of the personal charm of the mover or because of her forensic ability and persuasiveness.…

A guilty conscience needs no accuser.

Though these are factors which must influence any person of proper sensibility. Nor am I supporting this Bill just because it is a women’s Bill. I definitely do not subscribe to the fact that women are infallibly right at all times. I dare not, being a married man, and self-preservation being a primitive law of nature. We have also in memory the classic and ancient case of Eve’s misdemeanour in the Garden of Eden, which indirectly occasioned Adam to don his first austerity apparel. In the interests of historical accuracy perhaps I may be allowed gently to deprecate the opening lines of Mr. Milton’s Paradise Lost: “Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit of that forbidden tree.” In point of fact, of course, and quite clearly, the original disobedience was woman’s, though she did not hold the record very long. Now, our first reason for supporting this Bill is that it is in the nature of a children’s charter, and as such it is long overdue. The main consideration, as the mover of the second reading has shown, is the welfare of the children, and we see in the carfeul cultivation of that welfare the fortune and the happiness of the future citizens of this country, and the strength of our nation in the years to come. I have recently been reading a book by Mr. Willcox, who was Chief Inspector of Schools in England until 1942, and he had this to say, that the very calves in the stalls of that great country were better cared for and better fed than the mass of the children of the British Isles. He bewailed the fact that property still occupied, in many minds, a higher place than human life. And so we on these benches welcome thoroughly this piece of legislation, which calls our attention to the fact that the child is the father of the man, and in safeguarding the young we are conserving our truest wealth. We support this Bill again because the existing South African law is disgracefully unfair towards women. They are discriminated against as women; they are penalised, no matter how high their character and intellect may be, simply and solely on account of their sex. It is maybe not altogether and always a safe thing for members to quote in this place the letters they have received from women, but I have a communication here from a lady which sums up the position and it should be in Hansard. It is from the chairman of the S.A. League of Women Voters and she has summarised the disabilities of women in this way—

“Warring” upon her feelings, Sir, would surely have been a more true and exact description of this procedure, but the choice of words was not, unfortunately, left to me. I would only comment on this state of affairs, that such arrangements might perhaps be tolerable in a society of Bushmen—and Bushwomen; but certainly not in any country which, like South Africa, claims to be a modern civilised state. And finally we support this Bill because it is a good thing, it is obviously fair and right, that the custody and guardianship of a child should be evenly divided between the two, the mother and the father, and that the rights and the responsibility should be shared equally as well. That is an obvious truth. Admittedly, the truth is sometimes overlooked, even by lawyers. This is a matter which we have overlooked in our law for more than 300 years, and the argument of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) really tells in favour of the Bill; the fact that it has gone on for so long is the strongest reason for its now being changed. The most important thing is that the welfare of the child is to be the main consideration, and that the Courts are to be, in some sense, trustees for the happiness of orphaned children. While we approve on the whole of paragraph 8 of this Bill, my party is not at all certain that the concluding portion of section (2) would be acceptable or likely to work smoothly; but this will no doubt come under full and careful examination by the Select Committee. We have pleasure in expressing our support of this Bill, and in complimenting the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Solomon) on introducing a very useful, timely, and patriotic measure.

Even without the assistance and the able presentation of the case for the Bill by the mover and seconder, to whom I am sure the House listened with extreme pleasure, I should have been prepared to give the Bill wholehearted support. If the mover is prepared, however, to accept the amendment then I for my part am satisfied. Listening to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) one could not but help wonder whether in these days the correct approach to an important social problem was what Grotius said some centuries ago, or whether is was to consider the matter in the light of realities born of experience. Perhaps it would be as well if this matter did go, even before the acceptance of the principle, to a Select Committee, because it does touch not merely on a legal but on a social problem. Those who see an anomaly in the relationship in love of a mother and her children see in it a reflection of the unjustifiable inferior status of married women. That is but one aspect of the problem. The issue is a very much wider one. If this Bill goes to a Select Committee I hope it will be possible for the Select Committee to report to the House that the matter goes very much further than the question of guardianship. One of the dangers of dealing with a question of this kind piecemeal is the conflict which often does arise. We have it in this case, where the mover has been obliged, because it was inevitable to stumble over something which is part of another Bill which we are going to have introduced in due course, touching on the property rights of married women. I have already said that as to the principle of this Bill. I am wholeheartedly in accord with it. I hope if this Bill goes to a Select Committee, that that Committee will be able to give consideration to the wider aspect, and in turn give consideration to an aspect of the matter which troubles so many of us, and that is the question of costs in these cases. The Bill which we have before us bristles with potential applications to court. If the matter is examined in the light of its wider aspect it may be possible for the Select Committee also to give consideration to what is a real difficulty for women when they have, in seeking justice, to make application to court, namely the question of costs.

Had it not been for the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) the House would probably have been prepared to let the matter go. The Minister has suggested an amendment which obviously was going to be accepted, and was accepted by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon). But I would like to say a few words on this occasion in view of what the hon. member for Gordonia said. He gave us a number of interesting readings from cases and at one time he seemed to indicate that there was no necessity for this Bill because the principles of the Bill were being carried out by the judges now. At another time he based himself on the slogan that this Bill is a revolutionary measure which seeks to upset the usages and practices of some hundreds of years. These two points of view did not seem to me to be very consistent. We have had the presentation of the Bill in a very able form, both by the mover and the seconder, and I agree with what the seconder indicated, that this Bill was not as revolutionary as some people think, and here I commend one thing that the hon. member for Gordonia said, namely, that we have our Children’s Act which protects our children, but what I would draw the hon. member’s attention to is this. He spoke of the law in Scotland and of our law, but the hon. member should remember that both the law of Scotland and the Roman Dutch Law are based on the Roman Law, and the hon. member for Jeppes I think did not go far enough in her remarks because the principles which are sought to be amended are not the principles of Van Riebeeck—those principles go much further back, they are the principles of the old Roman Law, that is, the Patria potestas, under which the father has the right of life and death over his children and wife. This particular principle which the hon. member for Jeppes seeks to alter is entirely based on the old Patria potestas. That law gives the father the right over his wife and children. The father was the absolute ruler —he was the Fuehrer of the household. Now, it is the old Roman Law which the hon. member for Gordonia really supports. In practice you will find that in most cases the courts, as the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) so ably pointed out, have followed a certain course which has acted very well. Although the father may be entitled to custody no court will give the father custody of a child below the age of four years unless the mother for special reasons is totally unfit to look after her child. That is the usual practice. Where there is a contest between the father and the mother—in a case of separation or divorce—and the child is of tender years, the court almost invariably gives the mother custody. I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that it is very difficult to say what the law is. The statement of the law sometimes refers to children up to four years, and sometimes to children of three years of age. But the fact is that the court considers the paramount position today, namely, what are the interests of the children? There are cases in respect of which the law makes no provision, and where the court in actions where there is no divorce or separation, has to give possession to the father, because it is only in exceptional cases that the law will interfere with the old Roman principles. That being the position I contend that there is sound reason for the introduction of this Bill. It is not an unnecessary Bill. I look upon this as a piece of social justice for women. To some members it may appear theoretical, but after all, when people are suffering under a sense of injustice they want to see the law put right, and they want to be treated on a basis of absolute equality. Now, this Bill is simply due to the provisions of the old law under which women were regarded as inferior beings, and under which they had no rights of their own. So far we have been giving justice to women in South Africa by instalments. One would like to see a comprehensive measure introduced, but in the absence of a comprehensive measure, members are not only entitled but deserve commendation for taking steps to the best of their ability, and for bringing forward bills to remedy an injustice. We have another hon. member bringing forward another instalment of social justice for women. I was very glad to hear from the Minister that the Government is in favour of the principle. In the ordinary way when you are in favour of the principle of a bill you agree to the second reading being taken before sending it to a Select Committee. But I can quite see that in a case like this it might be more helpful to the women of South Africa to move, as the Minister has done, that the Bill go to a select committee before the second reading, because we are rigidly bound by rules and orders, and it is very difficult sometimes to get amendments into a bill once the second reading has been agreed to. But as the Minister of Justice has stated, that he is not opposed to the principle, I think the hon. member for Jeppes was well advised in accepting the amendment so that after the select committee has dealt with the matter a new bill may be placed before this House. It took a long time for the women of South Africa to be given equal rights; South Africa was one of the last countries in the world to give the vote to women, and then only to some of the women, not all of the women of South Africa. But they have given it to a substantial portion of the women of South Africa. They were very slow in giving it, but once they granted equal rights as far as the vote was concerned, and recognised that woman was on an absolute equality with all the other citzens of South Africa, then I say they should have taken steps to see that all the laws which contained any sort of differentiation against women, and laws which contained any sort of inequality against women, were altered so as to make the women of South Africa complete and equal citizens. And as this Bill tries to do that by giving them one particular instalment and removing one injustice, I think it deserves the support of all sections of the House.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice, put and agreed to.

The motion now before the House is the consequence of the famous speech made in London by the Prime Minister. When I read that speech in the newspaper I felt that it was the most outstanding speech the Prime Minister had made in his whole life. At that stage, when darkness prevailed in the world, when the world was passing through one of its most difficult periods, our Prime Minister made that speech which gave us the feeling that he was really acting as a guiding star in the darkness. That speech brought hope. That speech inspired many people who had become despondent.

It was a star which exploded.

We saw the difficulties in which the world found itself, and that speech of our Prime Minister gave a lead to a world which was in deep darkness, and it caused mankind to think, and in the thoughts which the speech inspired many new things were born. Our Prime Minister, on the occasion of that speech in London, only wanted to put some tentative thoughts before the world, thoughts which would lead to cogitation and discussion, so that a joint policy might come forth. But in those tentative thoughts we find for the first time a possibility of the solution of the burning problems of the world. That speech delivered by our Prime Minister in London could only have been delivered by a man such as our Prime Minister—a Statesman able to look ahead, a Statesmen who has passed through the turmoil, through the agony and the throes of the birth of a nation.

Why are you stumbling such a lot?

You know you are not allowed to read your speech.

Such a speech could only have been delivered by a farseeing Statesman who has passed through the throes of a great battle. In that speech we do not find any sign of vindictiveness towards the enemy, but only the ideology of Nazism and Fascism, and immediately that ideology is unconditionally abandoned the people of Germany and Italy will again assume their rightful places among the nations of the world. That speech was a compresenhive one. In that speech we could all see a ray of light and hope after the long struggle through the morass of despair. We all find in that speech an inspiration once again to strive for a better life. We in South Africa are grateful that we have a Leader who is able to make such a speech at the most critical period in the history of the nations of the world. We are grateful for the lead he has given, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now asks that we should secede from the Commonwealth of Nations and establish our own Republic.

Hear, hear.

My hon. friends opposite say “hear, hear”. I wonder whether they have forgotten that not so very long ago those same people who now say “hear, hear,” said: “Republicanism cannot bring us any greater freedom than we already have”. I say that this motion for the foundation of a Republic is not seriously intended. This motion is nothing but propaganda for party political purposes. This motion is intended to exploit the feelings of one section of our people for party political purposes, and it is that exploitation of the National sentiment of South Africa which is the cause of the Opposition sitting where it is today. It is the reason why the number of Opposition members is as small as it is today. It is that exploitation which is the cause of it.

Are you opposed to a Republic?

I entirely agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1926, namely that we cannot achieve any greater freedom under a republican form of government.

In other words you don’t want a Republic?

We are not going to quarrel about that. The Leader of the Opposition has come before this House, and he has stated that the proposal of this Party means that we should secede from the Commonwealth and establish a Republic in South Africa. I want to remind the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite that at one time, not so very long ago, many of them thought that Hitler had the world at his feet. And when Hitler thought that he had achieved his ideal of world domination. But what happened? The British Commonwealth of Nations in that hour came to the fore and for a solid year stood alone against the most powerful assaults of armoured powers the world had ever seen. There was a time when the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite openly cheered what was happening. They said that the war was over. Britain had unconditionally lost the war, and they said we should make a separate peace. The great Commonwealth of Nations stood alone that whole year and opposed the most powerful assaults from armoured forces. This Commonwealth of Nations, of which we are a member, by its action, has assured the freedom of mankind for hundreds of years. And now hon. members opposite ask us to secede from that Commonwealth, and they want us to establish a Republic! They ask us today to say farewell to our friends, and to the members of the Commonwealth, and they ask us to establish a Republic here in South Africa at a time when the world finds itself in this precarious position. Fortunately on the 4th September we followed the lead, not of the Leader of the Opposition but of our present Prime Minister.

You did not follow the lead of the late General Hertzog.

We did not follow the lead of General Hertzog, nor did we follow the lead of the Leader of the Opposition. We followed the lead of our Prime Minister, and if we think of all that has happened in the last four years we must own to a sense of gratitude that on the 4th September we followed the lead of the Prime Minister.

Are you now talking about the coloured people in your constituency?

For four years they challenged us to allow the people to decide and to say whether we had the support of the people, and on the 7th July we went to the polls, and what was the people’s verdict? Never before in the history of this country has the policy of the Government been approved of by such an overwhelming majority. On the 7th July the people of South Africa rejected the Republic of the Opposition. But now they come here and ask us to establish a Republic. It seems to me that the Opposition has nothing that it can offer this country. The Opposition is incompetent and unable to deal with social and economic problems such as those which have to be solved. There are a great many social and economic problems, yet the first proposal they place before the House is this one. They ask us to establish a Republic. If we had followed the lead of the Leader of the Opposition on the 4th September, if we had followed his lead after the fall of Tobruk —I wonder what the condition of the people of this country would have been today. I am convinced that we would have gone through all the turmoil and difficulties which the countries of Europe have to pass through today. Everyone who beholds what is going on in Europe today must be animated by a feeling of sorrow for those people. After all the dangers that have been threatening us we are here in South Africa today safe and secure. The dark clouds which threatened us have vanished. Here we have freedom—here we meet together and under a condition of democratic freedom the Opposition has the right to come here and introduce a ridiculous proposal such as the one now before us. I am convinced that the people of South Africa owe a debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister for the lead he has given. I listened to the speech coming from the Leader of the Opposition and I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), and I observed a very great change in the tone of those speeches. One no longer notices that bitterness which we used to notice two or three years ago. There is a great improvement.

Could not you improve as well?

There is more friendship.

But you are still embittered.

That bitterness of the past is disappointing because the people have rejected the hon. members opposite. They realise that it is no use being embittered.

If you live long enough you may yet become a Nationalist.

I shall have something to say to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) very shortly. In the four years that have passed, in the four years during which our young Afrikaners have been defending the freedom of their people, certain things have occurred which we deplore. It is no pleasure to me to remind hon. members over there of what the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition have been doing in those four years. No, it is no pleasure to me. I am a Dutch speaking Afrikaner, just the same as they are.

Only you are on the wrong side.

It is no pleasure to me to remind them of those things, but I feel I would be lacking in my duty if I did not remind them and the people of what they have been doing in those years of difficulty. I remember only too well how the Leader of the Opposition at the time Italy declared war thought that England was finished.

Your Prime Minister also says that England is finished.

What happened in this House when we remained loyal and faithful to the agreement we had entered into? When we loyally stood by the Commonwealth of Nations as a member of that Commonwealth, and when we declared war against Italy? Let me remind the hon. member for Waterberg of what he said. He got up here and said: “We shall refuse to fight against Italy because because Italy is too strong for us”. I think the hon. member himself must be ashamed when he remembers it.

No, I would only be ashamed if I were to proclaim an untruth, such as the hon. member has just proclaimed.

Naturally, we shall have to forget those things afterwards.

Quote it from Hansard.

It is in Hansard.

Then why don’t you quote it?

You don’t know Afrikaans.

I shall prove it. Hon. members opposite declared: “All you people have done is to bring in the Italians to come and shoot us”, but what happened? The Italians are here today as prisoners-of-war— they did not come here as victors to shoot us. The Italians today are working for hon. members opposite, and all this we owe to the lead by the Prime Minister. We do not owe it to the lead or the guidance of the Leader of the Opposition. Just let me remind hon. members opposite of facts. When we entered the war against Italy there was a demonstrataion and a great many women and young girls asked for permission to march, in Voortrekker clothes, to the Union Buildings so that they might request the Prime Minister to make an unconditional peace with Italy. They talk of love of South Africa! The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Ceres spoke about loyalty to South Africa, and the love we should bear South Africa. Is that love of South Africa? Is it love of South Africa when our country has declared war against another country, and when—as everyone has to admit today, our freedom was threatened— to ask that we should unconditionally make peace? The late General Hertzog often said when Mussolini had conquered Abyssinia that we were in danger. But what did they do then? They organised a demonstration to march up to Union Buildings to request the Prime Minister unconditionally to make peace.

You know that that is untrue.

I know that they are ashamed of it. I am sorry for them, but I prefer to see some of those hon. members suffering today rather than that the whole nation should suffer.

The deputation was a spontaneous one.

They are ashamed of that now; that is why there are so many interruptions. What happened? When South Africa suffered a serious defeat at Tobruk— did hon. members opposite sympathise with us? These are matters I want to remind them of now, and I want to remind the people of South Africa of these things. When South Africa suffered a defeat they cheered. I was at Burghersdorp on the 15th August, 1942.

And they chucked you out.

The Leader of the Opposition was there and they cheered the defeat which we had suffered. They said that England had hopelessly lost the war, and that they had only one option and that was a separate peace, and the only man who could conclude this separate peace was the Leader of the Opposition because he was friendly disposed towards Mussolini and Hitler. I wonder whether hon. members opposite feel ashamed when they are reminded of these things. But what did the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister say? When hon. members over there shouted that everything was hopelessly lost our Prime Minister spoke over the wireless and said: “Tobruk must be avenged”, he asked for 7,000 volunteers; and what happened? He got not 7,000 but 21,000 volunteers.

You should not disclose any military secrets here. “Don’t talk about ships or shipping.”

And what happened when our safety was threatened by Japan?

Where?

I quite appreciate why the Leader of the Opposition is not in his seat today. It would not be very pleasant for him to have to listen to these things. What happened when Japan menaced us? The Leader of the Opposition made a speech and we heard how the Prime Minister of Japan praised him and held him up as a great statesman. He sought the friendship of Japan. For many years hon. members opposite talked contemptuously about the British Navy. Time and again they asked: “Where is the British Navy”? Had it not been for the work of the British Navy and the American Navy at Ceylon—I wonder what would have happened to South Africa. And now that we are able to breathe in safety, now they come forward and ask for secession and for the establishment of a Republic! Are they in earnest? No, it is nothing but party exploitation—that is all it is. I want to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Waterberg. We know what he said here. He tells us now that he did not say it. Of course, it is quite easy to deny everything. The hon. members for Ceres told us the other day that we should create a common patriotism. I quite agree with him, because if we can create a common patriotism many of our troubles will disappear. The hon. member for Waterberg visited my constituency at the time of the elections. I put the question to him, “Are you not proud of the acts of heroism of our young Afrikaners up North, of the Acts of heroism of our young Afrikaners in assisting to drive the Germans out of Africa?” And do you know what his answer was? He said: “It is not the Englishman or the Afrikaners who have driven the Germans out of Africa, it is the Americans.”

That’s quite correct.

The hon. member will deny it now.

I do not deny it, I say it is quite correct.

He made that statement before a large meeting of 400 to 500 people. He said it was not the English or the Afrikaners who had driven the Germans out of Africa but the Americans. I could go on and remind the House of all these things. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stood up here the other day, and with a cry of despair asked where South Africa was going to be after this war. Let me answer his question and let me tell him where we are going to be. As far as I can see this country is going to be a free sovereign country after the war. We are going to be stronger than ever before. Our history has become all the richer. We shall be able to look the world in the face. The hon. member asked where are we going to be. Let me ask again, where would we have been if we had followed the lead of the Opposition. It is because we have followed the lead and the guidance of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that after this war we shall be a free sovereign state.

