I move—

In moving the second reading of this Bill, I would just like to explain that the amount of £290,814 is almost wholly accounted for by the fact that certain services have been on a bigger scale than was originally contemplated. Certain expenditure has been on a higher scale. A good deal of the £290,814 is due to excess working costs of our ships. I would like to point out that there are very considerable revenue items against the additional expenditure, authority for which is being sought. You will see that on the whole our estimation has been good. As you know, in certain directions we cannot appropriate savings. I think the House will see that as far as this unauthorised expenditure shows anything, it shows good budgeting.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether it is his intention to improve the railway accommodation at Mowbray?

That is not in order. Railway matters can not be discussed in this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to resolve into Committee on this Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Third reading on 11th February.

When this debate was adjourned, I was dealing with the question of the rehabilitation of our country, the increase of our productivity and the increase thereby of our national income, and I am going to crave your indulgence, sir, and the indulgence of this House, inasmuch as I will have to go back in retrospect in order that hon. members may get a realisation of what I am trying to get at. I endeavoured yesterday to point out that in any rehabilitation scheme it was inevitable for the Government of this country to take a very strong line as far as the creation of employment was concerned. That was vital to our rehabilitation. I also pointed out that the task, in my opinion, was far too big for private enterprise, and as such the Government had to assist and assist considerably. Furthermore, I pointed out that the Government had a big responsibility in mobilising the manpower force of this country, which I thought was sadly neglected. Furthermore, I think it is an accepted fact in this country that if we are going to make any progress, that progress is going to be made through the medium of industrialisation, and I want to analyse the position as far as our existing industries are concerned in relation to our potential manpower. I pointed out yesterday that as far as your gold mines were concerned today, you were at least 20,000 natives short.

Probably more—far more.

I am informed that it is more. Let us put it at a conservative estimate, at 20,000. Your coal mines have been racking their brains and exploring every avenue for the last two or three years to keep the pits going; and coal is a vital need in this country. Agriculture, we are told, is sadly lacking in manpower. That is a fact. But what I want to say is this, that if that manpower had been available during the year 1944, you would have had an increase in your national income, and our Minister of Finance would have been in a better position to get a little more out of the national income, because those concerns which are national assets would have been producing to their optimum. I want, for a moment, to analyse our manpower resources in view of our future expansion in industry. I have just told you that we are today exceedingly short. When you take the 10,000,000 people which are in our country, 8,000,000 of our people are non-Europeans and the greater bulk consists of the Bantu population. Today you have only about 20 per cent. of that population working in your urban areas and in your industrial concerns. Four-fifths of that population are situated in the native reserves and in agriculture. If you take from that the number of natives that are situated in the native reserves, you have in this country 46.6 per cent. working in agriculture. Taking into consideration aged natives and those who go in for agriculture on the native reserves which is a small percentage, you will realise that there is a potential manpower force lying idle in this country, and in my opinion we have to mobilise that power. I would like hon. members to take another factor into consideration, that as far as your potential output in connection with the Bantu is concerned, it has been calculated that he only works 25 per cent. of his working life, in comparison with the European, and that his efficiency is extremely low. I say without fear of contradiction that your Bantu population in this country is the greatest possible asset which this country possesses, and the European civilisation in this country is either going to swim or sink on your native population. We have got to mobilise that power; we have got to educate that power, and by propaganda we have to make the Bantu realise that he is the custodian of the finest portion of South Africa. He not only has the responsibility to co-operate with the European in the provision of his own rehabilitation, but he must realise that he is responsible to his family, and thirdly that he is responsible for the land on which he resides. I want to say this, that I represent a constituency in which there are no fewer than 750,000 natives. I have lived in that constituency for nearly 30 years, and I want to say that as far as agriculture in these reserves is concerned, it is as primitive today as it was 30 years ago, and I want to say that I want to cast no reflection on our Native Affairs Department. I think they are doing a very big job of work; they are doing a superhuman job. They have very good men, but far too few. They have not the facilities to cope with the gigantic problem which this country has to face up to, and we cannot get away from the fact that as far as discipline on these reserves is concerned, it is practically nil. I am one of those who are not keen on breaking down the hereditary chief system, but the hereditary chief system has failed lamentably. Your chief today has no control whatsoever over his people. There is no guidance whatsoever. I want to say this to the powers that be, that if we are going to reorganise that position, the time has come when the sorting out has to be done, and I would suggest that we appoint liaison officers in these reserves. In this respect there is a big opening for some of our soldiers. If we get some of the men who have been trained with the native troops in this campaign, we could set them up as liaison officers, and they would act as liaison officers between the natives on the reserves and the native commissioners. Today the native commissioners are your magistrates. Well, your magistrates are inundated with cases of petty crime, and they have no time to pay attention to the work on the native reserves. When I talk about crime, might I say this, that today illicit liquor, intoxicating liquor, ranging from different concoctions to Shiyan are eating the very life blood out of the native population, and it is in the interests of the rehabilitation of this country, that a drastic line should be taken by the Government. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Justice is not in his seat at the moment. I would like to make this appeal to him. He told us yesterday that we have a very efficient police force, but that the police force in the native reserves is totally inadequate. As the law stands today those people have no authority. I think I have said quite enough in connection with the native population and our native reserves, which is our reserve of manpower in this country. As I have said before, the greatest asset which this country possesses is the Bantu population, and we can either turn that into a great national asset or carry it for ever as the biggest millstone and the biggest debt which this country will have to carry. I new want to turn to another activity of our national income, and that is the question of agriculture. I have mentioned agriculture particularly because I feel that in any rehabilitation scheme the agricultural community have to play a very important part—and I might say we are also keen on trying to improve our position as far as the national income is concerned—I am a farmer myself—I feel that the agricultural community has been called upon to play a very important part indeed, because after all said and done agriculture does supply the wherewithal of life. We hear quite a lot of criticism about subsidisation, but might I say that owing to the vicissitudes of farming in this country, it is inevitable that some subsidisation must take place in order to guarantee that we have the necessary food to feed the people. I need only refer to the disastrous floods in the Transvaal, to show you what the vicissitudes of farming are. Farming is a difficult job, and although there may be economic and uneconomic farmers I want to say, if I might digress for a moment, that today we unfortunately have economic and uneconomic consumers as well, and may I say in this connection that I think we are losing our balance altogether in this war. We are going far too fast. When you consider that there are thousands of people in this country who value a bioscope seat higher than a pound of butter, when you get a cunningly designed lady’s hat which may cost only a few shillings to produce, valued at the equivalent of a quarter ton of mealies, then I say that the people have lost their sense of balance. When we take into consideration that thousands of pounds per week pass through the dog tote in Johannesburg, so much that the dividends from that concern turn over the entire capital of that company every few months, I think something is radically wrong. Furthermore, I want to say that when we take into consideration the fact that there are several of our provincial administrations in this country which are very much dependent on the taxation which they get out of horse racing, the king of sports, we cannot but conclude that the country is losing its sense of balance. The Natal Provincial Administration gets £133,000 out of horse racing. In that case I want to know what the bookies get out of it. In spite of the fact that you may have economic and uneconomic farmers, I want to draw this parallel that we also have in our country, economic and uneconomic consumers. But I want to say this to our consumers, that the biggest friend they have in the country is the farmer. The biggest friend you have in this country is the farmer, and we are anxious as a farming community to co-operate with you, and we want the Government to take a strong line in this regard for the simple reason that the closer you bring the consumer to the producer, the more you keep out the speculator, the sooner you will get fair prices—that is a fair basis for production and consumption. I am pleased to see that the Government are working on these lines.