Are you not free yet?

We are free, but our freedom was threatened, and the hon. member was not man enough to come forward to help in the defence of our country.

Where were you and the people who voted for war?

We defended our freedom. After this war we shall be a free country; we shall have retained our self-respect; we shall be Afrikaners who will be able to look the people of any other country in the face. We have stood our man. We have not hidden behind neutrality. Our men have gone forth to defend our freedom, and we shall have the right to take our place among the free nations. A worthy place, because we have made our contribution to victory. They ask where we shall be. We shall have the right to look any other country in the face. When our freedom was threatened our sons went up North. We think of that brave man, Dan Pienaar. We think of our brave young men and what they did at El Alamein when they rescued the world from Nazism. And when we were threatened, what did the hon. member for Waterberg say? He said that if the Italians threatened us he was not going to fight, but Dan Pienaar and our young Afrikaners went forth and defended our freedom. On that 16th December, a great day in the history of South Africa, they struck the first blow to score a victory over the modern barbarism of Nazism and Fascism. Yes, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (General Kemp) sits there and smiles but these are things which will count in the history of our Afrikaner nation. Where will South Africa be? South Africa has forced the world to respect her; it has enriched its history by the acts of heroism of its sons who fought side by side with the citizens of other members of the Commonwealth of Nations. All I can say is this: We can breathe freely once again. The dangers are past. We are proud of being Afrikaners, and we thank General Smuts for the lead he has given the people.

I wish to move an amendment—

It is almost inconceivable that on the very eve of the, most, awful crisis of this war— when the lives of hundreds of thousands of the fighting men of the Empire and our Allies will be exposed to the most deadly risks in breaching the Fortress of Europe— that a motion of the kind introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, defeatist in form, discouraging to the spirit of all our troops and calculated to hearten the enemy as continued proof of the existence of a Fifth Column in this country, should be tabled in this House. The speech delivered on Saturday from the Throne by His Excellency the Acting Governor-General, stressed the immensity of the task still before us and our thanks and gratitude to our soldiers, sailors and airmen and all on the home front: and this record of appreciation is a true echo of the feelings held by the vast majority of the people of South Africa, as the results of the recent elections show beyond all cavil or question. It can well be imagined with what a shock all these devoted men and women will read of the views entertained by the Opposition in this House of the purpose of their great efforts and sacrifices. They have left their homes to fight for truth and freedom, for the overthrow of a vile and hateful regime intent on dominating the world and reducing Africa and its inhabitants to the status of serfs, toiling for the benefit of a self-styled “Herren Volk.” To overthrow these aims thousands have already given their lives: thousands are willing still to make the supreme sacrifice for the benefit of their country: but according to the terms of the motion all their efforts and valour are to be frustrated and rendered futile by treachery on the home front—by the overthrow of the Constitution for which they have been fighting and for the destruction of a vital link in the constitutional structure of the great Empire which they are helping to protect and maintain. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) will, by his motion, earn, as he has so often done, the plaudits of Zeesen, he will earn the curses of every soldier who sees the prospect of all his work undone and in place of a peaceful home to which he can return, a land torn by internal strife, bitterness and hatred brought about by this latest manifestation of support for the ultimate purposes for which Hitler and his minions plunged the world in war. The plain duty of this House, at this awful moment of the war, is to repudiate this Nazi-inspired and defeatist attitude by an expression of appreciation, in conformity with His Excellency’s speech of all that has been done by our brave defenders and it is on that note that my amendment opens. I am confident that this House cannot fail to endorse it. But I go further, I stigmatise the motion as unlawful and revolutionary. It is to those of us who have spent many years in this House the same old barren cry of the so-called right to secession that, at any rate from. 1910 to 1934, was always repudiated by the House. I know that hon. gentlemen opposite, in what I shall always hold to be a misguided moment when they submitted to the leadership of Gen. Hertzog, committed themselves, in their programme of principles, to the acknowledgment of the right to advocate the legitimacy of republicanism. My friends and I have always, and will always, repudiate this so-called right. Secession (or republicanism—the terms are synonymous) is not constitutional but revolutionary. So was it described by the late Sir Patrick Duncan (before he became Governor-General) on the 9th April, 1934, when counselling hon. members to support the Status Bill: and so indeed has it been held by the Court of Appeal in England in the highly significant case of Murray vs. Parkes decided just two years ago, and still holding the field as an authoritative repudiation of the distorted so-called right, of secession which has been the occasion of so much misery and ill-feeling in this country. The hon. member for Piquetberg seeks by his motion to overthrow the very basis of the Act of Union, without which that great constitutional Act would never have come into being. I repeat the substance of the words of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in the City Hall in Cape Town in 1941, when he declared that the people of this Union would never tolerate any attempt to overthrow or destroy that great compact. On that occasion he said—

He went on—

I would remind this House that in 1942, when the hon. member for Piquetberg attempted to carry a motion similar in effect to the present one, that this House emphatically rejected it and on the contrary affirmed its determination to retain its membership of the British Empire, a resolution which can be taken to have been irrevocably endorsed by the people of the Union in the magnificent demonstration of loyalty and allegiance evinced at the General Election in July 1943. The slogan on which that election was won still rings out clear and true: “Remember your loyalty and honour your duty.” Thousands of election advertisements throughout the Union made this appeal. Here and in Natal in particular, for which I can claim to speak, 99 per cent. of the voters supported it, and repudiated, as we asked them to do, republicanism and all its works, as treasonable and treacherous and destructive of the future of the Union. The Leader of the Opposition has attempted to gild the pill by some suave references to “the principles of democracy and the equal language and cultural rights of both sections of the white population. He very subtly makes no reference to their political rights, and I may remind the House of a very illuminating index of his real intentions in this respect by referring to the draft constitution published on the 3rd July, 1941 (when he believed Germany was bound to win the war) published, I may say, under the imprimatur of the German eagle and under which it was proposed that after the overthrow of the Constitution, political power should for an indefinite time be exercised by a small junta of generals (or gauleiters) whose job it would be to extirpate all so-called “unnational elements”—meaning his opponents; persons would be divided into two classes, “burgers” and “a subject class,” the latter having no votes. A Volksleier—not responsible to Parliament—would direct the Executive Government. All political opposition would be eliminated. (In fact when the hon. gentleman today talks of freedom to form political parties, he means I suppose that one party only would be in power and all others in prison). “Parasites” and “unnational elements” would be deprived of their businesses and (if not expelled) relegated to unreserved occupations. Indeed, Sir, the scheme then sponsored was indistinguishable from its Nazi prototype and so behind the present facade of simulated conciliation is the republic of which his motion speaks. I turn away from this scheme of calculated duplicity to the great practical question of imperial politics now in course of active and practical discussion in every part of the Empire and elsewhere. I refer to the steps to be taken to ensure complete Empire unity on defence, foreign policy and economic development. The Dominions’ have had in the last few years a most expensive lesson in the realities of international politics. South Africa has had a particularly painful one. From December, 1941, until quite recently our eastern coasts lay unprotected and practically at the mercy of the Japanese fleet. We know now of the dangerous situation in the Mediterranean in the first few months of 1942 when as Mr. Morrison pointed out recently we had not a single capital ship available in that area. We have learnt what the country had never before realised that new and powerful forces have arisen in the East, forces we shall surely destroy before the end of this war, but forces brought into being by events and circumstances which might conceivably recur in the next generation. From these terrible dangers we were eventually saved by the Royal Navy, which, thanks to the goodness of providence, has kept watch and ward over this country and brought us hitherto through with safety and without local loss. On the whole indifference to naval and air defence has disappeared. Australia and New Zealand have shown by the proceedings of the Canberra Conference last week and the discussions that preceded them in their respective Parliaments that they are determined to be associated in a scheme of common defence with the rest of the Empire. Canada has done the same, and in all the Parliaments of the Empire men’s minds are turning over plans to secure that never again shall the Empire be found unprepared, as it was so largely in September, 1939. Our own case in South Africa at that time was the worst of all. We had a Department of Defence, without plan or preparation, under the guidance of a man who, as events showed, was a broken reed, upon who, no dependence could be placed.

On a point of order, is the hon. member permitted to read his speech?

I think the hon. member is refreshing his memory from copious notes.

I hope the day will not be long deferred when a full investigation will be made into the state into which that Department had then fallen. I have no time today to point to that fearful example of official neglect and dissimulation. The lesson so plain and obvious is that we we must revert to the agreements for common defence South Africa accepted in 1923, 1926 and 1930 at the Imperial Conferences then held. The Conference shortly to be held will be as important as any ever convened since 1887. All these great questions will again come up, under the pressure of great and terrible events. No room now remains for ambiguous and evasive formulae. South Africa, in particular, has declared, through her voters, her determination to see this Empire war through to a victorious end: and to establish peace on such sure and sound foundations that we and our children and our children’s children will never be called on again to face so dreadful a threat to our very existence. No better means of ensuring that the Empire, into which we were born, and in which we hope to die, will continue to exist than to provide for its common defence, for a common policy in foreign affairs and for great schemes of common economic development by which we can help to avoid the causes of war, by which we can avert mass unemployment, we can increase our national income by expanding trade and ever-extending development. Monday’s cable news after I had already framed my amendment brought us a thoughtful speech from Lord Halifax, the British Ambassador to the United States on this very question, speaking to Canada. And he said this, if I may be allowed to quote from his remarks—

And he goes on to say—

These are the great practical question of the day, after we have helped to fulfil the paramount task of winning the war, and by my amendment I seek to direct the attention of the Government to them in the hope that they will receive its immediate and earnest attention.

In seconding the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) I wish to draw the attention of the House to a most extraordinary occurence which took place on Saturday last. In this House before the Chief Justice the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) subscribed to the following affirmation—

That was an affirmation taken by the hon. member. Some two hours later, or less, we had the hon. member for Piquetberg moving a motion in which these words occur—

Mark those words “the loyal maintenance” and on his own words he was absolutely disloyal at the time he moved his motion. Now the world will look with horror upon this, and the just retribution that would have been meted out to the hon. member in many countries, particularly in enemy countries, is not “shot at dawn” but shot in five minutes. A thing like this could only have happened in South Africa. I know of no other country in the world where such a thing could have been tolerated or even suggested, and if I am correct in my recollection of Mr. Carson’s definition of treason in a celebrated trial in England during the last war, his definition of treason was “Words or actions which comfort the King’s enemies.” If those words used in the motion of the hon. member for Piquetberg do not fall within that definition, then I am unintelligent! I contend that the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown is a more worthy motion to be considered by the House than that of the hon. member for Piquetberg. During the delivery of the hon. member’s speech I heard a very pertinent remark from the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Barlow). It was an interjection, but I think it correctly describes exactly what the hon. member for Piquetberg meant. The hon. member for Hospital Hill said: “Why don’t you move a vote of no confidence in the people of South Africa?” That, I think, summed up the case very intelligently indeed. For years past at the beginning of every session with the exception of last year, we have had this motion regarding the declaration in South Africa of a republican constitution; and the House has wasted days, and I may say nights and all-night sessions, discussing this matter of a republic. I think that after the verdict of the country in the last election that the hon. member for Piquetberg would be very well advised not to bring a motion such as this on the floor of the House on any future occasion. Let him be content that he has accomplished a most extraordinary feat in proposing a motion of this sort in a dominion of the British Crown. And may I say that I hope that the people of South Africa will properly vlaue …

You mean the people of Natal.

No, I am saying that I hope the people of the Union of South Africa will appreciate the purpose and the efficacy of a motion such as has been presented to us by the hon. member for Piquetberg. I think that there is little to be said in furtherance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pinetown. It has covered the ground very extensively, and he has dealt with the component parts of his amendment most adequately. I feel it is a good amendment, and it is one that expresses the will and the pleasure of the majority not only of the members of this House, but of the great majority of the people of South Africa.

Having listened to the last two speeches we can only come to this conclusion, that it is useless for us on this side of the House to try and explain to such members and those who think as they do in South Africa, what this side of the House really stands for, because the position so far as they are concerned is, as the old saying goes, “None so blind as those who will not see”. So far as the other part of their amendment is concerned—I do not want to go into the question of a Republic—I propose in the course of my remarks to reply to that through the mouths of their own people. When we come to the Government side we can say that we have had only two contributions to the debate, namely the speech by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and a speech by the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler)—who is usually not in his seat. In regard to the hon. member for Kimberley District I want to remind the House that he spoke of a dark and sinister world, and he said that suddenly certain stars had arisen to show us the light. While listening to him we got the impression that the hon. member was still in a state of pitch darkness, that he had not seen any light yet, and that he was totally unable to cast any light on the difficult problems facing the world today. He made us think of a star, but it was a falling star. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister the other day, in his reply to the motion of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, admitted that the motion proposed by this side of the House raised some of the most important and greatest problems with which the world was faced at the moment. But what was the contribution made by the Prime Minister in this House towards the solution of those important problems occupying the attention of the world today? The Prime Minister tried to ridicule this side of the House. He tried, I might almost say, to treat problems which he himself described as being of the utmost importance in a frivolous manner and he accused the Leader of the Opposition of having come here to move a resolution which had as its basis a very narrow point of view, the point of view of a political party in South Africa. This side of the House and the Leader of the Opposition informed the House what the policy was which we were pursuing in regard to world conditions affecting South Africa, affecting South Africa as a whole, as the Leader of the Opposition said—the policy of small nations. If that attitude is a narrow one, then I ask how narrow was the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister himself? He looked at those problems solely from the narrow point of view of Great Britain and of Great Britain alone. He did not take the whole world or the position of the whole world into contemplation. As I have said, he repeatedly said in reply to interjections, “Yes, I am coming to that”, but we are still waiting for him to come to it. He never said a word about those matters. No, all we had from the Prime Minister was that he treated this House to one of the best egg dances he has ever performed in the course of his career.

That’s saying a lot.

And further, so far as the great problems are concerned, using the words of the Prime Minister himself, on those he kept dead quiet. Perhaps we can understand it, we on this side of the House can understand it if the Prime Minister resents the fact of the Leader of the Opposition reproaching him because he went to make a most important statement in another part of the world instead of in his own mother country; we can appreciate the Prime Minister replying to that and asking whether we expected him to make such an important declaration in the backveld. If South Africa has now become the backveld of Great Britain, then we can quite understand the Prime Minister trying to dispose of such important affairs by means of an egg dance in this House. But the question arises in our minds, why does the Prime Minister discuss the matter in the way he has done here? Why does he deal with it in that way when the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition concerns, the greatest and most difficult problems with which Great Britain and the other Allies, with the exception of Russia, have ever had to contend with. I should like to approach these matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition from this point of view, namely what is going to be the position of South Africa in the economic sphere and especially in the industrial sphere if the policy pursued by this Government has to be continued in South Africa, and if the “shocking” statement made by the Prime Minister to the members of Parliament in London, is correct, that after the war, if the Allies win, Britain will come out of the war an economically weakened country. In regard to the other part of the Prime Minister’s prophecy, that certain countries in the world would disappear, I do not know whether we can attach much value to that, because let us see what the Prime Minister said in the speech he made in October, 1918, in the British House of Commons. If one shuts one’s eyes one can almost imagine again hearing the Prime Minister when he last spoke in London.

What year was that?

That hon. member anyhow will not understand these things.

I know that I won’t understand them but I should like to know in what year that was?

The Prime Minister, in October, 1918, used these words in the British House of Commons:

It is because of that that I say we cannot attach much value to the Prime Minister as a prophet. When he talks of certain countries which will disappear in the future, we cannot attach much value to his prophecy except this, that in the interest of Great Britain that opinion which the Prime Minister expressed there is perhaps nothing but that the wish is the father of the thought. And by that he meant the disappearance of France. The war in which we are now involved is supposed to be fought for the protection of small nations. That is why it will be so easy for the Prime Minister and for Great Britain, now that France has been defeated, to say: “Yes, we are fighting for the protection of small nations.” France has shown herself too weak to govern her own Empire, and for that reason Britain has to act as the protector, not because Britain loves France so much but because Britain so badly needs France’s colonies on the Continent of Africa for the economic maintenance of Britain when this war is over. This fact becomes all the clearer when one follows the further course of ideas of the Prime Minister, when he started saying that the British terriories in South Africa should all come together. There is not the slightest doubt that all the plans devised in London, and for which the Prime Minister of South Africa was employed to make his “shocking” announcement, are nothing but a hysterical effort to try and save what still could be saved for the British Empire in the economic sphere after this war. He further said that together with the Allies we were marching forward to the greatest victory in history. That may be so, but unquestionably it is not England which is marching forward to this greatest victory in history; it is those bewiskered mountebanks. Is it not the same Russia which the Prime Minister a short while ago declared was not worth taking any notice of, which is now so powerful that it can even slap America’s face, and can say to America that it does not require its assistance and can manage her own affairs. There is one nation which is going to gain if the Allies win the war, and that is Russia. The next nation which is going to gain, if the Allies win, is America, because America in the economic sphere is putting England entirely into the background. Is it true that economically Britain has become so weak and is becoming more and more weak? Yes, there we agree with the Prime Minister, that after this war Britain will be economically weakened, and that is what this side of the House has been saying for years. We now have the Prime Minister himself testifying to that fact. The Prime Minister who, by the Imperialists and by their Press, has been described as the greatest Imperialist of the century. He has got to the stage now of saying the very same thing that this side Of the House has been saying for a long time, namely, that England has lost this war. England may win this war, together with Russia, from a military point of view, but economically England has lost the war.

Go and tell that story at Jacobs kraal.

Don’t you believe it?

The second bit of evidence which we can adduce to show that England economically has long since been going backward in the world is that as far back as the beginning of 1940 a conservative newspaper in England like the “Daily Chronicle” wrote the following—

Where do you get that from?

He is not quoting from “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly.”

That is the statement made by a conservative paper like the “Daily Chronicle,” but what is the evidence and what are the grounds on which these statements of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and the Conservative Press in England, are based on? If we study the facts we find that Great Britain entered the first world war as an Empire with the greatest financial credit. In those days Great Britain had about £4,000,000,000 invested abroad in long term loans. In those days America—and I have just said that America will gain in this war if the Allies win—did not have one eighth of that amount of capital invested in long term loans abroad. As a result of the first world war England was forced to liquidate a large proportion of her foreign loans. The result was that American capital took the place of English capital and that was the first time that America distributed its capital beyond the borders of America and Canada in all those countries where British capital had held supremacy in the past. Let me give an example. America succeeded in forcing Britain out of the loans which Britain used to have in the American Railways amounting to something like £623,000,000. That process continued and there was a steady but sure deterioration of the British Empire in the economic sphere so that in 1939 we had this position, that America and Britain were practically equal in regard to foreign investments. This steady, but sure process of deterioration of Great Britain caused a good deal of uneasiness to Great Britain, because this is what a man like Prof. Kindersley stated in 1930, when he uttered a word of warning. This is what he said among other things—

Did Lord Haw-Haw say that?

That hon. member himself will one of these days be a Lord Haw-Haw if he does not take more notice of what his own people in his own country are saying. What is making America’s position in relation to England’s position, so much stronger economically is this: At the time when Prof. Kindersley uttered his warning in 1930 America’s foreign loans represented 4 per cent. of its national wealth, as against which England had foreign loans which represented no less than 18 per cent. of Britain’s national wealth. Further proof of Britain’s economic deterioration is to be found in the increasing displacement of British goods by American goods on the world market. Take the position here in South Africa. In 1934 we had this position, that Britain had 48 per cent. of the market of South Africa under her control, and America only 16 per cent. In 1940 the position had changed so that Britain only had 37.6 per cent. as against America’s 25 per cent. But if we include Canada which for all practical purposes is part of America, then in 1940 America had no less than 34 per cent.

Those are braaivleisaandstories.

Yes, to those people who know that their downfall is assured and to hear these things from their own people, of course it is nonsense. There is no need for me to produce any further evidence. What the Prime Minister told the members of parliament in London, and what, according to the hon. member over there is nonsense, is proved by all these facts—these facts prove that England has economically been weakened, and even if the Allies should be victorious it’s not going to mean a victory for Great Britain. England is not going to win the peace. Let hon. members listen to what prominent Americans and Englishmen have said in this connection. The Naval Affairs Committee last year made it clear that the United States Navy would be bigger than the combined navies of the rest of the world. Colliers spoke about the mercantile fleet of the United States and this is what he said, inter alia—

At a conference at Detroit Mr. J. O. Downey, Policy Research Expert to the Brains Trust of General Motors Corporation, gave some flashes of insight into the mental apparatus of American big business. And this is what he said, among other things—

Here we have the testimony of people who are not sitting on this side of the House, but on the other side.

What are you trying to tell us?

That is what those people say, and if one takes all these facts even the strongest Imperialist has to admit, even if it is against his wishes, that Great Britain’s downfall economically, is an established fact. We as Nationalists on this side of the House are not mourning that fact because the fall of the British. Empire may quite possibly mean the release of South Africa. Yet in the downfall of Great Britain there, is a great danger to South Africa as such. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has come forward and has laid it down as our policy that we in South Africa want to be able to speak for ourselves. We want to be an independent nation, able to stand on our own feet, not only constitutionally but economically as well. We have to be a Republic, free and separate from any other nation. We no longer have this condtion of affairs, that England, as before the war, was able only to maintain one-third of her population, while the other two-thirds had to be kept alive by means of commerce carried on by her fleet—a fleet which she no longer has. I refer to the testimony of the Americans. We know that according to the testimony of those experts England after this war will have to export three times, four times and ten times as much as she did before the war in order to be able to exist. I am not even speaking of the position of England’s public debt. England will have to find markets for her products if she wants to exist, and that is why England is being supported by the Prime Minister in the Atlantic Charter. America is a joint signatory of the. Atlantic Charter, America with its tremendous economic development. Both these countries have their own settled factories, old settled factories and they have their up-to-date manufacturing processes which in the shortest possible time can be converted from war production to peace production. In addition to that, those two countries are still backed up by their own Governments—which is not the case here in South Africa. Industries in South Africa receive no protection whatever from the present Government of South Africa, but in America and England the industries are protected by their Governments. A further advantage which industries in those countries enjoy is that they have a tremendous immediate purchasing power at their doors in their own populations. In America the experts believe that by 1948 there will be an accumulated surplus purchasing power among the population of £600,000,000,000. That gives us some idea of the American industries and of how they can immediately be converted into peace production and how they will be able to dump their surplus production into countries like South Africa. Unfortunately that is not the position in South Africa and we are powerless against those two countries. After the war we shall be faced with the problem of providing work for hundreds of thousands of people. We only have to think for a moment of the 150,000 people who are in the Army. We have no shipping for South Africa; we have young industries which have to be protected, but which this Government, with its well-known policy, will not protect. We have the unfortunate position here that the Chamber of Mines is the only net baby of the present Government. We need only look at the journeys which the Prime Minister has made to Europe. He always has a faithful companion on those journeys in the person of a certain Mr. John Martin. They travel all over the world in the same aeroplane. It is in the interest of the Chamber of Mines that importations into South Africa shall remain as large as possible, and wages as low as possible, but the day will come and that day perhaps is much nearer than people realise, when the industrialists in South Africa will discover that their present friends, this Government, with its Atlantic Charter, and the Chamber of Mines as its pet baby, are not their real friend, but in reality their greatest enemy. The day will dawn when the bogey with which the Prime Minister the other day tried to scare a part of the population and with which the members of the Dominion Party by their amendment are trying to scare people, will no longer make baby tremble. The day will dawn when all of those who have made South Africa their home will recognise that in South Africa there can only be one form of government, and that is the form of government which, as I said earlier on, will enable us to enjoy our nationhood to the full, and under which we shall be a free and independent republic, separated from the rest of the world. It is only a Nationalist Government which then, under the independent Republic, will see to it that South Africa will break the agreement which it had entered into under the Atlantic Charter. It is only a sound Nationalist Government which will see to it that industry in South Africa will receive its rightful protection, so that they will be able not only to make a just and fair existence, but they will also be able to supply work on a large scale to thousands and thousands of the young men and women of this country, and to pay them wages which will enable them to live decent and dignified lives. We know that in the past the old South African Party, and particularly the Prime Minister, has been very strongly opposed to the development of industries in South Africa, and the Prime Minister has again shown his attitude in that regard by signing the Atlantic Charter. The Nationalist Party on the other hand has proved in the past that it is the only friend of the industrialists in South Africa, and so it will also prove in days to come that it is its aim and ambition to place industries in South Africa on a sound basis, and to enable them to make an existence. We are seeking a Republic free from any other nation in the world. Let us say to the members of the Dominion Party that so far as a Republic is concerned, on this side of the House, we on this side of the House can certainly never compromise with them. We not only want to be free from all other powers in regard to constitutional matters, but we also want to be free in regard to economic matters. We do not just want to have a President instead of a Governor-General; we want a republic in which everyman and woman in this country will be happy and will be entitled to work at a living wage, a wage worthy of a human being. We want to create here in South Africa a position entirely free from the despicable system under which we are living today, a system under which on the one hand one finds the greatest wealth and luxury, and on the other hand the deepest misery and poverty prevail. These things will be ended. We are no longer going to tolerate a position under which the big capital of the country, and especially the Chamber of Mines, puts its heel on the rest of the population. We want to see the country free in every respect, also in economic respects. That constitutional freedom and economic freedom, and in addition to that, racial cooperation in South Africa, can only be achieved if a Republic is proclaimed here in South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down will remember that just before the English war there were quite a number of people who made the same type of speech as he has made today about Great Britain, but when the war came we found that they were sitting under the Union Jack. The hon. member will remember that and he will know who I am talking about. We have heard a great deal about Communism in this House since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his speech, but we all know that Communism is just a bogey and that Communism in Europe today is dead.

Are you really serious?

If the hon. member doubts that statement let him read the last book of Harold Lasky. He will tell you that Communism is dead. Read the last book of Walter Lipman. He says Communism is dead. No, sir, it is a bogey which my hon. friends are putting before the unfortunate people of the platteland, but they forget that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition was the first man to say in South Africa that the teachings of Communism were just like the teachings of Christ, that the teachings of Marxism were synonymous with the teachings of Christ. That was said by the Rev. Daniel Francois Malan from his pulpit in Graaff-Reinet, and it stands recorded today. You cannot get away from it; it is there for everyone to see. He was the man who said that the teachings of Marxism were synonymous with the teachings of Christ. Will any of you deny it? No, sir, Communism is a bogey and as far as Communism in South Africa is concerned it is a bogey. Communism in South Africa has been dead for some time; the Communist Party in South Africa is dead, but they won’t lie down. But the strange thing about Communism in South Africa is this, that at the last election no Communist fought a Nationalist. All the communists fought our Party. If we are so pro-Communist, why should the Communists fight our Party, and why is it that in the case of some seats where the Nationalists put up candidates, it was done to assist the Communists to split our vote. No, sir, Communism is dead. The Leader of the Opposition has asked us, on foreign affairs, to choose between him and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. Well, on foreign affairs I am prepared to follow the Prime Minister. I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I found a great change in him. He has certainly become very long-winded, and I think even his own side, except when he spoke on Republicanism, were bored to tears. He is an extinct volcano and his dream of reproducing the career of General Hertzog— the man whom the Opposition politically murdered—as the leader of Afrikanerdom will never be accomplished.

Order, Order!

It is quite parliamentary. You cannot teach me the rules. I know more about the rules of procedure than any of you.

Order, Order!

Sir, I am not going.…

On a point of order, has the hon. gentleman not got to address the Chair?

Every moment I say “Sir” and that definitely means you, Mr. Speaker. I am not going into the intricacies of foreign affairs. Frankly, like every other member of the House, with the exception of the Prime Minister, I do not understand them. In South Africa we have not been trained to discuss foreign affairs. The Prime Minister is the only man who has risen above the Parish Pump. His name is known all over the world. I admit that the name of Malan is also known all over the world, but that has nothing to do with the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition; it is the name of “Sailor” Malan, the great South African Air Ace. As I have said, I am prepared to follow the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister blindly.…

For how long?

He is a soldier statesman, an advocate of peace. At the Peace Conference Count Carlo Sforza described him as “one of the rare original brains of the Peace Conference,” and it was due to his characteristic foresight that Rommel’s Afrika Korps was driven out of Africa and history will yet tell that it is probably due to the Prime Minister of South Africa that, we did not lose Egypt and probably the war. That is good enough for me; let him do the thinking and construction of our foreign affairs. I shall follow him blindly on the question of foreign affairs.

You are always blind.

The Opposition are asking me to choose between following the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. I have followed the Prime Minister ….

You have practically followed everyone at some time or other.

For a long time the Leader of the Opposition has been licking the jack-boot of Hitler. Now he wants the country to follow him. Why should we? He has proved to be hopelessly wrong in the past. When our sons went to the war—and some of them are lying dead in the Desert today, joined together in that last embrace with Afrikaans-speaking soldiers which is going to make South Africa—hon. members opposite called them Hanskakies, Rooilussies, John Bull ….

We have never said that they are skunks.

They called these boys who saved them and their homes every name they could think of.

Except skunks.

They even insulted the women in the Army who were wearing uniform. They came down to the lowest dregs, the lowest level of the skollies in Cape Town.

I suppose that is parliamentary language?

I want my Nationalist friends to remember what happened at the time of the English War. When my country went to war against the wishes of the English-speaking people in the Free State, nearly every English-speaking man in that State stood by the Boer Republic. They felt that a mistake had been made, and when President Steyn got to Kroonstad every man on his staff was an English-speaking Free-Stater, and you Opposition members ask us English-speaking Free-Staters to join hands with you. My answer is that we look upon you with the most absolute contempt.

And vice versa.

These things have got to be said and they are going to be said. We have still to protect our boys Up North, and we still do not know how near the Opposition are to Germany.

Order, Order!

The Leader of the Opposition comes here and invites me to come into his republic. He says: “I want you to come in because on the other side the people are all capitalistic.” What is this anti-capitalism of his? Let us examine the economic workings of his organisation and then we might find out.

Are you reading your speech?

No, I have made copious notes. During the Great Trek Centenary a very old and dear friend of mine, a man for whom I had the greatest respect, one of the finest men that ever lived in South Africa, the late Rev. Father Kestell, conceived the idea of doing something for the poor Afrikaner, for the kind of man we see every day along Bushveld roads driving his donkey wagon loaded with wood to sell in the towns with his whole family living in the tattered tent of that wagon; for the aged father and mother we can find in every Johannesburg slum hovel; for the “deelsaaier” and “bywoner”; for the “padwerker” and “boswerker”. The Reddingsdaad, said old Dr. Kestell, would bring new hope and salvation to these people. The Reddingsdaad would save the poor Afrikaner. But what, has happened? The Reddingsdaadbond has now become part of the Broederbond-Nationalist anti-capitalist machine. From being a deed of salvation it has become the world’s queerest stock exchange. I’ll tell you how it works. Throughout the Union today about 285 branches of the Reddingsdaadbond are busy collecting money. Impassioned appeals are made to the patriotic sentiment of the poor Afrikaner. Then they give money to the Reddingsdaad. Even the very poor—even that old father driving the donkey wagon—give their sixpences and shillings to this so-called deed of salvation. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell us what happens to this money from the pockets of the poor Afrikaner? Will the arch-enemy of capitalism tell us what they are doing with the tens of thousands of pounds pouring into the coffers of the Reddingsdaad? I’ll tell him. Most of that money is administered by Federale Volksbelegging. When an Afrikaner, who wants to start a business, is approved by the local representatives of the Broederbond, he goes to Volksbelegging, not with a scheme for saving the poor but with a business proposition. And if Volksbelegging are satisfied that he can make sufficient profit they advance him the necessary capital to sell boots and shoes and shirts and groceries at a profit to those very poor Afrikaners who originally subscribed the money thinking that they were saving themselves from capitalist exploitation. The whole thing is the most vicious circle of capitalist exploitation ever conceived by the cunning, money-grubbing minds of Keerom Street. Instead of using the stock exchange to get their venture capital, they use those 285 Reddingsdaadbond branches to collect the money. In a stock exchange transaction you at least get your share script in exchange, but these poor misguided Afrikaners “give” the money thinking that they are making a contribution to noble Afrikaner charity. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell us who the shareholders are in Federale Volksbelegging?

The names are available.

Will he tell us who the shareholders are in Federale Volksbelegging —the finance house of his anti-capitalist society, the firm which underwrites the new ventures whose principals have been duly approved by the Broederbond? The money they are using is the money of the Reddingsdaadbond, but the principal shareholders are the Keerom Streeet Hoggenheimers.

What has that to do with the war?

That is not what was meant by my old friend, the Rev. Father Kestell. This is the worst form of capitalism South Africa has even seen—preying on the pockets of the poor and using that money for business out of which they take profits.

What’s the matter; wouldn’t they give you a loan?

My hon. friend knows that I have never applied to him for a loan. Can he say the same to me as far as he is concerned?

On a matter of personal explanation. I believe the hon. member has asked if I can say that I have never applied to him for a loan. No, I never have—I only apply for loans to someone who has something to lend me.

If he will look through his diary.…

What’s that.

Oh, never mind, we shall discuss that outside. I know the time is short and I know members want to get home, so I had better cut my speech short now.

Shame!

As a political journalist I have put something into verse in a political prayer book. I should like to read it—but my time is very short. My friend, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for— he changes about so much—he is chased out of so many places that it is really difficult to know which constituency he represents now.

He can always get a constituency but you cannot.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) wants a republic. Well, I could quite understand the hon. member, General Kemp, wanting a republic.

Order, Order!

I am perfectly in order— Mr. Speaker will call me to order if I am not.

The hon. member must refer to hon. members by their constituencies.

I said the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (General Kemp). That is in order, I think.

The rule distinctly provides that members shall only be referred to by the names of their constituencies.

Very well, I shall say the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, — one of the bravest soldiers of the English war — I can understand him asking for a Republic. I can understand the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. G. H. F. Strydom) who is a decorated soldier, asking for a Republic, I can understand the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Dohne) asking for a Republic, and I can understand the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) asking for a Republic. But I cannot understand the hon. member for Piketberg asking for a Republic. Will he cast his mind back to the days of the English war when the present Prime Minister in that extraordinary ride of his from the Magaliesberg right down to where the hon. member was living, took the forces under his command. The hon. member was the Prime Minister’s greatest friend, he had been to school with him. Why did he not come out then and join the Prime Minister? No, he was busy writing a book on the life of a British Bishop. And let me remind the hon. member for Wolmaransstad of something. Does he remember how annoyed he was when the hon. member for Piketberg came to Pretoria and in order to make himself great endeavoured to ride in the sacred car which belonged to General Delarey, that old car which still had a bullet hole in it. The car in which he was killed. Yes, he was going to ride in it surrounded by Voortrekker Meisies. What does he know about Voortrekker Meisies? I remember how annoyed the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was because General Delarey was his greatest leader in the English War. And I remember how annoytd the hon. member for Piketberg was when he went to ride in that car, and he find that some old stryders had removed the wheels—

You know perfectly well that that is not true.

Oh, no, it’s perfectly true, and a slogan had been put inside that car which read, “Walk on you own flat feet — don’t ride on the people’s past.” And may I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition what flag we are going to have? Yes, sir, he knows a great deal about flags. When I was in Parliament last he wanted a flag, he was always agitating for a flag, and General Hertzog said, “All right, you make the flag.” He made a flag and he brought it before the House. And what was it? It was a cross of St. George of England.

What has that to do with the motion?

I am talking about Republicanism because I want to know what flag I am going to have. It was the St. George’s Cross of England on a green background. And let me just remind the House of this — the hon. member made a remarkable speech. He said that we must go hand in hand with England; he told about England’s wars — the wars of the Roses — and he told us what wonderful people the English were. He admired the English people so much in that speech of his that I walked across to Mr. Tielman Roos and said: “Tielman ons moet nou keer—nou word die ou te rooi.” Well, the House did not like the flag, so he took it away and produced a new flag, like a rabbit out of a hat. And now we have that flag, and let me tell you it is a great flag, it has been rendered sacred by the blood of the Afrikaners who have died in the Desert. But what respect does the hon. member show for that flag? Does he clothe himself in that flag? No, he clothes himself in the Vierkleur, in our old flag, for which he never fired a shot.

Have you ever fired a shot for a flag?

The hon. member says he wants a Republic.

What you want is an Asylum

Now this is what the hon. member said only a few years ago: “South Africa now realises that the British Empire is the freest country in the world.” “We are absolutely free,” “and that position has not been obtained by bloodshed. The British statesmen are today our friends.” And then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, after reading what the hon. member had said, said this: “Dr. Malan is prepared to sell ideals for anything. Dr. Malan is a political liar, a betrayer of trusts.” That is what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said about the hon. member for Piketberg. Mr. Speaker, do you think he was wrong? No man in this country has done more harm to the good feelings between the English-speaking people and the Afrikaans-speaking people than.…

Arthur Barlow.

Than the Leader of the Opposition. General Hertzog—where is he today?

You said the same about him.

I saw him just before he died.

You fought against him all the time.

And he never forgave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Yes, he was always friendly towards the Prime Minister—one great man respecting another, but he never forgave the stab in the back given to him by the Leader of the Opposition.

Did he forgive you?

When the F.A.K. Congress held its meeting in Bloemfontein the other day—a Congress supposed to be a Congress of the Afrikaner people—General Hertzog’s name was not mentioned once. The man who has done more than anyone for the Afrikaans language—his name was never mentioned. These people who claim to be the supporters of the Afrikaans language never mentioned his name once. Sir, I speak as an old Free Stater and I say that was one of the worst scandals that has ever happened in this country.

The. Free State does not want you.

Take a man like Senator Brebner and ask him what he thinks of the hon. member for Piketberg; ask him what he thinks of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. C. R. Swart), the man who was brought up by General Hertzog and then bit the hand which fed him. General Hertzog went to his grave a broken-hearted man because he had been stabbed in the back by these men. A book has just been published containing General Hertzog’s reminiscences. There is not a word against the Prime Minister in that book—there is nothing against the United Party. It is a book containing the wailings of a broken-hearted man against Afrikanerdom sitting in those places occupied by the official Opposition today.

I move—

I second.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to give further facilities?

No, it will not be possible to do so. I would advise the hon. member to put down his motion for next Friday, and we shall then be able to see what other opportunity may be created.

I am sorry the Prime Minister cannot give us an earlier date but in the circumstances I would ask for the resumption to be set down for next Friday.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 4th February.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I should like a little information from the Minister on this Vote. We find a new amount of £660,000 which has to be voted here in regard to the stabilisation of the price of bread for the wheat season 1943-’44. I should like to discuss the Minister’s attitude towards our wheat crop and the handicaps imposed by his department in regard to getting the wheat in and getting it threshed and then, of course, to get it milled. During November, 1943, there was a publication in the Government Gazette announcing the prices fixed for the threshing of wheat by machine, and it was laid down there that no threshing machine owner in the Free State was allowed to charge more than he charged last year. No threshing machine owner was allowed to charge any farmer more for threshing his wheat than that farmer paid last year. Last year the position regarding the wheat season was such that the farmers afterwards found themselves in difficulties because they could not get their wheat threshed, and the owners of threshing machines at some places, and in a number of instances, took advantage of the difficulties in which the farmers found themselves in order to raise the price for the threshing of wheat. While it used to be 1s. 6d. and 1s. 3d. per bag, the farmers at that time had to pay 2s. 6d. The farmers were in difficulties and they had to pay these prices. All they could do was to pay. Other machine owners were reasonable and only charged 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d.