What about the farmers?

I have been a farmer for thirty years, and I am not so foolish as to believe that the farmer is a paragon of all that is to be desired—far from it, but may I say this, that very often a farmer is made inefficient due to the fact that he does not get the wherewithal to make himself efficient. That is an accepted fact. You must remember that in agriculture the question of your fertilisation, the question of grass preservation and all that sort of thing costs money. When we have a system in this country where we have a tremendous over capitalisation in land values—and at present over capitalisation with the consequent inflation in this country is such that you are again in this period of war increasing your land values. Personally, I have some revolutionary ideas on the question of land values.

Let us have them.

If I gave these views across the floor of this House I am certain there would not be so many “hear, hear’s”. I have had so many “hear, hear’s” that I do not want to risk getting any “haw, haw’s”.

Try your luck.

It is absolutely essential that the Government should plan a proper agricultural policy.

Now, I say hear, hear.

Just wait a minute. I shall tell you why. This country consists of 472,000 square miles, and out of that huge area today we have only under arable cultivation 6 per cent., and at the maximum we could not put under arable cultivation more than 15 per cent. It shows that our arable areas are very precious. I believe as a farmer that if any subsidisation takes place it has to take place in the right place, and on the right crops.

Again I say hear, hear.

I want to be plain on that, and I want to say this, that as far as I am concerned I think that if we do not rectify the position of over capitalisation in regard to agriculture particularly, and if we do not stop overstocking, if we do not stop grass burning and these things, I can assure hon. members that we shall get into a very serious position indeed.

We are in that position today.

But we have a part to play and I feel sure that we, the farmers, are going to play our part in the rehabilitated world, and although today our contribution to the national income is only 12.6 per cent., it is significant that in 1924, agriculture was the biggest single contributor —it contributed 19.9 per cent. As I see it our industrial expansion, whatever it will be, has to keep pace with the increase in the population. And that is what it has not done. If you increase your industrialisation at a given rate now, you have some hope of getting some rehabilitation for your native people—which is the greater portion of your population, but you will never rehabilitate that huge army of people through the White Paper or any such measure. The rehabilitation of your country, increased productivity, and an increase in the national income can only be brought about by hard work, and by an increase of the efficiency which is very low in this country. And if we are to put these things right and at the same time muster our labour forces, we are on the right road to success.