On a point of order, I do not want to create any false impression, and I don’t know whether I shall be allowed to reply to this speech. We are dealing here with a subsidy on wheat which was produced last year and from which bread is to be made. The hon. member is now discussing wheat which is being produced this year, in respect of which there is no amount on these estimates. I should like to bring that to your notice, Mr. Chairman.

May I point out to the Minister that it is very definitely stated here that the subsidy is in respect of the wheat season 1943-’44.

It is the next season, the one which is ahead of us now—that is what the hon. member is referring to. There is no subsidy for that on these estimates; the subsidy here is only in respect of last year’s crop, which is now being consumed.

It is clearly stated that the amount is intended for the stabilisation of the price of bread for the wheat season 1943-’44. That is what I am discussing. The whole question of the threshing of the wheat crop is at issue here.

The hon. member may proceed.

I think the Minister is somewhat ashamed of the attitude adopted by his department in regard to this matter, that is why he is trying to stop me. Now, we have this position, that the machine owners who last year were reasonable and charged 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d. cannot this year charge more than 1s. 4d. or 1s. 6d. They cannot charge more than they charged last year, whereas other machine owners who last year took advantage of the difficulties with which the farmers were faced, are allowed to charge 2s. 6d. The farmer who last year paid 1s. 6d. is unable to get a threshing machine to thresh his wheat because he is not allowed to pay any more. Those, however, who last year had to pay 2s. 6d. can obtain threshing machines and they can again pay 2s. 6d. Certain farmers are now faced with this trouble, that the machine owners who last year did their threshing for them are not able to do so for them this year, and the others are also not allowed to do it, so their wheat cannot be handled. One has the example of two farmers living next to each other. The one farmer is not allowed to pay more than 1s. 6d. and his neighbour this year pays 2s. 6d. Now I ask whether that is a reasonable or sensible policy to pursue? This matter was brought to the notice of the department by myself and other representatives of farmers as far back as December last. Now, during this season, last week, the Minister suddely saw the light of day and introduced a change. The fixed price throughout is now 2s. but right throughout, since December to the end of January, nothing was done to remedy the position. I know of instances where farmers had to thresh and could not get a machine. They were prepared to pay 2s. but they were not allowed to do so— they were not allowed to pay more than 1s. 6d. No machine could be obtained to do their threshing for them. All this business has created a terrible mix up in the wheat industry and it has caused a lot of dissatisfaction. I fail to understand how this could have happened. How can the Minister and the Wheat Board and his officials make such a stupid determination without first investigating the whole position? They suddenly come along and say that nobody is to be allowed to charge more than they charged last year and that nobody is to be allowed to pay more than they paid last year—and they do so apparently without having made any enquiry as to what last year’s price was. It seems unbelievable, and I can tell the Minister that it has led to a great deal of confusion. I should like to know from the Minister how he is going to justify that attitude. I have sent telegrams and letters to the Department, and the Department was fully aware of the position. I even wired the Minister early in January and I also wrote him a long letter early in January to explain the position, but nothing was done. It was only last week, towards the end of January, when the farmers in many instances should have finished their threshing, that the Minister found out that a mistake had been made, and he rectified it and fixed the price at 2s. throughout. Why have the farmers to put up with that sort of thing? That sort of thing can only be done deliberately or through ignorance. I don’t believe that it was done deliberately, and that being so some person in authority must have been totally ignorant of the situation—otherwise he would not have created such an impossible position. The man who last year was fair in his charges is now being punished, but the man who was unfair and who overcharged is allowed to continue charging a high price. It is particularly the farmers in the Free State who have been hard hit, as in the Free State in December last we only had a few days of sunshine. It has rained very heavily there. The farmers wanted to thresh but the wheat lay and rotted on the land because they could not get it threshed; they were unable to get a machine. The machine owners say that 1s. 4d. is too little and that they cannot thresh the wheat at that price. The farmer is prepared to pay 2s., but he is not allowed to pay it. In the meanwhile the wheat lies and rots and the people are unable to get bread. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister about this impossible position which has been created, and I should like to know how he justifies it because the farmers are most dissatisfied about it throughout the country, and I say that the Department of Agriculture must look after the interests of the farmers better than it is doing at present.

Before the Minister replies I should like to put a few questions to him. As the Minister knows we drew attention to the fact last year that it was wrong for this subsidy to fall under the Department of Agriculture, but I notice that it is placed under the same department again this year. This gives the impression outside that this is a subsidy which is being given to the wheat farmers, while in actual fact the intention of the subsidy is to prevent the price of bread going up and thus to benefit the consumers. Why should this amount for instance not appear under the vote of Social Welfare? That is the Department which is responsible for the welfare of the people. I should like to know what the reasons are for this amount appearing on this vote again. Last year the Minister himself realised that our objection was well founded, but he did not take any steps. Then there is another question I want to put to the Minister. A subsidy is now being paid for the stabilisation of the price of wheat. Is that subsidy paid to the millers, the big as well as the small millers? I am anxious to have an explanation from the Minister telling us who gets the subsidy. Does it go to the millers, or do the bakers get it? I should also like to have a little more information about this amount of £92,500 for a butter subsidy. To whom is that paid? I am not putting these questions with a view to criticising it; I have no objection to the subsidy, but I should like to know exactly what the position is in regard to it. But whatever the position is the subsidy should be called by its right name and the impression should not be created that it is being given to the farmers.

I would like to refer to the amount of £660,000 which is described as expenses in connection with the stabilisation of the price of bread. I agree, Mr. Chairman, with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) who stated last week that this was a misnomer, and sir, I would like to analyse the position not for the purpose of raising a hornet’s nest, but so that the House may clearly understand exactly what this amount is being used for. First of all, sir, in my analysis, I approximate the wheat crop at 5,000,000 bags for the season 1943-’44. This is only an approximation, but going by previous years, it compares reasonably to the 1940-’41 figure of 4,849,000 bags. There are fifteen grades of wheat. To illustrate, I will take Grade B 1, which represents approximately 50 per cent. of the crop. This grade of wheat is supplied to a miller at 28s. 8d. per bag of 200 lbs. On this basis, compared with world prices, it is obviously a very highly subsidised figure at 28s. 8d. To make a comparison with the Australian wheat price, it is 15s. above the figure ruling there to the producer. On the figure of 28s. 8d. the miller is allowed to charge 39s. 1d. for sifted meal. He does not receive any subsidy. He can produce sifted meal at that price of 28s. 8d., and at the price of 39s. 1d. for sifted meal, the baker produces bread at 6d. over the counter and 6d. delivered. No subsidy passes through this sequence. But the position is slightly different in that the Government fixed a price for B1. wheat, for this particular grade of wheat, which represents 50 per cent. of the crop, at 36s. per bag. So on the figure of 28s. 8d., the price to the miller, there is a deficit of 7s. 4d. This deficit on the whole wheat crop would come approximately to £1,500,000. This item of £660,000 is the first payment towards this deficit between the price of wheat, 28s. 8d. and the price to the producer, 36s. This amount is paid to the Wheat Control Board. The Wheat Control Board, for its part pays out to its wheat agents, and the wheat agents are therefore able to pay the difference to the farmer. Therefore, sir, from an equitable point of view this is a wheat subsidy. But I would like to draw the attention of the House to the inequitable way in which this subsidy works out to the farmers of this country. It is essentially a price factor subsidy. If you obtain the annual report of the Wheat Control Board 1938-’39, you will see that the total number of wheat farmers in the country is just over 37,000. Those producing more than 500 bags of wheat per annum number 2,500 farmers approximately, or 7 per cent. of the wheat farmers of the country producing 50 per cent. of wheat crop. The other 93 per cent. produce the other 50 per cent. Fifty per cent. of the crop is produced by 7 per cent. of the wheat farmers. The result is that with a price per bag subsidy you have instances like the following which I can quote from this report, of eleven farmers growing over 8,000 bags of wheat, receiving £2,500 subsidy each on their wheat crop. On the other hand sir, you may go to the other side of it, and you will find 19,000 farmers obtaining a total payment of £5 each subsidy on their wheat crop because their production averages sixteen bags per annum. If you analyse the figure further, you will see that this is no solution of our wheat producing problem, and that the effect of this price subsidy is only to inflate our land values and not to help the farmers who really need the help.

As a new member, I could easily be misguided by the title of this vote, “Control of the price of bread.” Fortunately we have been forewarned by the Government of the proposal which goes hand in glove with this vote of £660,000. Were we dealing with an increase in the price of motor cars I would not be greatly concerned but when the vote is linked up with the proposed measure which will increase the price of bread, speaking for myself and other members of this House, we are gravely concerned about the proposal to increase the price of bread by a half-penny per loaf. The wheat growing interests, as the milling interests of this country, are adequately represented in this House, and from time to time make representations to the Government, and those representations are being sympathetically looked into. I affirm in the name of the working classes of this country that in view of their struggle for existence today under the impact of war and under the increased cost of living, which is mounting steadily from month to month, it is unreasonable on the part of the Government to suggest a half-penny per loaf increase, and if anything at all applies as a test of the Government it is on this question of bread. Workers struggling to earn a sum of money in the form of wages, anything from 24s. per week upwards, are not able to bear the additional burden. I have no doubt that it is essential in this country to promote the production of wheat growing, and if it is necessary to subsidise the growth of wheat neither I nor anybody else will want to withhold from that section of the community anything that is necessary in the way of subsidy to grow the wheat for our requirements. But if the Government are able to subsidise the wheat grower and the Government are able to subsidise the millers and the baking industry to the extent it is proposed they should do in this measure, then the Government can go a step further and subsidise that class of the community who most need a subsidy, and if necessary bread could be subsidised, so that in effect there should be actual control in the price of bread, and that bread will in the future be sold at the same price it has been sold hitherto.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has said. We approached the Minister at an early stage. I personally approached the Wheat Board after we had been informed that the price for the threshing of wheat had been fixed. But the way in which it was fixed appeared somewhat peculiar to us. The Free State machine owners sent a deputation to Pretoria to meet the Wheat Board. They thoroughly discussed the matter with the Wheat Board and although they tried to explain the situation the Wheat Board and the Price Controller put down their foot and said that they had fixed the price and that it was to remain at that. I had a telephone conversation with the Price Controller and I tried to make him understand that it was a most unfair thing as the people who last year charged 2s. 6d. were allowed again to charge 2s. 6d. this year, while others who had rendered services last year, and who had not gone cut of their way to make large profits but had done the threshing for 1s. 4d. were now compelled again to do the threshing for 1s. 4d. The deputation asked the Wheat Board at least to give the Free State a chance to compete with the Transvaal, because there they were given the right to charge 1s. 9d. but all our representations and all our pleas fell on deaf ears, and the result was that we did not get any uniformity. I am pleased that the Minister, after we had discussed the matter with him, realised that his people were in the wrong, but it only goes to show that we are apt to get into trouble with all these controllers we have today. Apparently jobs are to be created for people who are not worthy of having such jobs. If we had fewer controllers things would probably go better and there would be no need for us to criticise the Minister so consistently.

The Minister will not require me to repeat my speech on the motion to go into Committee, but I do trust he will pay me the courtesy of replying to those remarks, as foreshadowed by the Minister of Finance in his speech. I would only suggest that if my assumption is correct, that this increase in the vote is due to the fact that the crop estimate has been largely exceeded, that he will consider the re-introduction of the making of white bread.

This may be a good opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture to give us some idea of last year’s crop; perhaps it is also a good opportunity for the Minister to tell us what steps he has taken to prevent the same thing happening that happened last year when the Government appealed to farmers to produce although the farmers were not given what they required to enable them to produce. This is a serious matter, and I hope the Minister will give it his attention. I should like to know whether the yield has been sufficient to enable him to comply with the country’s request to allow white bread to be made again. This is a request which has been made to the Minister by the hon. member for South Coast (Natal) (Mr. Neate) and I want to say that it is felt in many parts of the country, that we should be allowed to have white bread again. Why can white bread be made in Southern Rhodesia where they do not produce any wheat?

They get our wheat.

It is a peculiar thing that one is able to buy white bread in Southern Rhodesia, but the nearer one gets to the Union’s wheat areas the worse the bread becomes. Personally, I may not mind eating brown bread, but there are a great many people who are fond of white bread. I want to ask the Minister whether, in consequence of a good crop last year, it is not possible for us to revert to white bread? Then I have another question that I want to put. The Minister last year placed the farmers in a very difficult position by not seeing that they were supplied with the necessary fertilisers. A great many of them could not get the fertilisers they needed in time, nor could they get the necessary labour to enable them to produce wheat, apart from the difficulties and the high cost of farming implements that they required. I don’t want to go into this latter point at the moment, but I want to ask the Minister whether there is any feeling of anxiety at the moment in regard to the possibility of a small wheat crop this year. If there is any anxiety then I should like to know what it is based upon? So far as implements are concerned the situation is really difficult. In 1943 some of the farmers were still in a position to make arrangements to secure implements—with considerable difficulty, but the situation in regard to fertilisers was extremely difficult, and so far as labour was concerned they were in real trouble. Will the Minister this year give his attention to these matters in good time? If the Government appeals to the farmers and asks them to produce the Government should also provide the facilities to enable the farmers to do so. So far as labour is concerned, the Minister last year left the farmers entirely in the lurch and the position is becoming worse and worse. We should like to know what special steps the Government is going to take this year to supply the farmers with labour. If the position remains as it was we shall simply have to expect a drop in production, and then we may possibly be faced with the position of having to import wheat into South Africa on a large scale. That the Minister can obviate. South Africa should, as far as wheat is concerned, be self-supporting. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice possibly had in mind that a large crowd of the skolly boys he released the other day were going to work on the platteland, but if he did have that in mind, let me disillusion him. Not a solitary skolly released from gaol by the Minister of Justice will find his way to the wheat farmers. They will all stay behind here in the town, and that is not going to help the wheat farmers in any way.

It’s much more likely they will get back into gaol.

Yes, that I think is very probable. Before saying anything further on this subject I should like to hear from the Minister what steps he has in mind so far as the future is concerned?

I am rather surprised that this extraordinary amount of £660,000 for the subsidisation of the wheat farmers has not brought forward a shoal of protests from the new members of the United Party —I had expected an outcry! In Johannesburg there was a great outcry when there was talk about an increase in the price of bread and the subsidisation of the wheat farmer.

Who says the wheat farmers are subsidised?

I say so.

You know nothing about it.

Well, if the hon. member will make his speech in his own way I shall make mine in my own way. There was an outcry on the Witwatersrand from a number of new United Party Members, so much so that I thought that this new Parliament was going to give us something that we would have new members here who would criticise this iniquitous proposal, but what do we find? The only hon. member who has anything to say is the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). He got up not so much to criticise, as to give us information-very useful information, although I do not think his information was entirely correct, although it did show that a number of rich farmers—and a few of these rich farmers are actually Members of Parliament —are going to collect a considerable amount of money in the shape of a subsidy at the cost of the people’s bread. I thought that this was going to be a reconstruction Parliament. I thought that with this vast majority we have we were going to get something done, but here on this most important thing—the most important thing which has so far come to our notice—we find there is little protest, except from the Opposition side, and of course they are looking to their own baby.

Of course, you are talking nonsense again.

I have been in this House a considerable time, and I remember a time when strenuous efforts were made to pay the wheat farmers 22s. 6d. per bag, and it was considered then that 22s. 6d. was a price which made it possible for wheat to be grown not in the best districts of South Africa, but in the worst districts.

Ag, kom!

In other words, the 22s. 6d. per bag was based on the Malmesbury district of the Cape and for two or three years we found that the Free State farmers having reaped their wheat earlier were able to sell at a good profit at 18s. 6d. and there was always a row in this House about the Free State farmers jumping the market at 18s. 6d. whereas the Cape farmers had to wait a month and could only sell—so they said—at 22s. 6d. Probably the Minister of Native Affairs may be able to give us some first hand information. Now, we find it has jumped to 22s. 8d. or, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, 28s., and what is the story? The story is that it is necessary to produce more wheat. Before the war the great effort was to prevent farmers from growing a particular crop on ground which was not suitable for that crop—in other words, the whole trend as I understood it of the intelligent agricultural officers in the Department was to endeavour to stop farmers from growing crops in areas where these crops were not profitable, as compared with other area of South Africa. And when we eventually managed more or or less to stabilise wheat at 22s. 6d. per bag, I know that one of the first results was that wheat began to be grown in areas where it was not a profitable proposition to grow it. Now we have another position, where the Minister of Agriculture apparently says that we have to grow wheat at all costs, and in order that we shall grow it at all costs you must grow it on the most unprofitable ground in South Africa, and, so the Minister says, we shall then give you 36s. per bag. That’s what the Government is doing now. What the Government is doing now—and this possibly accounts for the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove—they are now paying a certain amount of subsidy—it cannot be very large— to individual farmers who are growing wheat on unprofitable ground, but in the course of paying that subsidy to those farmers they are giving fabulous profits to farmers who are growing it on profitable ground. The farmers who before the war grew 10,000 bags of wheat—and there are many of them—there are farmers in this House who grow 10,000 bags of wheat—are going to get a very nice present from the Government. If you calculate what their increase is—what it means from 28s. 8d. to 36s. per bag on 10,000 bags per season—you can see how much is being put into the pockets of certain members of this House.

What are you talking about?

The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) laughs, but he should not laugh; they did the same with mealies last year. In the meantime it is the poor people of the country who are suffering. The Minister tells us that we are only raising the price of bread by a halfpenny— but when it comes to the Budget the Minister of Finance will possibly put on another 6d. or so on beer or on candles, or on something which the poor man needs most of all. And he will not take anything from the wheat farmers. They will get off scot free.

What about the super tax?

The farmers do not pay super tax—they do not pay taxes at all.

Oh, don’t they? They even pay excess profits duty now-a-days.

Not in many cases. I think this is a thorough disgrace. 22s. 6d. before the war—that was the price we tried to aim at and even then we used to object because we knew that wheat was sold in the Free State at 18s. 6d. and I am given to understand that it could be produced at a profit at 12s. 6d. in the Free State. I have that from an economist of repute.

Tell us who that economist of repute is?

Why should I, he might get the sack. Now we have got to the stage that it is 36s. per bag. I see that the Government the other day fined someone £25 because he sold a candle at 1d. more than some controller said he should. On the other hand, when it comes to articles which are manufactured, the Government issues a long string of prices. I see in the paper this morning that some of the stores in Cape Town have littered their windows up with the prices of articles in order that they can control the prices. [Time limit.]

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in his objections to this item appearing under the Agricultural Vote. We heard the hon. member for Natal, South Coast (Mr. Neate), telling the House that even he is not satisfied that this matter should come under Agriculture. He wants it to be placed under the heading of “Assistance to Farmers.” And now the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has got up and has objected to this subsidy being paid to farmers. I want to protest most emphatically against such remarks being made in this House and I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the last war the price of flour was £3 per bag.

It was £3 10s. per bag.

Yes, I know, but let us say it was £3 5s. per bag, yet the price of bread at that time was the same as it is now. Now I want to ask this: Let the Minister of Agriculture explain this position to the House and remove this misconception. Let him make it clear to members why the price of bread in the past when flour was £3 10s. per bag was the same as it is now, when flour is £1 19s. per bag? It is this sort of thing which causes all these misconceptions and misunderstandings. This subsidy actually goes to the millers and the bakers. The producer does not get any benefit from it, and I agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg that the consumer does not get it either. It is the middle man, the person in between the two, who actually gets all the benefit. It is unpleasant to hear every day in this House, especially from our friends in Natal and from the Labour Party Members, the type of remarks we have been listening to—to hear the farmer being put in a wrong light, and it is important that the Minister of Agriculture, seeing that he is encouraging the farmer to produce more and more, should remove this misconception, and that he should explain to our friends over there what the true position is.

I have heard a lot of nonsense talked in this House, but the greatest nonsense I heard this afteroon from the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Bumside). He almost reminded us of some of the Ministers we used to have here. The hon. member made certain allegations this afternoon, and among them he said this, that the wheat farmers in the Free State were able to produce at 12s. 6d. per bag. He does not realise that one good year in the Free State is followed by two bad years. If we take it over a period of years it is more expensive to produce wheat in the Free State than even in the Western Province. Then somebody else said that there were 5,000,000 bags of wheat in the country and he took 28s. per bag as the basis for last year. Now I should like to know from the Minister what was the price of the wheat that had to be imported? I believe that the average price of that wheat was 32s. per bag. This again goes to prove that many of those hon. members over there know nothing of these things they talk about. The Minister told us that we were to produce food for the country, and the farmers did their duty in the difficult circumstances in which they found themselves. The farmers have had to contend with all kinds of difficulties and troubles, and the cost of production has gone up, so I should like to know what is the use of hon. members quoting pre-war prices which have nothing to do with the matter at all. No, in this discussion I behold another attack on the control boards. Hon. members over there want those boards to be abolished. They are looking for all sorts of criticisms to level against them. One hon. member talks about 5,000,000 bags of wheat in the country. Where did he get that estimate from? Is he going to tell me that all of that wheat is B.1. wheat? How many grades of wheat are there among that lot? And if he fixes 36s. per bag for the best grade he will find that the average price was not more than 32s. But these sort of things are said in this House merely in order to scare the public. The farmer so far has always been compelled to produce and to lose money on what he produces. But surely the farmer is entitled to make a living? If hon. members had said that the bakers and the millers made large profits I would have agreed with them. As another member has already said, when wheat was £3 per bag a loaf of bread cost 6d. And they made a living. Where are those extra profits going now? No, all this talk is nothing but exploitation of the poor. Those hon. members pretend to be the friends of the poor. Many of them may be likened to the wolf in sheep’s clothing. They are the ones who exploit the poor for their own purposes. Now let me say this to the Minister. Although in many respects I differ from him I want to congratuate him so far as the position of wheat is concerned. The wheat farmers at least know where they are and in that respect he has done good work. We differ about the composition of the Wheat Control Board, we say that that board allows the millers and bakers to make unduly large profits, and that the farmer is not allowed to make enough. But I also feel that this £660,000 should come under the vote Social Welfare, and should not be regarded as an assistance to farmers. It is there that the wrong impression has been created, it is there that the impression has been created among the towns people that the farmers are always being helped. I feel that if those errors are put right, those matters to which I have referred, the country will be grateful to the Wheat Board for the good work it has done.

One can accuse the Minister of Agriculture of very many things, but one of the most important things we have to charge him with today is that he is responsible for the misunderstanding and the misconception which we have noticed today in the mind of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and other hon. members. Ever since last year we have been pretesting against expenditure such as this coming under the Agricultural Vote. The public outside believe that this again is a subsidy to the farmer, and if the Minister had listened to us and had brought this expenditure under Social Welfare and not under Agriculture, the hon. member for Fordsburg, who dreams three quarters of the time, and concerns himself with things he knows nothing about, would not have displayed such a lack of knowledge here today. I hold the Minister of Agriculture directly responsible for the attitude of the hon. member for Fordsburg. We as farmers emphatically protest against the country being continually made to believe that we are being spoonfed. Last year we from this side protested against the price of bread, and this subsidy was instituted as a direct result of our protest so that the price of bread could be reduced and not raised. The wheat prices were fixed after a commission of enquiry had gone into the costs of production, and as a result of the findings of that commission the prices of wheat were fixed, and in order to take heed of the demands of the consumers and not have an outcry about the price of bread having been raised, this subsidy was instituted as a direct result of the agitation outside, and also on this side of the House, and our demand that we must see to it that the consumer got his bread more cheaply. And now we, as representatives of the farmers, have to come here again and listen to what we have heard so often; we again have to put up with the unpleasant experience of members of this House approaching the agricultural population and telling them that they are living on subidies and that they are continually riding on the back of the Government. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister and I want to ask him to see to it that that sort of thing does not continue. We cannot protest sufficiently strongly against that sort of thing. Then I want to voice this view, that certain members of this House, particularly members like the hon. member for Fordsburg, are intent on creating a schism by means of their agitations and their speeches — they are intent on creating a breach between the towns people and the platteland. And I do feel that if that feeling is roused in this country, if a break is created between the towns people and the people of the platteland, it will bring about a most unfortunate state of affairs in the economic life of South Africa. It is a recognised fact in this country that certain industries have to be borne, have to be carried. Those industries to all intents and purposes, are subsidised in this country. Let us think for instance of the boot and shoe industry, and other industries in which the towns people are engaged. We, as farmers, have never agitated against that policy, and I want to make an appeal to the towns people and ask them not to try and oppress the farmers for the sake of their own gain. Let us get to understand each other, let us be fair towards each other; only then shall we be able to create a happy community.

I wish to confine myself in the first place to the subjects raised by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). He complained that we had adopted a weak attitude in regard to the fixing of threshing fees.

I complained about the way in which it was done.

One hon. member said that they had begged to be allowed the same charges as those in force in the Transvaal. But I believe hon. members know that in the Cape the average price was no more than 1s. Hon. members will see at once that we have different prices for threshing in three provinces. The Wheat Board approached me and told me that the owners of threshing machines were exploiting the wheat farmers, and that it would be the right thing to freeze the charges at last year’s charges—which in many cases already were too high. That was a request which the Wheat Board put to me. I thereupon advised them to go to the Price Controller and say that we agreed that those charges should be frozen. I must admit at once that I was certainly not aware of the fact that people in the Free State had been obliged to pay as much as 4s. for threshing. If I had been aware of that I certainly would not have agreed to the price being frozen on that basis. We would first of all have gone into all the details, but it would have been extremely difficult to determine what the correct amount was to have been. What we did we did in the interest of the farmers. Now the hon. member says that he has repeatedly made representations. Well, I regret having to say that the first representations I heard of were made when I was here in Cape Town.

But I showed you the letters and the replies.

I accept the hon. member’s statement that he did so, but I only want to tell him that the first I heard of it was when the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) brought the matter to my notice and I thereupon at once said that I had been wrong, and that the scheme was not working correctly, and I also said that the position would immediately be rectified. And the matter was put right as we have said, in the interest of the farmers, but we had to get a line more or less as to where the prices were to be fixed. When the request was made to me it seemed reasonable that the prices should be frozen on last year’s basis. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) came back to the question of the vote under which this subsidy should appear. Well, the hon. member used to be a Minister himself, and I just want to remind his of this, that we must have one or other official to be responsible for specific expenditure, an official to account to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. From the very nature of things the Secretary of Agriculture has to be that official.

Why?

Why is there reference here to the wheat season 1943-’44?

Well, that has to be put in. Other members of the House again have raised objections to this expenditure being shown as a subsidy to the consumer. Others, again, object to it being regarded as a subsidy to the farmers. I feel that the position is perfectly clear. My department is responsible for the determination of the price of wheat. The Wheat Board is responsible for a whole series of prices which with my approval are laid down; the price of flour and the price of everything made of wheat. The Wheat Board comes under my department, so we cannot do anything else. My department has to account for this amount and for the way in which it is spent. It isn’t wrong, in fact it is perfectly correct, that it should be brought under the votes of my department. But we were very careful not to put it on Vote 20. In Vote 20 we talk of assistance to farmers. Here it is not described as assistance to farmers, it is deliberately and expressly described as an item for the stablisation of the price of bread.

But you are talking about the wheat crop for the year 1943-’44?

Yes, that is correct. That is how it should be. And if the farmers take objection to it being put in that way, well, I am afraid I cannot help them.

You are never able to help.

I don’t think there is any need for me to reply to that remark of the hon. member.

If you had put it as it should have been put, you would not have had to face all this criticism today.

The Social Welfare is not responsible for this. What has Social Welfare to do with the Wheat Board? The hon. member over there is a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and what would he say if the Secretary for Social Welfare were to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to give an explanation in regard to this matter? No, let’s be reasonable. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad also asked who got the money, the millers or the bakers? This money is paid out to the Wheat Board which, by means of the Co-operative Societies, and its agents, pays out the money to the producers, namely in the shape of 36s. per bag of wheat. So the producers get the subsidy.

Only for the best wheat.

Naturally, we know that there are different grades. The producers get the subsidy and nobody else. The hon. member put a further question in regard to butter. He wants to know who gets the subsidy for butter fat. The Dairy Board came to me and said, “Look here, we have not got sufficient butter to meet the country’s requirements. The production is dropping and we need more butter.” They further pointed out that the producers of butter fat had stated that in relation to cheese milk and tinned milk, and fresh milk, they were getting a price which was out of proportion.

Not in the case of tinned milk. The price of tinned milk is very much lower than it is for cheese milk.

I think the hon. member knows a great deal more about wine and brandy than he knows about milk. At least I assume so. I may be wrong perhaps but I imagine that the hon. member knows that the man who is best off is the man who sells fresh milk and the man who is next best off is the man who sells milk for condensed and cheese milk, while the man who sells for butter fat is worst off. In any case, the Dairy Board went into the whole question, and it came to me with that contention — and the Marketing Board agreed that the Dairy Board was right — and I could do nothing but agree. To raise the price of butter fat 3d. during April and May and 7d. from June to October would mean that the price of butter would be increased by 2d. I could not agree to that in the circumstances, and my colleagues agreed with me, and it was thereupon decided that instead of raising the price of butter a subsidy should be paid on butter.

Again for the benefit of the consumers.

None the less it goes into the pockets of the farmers, just the same as the wheat farmers, rightly or wrongly, put the subsidy into their pockets, and I also want to point out that we are not talking here either about assistance to farmers.

Well, why don’t you say “assistance to producers.”

Why should we say that? The amount appears here under the appropriate vote, and it is called here what it is. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) also asked a few questions. First of all he wants to know what the size of our wheat crop is going to be. We do not know exactly. People are still threshing, but as far as we are able to see it will be round about 6,000,000 bags. Our consumption is slightly over 5,000,000 bags, but I do not think that our wheat position is such that I am prepared to recommend our going back to white bread.

Did we not have a surplus last year?

Perhaps of 500,000 bags, but the hon. member will agree that with the weather conditions as uncertain and changeable as they are, one is not entitled to be satisfied with a surplus of less than 1,000,000 bags. In any case I am not prepared at this stage to recommend that we should go back to white bread.

Could not we take out the soya beans and the mealies?

Mealies are not permitted; no mealie meal is mixed in with the other. The hon. member shakes his head; I only want to say that that is prohibited and it is an offence to do so. If he knows of millers who add mealie meal and he notifies us, they will immediately be prosecuted.

None the less there is an unsatisfactory factor in the bread.

Well, perhaps many people do not know how to bake. If the hon. member is not satisfied I would advise him to take away his custom from the place where he buys his bread.

What will the women have to say?

Apparently many of the women don’t know how to bake properly.

If the surplus is not used to bake white bread again what are you going to do with it?

The Department has just informed me that our consumption is 6,000,000 bags, and that we do not really expect any over production, but even if we were to have a surplus of 1,000,000 bags I would not yet be able to recommend our going back to white bread. Besides that, the experts say that brown bread is a good thing. I am not offering any apologies for brown bread.

Still, people like to have a little flour at Christmas time.

I am quite sure that the hon. member knows how to go about getting a little flour for the making of cakes. I also want to point out that in cases where people suffer from certain specific diseases they can get white bread.

†I hope the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) understood me. Our supply of wheat is good, fairly good, but it is not large enough to go back to white bread; and even if we have, what I hope to have, a surplus of 500,000 or more bags I am still not going to return to white bread. I do not apologise for that at all.

Why not?

Why should I? I am advised by most health authorities that the people are better off with brown bread and until it is clear that we must cease the control of wheat, we shall have to keep to brown bread.

†*The hon. member for Moorreesburg also asked what we would do to give the farmers what they required to enable them to produce. I think I can assure hon. members that the fertiliser position will be considerably better. My information from various firms is that they are getting larger supplies and we are trying to get still more.

Will it be available earlier than last year?

Yes, there already are announcements in the press stating that people can make applications for fertilisers. Agricultural implements continue to be scarce. We have not got all the agricultural implements we need but we are doing our best. The hon. member also asked that farm labour should be made available. I think I am entitled to say that the hon. member must put that question to the Minister for Native Affairs.

You are sitting so much nearer to him.

But perhaps the hon. member has greater influence with him. The labour question is a question which like the poor we shall always have with us. The position is not good.

And is becoming more and more critical.

The Government will do what it possibly can do.

Have you not got a plan?

Perhaps the Minister of Native Affairs has a plan. I do not think it is my duty to supply native labour.

But surely it is a Cabinet responsibility to secure labour for the farmers.

I admit that the position is difficult. I do believe that labour, like so many other things, tends to follow the market.

Has not the position been aggravated by the war?

I admit that that is so, but if the hon. member wants to tell the House that natives have been commandeered, he should direct his remarks to my colleague here. The position has become worse, also as far as white labour is concerned.

†I am afraid that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) is not so well qualified to talk on this question of wheat as he is on most matters. He is not so very well informed as usual. One thing he told us that was wrong was that the price of wheat was fixed at 22s. 6d. in order to bring the border areas in. The hon. member said: “In order to bring in the areas that were not so good for wheat production”; that is those that are on the border production areas. But it does not go back far enough. Why does he not go back to the last war, when wheat was £3 and £3 10s. a bag?

After the war, in April 1919.

In any case the price was pretty high. And whether it was right or wrong to have fixed the price of wheat at the time at 22s. 6d., during this war we have had the profit of it. If it had not been for that we would have gone without bread in this country, because we simply could not import wheat. Whether at that time the hon. member objected to it or not we would not have got the wheat into this country; I can assure the hon. member of that. He grumbles and he criticises the fact that we are paying 36s. I admit that it is a very good price.

It is only an average of 32s.

Even an average of 32s. is a good price for wheat, and it is also a fact that people who have good wheat and who are getting good returns are making a very good thing out of it. But most of the farmers in the acknowledged wheat areas do not make such a good thing out of it, because their yield is so small. The position is that either we have to encourage wheat growing or to take a chance of getting wheat imported, and the Government have thought that the safe thing was to pay an admittedly good price, to pay the man who obtains a good yield a large price, but you are bound to consider the man with a small crop, and the areas where the yield is not so large, in fixing prices. Although I say again it is a good price, I am making no apologies for having at the time, a year ago, fixed the price at 36s. The result of it was that we either had to put the price of bread up to 7d. or to pay a subsidy in respect of it. There was no other way. The farmers said: “We will grow wheat” and they asked 40s., as members will know.

We still want 40s.

You will want it.

You suggested 6s. 1d. per bag for encouragement.

It was more like a question of 2s. Id. In any case the hard fact was that we agreed to pay 36s., and this was not criticised last year when the statement was made in the House. It was at once agreed that we either had to put the price of bread up to 7d. or pay a subsidy of £1,500,000—this being the first instalment towards that sum.

You increase the price of bread and give a subsidy?

If we had not given a subsidy, bread would have been 7d. and not 6d. Bread today is 6½d. delivered and 6d. over the counter.

†*The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) also asked a question. He drew attention to the price of bread at the time of the last war and today. Last year I already pointed out that hon. members were mistaken in this regard. The price which the hon. member quoted was the price of a 1 lb. loaf during the last war, and the hon. member is comparing that with the price of a 2 lb. loaf now. In order to make a comparison he should have doubled the price that was charged during the last war, and if he were to do so he would find that the price today is somewhat lower than it was then. I believe I have now dealt with most points, and I hope it will be possible for the vote to pass now.

I know the difficulties attaching to the position of a Minister of Agriculture, and that being so I do not want to be too critical, but none the less I am afraid that the Minister’s argument in regard to the matters raised here were not convincing, nor were they consistent. First of all he says that this amount appeared in the appropriate place, that it is paid over to the Wheat Board, and that the Wheat Board in turn hands it to the millers but that none the less the farmers get the benefit of £1 16s. per bag of wheat. He again states that it is a subsidy to the farmers, although it is a subsidy intended to stabilise the price of bread, so as to supply the consumer with cheaper bread, but the consumer is never mentioned. This subsidy is given here for the benefit of the consumer but the Minister runs away from the consumer. Next, the Minister argued about butter, and he said that there was a shortage of butter and that the Dairy Board had told him that the price of butter should be raised, otherwise they would have to give a subsidy. Here, again, therefore, we are dealing with a subsidy which is to the benefit of the consumer. Why is not that stated openly? My objection to the Minister is that he wants to saddle the farmers with this subsidy, although it is a subsidy to assist the consumers. The farmers get the reputation of being carried by the Government, although the subsidy is intended to help the consumer. Then there is the question of farm labour. Let me tell the Minister that in my own constituency there are today 5,000 coloured men in camps who could well be used to do farm work. What are they doing there? They loaf about in their uniforms, with their rifles. I think the Minister should take up a firm attitude towards other Ministers who deprive the farmers of labour. I do not want to go into this matter any further at this juncture, but when we get to the Main Estimates we shall deal with these subjects at greater length.

Surely the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) knows that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The hon. member was Minister of Agriculture for many years and on the Estimates which he used to put up when he was in power there was never any question of assistance to the consumers but these matters were always styled “assistance to farmers.” I put up a plea the other day that this should be changed, but I do not think the hon. member is entitled to critcise the Minister in the way he has done. In the days of the Old Nationalist Party the very same thing was done. The hon. member now tells the Committee that the Minister runs away from the consumers. Well, didn’t he do the same thing — didn’t he also run away in the days when he was Minister? He is a very brave General when it comes to actual fighting, but in the political arena, and so far as agriculture is concerned, he has also done a lot of running away.