I rise this morning to say a few words and to plead for the cause of my oppressed people. This question of internment has latterly become a very sore point with the whole nation, and I believe that it has become a serious matter to every right-thinking person. There are people who treat this matter very lightly, and who attempt to make a laughing matter of it. But thank God that the moral standard of the national life in South Africa is still so high that in the course of years that class will reap the contempt not only of the Afrikaner nation, but also of every decent Englishman. I have the courage and the frankness to talk about this matter, because in those times of trouble I was one of the people who gave up night after night and travelled about at my own expense in an attempt to create an atmosphere of calm. I am therefore frank enough to come to the Minister with the plea which I make in this House today. I want to tell him that we cannot forget that during that time our people went through one of the most difficult periods in our history. Never in the history of the Afrikaner nation has the Afrikaner nation been provoked on such a scale, persecuted and spied upon, as during those troublous days. I want to refer to the conditions in the civil service, and I could cite the cases of numerous officials whose nerves have totally given way as a result of this provocation. I could cite numerous cases in the police service where we experienced the same unfortunate state of affairs. Since our people had to endure such a state of affairs, we must admit today that at that time the Afrikaner was the victim of particularly trying circumstances, and I can state here today that it is a miracle, when one looks at the combination of circumstances and the trying times, that there was not an outburst on a greater scale in the country. I think that praise is due especially to the leaders of the Re-United Nationalist Party in that they handled the position with such a great measure of success. I want to say this, that if it had not been for the lead given to our young men by certain irresponsible leaders, the leaders of our nation would perhaps have been able to handle the position better. I want to make a plea especially on behalf of the families of those people, because they are the people who are suffering today. I could cite personal cases, but sufficient cases have already been mentioned, and it is not necessary for me to do so again. I should like to ask hon. members on the other side whether they are prepared to leave their wives and children to make ends meet on the allowance which is today being paid by the Government. The costs of living are so high that I could mention many cases of families where the people starve and where the children have to go almost naked. The position is serious, and for the sake of the happiness of those families and for the sake of peace in the country, it is necessary for the hon. Minister not to make any further promises, but immediately to proceed to throw open the gates of the internment camps. There is another reason which has already been emphasised here, but which I want to emphasise once again. There was a time when we felt that there were perhaps circumstances which gave the Government some justification for keeping these people in the camps. We Afrikaners can appreciate the point of view of others, and at that time we were satisfied to a certain extent, at any rate, in view of the circumstances which prevailed. But now that the matter has assumed a different complexion, now that the enemy has been pushed 3,000 miles further, and now that even England is adopting another policy, the people are beginning to feel that if a change is not brought about immediately, an injustice is being done to them. And although the people were satisfied, to a certain extent, they feel that the question of internment is now gradually assuming the form of a black page in the history of our nation. I want to make a very serious appeal to the Prime Minister and to the other Ministers to remember that as far as this matter is concerned, the time for action is almost overdue. The time for action is almost overdue, and then we shall get this phenomenon, that even the shadow of Slagtersnek will begin to fall on this matter. We do not want to bring about yet another source of bitterness in our history. I can give the House this assurance, on behalf of the whole of Afrikanerdom, that we shall be grateful to the Minister if he meets us in this matter. During the past mercy was shown to people who were sentenced to death, and I want to remind the House of the fact that a spontaneous feeling of gratefulness was experienced by the Afrikaner. Here the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Government have an opportunity of doing something which will be of particularly great value in the restoration of peace and happiness, and which will promote mutual co-operation amongst the people to a very great extent. There are just two other matters which I briefly want to bring to the notice of the Ministers. In the first place, I want to make a plea to the Minister to look after the lower-paid European labourers. I want to mention particularly the labourers who were employed at Onderstepoort in a temporary capacity, the labourers in the Government gardens and the labourers whose task it is to clean the Government offices. In the majority of cases they get 5s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. a day. Mostly they have large families; they cannot exist on this low wage and one finds poverty and hunger in their families. Since there is money in the country today, I ask the Minister in all seriousness to meet those people, even though it be only in these abnormal times. There is also a second matter, and that is the question of the pensioner in general. There is a condition attached to these pensions, and that is that people who are in receipt of pensions, may not earn anything else. It is impossible for those people to exist merely on the pension which they receive. It is absolutely impossible. Many of them still retain so much sense of honour and self-respect that they go out to work, earning a shilling or two, and as soon as they earn that, they are notified that they are no longer entitled to a pension. We realise that a difficult principle is involved in this matter. But I again make a plea to the Minister that in these abnormal times of high costs of living, he should give his attention to this matter and meet these people to this extent that if they earn a reasonable amount, no reduction in respect thereof will be made from their pensions.

I want to move a further amendment to the motion of the hon. Minister of Finance, and my amendment reads as follows—