Discussing bread and the price thereof reminds me of a certain noble earl of England who was also a good deal of a swankpot, and who used to turn out most gorgeously arrayed in immaculate attire, with the nattiest cane, and the most shiny silk hat, and a trouser-crease sharp enough for a razor. His eyeglass was always just right, and he would not carry a tickey for charity in his vest-pocket for fear it would spoil the outline of his suit. He was a very notable dude and dandy of London. While one day strolling in St. James’s Park he met an individual less well placed. As the latter was hungry, he comes up to the noble earl and says “Sir, you don’t happen to have a bit of bread on you, do you?” Now it would have been hard to imagine anything more unlikely than that the noble peer would have a piece of bread in his pocket. He was of the class not at all interested in the price of bread. He was one of those who would imagine if there was not enough bread to go round that you had better start on cake or sausage-roll, or something like that. But there is a very large class of people the very largest class of people in our country, to whom the price of bread is a matter of life and death; and if prices must go up on this or on that, do not let it be on this that is bread, but let it be on the other thing which can be done without. The British Government learned a very necessary lesson after the South African War. Some of us did not think they were capable of learning a lesson, and some of us are wondering whether our own Government is able to learn today. But the lesson was taught to the Government of England by the people of England. There was a proposal round about 1906 to put up the price of bread. It was only a halfpenny increase, as this is, but at the general election the suggestion did not work. People, hungry folk, were simply asked the one question. On the Opposition party’s election manifesto they had a big loaf contrasted with a little loaf, and they asked the people of England “Which will you have?” And it is not much to be wondered at, Mr. Chairman, that they choose the bigger loaf, or in terms of what we are considering this afternoon, the cheaper price for the loaf of bread. I say in all friendliness to the Government that this is one of the most dangerous proposals ever put before us, this proposal of increasing the price of the elementary, the fundamental, food of the very large proportion of the people of our land. Even a farthing on a loaf of bread, to the biggest number of people, is a tragedy, just as the increase in the price of rice has been to the Indian people. When the price went up to 8d. or 9d. from 1½d. a pound it meant death by starvation to those people of India and of South Africa whose staple food it was. I deprecate with all the strength at my command any increase in the price of bread. If a farmer has to have assistance, and there is nobody whom I respect more or whose work I consider more necessary, than that of the farmers, do it in some other way. Do not make the poor person produce an extra halfpenny or penny for the daily bread he is consuming. I would add that if the price of bread is to be increased, for the love of God and of man let the quality of it be increased also. With all deference to the hon. Minister, who for all I know may eat little or no bread, I guarantee that he could not eat some of the bread that has been put before me to eat. In the interests of economy we tried to feed the cat on it. We put the cat on a diet of milk and bread. I presume that the milk was all right but that the bread was not, for the cat promptly had fits. In my view it was entitled to have fits! It cost a couple of guineas for the veterinary surgeon to rectify this position, so we decided, notwithstanding the price of meat, to feed the cat on beef. The quality of the bread is not merely poor but disgusting, if what I get is representative of the remainder. If we are to pay more for bread then give us better quality. It is in some cases defintely not fit to eat, and it is responsible, I suggest, for a good deal of sickness and the stomach trouble that infests Robben Island and other places, where young fit people are supposed to congregate. When the Minister tells us that he cannot get the flour, I would like to remind him that I do not know a great deal about farming; I know more about farmers. I greatly honour and respect them, and regard them as the primary and most important workers of any country. But I do know the price of bread in England, and I state it is only 4d. against the 6½d. which it is proposed to charge here, or rather which is charged here without the extra halfpenny. The wheat for that bread is not grown in Britain but very largely in Australia, and it comes and looks at us in Durban, and its price at Durban is 15s. a bag. That flour is carried on to England, and the proof of the correctness of what I say lies in this, that for the same wheat and for better quality bread in England the people pay at the rate not of 6½d. but 4d. a loaf. And it is a fact, although they have had many troubles in England, they have less sickness in England today than they had before the war, and there people are better fed, better nourished, and becoming in better physical condition all round, because they are getting cheap bread. I suggest that we need in South Africa the finest physique that we can build up, and one way we can get it is by giving the masses of our people abundant food, and by seeing that the principal article of food is lessened in price rather than increased. If wheat can be grown in Australia at half the price it can be grown here, surely it is common sense to take it into our ports at much less than the price we are now paying. Surely there are many things which we can produce in South Africa better than can be produced in other countries; why cannot we specialise in them? I presume that as a ranching country we could do very much more than we are doing. I presume that instead of importing potted beef, as in the past, we can produce our own; instead of importing our breakfast foods from America, with all deference to our Allies, we would rather eat tinned and potted foods produced in the Union. I would support the farmers in any way which would increase their prosperity as primary workers, but I also want the cheapest possibly primary foodstuffs for the people of this country.

The Minister stated that he would not be prepared to allow an isssue of white bread to take place in South Africa, and I take it that he means that he would not allow it even if we had a superabundance of wheat. I presume that the Minister knows that there is scarcely a household in South Africa that has not got its sifting machine, and if the Minister is really sincere and determined that South Africa should be compelled to remain on this sort of bread, then the least that he could do would be to prohibit the use of sifters. Because a lot of waste takes place in the sifting of flour, and what is the result—it is thrown into the rubbish bin, and then to my mind it is very doubtful whether, having this brown bread instead of white bread, is to the benefit of the people as a whole. I still maintain that we could have white bread in South Africa. Applications galore have been made to the Wheat Control Board to allow people to import wheat and flour from Australia. Any amount of wheat is ready for shipment to South Africa at the docks in Australia, waiting for people to get permits to import the wheat. But you have the same thing again in connection with the Wheat Control Board as I mentioned the other day—they have made a hopeless mess of the wheat industry and today owing to the dictatorial attitude of that board, we have not been able to import wheat from Australia that has been lying there, with ships ready to bring it over, and I know for a fact that there have been tons of flour rotting in the docks in Durban, owing to permits not being granted until the flour had rotted. We have no objection to bolstering up these industries, if it is in the interest of the people of South Africa. I remember when the Wheat Control Board came into being in about 1934 or 1935 I felt that a Wheat Control Board was somewhat premature, and would not be in the interest of the industry and I characterised the wheat industry as a bastard industry, when we could import our wheat at half the price of what the wheat growers were demanding here. Here we have another instance of that criticism being justified. At that time the growers wanted 16s. or 17s. per bag and what do they want now? They are now demanding 36s. per bag and they are getting it, and still they are not satisfied. Surely you will forgive me when I say that our Control Boards have been an utter failure. A control board governing any food industry in South Africa brings with it firstly an increased price in the cost of the commodity. That has been proved the case in respect of every industry. I hope you are not going to say my remarks are irrelevant, Mr. Chairman. This £660,000 on this Vote is linked up with the activities of the other control boards. I suggested to the Minister the other day that it was necessary for him to take action regarding the activities of the Deciduous Fruit Board and I now suggest that he should also have an enquiry into the activities of the Wheat Control Board, and of every other Board, because those Boards know nothing about business and they are not prepared to learn. The public now have to pay 6½d. for their bread—the wheat farmers would probably love it if they had to pay 7d. or 7½d.

You shouldn’t say that.

Oh, yes, and that is what they would have to pay if the subsidy was not paid every year. It was £2,000,000 last year; there is £660,000 on the estimates now, and on the next supplementary estimates there will probably be another £1,000,000. Where is this business going to end? The public of South Africa are just about tired of these subsidies, because it is those subsidies which fail to give the public the cheap food they desire. And what are we going to do about it? Are we going to allow the foodstuffs of the people to rise to such a point that even people of means will not be able to buy anything? What is going to happen to the natives if the price of everything is allowed to rise? They cannot buy meat, they cannot get rice, the price of mealies has gone up, and the Government sits tight, and they say: “The producers demand these prices, so we must give way to them.” Why should these subjects come up for discussion year after year? Why is it not possible to arrange with the primary producers that they shall get a reasonable price? No matter what prices they are receiving on the open market, no matter what subsidies or bounties they get, they want more. Surely it cannot go on like that?

[Time limit.]

I should like to have some information about the charge made for the threshing of wheat? The Hon. the Minister will remember that certain representations were made to the Wheat Control Board last year by farmers at Brits, and at that time there was a provisional freezing of threshing prices, but after that the people undertaking threshing for the farmers raised objections to this provisional freezing. That freezing was not consistent, with the result that further representations were made to the Control Board and the price was thereupon fixed at 2s. 3d. per bag of wheat. That was without labour; with labour it was 1s. 9d. After that the control board again wrote to the people doing the threshing, and informed them that they could now do the threshing for 1s. 9d. if the farmer provided the labour, and 2s. if the farmer did not provide the labour. I should like the Hon. the Minister to be quite clear on this point, and to tell us what the position is so that we may be able to let the farmers know what he means. Does he mean that 2s. has to be paid if the farmer supplies the labour, or is that the charge without the farmer supplying the labour? We shall be glad if the Minister will give us a specific reply to that question?

I am not at all convinced by the Minister’s reply, nor am I perturbed by the Minister’s statement that I may know a lot about other things but that I know nothing about farming. I am satisfied that the people of this country are clearly of opinion that whatever the Minister may know about other things he knows nothing about food, food control or food prices. That is the considered opinion of the people of this country—they consider that the food position of this country has been utterly messed up by the Minister, and the demand is made by every section of the community except the farmers that the individuals who should have charge of food prices and food control should be entirely separated from the Ministry of Agriculture. It is only a common sense proposal after all, because it does seem to me that on every occasion where the agricultural people of this country are in a position to do so, wherever they have the power as the producers of food, they hold the country up to ransom. Now, the Minister said that he made a certain proposal last year, but there was no money on the estimates then. He said he made this very proposal. Well, it is only when there is money on the estimates that we are in a position to oppose a proposal. Now, I find this in a speech by the Minister himself, when speaking to the House on the same subject. There was an interjection by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux): “Does that also include the remuneration for the enterprise?” I don’t know what the hon. member was referring to. The Minister replied: “Yes, that includes everything, the remuneration for the wheat farmer, increased cost of living, 5 per cent. interest on capital, a reasonable profit, etc. But the Wheat Board said that over and above the 33s. 11d. 6s. 1d. should be paid as an encouragement to the wheat farmer.” 6s. 1d. per bag! That is the Wheat Board which includes only one representative of the consumer. That is the kind of stuff which the Wheat Board trots out to the Government. 6s. 1d. per bag is an encouragement, encouragement for what? If, during war time, a wheat farmer refuses to grow wheat I think he should be deprived of his farm, and the farm should be taken over by the Government. However, they wanted 6s. 1d. The Minister did not agree to that fortunately. Then the Minister said: “I notice that the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) is laughing. I suppose he wishes he were a wheat farmer.” You are telling me! I suppose he did wish he was a wheat farmer. It is not everyone who can hold up this country to ransom.

Do you say we are doing that?

Well, it is noticeable that the members of the Nationalist Party are supporting the Government. The Minister in his speech said that the Marketing Board thereupon went into the matter, and the Marketing Board said they could find no fault with the calculations of the Wheat Board, and so on. And then he said that the Marketing Board had stated that if provision was made for increased cost of living.… Yes, increased cost of living! This question of increased cost of living does not bear so heavily on the farmer. Let me quote what the Minister said—

The Minister spoke there about interest on capital—as a matter of fact the interest on capital has gone down. The Government subsidises the farmer for his interest on capital.

You know very well that the Government has taken away the subsidy.

You can borrow money today at a lower rate of interest than before. That is irrefutable. The Government does it itself. So the rate of interest on money borrowed by the farmer is mainly on money in the shape of mortgages. Of course, if the farmer wants to buy land today at highly enhanced values—that is his own lookout and the farmer should not be allowed to try and recoup himself at the expense of the poor man by raising the price of bread. Well, the Minister said there was no necessity to give the farmer more than 1s. 3d. by way of encouragement. So he did not get the 6s. 1d. But what is this encouragement? Does it mean encouragement to come back to the House every year and ask for more? Why should the farmer get 1s. 3d. per bag for wheat as an encouragement to grow wheat for which he is today getting a 60 per cent. increase? I take very little pride in the patriotism of South Africa’s wheat farmers if they need 1s. 3d. per bag encouragement to grow more, and I take even less pride in their business ability if they need that 1s. 3d. in order to grow the wheat at 36s. Well, if we look at what the Minister said last year what does it mean? The farmers are getting 2s. 6d. extra merely as an encouragement to grow wheat. Now, the point is this. Wheat in South Africa is grown in several parts of the country. There are parts in the Free State where wheat can be grown as a reasonable economic proposition at anything from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. cheaper than in the Cape.

What do you know about that?

A lot. There are parts where wheat is grown, where it is not an economic proposition at all, and this price of 36s. is a price for wheat where it is grown on the least profitable basis. So we are paying the farmers who are growing wheat on the most economic ground a subsidy in order to get a few extra bags of wheat grown on the most uneconomic ground. [Time limit.]

I feel a lot has been said on this question which has not been very helpful. I feel the country must realise that when we have a war on, when the position is very critical, when we know the shipping situation is very difficult, the Government has to take the responsibility for seeing to it that the people get food. If they have to rely on the possibility of getting ships to bring out the food they are taking a tremendous risk—a risk which they are not justified in taking with food. I think the Minister rightly gave the people an encouragement to grow wheat, and the result is that we have a sufficient supply of food for this country, and we hope to have a sufficient carry over in case we have a bad mealie crop, or a bad drought next year. I agree that generally speaking this is not a good wheat growing country, and I am rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) stressing the point that the Free State is a country in which wheat can be grown cheaply.

It can be grown there better than in the Cape.

Well, I know the Cape and the Free State well, and I say that wheat growing in the Free State is a considerable gamble and if you are going to grow wheat in the Free State, you are gambling with something that you cannot afford to gamble with—that is your livelihood. The fact that wheat is not grown normally on a large scale in the Free State must indicate that it is not really a good crop there. If you have a drought you have no crop. Well, fortunately this year we have a first class season and we have good prices, but the whole principle which is being attacked is the Government’s policy of trying to provide a livelihood for a large part of South Africa, and to see to it that there shall be ample food. Now, I hope the Labour Party is going to support the Government in trying to build up industries, to see that people who work in this country get a reasonable reward for their labour. We are not grumbling at the large increases which are taking place under these wage determinations and in lots of other ways, and I maintain that if the Labour Party are sincere they should support any earnest attempt on the part of the Government to see that the food of the country is plentiful and they should not continue to raise this cry of “cheap food”. Any country that wants cheap food must be an importing country and not a manufacturing country. I think the thanks of South Africa are due to the Minister for the fact that in these difficult times he has seen to it that we have an abundant supply of bread at a reasonable price.

It’s interesting listening to these “yes men;” the blame which should be cast on the Government is now being cast on the farmer. If the Government’s chaotic marketing policy is responsible for the fact that one has to pay 9d. per lb. for grapes in the coolie and Jew cafes, and 6d. for a peach, the farmer is blamed, and if, as is the case today, the Government gives a subsidy, then it is not the Government which is blamed for the maladministration of our marketing conditions, but the farmer is blamed, and I should think that our farmers’ representatives in this House must be getting tired of this sort of thing. I think the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) was quite correct when he told the Minister that he should inform those people what was the true state of affairs. I really got up to say that the farming section of the community will learn with joy that the Minister has promised an improvement in regard to fertilisers.

If one makes a promise one has to carry it out.

Things went so badly awry last year, the Minister had such a bad time of it that I think he will be well advised to make a promise, to see to it that the necessary arrangements are made in connection with fertilisers.

I have not denied that.

No, the Hon. the Minister does not deny it — he would rather die than admit a mistake. I think everybody except the Minister knows that. Still, he has now promised an improvement, and if the Minister carries out his promise we should be satisfied. Now, what he has said about the labour conditions — that is a horse of a different colour. I think the farming section of the population was entitled to expect the Minister to have announced a plan as soon as this matter was raised in Parliament. What is the Minister doing here today? He discloses a lack of policy which is absolutely scandalous. He sends us to the Minister of Labour.

To the Minister of Native Affairs.

He first of all sent us to the Minister of Native Affairs, thereafter to the Minister of Social Welfare, and next to the Minister of Labour. And then he said that we should approach the Minister of Defence. He is sending us from Pontius Van der Bijl to Pilate Smuts. That’s no use. The Minister should realise that the agricultural section of the population looks to the Department of Agriculture to assist him in these matters. His department has to act. Now he says we must approach the various Ministers. Is there so little joint or common action in that Cabinet? The Minister should himself make representations to the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Labour, the Department of Defence, and the Department of Native Affairs, all of which are concerned in this matter, and he should come to this House with a scheme. If he keeps on displaying this same lack of policy I can assure him that things are going to be made very difficult for him. He will have to promise to do better. The Minister in his speech admitted that the situation was unsatisfactory. He knows what the facts are. He knows that large numbers of farmers last year, after they had sown and planted their seeds, did not know where to turn for labour. The Minister knows that the labour is available. What is happening today? The towns are so attractive to the coloured people especially in the Western Province, that with their families they drift to the towns. Many of them join the Army. That is so. I think we must draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are any number of coloured men in the army who should not be there at all. But apart from that one finds day after day that natives and coloured men leave the areas in which they are living, and run to the towns. The influx of coloured people into the Cape Town area, just to mention one, has become so serious that the Minister of Native Affairs has been compelled to set up a reception depot for them here. That is how serious the influx of the natives into towns has become. The lights of the big towns are all to attractive to them. So great has been the influx of the natives into the towns. They do not go to the farms. No, the small lights of the town are too attractive. And what is happening to the natives is also happening to the coloured people, on a larger scale than the Government is prepared to admit. While the farms on the platteland are losing their coloured labourers, and while the position has become as serious as it is today, the Minister of Agriculture comes here at the beginning of the session of Parliament, and tells the House that he is not responsible, and he says: “I cannot do anything about it.” Of all the lack of policy that we have experienced from this Government, the lack of policy of the Minister of Agriculture is the worst of all. I really feel that the Minister should give his attention to this matter. The agricultural section of the population is entitled to better treatment. One hon. member has already stated that the farmers have responded to the appeal made to them by the Minister to produce more and keep on producing more. The farmers have produced more, but conditions are becoming impossible in regard to production, on account of shortage of labour, and now the responsible Minister, the Minister in charge of the agricultural department—which is the farmers’ department—comes here and tells this House that he has no policy in regard to this great difficulty with which the farmers are faced. He sends the farmers to other Ministers. I am afraid that they have no policy either, so far as this matter is concerned. No, my advice to the Minister is that he himself should consult the other Ministers and should then take co-ordinative action. I predict that when the time for sowing and planting arrives the agricultural section of the population will make things so hot for the Minister of Agriculture that he will hardly dare to take a seat in this House. He will have to stay outside to try and extinguish the flames. The Minister this year is doing what he has been doing year after year; he is showing a lack of knowledge of labour conditions on the farms, especially here in the Cape. When we raised this question earlier on this afternoon he told us that native labour was available. So far as the western parts of the Cape Province are concerned we require coloured labour. We have always had thousands of coloured people here and the Minister should know better than to refer us to native labour. Surely he is not such a stranger in Jerusalem after all the years he has been Minister of Agriculture? I have shown that there are very few coloured workers left on the farms. The coloured people drift to the bright lights of the towns, and something has to be done but the Minister, on behalf of his powerful Government—powerful so far as numbers are concerned—declares that he has no policy in regard to this matter. He condemns himself and he condemns the Government. I can only say that the agricultural section of the population has no reason to expect that the Minister, when he discloses such a lack of policy, will meet them and assist them in regard to this question, and that things will not be allowed to continue in the same way as they have done in the past.

I don’t think the Minister of Agriculture need have any sleepless nights on account of the criticism of his policy in connection with the wheat farmers to which I have had to listen here this afternoon in this House. Take the criticism that has come from the Labour Party and the Dominion Party. In the years that I have been in this House I have become accustomed to listen to that kind of unfounded criticism, and I have learnt not to take that kind of criticism seriously. But none the less I did expect that instead of hearing the type of criticism to which we listened this afternoon, extremely unfair criticism, the representatives of those people would have come to this House and through the Minister of Agriculture thanked the farming population of this country for having saved the country at such a critical period, one of the most critical periods in its existence—that they would have thanked the farming population for having saved the country from absolute chaos, and a catastrophe in respect of its food requirements. It certainly is not the Reef farmers who benefit by this policy of the Government’s. Unquestionably it is not the wheat farmers. If it had been left open for the prices of products to take their course without any pegging by the Government the price of many products, and especially that of wheat, would have gone up to an unprecedented level. Instead of allowing that to happen the Government stepped in and fixed prices. I approve of that. It was a statesmanlike and wise policy because an unsound condition of affairs would have been created if the Government had not done so. But has the wheat farmer been benefited by that? If wheat prices had gone up to any heights, as in the last war, the price of bread would have gone up to the same extent, and who then would have had to pay for it? And who would have been the people who would have condemned the Minister most drastically for such a policy? It would have been the same people who now condemn the Government’s policy, now that wheat has been fixed at 36s. per bag for the best grades. The wheat farmers have not benefited from that policy. Assuming, however, that that policy had not been followed—that the Government had not tackled the situation— and the facts being as they were, that the wheat shortage could not have been supplemented from overseas owing to the fact that during the war there is no shipping available for the transport of such products—what then would those self same people have said if we had not had sufficient wheat for the country’s requirements. We would then have been told that the situation was due to the shortsighted and unstatesmanlike policy pursued by the Government. If we keep those things in mind we really cannot take their criticism seriously. There would have been an outsry and there would have been all kinds of protests if there had been a wheat shortage, but now that everything has gone smoothly, now that the wheat farmers get a price for their wheat at which they are more or less able to produce, without making any undue profits, now the Government is being criticised. No, I am satisfied that the Government has handled an extremely difficult position in a statesmanlike way and with great common sense. This criticism is unfounded and unfair. The criticism to which I have listened today is devoid of all foundation. Are there any countries where bread is cheaper today than in South Africa? If there are such countries then I should like to know where they are. Assuming the Government had followed that policy which hon. members over there apparently want it to follow, do hon. members think that the wheat farmers could have been compelled to produce wheat? They would not have been able to produce it, because there would have been other products which they could have produced at better profits. Take such things as wool, meat and dairy produce, the prices of which are high. Those commodities can be produced more advantageously than wheat; why then should the farmers have produced wheat. If they had to do so on an uneconomic basis? No, I say that there would be more satisfaction and a better understanding, a better relationship between the producers and the consumers, if it were not for exploitation by politicians who are causing discontent in this way—a way which is extremely unfair and uncalled for. A large proportion of the people of this country are today paid an allowance in respect of cost of living and I want to ask the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), who is not here just now, whether the workers do not also get these cost of living allowances in respect of the increased cost of living, whether they do not also get it because of the increased price which they have to pay for bread although that increase is very trivial?

And some of them in addition get double salaries.

I am not even talking about double salaries. I want to say this, that the Government made an appeal to the farmers and the farmers rose to the occasion. They saved the country at a critical period in its history. Not only did they Save the country but they rendered a most important service to the country. The grain farmers in general and the wheat farmers in particular have rendered the country a service of such inestimable value that that service is not generally realised. Had they not met the position we would have known the seriousness of the situation, but they met the position, and that is why we do not fully realise the situation. When one listens to the criticisms that are levelled here one would almost come to the conclusion that the wheat farmers are not merely fed with a golden spoon but that all of them are tremendously wealthy. Are those hon. members aware of the fact that 90 per cent. of the wheat farmers are very poor people, who have to make a living by means of hard work, and who are hardly able to make ends meet out of what they get from the production of wheat? We must arrive at the conclusion that the criticism we have listened to is based on pure ignorance and that one should make an effort to supply these critics with information so that they may come to a realisation of their ignorance. Even before the war there were whole farms in my district and in other parts of the Western Province where no wheat was being grown. At the ruling prices of products it did not pay the farmers to sow wheat. It was not economic so far as the farmer was concerned to grow wheat, and large numbers of farmers left their farms. Wheat was required to meet the country’s needs, and now the Government is being criticised because it has fixed a price for this product which is going to return the growers a fairly decent profit. All the other sections of the community are doing well and are better off than the wheat farmers. If there is one section which is not yet better off, it is the wheat farmers of the Western Province. They are not better off because they are subject to changes in climatic conditions, bad crops and poor prices, and things were very bad for the wheat farmer for several years before the war. This year the season was more or less normal, but that does not mean that the shortfall, and the losses suffered by the farmers, can be made up by one normal year. Hon. members over there imagine that 36s. per bag is a wonderful price. Are they aware that 36s. per bag hardly puts the wheat farmer in a position to make up the increased cost of production? Are they aware of that? Are they taking into account the increased cost of production with which the farmers are faced in producing their wheat? If the increased cost of production during the past year is taken into account, there will be less talk about a subsidy, but hon. members will realise that the increase is allowed because of the increase in the cost of production. This kind of criticism is childish, and it does not do credit to this House which is the highest council in the country; it is a council where we expect to find people who speak with a knowledge of affairs, and we do not expect them to talk without knowing what they are talking about. Nor does this sort of talk tend towards bringing about better relationship between the towns and the platteland.

It is rather refreshing that the last speaker has now really for the first time this afternoon thrown some very important light on this whole subject, namely the question of the millers, and there I do ask this Committee to focus its attention. I appreciate the remarks that have been made this afternoon with regard to, shall we call it the bribe, offered by the Minister of Agriculture in the past few years to secure a greater production of wheat, and I appreciate the fact that under the Government we have, with the political blending between the Nationalist Party and the section of the United Party, when we are dealing with a subject such as this—it was very noticeable this afternoon dealing with this particular subject.…

And you voted for that party.

I will vote again for that collaboration. But it is very significant on this occasion and it is plain to us that the blending of the Nationalist Party with the section of the United Party is reflected clearly in connection with this Question of wheat. It comes to this, that there is an element of sham fighting in that respect. Therefore I think I must address myself to the Minister of Agriculture and tell him that in connection with this racket—and I use the word advisedly—this racket put across the people of this country with regard to the price of flour and the quality of bread we have today, the public while they have been satisfied to accept the position previously on the assumption that it was part of the war effort, when they begin to see it is not part of the war effort, and that there is no need for the increased price of bread, and there is no need for mixed flour in the bread, are going to express a good deal of opposition throughout the country. We are in the position today that has been lightly indicated by the Minister when he said that whilst there was a good supply of wheat this year he does not say there is enough to have white bread. On the other hand, the suggestion has been made I think by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett), that the only way we can have an abundance of foodstuffs is by following the policy laid down by the Minister, and that we have to thank the Minister for it. I am not blaming the Minister for securing that abundance, but I am blaming him for not securing the proper control, and the distribution and the price and the method in which the consumer ultimately receives that product. Now we have had quite clearly shown to us that in so far as the control is concerned—it is quite clear from the remarks made in the earlier part of this debate—our weak spot is in the lack of an organised arrangement from the farmer to the consumer. Why should we have this sham fight time and again? First of all some Minister gets up and blames the farmer. I am not prepared to blame the farmer at this stage, though I am not saying that he is not to blame sometimes. On the other hand, the distributor is blamed, but particularly in the question of dealing with wheat there is that very substantial octopus, and I use the term advisedly, the miller. The miller today has not only secured control over farming, but he has secured control over bakeries. He has got his thumb today on the whole organisation of the supply of bread to the people of this country; and he is so clever that right through this debate only one or two members have referred to the miller’s position in this regard. The time is fast arriving when that has to be put a stop to. There is one thing that is essential, and that is in the proper control and distribution of the people’s food there has to be removed the octopus that is in a position even to secure support from all political parties, at times through sheer placing a veil over the true position in so far as distribution is concerned. I am going to put it to the Minister this afternoon, and to put it to this Committee, that we have to lay it down definitely that there are two things that the people of this country demand, and over which their patience is being exhausted. The first is that the price of bread instead of being stabilised at 6½d. or 6d. should come down to something near the world price of bread, and the time for that is long overdue. I know of no other country in the world where the price of bread is 6½d. a loaf. I know of many countries in the world where they get good bread, better bread than we do, at 4½d. and 5d. per loaf.

Where is that?

In England the price of bread is 4d. per loaf. Let me tell you that this is not a new position. This is not a war position. We had it years ago when the Wheat Board was first put up, when we were told that certain parts of the country — I remember Bredasdorp was mentioned—were very suitable for wheat growing, and we were told that if we set up an organisation such as the Wheat Board we would be able to develop the production of wheat in this country to an extent which would make it satisfactory as far as this product was concerned; and we were also told at the same time that the nature of our wheat was such that we required substantial importation of a harder wheat to make good bread. We have heard all these arguments in favour of the wheat producer, and this afternoon we are getting down to the true facts of the position, and I am going to put it that the Minister will be well advised to take heed and to take a little warning of what the people of South Africa are thinking with regard to the manipulation of wheat, the manipulation of flour, and exploitation as far as bread is concerned.

I very much regret that the Minister in his reply failed to furnish an answer to the points I made. I made a simple suggestion that in view of the present wheat production he would consider a reversion to white bread. Instead of accepting that as a suggestion and giving it his consideration, he goes for me and says that he has absolutely no intention of introducing white bread, and he added that he was not going to apologise for saying that. I put a simple proposition before the Minister. I refer to what I said on the motion to go into Committee, and I suggested that the Minister would take the opportunity to reply to the points I had raised during the debate. The Wheat Control Board recommended £2 per bag for wheat, and the description that the Minister gave of the cost of production, which was 33s. 11d. per bag, included fair remuneration to the farmer for his services, 5 per cent. on his invested capital — which is quite a large consideration — a reasonable profit, so that he is getting his money’s worth, and the cost of living, which I do not think he is entitled to, as well as other incidental items. That made up the cost of production to 33s. 11d. based on six bags per morgen throughout the country. Now we have the Wheat Commission’s report, which stated that in the best part of the Cape Western Province, and in the best part of the Transvaal, seven bags per morgen was the best production they could hope for. I have the authority of a farmer who used to be at Standerton, that in the older days he could produce 16 bags per morgen, and that he was well paid for it at 13s. 6d. per bag. This encouragement of 1s. 3d. per bag and the additional 1s. which the Minister granted brought the price up to 36s. The result was that many farmers cut down their mealie production and went in for wheat. Why, if they are getting a reasonable remuneration for their service, 5 per cent. on invested capital and a reasonable profit, why should they want any encouragement to produce more wheat? Surely that is enough for the farmer; he does not deserve anything beyond 33s. 11d. That is my considered opinion, and I am going to stick to it. It appears to me from the attitude of the Minister, both last year and this, that this question of a misdescription of a sub-head under which this money has been spent has put the Minister rather in a hole—possibly not the Minister but the secretary of the department; and that they do not care to reply to the question I have raised. I have the greatest admiration for the Minister of Agriculture, and I know him sufficiently well to appreciate that if he is convinced he has made a mistake he is man enough and has courage enough to get up and say so. Last year and this year I have been dismissed if not with contempt, with either a brief reply to the effect that I did not know what I was talking about, or else I have been ignored altogether. That sort of thing will not go down for ever, and I am perfectly satisfied that having put the matter to the Minister in this way that he will at least reply to the representations I have made, and reply reasonably to the reasonable and logical request that I have made to him.

Particularly to us young members on this side of the House it is very amusing to see how deeply unhappy this unconsummated marriage has become of late. Only a few months ago we had to listen to all those stories of the wonderful happiness of this marriage and today we already see what is going on. My friends on my left base their arguments on things of which to my mind they know nothing. I must assume that they are either ignorant or malicious. One can perhaps take it for granted that they are ignorant, because I have often held the opinion while I was a practical farmer that it was only the towns people who were being assisted and that the farmers were getting nothing, but since I have made a practical investigation as a townsman I have come to a different conclusion. On their side there are very few who have had any practical experience in that direction, and I assume that they are somewhat ignorant of these matters. But the great point is that we really cannot take these people seriously. They have to do something here in order to try and show the working people something. They have to raise a little dust in order to show the workers that they have the interests of the workers at heart. We have seen that sort of thing so often of late. They are the people who have contracted this marriage, and their leader is a member of the Cabinet today, but in spite of that they are making a feint at the Government merely to raise a smokescreen and then to run away again. However they will be able to go and tell the workers that they have criticised the Government in regard to this or that particular matter. No, let them get to the bottom of what is really wrong. If they want to attack the Government let them attack it about its neglect in regard to the threshing fees and all the irregularities that have taken place. It is those things which are the cause of thousands of bags of wheat perhaps having been lost, but they have never thought of that. The next point is the increase in the cost of production, and my hon. friends over there in all probability know very little about the increase in cost of production. If we take the increase of the cost of production into account we shall find that the farmers have not benefited to any great extent from this so-called subsidy. And in addition to that we have the question, how can the farmers produce the maximum if the Government is negligent or incompetent in regard to supplying the farmers with the necessary fertiliser to enable them to produce? Let us base our attack on that. I want to associate myself with hon. members on this side and I also want to ask where this £660,000 has gone? The Minister of Agriculture has been challenged to prove that the money has gone into the pockets of the farmers by way of subsidy. He is unable to prove that. If that is so the item should not appear at all on the vote of Agriculture. That is the great trouble. The kernel of the whole matter has always been this, that there is still too much play between the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other hand, and it is in between those two that the money is made. It does not find its way into the pockets of the farmers and the workers have to pay more for everything, but who is responsible for that? We must blame the Minister of Agriculture. The people who are making such a terrible fuss now are equally guilty because they constitute part of this Government, and their leader is a Minister in this Government. The great trouble lies in the play between the producers and consumers, and it would be very much better for members of the Labour Party to stand by us in our efforts to cut out the middle man, so that the producer will be brought into direct touch with the consumer. In the circumstances we cannot take the argument of the Labour Party members seriously; they have to do something in order to try and show the workers that they are doing something in their interest, but unfortunately they have contracted this unfortunate union, and they have to see the war through—and that is the difficulty they find themselves in.

I should like to say a few words about the criticisms of hon. members representing the Labour Party. You so often find that comparisons are made between the prices of products in this country, and prices in England. I have not yet heard once that hon. members over there have talked disparagingly of the tremendous subsidies which are paid in England to farmers to keep the prices of products down. Will hon. members deny that over £200,000,000 are paid in England in subsidies to the British farmers to keep prices down?

They need it.

So do we. The average production of wheat in England per acre is about three times that in South Africa.

It is more than three times.

They do not employ native labour.

The real argument comes in here. Comparisons are made between the prices in this war and at the time of the last war. People were satisfied in the last war to allow the price of wheat to go up although the price of bread remained more or less stationary. I put it to hon. members of the Labour Party that in those days the wages were never as high as they are now, and I also put it to them that the people who are to a certain extent responsible for the increased cost of living are the members of the Labour Party themselves. I do not for a moment say that the people who work have no right to have better wages, but after all when you increase labour costs you must force up other costs at the same time, and that is the whole crux of the situation. During the last war we had none of these things. Now, we have heard it said that the Minister had stated that if such and such things happened wheat growers would be on a better footing. Well, we find that in many parts of South Africa people are growing wheat today where they never did before—and in many areas they have been growing wheat very successfully. One hon. member stated that at Standerton at one time they could produce 16 bags to the morgen. I can say that any man who grows wheat in the Transvaal under irrigation is a poor man and always will be a poor man. That is a fact. Wheat farming is the worst paid kind of farming you can find in the Transvaal. I am not talking of wheat farming now under dry land conditions, but what is more, your production even on your irrigated land has gone down by at least 50 per cent. Something goes wrong with the soil after you have grown wheat on it—the soil is not as productive as it used to be. In my own area we used to get up to 20 bags of wheat per morgen under irrigation, but we no longer get that today. And the same applies to areas round about Pretoria and Brits. You no longer get the big yield that you used to get. I take very strong exception to the suggestion that there has been manipulation as far as wheat is concerned. I can tell hon. members this, that if we had not encouraged the production of wheat there would have been a shortage, and I go further and say that if we had not encouraged wheat growing, with this tremendous shortage of mealies, which we shall probably have, we shall be in the soup once again. Don’t forget that the two crops do not come at the same time. If you have a bad mealie crop you have to do your utmost to get a good wheat crop. That part of the argument does not seem to strike my hon. friend. And for the hon. member to say that wheat growing is not a war effort is surely also a very strange argument. One of the first things we have to do is to see that we have enough food. People may not get exactly the kind and quality of food they want, but let me say this to the hon. member—if he does not like the bread he gets, let him change his baker. Everyone can get good bread. I am satisfied as far as wheat is concerned that this war has taught us that we must grow wheat—there is no doubt about that, and that being so I fail to follow the argument of some members who, while supporting the war effort, say that we are rendering undue favours to farmers.

It seems to me that Ministers on the other side, when they decided to put their allies, the Labour members, on this side of the House, committed a serious psychological blunder: They have now loosened the tongues of the Labour members, and the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) discovered this afternoon that he had given his followers the wrong advice when he told them to support the Government at the last elections. He has now found out that he is too late. Eyen hon. members opposite, such as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) now talks of people belonging to the same party as he does as individuals who begrudge the farmers everything. The Labour Party is in this trouble, that it has to support the Government unconditionally, and today those members find out the morass they have landed themselves into. They are now objecting to this subsidy of £660,000 but I want to ask them to have the courage to move the deletion of the amount—an amount which will benefit the consumers. Some of those hon. members are opposed to this subsidy, simply because they are under the impression that it will go to the farmers. Well, one can quite understand that if one looks at the way that party is made up. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is perhaps the only one who knows anything about the difficulties the farmers have to contend with. They advised their followers to vote for the Government, but they did not realise that they were advising the people to vote for a Government which is always supporting the middleman. They will yet find out when the new meat control comes into operation who it is who is being protected. They will then find out that they are busy protecting the wholesalers, the auctioneers, and the middlemen in the towns, so that their own supporters will have to pay more for meat. And the same thing applies to the price of bread. It is now too late to complain. They should have given different advice to their supporters on the 7th July. But let me come back to the Minister of Agriculture, on this question of the scarcity of farm labour. The Minister saw fit to raise the price of wheat and I agree with that, but I do not know whether the Minister realises the tremendous difficulties the farmers have to contend with on account of the scarcity of labour. It is no use having rain, it is no use the farmers having ploughs to plough their land, if they have no labour. I wish the Minister would come to my constituency where he could see the immense damage suffered by the farmers owing to their being unable to get reapers. The Minister says that we should direct our representations in this regard to the Minister of Native Affairs and the Minister of Defence. I am surprised he did not also mention the Minister of Railways. The Minister knows perfectly well where the labourers are going, and why the farmers have to contend with so many difficulties. I do not want to be personal but I am convinced that members opposite have approached him and have told him that they have had to sell their cattle and have had to drive their stock into their cultivated lands because they live alongside the Native Territories, and are unable to get labour. The natives who can also get £20 for an ox, no longer want to do any farm work. The Minister of Railways last year had 3,011 more natives in the Railway Service, while the number of white railway workers went down by 425. That is where the labourers go. The Minister also knows that as a result of the recruiting of coloured people and natives by the Minister of Defence the farmers are without labour on their farms. If the Minister casts his eye at the dispersal depots which are being set up, he will notice that in one depot out of 606 men about 300 refused to accept any work. They don’t want to go to the farms. Why should they go there if they can get higher wages in the army? I don’t want to dilate on that, but I can say this, that the farmers, if they do not know that they will be able to get their crop off the land next year, are not going to sow as much this year as they did before. The Minister has a good many difficulties and he deserves our sympathy, but it is his duty to find a solution of this difficulty, and we shall be obliged to keep on pressing this point until something is done.

I want to tackle this question from a slightly different angle. In order to illustrate my point, may I quote the parable of the Good Samaritan. I am sure hon. members know that parable very well. The point I want to make is this, whenever I have gone to church the preacher has always extolled the Good Samaritan. But listening to the debate, the point which struck me forcibly was that instead of extolling the Good Samaritan we should eliminate the thieves. If we could only eliminate the thieves in connection with this matter we should go a long way towards getting cheaper bread in this country.

Who are the thieves?

After listening to the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) I think one can safely say that the thieves may have been the millers themselves.

I don’t want to labour this question of the wheat subsidy any further. I think it has been very fully discussed. I only want to put a few questions to the Minister about the butter subsidy. What applies to butter applies to many other things, and the Minister owes the country an answer. Until recently on the Rand one could never get more than half a lb. of butter at a time. One could do what one liked but one could never get more than half a lb. of butter at a time, but when one goes tot the butter producing parts of the Union the farmers tell one that they are only allowed to make 50 lbs. of butter and no more. Many a farmer has told me that he could have made another 100 lbs. but that he is not allowed to do so. That was at the time when in Johannesburg one could only get half a lb. of butter at a time. The producers complained that they were not allowed to take more butter to the market.

You’re quite wrong.

This is a matter which I have personally gone into and the hon. member knows what the position is, but now it’s getting even worse. Now the farmers are not even allowed to sell 50 lbs. of butter, but they are compelled to sell their butter through the creameries. The farmer is compelled to deliver his cream to the creamery and the producer is compelled to sell his product through the channel of the exploiter. The Minister shakes his head. Well, that is what I have found, what I have seen in the Free State with my own eyes. The farmer tells you that he is not allowed to sell butter, that he has to sell through the creamery. Anyone who has seen the way the creameries handle those products, how the natives handle those products, will never again deliver his product to the creamery.

You are now criticising your own Government.