That is my amendment. Then there are a few other matters which I should like to discuss now. In the first place I want to give the Minister of Finance the assurance that he need not be concerned about time which will be wasted by new members. We new members came to say what we have to say in as short a time as possible, and then to return home. I also want to make a genuine plea this morning, from the bottom of my heart, for the Oudstryders of the Second War of Independence. I do not come here to plead for any political benefit, having in mind an election which may take place in four-and-a-half years’ time. I come here to plead as a war orphan of that time. Today there are only a few hundred of those people alive. Those people were true republicans to the very core of their being; they were prepared to fight and die for the republics. And, sir, let us today pay off our debt to them, and it will redound to the honour of South Africa, to the honour of this House, to the honour of the Cabinet and especially to the honour of the Minister of Finance. This is a matter which is very dear to every right-thinking citizen of South Africa. Those few who survived that struggle are today scattered all over South Africa, and I can give this House the assurance that a large percentage of those republicans, of those people who were prepared to sacrifice everything for the republics, are today perishing in the slums of Johannesburg, with a grievance in their hearts against all the governments of the past—also against the Nationalist Party which held office for fifteen years. They live there and die there with a grudge in their hearts because they were not granted their rights. As honourable citizens and men, let us pay the debt we owe to them. It will not cost very much. So much for that matter Now I come to my amendment which I have already read. In the first place, I want to draw the attention of the House to the misery and suffering of silicosis victims. These are the people who became the victims of a terrible and incurable disease, and who formerly belonged to the flower of the youth of South Africa. Today they are scattered over the entire country, physical wrecks and mental wrecks. Those people are also developing a grudge against the rest of South Africa because they are not being paid for the share they contributed to the building up of the industrial development of South Africa. I want to refer to the conditions which exist in the mines and to show how reckless and unfair the mining authorities are in providing fresh air. It seems to me that compensation is cheaper than ventilation. In this connection I put a few questions to the hon. the Minister of Mines. I asked him whether he was satisfied that Regulations 58 (2) A. and B. were being complied with in order to ensure that the incidence of miners’ phthisis is reduced in the mines. The Minister evaded my question, and in reply he told me that the inspectors of mines who are responsible for seeing that those regulations are complied with, convince themselves by regular investigation and inspection that that is the case. He added that it was not only applicable to Regulations 58 (2) A. and B. but also to numerous other regulations which have a very important bearing on the ventilation of the gold mines. And then the Minister added—

I say that in giving this reply the Minister made himself guilty of a premeditated evasion of the question. I should like to read to the House what his regulation lays down. Unfortunately, I have not got the regulation in Afrikaans. I do not think it exists in Afrikaans. First of all we have Regulation 58 (2) A.—

And then we come to B.—

I say that if this regulation is carried out to the letter in the gold mines of South Africa, we would be able to eliminate miners’ phthisis almost entirely. The public outside the mines has not the slightest idea of what goes on in the dark down below. With all respect to my fellow members, I do not believe that this matter has ever been put to the House and explained to the public. One finds this position that a vertical shaft is sunk and it takes the fresh air right down into the mine. That fresh air is forced down to the lowest point in the mine. Thereafter it goes to the first working place, then to the second, then to the third, then to the fourth and so on. By the time it comes to the sixth working place, the supply pipe is so thickly covered with silicosis dust, or a large portion of it—with the silica—that I want to ask hon. members in this House whether any person in South Africa can say with any justification that that air, after it has gone through four or five working places, is still fresh air. The regulations law down that there must be fresh air. I may not have any idea what fresh air is but I believe that this air is not fresh air. It seems to me that compensation is cheaper than ventilation. A further reason why I move this amendment is that there is negligence on the part of the inspectors under the Department of Mines. Not so long ago we had one of the greatest disasters in the history of mining work in South Africa, namely, the disaster in the coal mine at Northfield in Natal. The Minister gave me an evasive reply, and I want to state here that that disaster was caused by negligence. I want to state that the Minister was warned in my presence by the Secretary of the Mine Workers’ Union. He was warned against the practice of allowing people, who did not have the slightest experience, to do responsible work in the coal mines. Seventy eight lives were lost. The wives of 78 men are today mourning their death, and I do not know how many children. I say that that disaster could have been averted if the Minister had called upon his inspectorate to do their duty, and if he had exercised his authority. It would then not have been necessary today to have those women and children supported by the State. A further reason why I moved this amendment is the bias in this country in favour of the Chamber of Mines. The Chamber of Mines, it would seem to me—and I speak here as the mouthpiece of 14,000 of my fellow workers—has been declared royal game in South Africa.

That is a pretty expression.

These leeches of the wealth of South Africa have become royal game in our country. These bloodsuckers of South Africa’s youth have become royal game. The bias to which I referred has got to this stage that the Chamber of Mines has the audacity to tell honourable men, hard-working men with great responsibilities in the industry, that they are lazy and stupid.

Disgraceful.

I feel very strongly on this matter, and it is possible that it may yet lead to industrial difficulties on the Witwatersrand. I say that if the farmers had to fall under the Minister of Mines, they would long ago have done something drastic. They call these people stupid. Well, those stupid people handle the lives of approximately 250,000 people twice daily, because they have to see that they come down safely and that they go up safely. If they are so stupid, every accident which takes place in the shaft must be attributed to the recklessness of the mining authorities in appointing stupid people. What right has any responsible person to let the mineworkers go down if such stupid men are responsible for their safety? They go 3,000, 4,000 and 6,000 feet below the ground. There is another point I want to raise, and I am sorry that once again I have to speak about the Nationalist Party. I do not want to blame them too much, because what did take place, took place at a time when they did not know any better. I want to deal with the slavery which was re-introduced in South Africa under the former Nationalist Government. In 1836 my forefathers trekked from these parts of South Africa, and one of the reasons for that was slavery. During the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 slavery was re-introduced in South Africa, but instead they made underground slaves, where no one could see what happened. I do not know what they fear. I refer to the Bedeaux system. I think the majority of hon. members do not know what the Bedeaux system is. We have a society for the protection of animals. What we need is a society for the protection of human beings who work underground. The Bedeaux system boils down to this, that someone walks about like a watch dog at 7 o’clock in the morning, or whenever a shift starts, with a stop watch in his hand. When the worker lights his cigarette, he writes down in his book how many seconds he took to light the cigarette. He writes down how many minutes he took to arrive at his working place, to take out his keys and to take his tools out of the box. He makes a note of it whenever anyone sits down to have a sandwich, and how long it took. It is also noted how long it took him to walk to the machines which he operates; how long it took him to set the machine in motion, and how long it took him to bore holes. That is also done in connection with the natives. It is noted how long they take to bring a cocopan from one place to the other. That is the Bedeaux system. Anyone of the 14,000 mineworkers who falls under that system will tell you that it is modern slavery in its worst form. I want to point out that this state of affairs cannot continue for any length of time without having a bad effect on the industrial development of South Africa. Yesterday we heard from hon. members in this House that the internees were noble people. Well, the mineworkers are the noblest of the noble, and South Africa must awaken and investigate what goes on in the dark. We repeatedly asked the Minister of Mines to appoint welfare officers for us, or to see that such people were appointed. That was refused under the pretext that the Minister was afraid that such a welfare inspector would clash with his inspectorate. There one straightaway has an admission that his inspectors are not doing their duty towards the workers, but only towards the management of the mines. It is an admission that there is partiality, an admission that the game wardens are taking very good care to see that royal game is not shot. The mineworkers have contributed a great deal in this war towards victory. Approximately 4,000 of our members went to the fighting line, and it is my duty, as the mouthpiece of the Mineworkers’ Union in this House, to see to it that these people return to a better world, as they were promised. They sacrificed everything for South Africa and the entire world. I want to point out that today the mineworkers are doing two, three and four times as much work as they did before the war. They have even sacrificed their leave for the sake of promoting the war effort, and I want to say here that if it were not for the control which the Mineworkers’ Union had over its members, there would have been industrial trouble in the country, and South Africa’s war effort would have crumbled when the war was at its most critical stage.

I think I had better reply to the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) at once. May I say that I have listened—and I am sure the House has listened as it always does the first time we hear a new member—with great interest and great sympathy, to the first speech we have heard from the hon. member for Mayfair. I hope it will not be his last. I am sure it will not be the last. The interest he shows in the workers on the mines is one which I am sure is shared generally by members of this House. When he comes to deal with the details, however, I cannot say that I am in agreement with him or have entirely the same sympathy with the statements he has made, and I propose in the remarks which I am now going to make, to deal with his statements seriatim and to ask the House to consider just what substance there is in them. He commenced his remarks about the sufferers from silicosis. As this House knows, that subject has engaged not merely this Parliament, not merely the last Parliament, but Parliament after Parliament for the last 30 years at any rate, and step by step Parliament has given instructions and passed laws for the amelioration of sufferers of this disease. It is quite true that the disease is found on the deep mines of the Witwatersrand, but it is a disease which is common to all industries which are dust-producing, and as hon. members know, we have lately had a commission appointed—and it has recently reported—on the desirability of extending the remedial measures which are now applying locally to the gold mining industry, to other industries which are dust-producing. It is a disease which is caused not by mining gold necessarily because it is gold, or because the mine is deep, but it is a disease which is caused by the production of dust in the course of the industry, and this is common to a large number of industries. I hope next session at any rate to be able to table a measure which will extend these remedial measures to other industries besides the gold-mining industry. The hon. member is very much concerned with the condition of sufferers of silicosis in the Union. We all sympathise with that, but when he comes to attack me as though I was responsible for this, I am totally at a loss to know how and to what extent I am guilty. I did not create the disease. I am not responsible for meting out the measures for preventing it. I am not responsible for the organisation which is employed for this purpose. It has been laid down by Parliament. Parliament does all this. I am responsible, it is true, to see that the laws laid down by Parliament, are carried out, and to the best of my ability, I have done as my predecessors have done. I have listened—I may have missed something—but I have not heard the hon. member charge me with neglecting to carry out any particular section of the Miners’ Phthisis Act or any of the amendments that have been passed from time to time. What is his particular complaint against me? I would be very glad indeed to meet it. With his general sympathy with the position of silicotics I am entirely in accord. Whatever is done must be done in conformity with the laws Parliament has laid down, and it is only under the regulations under them that I can act. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that the hon. member has not indicated any direction in which he would hold me responsible. Perhaps the hon. member would say that he has done so in calling attention to the regulation for the provision of fresh air, and I think the hon. member indicates that is what he intended. Let me examine these things. Provisions are laid down that ventilation shall be adequate, that it shall be of certain dimensions and of a certain description. To the best, of my knowledge and belief those regulations are being carried out. At any rate, I have not had any complaint on the matter. So long as I have been in office I have not had any complaint lodged with me from any quarter, including the Mineworkers’ Union that ventilation has not been carried out. And the first criticism I heard of this was a question that was put to me, and that I answered in this House a few days ago. I answered that the provision of fresh air was laid down by regulation, and the regulations apparently were being carried out. If the hon. member has any facts, any details, any dates, that would indicate to me that there has been any contravention of a serious kind, I would be only too pleased to examine it. He gave some indication of the number of ventilation shafts provided, and he said that if the regulations were carried out completely, miners’ phthisis would be eliminated. I am very interested in hearing this. I should like to think it is correct, but if it is, I do not knew why the Miners’ Phthisis Prevention Committee has not made representations to me upon it. The Mineworkers’ Union is represented on the Miners’ Phthisis Prevention Committee, and if there is any alteration in the system of ventilation, or if there are any corrections that can be made in that system, if he has any ideas on that, I should have expected that this committee would have put them up and that the union that I understand he represents in this House generally, would through this House, have put up their suggestions. So far as I am aware, no such suggestions have been made. Certainly, and I say this most emphatically, no suggestions of that kind have ever reached me. I am pretty confident if any suggestion of that kind had reached the committee, it would have been handed to me, but here now I can say without enquiry, no suggestion of this kind has reached me, and I am surprised that if the hon. member has such information he has not taken steps to furnish it to the Minister. The hon. member is making his first speech and is dealing with subjects that interest him. I sympathise with him. But when he attacks the ventilation system, I shall expect in the future at any rate, that he shall come with some substantial facts that will justify the attacks he makes. With regard to ventilation, I realise, as my predecessors have done, that this is a matter of primary importance. So far as we are aware, and so far as the technical staff are aware, all the precautions that can be taken are being taken, and that the ventilation system is a good one. There are always improvements that can be made in any undertaking throughout the wide world, and I should be very glad to hear of any in this connection and to apply them. I come to another matter which is a little more serious to me and the hon. member himself, namely his remarks about the Northfield Colliery. The hon. member has repeated here the suggestion that underlay the point he put up to me some days ago that the Northfield Colliery disaster was due to neglect by the Mines Department to observe a warning by the Mineworkers’ Union not to employ a certain class of man on fiery mines. That is utterly untrue and unjustified. I gave the answer to it and the denial to it in this House in categorical terms. The hon. member also requested me to lay on the Table the report of the enquiry into the disaster. I told him it was not customary to lay such a report on the Table, as such an enquiry was always held in public, but that I had a copy and it was at his disposal. I have not been informed that the hon. member has availed himself of the opportunity of reading that report. If he has read the report I cannot understand how he can stand up in this House and make that allegation, because that allegation is denied and disproved categorically by the perusal of that report.