I am criticising the kind of measures which the hon. member over there was in agreement with. There are many new members here who do not know for instance how the Wheat Control Board secured the power to allow a wheat farmer who stored more than 800 bags per year to get compensation out of the pockets of the consumers in the event of the vermin or insects eating the wheat, but the small man who produces less than 800 bags can never get a penny. That is my answer to hon. members over there. The small man also produces wheat, but the Subsidy Act of 1925 only gave that privilege to farmers producing more than 800 bags. That is my reply to the great champions of the Nationalist Party who are now pretending that this is something new, something which has been introduced by this Government. When I protested against it they had no time for me at all. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) talks of an unhappy marriage. What do you think of a man who approaches a young woman and tells her that her marriage is unhappy? He tries to break up the marriage and, of course, the young woman may listen to him if he puts a good proposal to her. But that has nothing to do with the case. We are entitled to criticise and to draw the Minister’s attention to the matter. I want members to recollect that I told the Minister last year that his Department was going to make an even greater failure of distribution. That prophecy of mine is coming true today. Take the position in regard to meat. I know I am not allowed to discuss that on this Vote, but the position is getting worse and worse. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister on this Vote of the position in regard to butter. The producers are being forced to sell through the channel of the middleman, to whom hon. members over there have given the status of consumer. Now they are kicking against it, but they themselves are to blame for the position which exists today.

I should like to say a few words to correct the mistaken impression created by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg).

Leave him alone; it is nothing but propaganda.

Still, I want to nut him right.

How delightful things are when brothers live together.

The hon. member has been confusing farm butter with creamery butter. Rightly or wrongly, the Dairy Board suggested to me that they should impose a levy on farm butter. I said “No.” A farmer has two or three lbs. of butter, in exchange for which he wants to get groceries, but a man who sells more than 50 lbs. of farm butter has to pay the levy. Surely that man is not the poor type of man to whom the hon. member was referring. The provision in regard to the 50 lbs. is being used by certain individuals to get underneath the wings of the poor farmer’s wife in order to evade the levy.

What about the farmer’s wife herself?

The position is that there was no levy on farm butter, but if a man makes more than 50 lbs. per month he is no longer regarded as a manufacturer of farm butter, but as a farm factory butter manufacturer. The position has now been changed so as to prevent people avoiding the levy. The Dairy Board has made representations to me and I felt that they were correct. They said that all the butter should be brought under the control of the Dairy Board. But it is incorrect to say that a man is prevented from making butter. He can make as much butter as he wants to, but he will have to pay the levy of one penny per lb. The hon. member can take my word for it that there is no such thing as a farmer being compelled to send his cream to the creamery. He is allowed to do what he wants to, but if he produces 50 lbs. he has to pay the levy. With a view to catching the people who have attempted to evade the levy it has now been decided that the levy will also apply to farm butter.

But they are allowed to produce as much as they want to?

Certainly, they can make as much butter as they want to and they can sell provided they pay the levy. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) asked me a question regarding threshing fees in the Transvaal. The difficulty arose from the fact that some of the farmers supplied their farm labour or other labour to assist at the threshing machine, but other farmers again are assisted by means of labour brought along by the thresher who carries his own labour. The former farmer pays 2s. If the thresher has to supply the labour, the farmer has to pay for it.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that last year after the provisional freezing of wheat prices, the Control Board stated that if the farmers supplied the labour, the threshing fee would be 1s. 9d.

Last year the fees had not been fixed.

But you wrote to all those threshing machine people. They were to get 2s. 3d. if they supplied all the labour. Afterwards they received a letter that it would be 2s. if they supplied the labour, but without the labour it would be 1s. 9d.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23—“Agriculture (Forestry),” £42,000,

I want to ask the Minister whether this increase has any connection with a change in the wages of forestry workers, and if so to what extent the wages have been altered and what the conditions of service are today.

These are the ordinary cost of living allowances. There is an amount of £2,000 in connection with the increase in wages for these labourers. If the hon. member will study the Loan Estimates he will find an amount of £8,000 there. One part of the forests is worked under the ordinary Estimates and another part under the Loan Estimates. This additional amount of £2,000 is in connection with the increase of wages. The men who have been less than one year in the service and who used to get 5s. are now, if they have free quarters, getting 6s. Those who have been in the service longer than one year get 6s. and 6s. 6d. and those who are in the service longer than two years are paid 6s. 6d. and 7s. In addition to this all these people get £1 per month cost of living allowance.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 25—“Public Works,” £66,339,

We are dealing here with an increase of £66,000, and I take it that the Minister will give us an explanation.

£26,000 represents increased cost of living; relief of lower paid officers, increase in pay and regrading of new posts account for £8,000, and officers discharged from military service account for another £3,000; and it all comes under this amount of £63,000. It is expenditure that we could not possibly contemplate at the time.

I think this is the occasion when the Minister should give us some more information about this matter. Is there no building material available for the public to enable them to continue building? Last year there was a considerable amount of difficulty in regard to this matter, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he is now allowing people to have more building materials.

I am afraid the hon. member is out of order. The subject does not fall under this vote.

I merely put the question; perhaps the Minister is in a position to give a reply.

I am quite willing to give the information. The position is very much easier in connection with the matter. As a matter of fact, I have given a public statement that will appear in the Press tomorrow dealing with this particular point raised by the hon. member.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 26—“Government Motor Transport and Garages,” £20,500,

I would just like to ask the hon. Minister whether this increase is due to an increase in the price of petrol, oil and grease, or whether it is due to further use of Government, transport.

The increase is primarily due to the fact that we are paying a penny a gallon more for petrol and 8d. per gallon more for oil since the 28th September last year, and a further increase on 8d. per gallon on oil and a 1d. per lb. on grease from the 4th July last year.

What do you pay for your petrol?

I thought these things were controlled.

I am afraid I cannot answer that question at the moment.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 27.—“Interior,” £53,000,

I would like the hon. Minister just to tell us what this amount of £36,000, “Immigration and Asiatic Affairs,” represents.

It is due to the fact that we have increased the rate from 15s. to 20s. in the country and from 20s. to 25s. in the town.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 29.—“Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-minded,” £25,500, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 31.—“Public Health,” £4,605,

We would like to have some information in connection with this National Blood Transfusion Services. Will the hon. Minister kindly tell as more about it. Why cannot it be increased? It seems to be such a necessary service.

The position is that provision was made on the previous years estimates, but there was a delay in starting the work and on that account it has been necessary to vote the money again, but I believe the work is now on the way and all necessary progress will be made.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 33.—“Social Welfare,” £5,000,

I should like to know from the Minister what he means by K.4, Purchase of the Assets of the Rossouwdorp Maatskappy (Eiendoms) Beperk. What have we to do with the company and what assets did the company have for sale? I should like to know what is the meaning of this?

The position in regard to Rossouwdorp is that it is a township between Dordrecht and Barkly East. This township belongs to a private company of which Mr. Greyling was the managing director until the time of his death some years ago. It also appears that there is a Village Management Board which is financially weak because of the company’s levy on the residents. The majority of the residents of Rossouwdorp are in humble circumstances. Many of them are in receipt of invalidity grants, old-age pensions, and so on, and it has been found that owing to shortage of water, owing to unsatisfactory sanitary conditions very appalling conditions have prevailed in this township. Very few of the erven sold by the company to the occupiers have actually been paid off. Some four years ago the then member of Parliament for Wodehouse, Mr. Bekker, made representations in regard to these persons and the conditions under which these inhabitants were living, and departmentally investigations were carried out by the Department of Social Welfare resulting in the findings now mentioned, and after further investigations and discussion it was decided that the only way in which the Government could assist would be to obtain control of the company’s assets by purchasing the shares of the bondholders, and in order to enable this to be done, authority was obtained to negotiate with the company. As the result of negotiations the company eventually agreed to sell out to the Government for the sum of £4,500. It was one of these peculiar and difficult positions which arises from time to time in our rural or peri-urban areas where either there is no authority or there is no authority financially able to carry out its obligations under the Public Health Act; and the only way in which the Department of Social Welfare could help was to step in and to buy out the company and bondholders, and that has been done. The Government Attorney on behalf of the Government has negotiated with the company’s attorneys and the assets of Rossouwdorp will now be transferred to the Village Management Board on certain conditions. Taxes are to be levied to cover the salary of the secretary, not to exceed £8 10s. per month, the Provincial taxes, interest on the loan of £2,000, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, repayable after five years, and of the £4,500 which is now being paid to the bondholders, £2,500 will be given to the Village Management Board as a non-repayable grant and the balance is by way of a loan. In other words, the effect of this transaction will be that the Government, in order to come to the rescue of this little place it had developed into a slum—is now giving a grant of £2,500 and a further loan of £2,000. That is the position. The Department acted in the way it did as it seemed the only practicable way of assisting the community in the difficulty in which it found itself.

Yes, now I understand the position. The company and the Village Board were both there and the company had more power than the Village Board. Now the company has been bought out and the assets have been given to the Village Board. But why do you still make them pay the £2,000? Are the erfholders not going to be in the same position as they were in before, because is not the position now that the Village Board or the Village Management Committee have the same powers as the company had before. It seems to me that if it was intended to give this help to someone it should have been given to the erfholders, and not to the Village Management Board, because the Village Management Board will levy rates in order to pay the interest on that money and look after the cleaning services of the dorp and so on? It seems to me that the position of the people living in the place is going to be this; they have got rid of a master who used to knock them about, but they are going to get a new master who may perhaps knock them about even more.

I think the hon. member can rest assured that the steps which have been taken are in the best interests of the inhabitants of the village.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 34.—“Mines,” £39,600,

An amount of £100 is set down here in regard to diamond cutting, and I should like to draw attention to the conditions now prevailing in the diamond trade, where we are faced with a monopoly against which the South African diamond dealers are powerless. The diamond dealer in South Africa is under no circumstances permitted to send rough diamonds anywhere in the world without such diamonds passing through the Diamond Trading Company in London. If a private diamond dealer wants to send a parcel of diamonds to America, British India or Australia, he has to make up his parcel and send it to England to the Diamond Trading Company. They open the parcel and give him a permit, and he is then allowed to send it to the parties to whom he sold the diamonds. The dealer has to pay insurance and freight—and those costs are very considerable.

Under which item is the hon. member discussing this question?

I am discussing it on the item of £100 for the diamond cutting industry.

But that item only concerns the training of apprentices.

This is a new item appearing on the additional estimates, and I am therefore of opinion that. I am entitled to discuss the Government’s policy.

Yes, the Government’s policy in regard to that particular item. That is to say, the training of apprentices. That is what the hon. member can discuss.

But those apprentices are being trained to cut diamonds, and those diamonds are being cut for the trade. If this had not been a new item I would not have attempted to discuss the Government’s policy in regard to this question.

The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

But we are dealing here with a new item on this vote. I would not have tried to discuss this question if it only had been an increase.

Yes, I notice that this is a new sub-head, but the hon. member is only permitted to deal with the details of this particular item, viz.—“Contingent liability in respect of the training of apprentices, including wages and incidental expenses”.

On a point of order, it is perfectly true that this is a new item, but it has nothing whatever to do with the export of diamonds to London.

What happens to the diamonds; do you not export them?

If the Chairman will allow me, I am prepared to answer that.

If the diamond dealer does not have his diamonds cut here it means that he has to send them overseas, and then he is compelled to sell his diamonds there through the Diamond Trading Company which has its offices in London. Even if the diamonds are intended for America, India or Australia, they still have to go through this London Diamond Trading Company which itself is interested in the diamond trade. I have a case here of a private dealer wanting to send diamonds to Palestine.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot pursue that subject.

May I know the reason for your ruling, Mr. Chairman? We are dealing here with the diamond industry and the question of the establishment of diamond cutting works.

No, we are only concerned with the conditional responsibility of the Government in regard to the training of apprentices, including wages and incidental expenditure.

But surely those apprentices are being trained for the purpose of cutting diamonds for sale?

The hon. member is going too far into this matter. He will have another opportunity of raising this question.

Will the hon. Minister be good enough to inform the Committee whether the increase under “N” is due to the development of new mining districts or whether it is due to his drive for oil, and if so, whether any discoveries have been made, and, if so, whether he is prepared to give us any indication whether he has found anything which will give us hope for the future.

This item is confined to the mining which is taking place in Namaqualand. There is no item here at all on the question of boring for oil. It is entirely confined to the development of Namaqualand. About a year or two years ago we had a great demand both from the United States of America and England for tungsten which was very much required for war purposes, and we undertook the development of our resources to the utmost extent we could. As the result of an aerial survey, followed by ground parties, we came to the’ conclusion that roughly from Upington down to the sea there were likely tracts for the finding of tungsten. This was followed up last year with field parties to do prospecting, and prospecting took place over scattered areas but very considerable areas of Namaqualand with the result that we found a good deal of tungsten. It was scattered; it was not concentrated, but in the result we proved that it existed at depth and was a subject for mining enterprise and not merely the collection of alluvial stuff. There are considerable prospects of winning this metal. The demand for tungsten has fallen off and our parties have been withdrawn although the price for tungsten which was a very satisfactory one, is not being guaranteed by the United States or England after this war.

In regard to the training of apprentices, I should like to know from the Minister what liability the State has undertaken in respect of the training of these apprentices, and what liability is conditional? I should also like to know how many apprentices are being trained today under this conditional liability, where they are being trained, and whether there is any intention of expanding the industry in the future, and also whether the Minister will give his attention to the question of South African boys being given preference, as in the past.

This item, as I stated before in answer to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), is a new one. It is a token item, and it appears on the Estimates this year as a token of a contingent liability which will arise in the following circumstances. It is the desire of the Government, and I am sure it is a desire which is shared by the House, that we should develop to the utmost the industry of diamond cutting. As the prime diamond producing country of the world it is right and proper that we should endeavour as far as possible to process these items in our own country and to give the opportunity to our own people to become skilled in the working of it. The industry has developed up to a certain stage, and the diamond market now for gem purposes in the Union is something like £2,000,000 per annum, which is a very substantial market. Where we are falling short at the present time, where we have been hampered is that the number of journeymen and apprentices has been very limited. The number has been so limited that wages in the diamond cutting trade have reached a height which is almost fantastic, but we hope to increase the number of apprentices. That has been the trouble. Under the Labour regulations passed in accordance with the Labour legislation there anent, one apprentice to four journeymen only is allowed. That would limit the expansion of our apprentices very sharply indeed. I desired that that should be extended and that we should have a ratio of one apprentice to one journeyman for the time being. My colleague, the Minister of Labour, has agreed with this, but we have to take precautions to see that there is not a breakdown in the training of apprentices such as took place some years ago with dire results. What happened then was that apprentices who were taken on and who were half trained, bumped up against a slump in the diamond business and they were thrown out of employment, half trained as apprentices, with their work thrown away and with no chance of becoming skilled in the future. We devoted ourselves to that and now we have made an arrangement with master cutters whereby they undertake to take apprentices and to train them fully, and if a time of depression comes and they cannot afford to keep their factories going and the training going without assistance, the Government will come to their assistance; and the assistance takes this form, that we will supply from our sources the stones which are to be cut. The master cutters will see that the stones are cut properly, and after cutting they will be returned to the Government who will have the benefit of the appreciated value of the stones which are cut over the value of the stones which were uncut. The cost of the wages is to be paid by the Government and as against that—the cost of these wages and the supplying of these stones—they get the cut stones. In this way it is guaranteed that the training of apprentices shall not be interfered with by the intervention by a time of depression. I hope the House will agree that this is a satisfactory arrangement and one which we hope will lead to the training of a considerable number of apprentices.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 35.—“Lands,” £300,

I should like to have a little information on this vote. There is a reference here to a Nature Reserve. What is that?

For quite a number of years already we have a series of farms in the Northern Transvaal. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) knows about that. They are held as a Nature Reserve. Of late the expense connected with these farms has been increasing, particularly as a result of the cost of living allowances that are paid, and also because of a windmill which has been erected. For that reason it has become necessary to have an additional £300 voted.

But I want to know whether there is a white person in that Nature Reserve? In the past there were only Natives there.

There is no permanent white official, but the Natives, of course, also draw cost of living allowances.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39.—“Justice,” £9,100,

I should like to know from the Minister of Justice why such a large amount is being asked for here? One hears complaints all over that the legal expenses are too high. This seems to be a very large sum. Did not the Minister know that this amount would be required? Surely you have your Government attorneys and advocates. What are these extra expenses? Did the Government lose a case?

The amount is tentative; we do not know how many cases there are going to be. Some cases are won and others lost. Some years there are easy cases and few cases, and other years there are more. Some years there is a saving on the vote, other years the amount of the vote exceeds the estimate. It is impossible to make any definite estimate, and that is why a tentative amount is set down.

I should like to know if it is not possible to bring down the legal costs. People complain that after they have been involved in a law suit they are bankrupt, even if they have won the suit.

We are tied down to certain tariffs.

The tariffs are too high.

They have been laid down by the Law Society. The Government can do nothing about that.

Surely the Government is appointing controllers for everything. Why has it not done so here?

The attorneys and advocates in this House know what the position is.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 42.—“Prisons and Gaols,” £56,000,

I should like to move that progress be reported. I want to discuss the question of the release of prisoners.

Can that be done on this vote? If it is permissible, I shall accept the motion for the adjournment, but not otherwise. I think we can finish the Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, will you give us some guidance and tell us whether that question can be discussed?

Before you give your ruling, I want to say that. I intend moving the deletion of this amount, and the reason for my wishing to move that is that this amount is no longer required in view of the fact that there are fewer people in our gaols. Less money is required for rations and fuel, and I shall therefore move that the amount be deleted.

I am afraid I shall have to move the hon. member out of order; he can only discuss the increases on this vote.

The Minister is asking for an extra amount of money here, and we want to know whether that is necessary. How many gaol birds have been released, and how many of the Minister’s friends are back in gaol again? This estimate of £20,000 was made before these people had been released, and I take it that that amount is no longer needed. We should have the information before we can vote this amount. Does the hon. Minister know how many people he has released, and how many of them are back in gaol?

I am sorry but the hon. member cannot pursue that subject.

But if the gaols are empty the money is no longer needed. I am only asking for information and I think I am entitled to ask that question.

The hon. member is allowed to ask a question.

That is what. I am doing.

But the hon. member is not allowed to put a series of questions.

I am only asking the Minister how many people he has released, and how many of them are back in gaol.

There is a question on the agenda to that effect: I am getting the information. Of course, it is not only prisoners in Cape Town who have been released.

Don’t you even know how many you have released.

We shall have to find out how many have been released in the various places. I have telegraphed for the information because of the question appearing on the order paper. It is absurd to expect me to give this information here without previous notice.

You should have had the information in connection with this vote.

I have not yet received the information; we have to get information from Durban, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and various other places, and it all takes time. Bearing in mind this vote I tried to get the information, but it is not yet available.

I hope the Minister of Finance will accept the adjournment of the debate. The Minister of Justice himself has admitted that there is certain information which he regards as essential for this debate, which he has not yet got. In the circumstances I want to move that the debate be now adjourned. We need that information. Prisoners have been released on a large scale, and we do not know how many are left, and whether this amount is justified or not. Since this large number of prisoners has been released this extra £20,000 is probably no longer needed. The Minister does not know how many he has released and how many are still in gaol. Perhaps the Minister can give us the information tomorrow. I therefore move—

I do not think the hon. member is entitled to expect the information before this vote has been disposed of. I fail to see why this information is needed for the discussion of this vote, but in view of the late hour I am prepared to report progress. I do not expect, however, that we shall have to come back to this question next Wednesday.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 2nd February.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

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

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

Even though we have to continue paying double salaries?

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

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

Now here is another quotation—

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

And then he goes on to say—

And then my final quotation is this—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I second.

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

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

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

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

I second the amendment.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned, to be resumed on 2nd February.