Do you deny that the Mineworkers’ Union gave that order?

I will tell you what they said to me. They wrote that letter which I mentioned in replying verbally to the hon. member a few days ago. They complained of this. They said: You are now giving a temporary blasting certificate to rock miners that have had experience on the Rand but without experience on fiery mines; you are giving them a temporary blasting certificate on a fiery mine without their having had experience on a fiery mine. I went into that matter very carefully. It was a serious matter, and I found that my technical officers were entirely agreed that only experienced miners with sufficient training on fiery mines were given a temporary certificate. I found that they were satisfied that these men were competent to blast, and they were given a temporary certificate to that effect. That has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Northfield Colliery disaster. There was no rock miner there. There was no one there with a temporary certificate who blasted in that way; and it is absolutely untrue. What happened at the Northfield Colliery disaster was this: The miner in charge was a very experienced miner of fiery mines; he had 28 years’ experience; but he had under him a learner. There are always learners on the mines. That is the only way you can get experienced men by putting the learner under an experienced miner; that is the only way a new learner can get training. That course was being followed. He was a man with mining experience elsewhere, but had no certificate to entitle him to blast on the Northfield Colliery and he was working under the supervision and direction of this experienced man. That is entirely in accordance with practice and regulations and commonsense, and no other system can possibly prevail. The experienced man apparently permitted the learner-miner to blast, or the learner without authority blasted on his own account; nobody can tell which it was. But at any rate the responsibility for the blasting having taken place, was the responsibility of the miner in charge. Most unfortunately he did it under circumstances which amounted to gross negligence. I wish to be as reserved as I can in expressing an opinion on the conduct of the man who has paid the extreme penalty for his neglect, but it is true that the explosion was caused not by negligence by anyone employed by the Department of Mines or by any of their officials, but it was caused by the negligence of these two men and their negligence to observe the regulations. The hon. member would have known that, had he taken the trouble to read the passage in that report which he asked for, and which apparently he did not take the opportunity that was offered him to read. The hon. member is quite without excuse in making this allegation, because nobody has the right to make an allegation of that kind when he has the truth told him, and the opportunity of testing that truth—which he either has done and is not facing up to, or which he himself has neglected to. So much for the explanation on the Northfield Colliery. Now I turn to another matter. The hon. member says that I have too much sympathy with the Chamber of Mines. I do not know where he gets that from. I do not know how he dives into my mind or anybody else’s. What have I done? Is it serious or is it badinage? If it is badinage let it pass. But if it is serious I expect it to be backed up by him telling me something which is concrete, something to which I can say it is true or untrue—if it is true the reason is so-and-so, and if it is untrue, well there it is. The hon. member will have to be a little more explicit. Then he goes on to attack the Chamber of Mines for having used certain expressions with regard, I think, to banksmen, and others who were described as being (I am told) unintelligent. He attacks the Chamber of Mines. Supposing the Chamber of Mines is guilty, supposing they have used language which is not justified; am I responsible? What do you suppose, that I prepared the memorandum for the Chamber of Mines? You have got just as good a hope of getting me to prepare a memorandum for the Mineworkers’ Union. This really carries the thing a little too far; I must say that, although I have every sympathy for the hon. member and even for a maiden speech, the House will not accept the hon. member as being himself either responsible or intelligent when he expects the House to believe that I am responsible for some memorandum prepared for the Chamber of Mines. Let the Chamber of Mines and the Mineworkers’ Union have it out as far as concerns the language they are using in this memorandum. I understand there are still possibilities that they may get together, and I hope that they will. I content myself today by saying that I had nothing to do with the memoranda prepared on the one side or the other. I represent the Chamber of Mines. The hon. member seems to be familiar with the Bedeaux system on the Rand. I have never heard any complaint at all from any quarter that officials were sent out on the mines to time the number of minutes or seconds occupied in smoking a cigarette, or in lighting a pipe, or in doing things of that kind. I am aware that the desire to get efficiency is very great, and I have no doubt that timing has taken place to ascertain how long it takes to drill a hole and the time it should take; but to describe that as a condition of slavery is a little too reminiscent of the necessities of the technique of the soap box in public speaking rather than characteristic of the serious consideration which it is customary to bestow on these important matters in this House. Great attention is paid by the Mines Department to the welfare of the people underground. To the best of my ability I make myself familiar with their needs. We have officers called sub-inspectors—they are not called welfare officers, but they do the same work as would be done by welfare officers, and workers do take advantage of the opportunity of bringing any complaints in regard to underground conditions to their notice. If the hon. member has any complaints of the kind he referred to, I shall be very glad to see him at any time and to do what I can. But I do want to say this, that some of the complaints the hon. member has voiced are not well founded. In regard to this question of miners’ phthisis I must say that I sympathise with the position of these people, but for the rest, the complaints made by the hon. member lack foundation.

On a point of information—I want this for my own information. Is it fair that the Minister should.…

That is not a point of order, or a point of explanation. The hon. member is out of order.

I should like to take this opportunity to redeem a promise which I made during the discussion on the Additional Estimates in regard to money required from the Transport Pool for motor vehicles. I was asked if I could give the House any information about the number of motor cars in the country. I said I could not do so at that time as this matter was being enquired into but that I would take an early opportunity of giving the information, and I would like to do so now. The present stocks of new motor cars in the Union amount to approximately 200 and no new cars are being shipped to South Africa at all. As a result these cars, as well as the 1942 and 1941 and 1940 used cars, are now being reserved for South African medical practitioners and other users equally important from a national point of view.

And members of Parliament.

Who are required to undertake considerable country travelling.

That applies to members of Parliament.

1942, 1941 and 1940 cars are used for that purpose. 1939 and 1938 models are being kept for other important but less essential services and for those doing work necessary to the economic life of the country. Possibly the members of Parliament come under this. In regard to commercial motor vehicles, the stock of new motor trucks in the country at present is 1,250. Applications for new trucks are becoming more and more numerous due to the following factors: (1) an all round increase in food production by primary producers; (2) the increase in commercial activities and the expansion of industry; and (3) the fact that the number of used trucks which have completed their lives is on the increase. In addition, demands have been made by Government departments and provincial administrations for approximately 1,000 trucks. These trucks are required for essential services, including the maintenance of roads. Up to the present these demands have not been met. They cannot, however, be held over indefinitely, and trucks will have to be released at an early date if serious repercussions are to be avoided. Taking this into consideration, our stock of trucks virtually amounts to one month’s supply. In spite of persistent and urgent representations made during the course of the last seven months overseas suppliers have so far not been able to meet South Africa’s minimum demands for motor trucks, and these demands are in respect of trucks required for essential mining and timber supply services, necessary to the war effort, for farmers and dairymen for the conveyance of essential food products to towns, ports and military camps, and for contractors engaged in military construction work. It might be pointed out that these factors were all impressed upon the suppliers and that emphasis was also laid on the fact that South Africa’s peculiar geographical structure involves a network of road motor services operating as feeders to four main railway lines, over difficult country, and second grade roads, and that the Defence authorities had already to lend vehicles to assist in bringing seasonable crops to the railways. Negotiations with the suppliers are still proceeding, but the indications are that if our numerous appeals were responded to at all, only part of the country’s essential requirements would be met. In brief, the country’s grave position in regard to motor transport is told by the following cold figures relating to the estimated age group of vehicles in use at the end of 1942. These figures are set out in full in regard to motor cars, trucks, buses, etc. Hon. members will be able to study them fully in Hansard. But I shall just read them out—

These figures show that 10 per cent. of the motor cars on the road today are 1939 models. The same position can be said to exist in regard to trucks. At the end of November, 1943, 289,739 motor cars and 55,617 commercial vehicles—a total of 345,356—were registered in the four provinces of the Union. These vehicles have not yet been classified into age groups, but it must be pointed out that in view of the very small supplies of new vehicles received since 1942 such classification can only paint an even graver picture than the statistics I have given. In regard to spare parts it must be pointed out that our supply of spare parts is running extremely low, and that difficulties similar to those experienced in procuring motor trucks present themselves here. This is a factor which obviously affects the life of our rapidly aging vehicles most seriously. Now, that indicates to the House clearly what the position is in regard to the age of the cars which we are running, and if we are to keep running for another year or two we have to conserve our resources.

I am very glad to have this opportunity to give my support to the amendment which was introduced by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), and which was so clearly put to the hon. Minister by this side. It is not necessary for me to go into that matter again, because it has been shown very clearly by this side of the House with what degree of inconvenience those people are being detained in the camps today. I just want to give my support to it, and also to make an appeal to the hon. Minister of Justice to give effect to his promise that he would release those people who are still in the camps, on a large scale. I want to express the hope that it will not remain at promises only, but that action will be taken soon to remove these men from the camps so that they may return to their wives and children and so that they may again live with their families. Allow me to make a very civil request to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who has done so much for hon. members on the other side. In asking him to take into consideration the requests of this side of the House, and to use his influence with the Minister of Justice to release those people I do so with all due respect. I make this request in all sincerity. I do not want to say anything else on the question of internment, but I want to avail myself of this opportunity to bring a few other matters to the notice of the House and of the Government. Since the Minister has been so lenient as to make this promise in connection with the internees, I want to request him to go even further and to give back the rifles of which he deprived our people. There is no longer any danger that the people will use those rifles, as the Government thought, to bring about a rebellion. There are many cases which are of a serious nature. There are cases where people were deprived of their rifles although they attached great sentimental value to those rifles. In my constituency there is an aged father of 75 years who kept his rifle. He did not hand it in, because he thought that it was an heirloom and that it did not fall under the regulations. The result was that the police discovered it, arrested him and brought him before the court, and he had to spend a month in prison on account of this old rifle. The treatment meted out to him in the prison was everything but good. He says that he was practically detained there with natives. His food was served in the same dishes that the natives got. When he was released after a month and returned home, he found that jackal and kaffir dogs had done great damage amongst his sheep. He saw me before my departure and asked me in all seriousness to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister concerned.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended, I was making an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Justice in connection with the rifles which were taken away from the people in the country. I want to express the hope that the hon. Minister will see his way clear to return those rifles to the farmers, because they need them to protect themselves on their farms. I should like to bring a further case to the notice of the House. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Lands has already left by aeroplane for those areas which suffered so much as a result of floods, in order to see what he could do for those people, especially certain parts of Barberspan. Because, as is known to the Cabinet and to this House, Barberspan was so flooded that the homes of various people and their lands as well are under water. Some of the residents are today living on the plains or in wagon houses. I want to express the hope, since the Minister has gone there, that something will be done with a view to meeting these people. This is a serious matter, and action must be taken speedily. The floods which we have had during the past year have again clearly demonstrated the need of our farmers in connection with grain elevators and barns in order to protect their wheat products. The farmers are undoubtedly going to suffer very great losses this year because there are not sufficient grain elevators and barns to protect the grain. As far as Lichtenburg is concerned, my information is that as a result of the rains, great damage has already been done to the mealies. Large quantities of mealies had to be thrown out to dry again. This is due to the shortage of barns and grain elevators. I also have information that the wheat farmers doubt whether they are going to get 50 per cent of their crop. I speak as a wheat farmer myself, and I doubt whether I am going to get a quarter of my crop. The mealies in the stacks have started to germinate. It seems to me that there are sufficient funds, and I hope, therefore, that in this respect too, the Government will make provision so that the farmers can be assisted to protect their products. Then I want to come to another matter, and that is the alluvial diggings. I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Mines for having the courage and making the sacrifice which he did to visit the alluvial diggings. I told the hon. Minister at Lichtenburg at the time that in the past the alluvial diggings were an asset to the State. The other day when I put the question to him, he admitted that the alluvial diggings were an asset to the State and that the State had already been able to deposit nearly five million pounds into the State coffers as a result of the export tax of 10 per cent. The diggings receive no subsidy. Nothing is done for them. All the diggers ask of the Government is that diamondiferous ground should be made available, that they be given the necessary labour and that they should get the right price for the diamonds. As one who lived on the diggings for a very long time, I want to say something else in connection with the alluvial diggings. There were times in our history when the farmers suffered through very heavy droughts. The farmers suffered so heavily as the result of droughts that both the Europeans and the natives were threatened with starvation in many places. The natives sought refuge in the alluvial diggings, and not only the natives, but also the farmers. I know that in 1914-’18 especially the native population sought refuge in the alluvial diggings, and large numbers of them found employment there. If they had not got that employment, the state would have had to feed them. In 1926 when the big diggings were discovered at Lichtenburg, many people went there and some of them were fortunate and they also made very good use of it. I want to mention a few cases which are well known to the Prime Minister. I think they are his friends. They met with good fortune in Lichtenburg, with the result that they paid off their mortgages, bought farms, and today they are progressive farmers. I have in mind, for example, Mr. Louw van Wyk. I mention these names, because I think that in doing so I am not giving away any secrets. I can think of Mr. John Voorendyk and Mrs. de la Rev Morkel. They met with good fortune and they are doing good work with the money. It is not only they. I could mention hundreds of cases where people met with good fortune. On the diggings we find a type of person who is very keen to be independent, and since we find them on the diggings, it is the duty of the State to support those men and women to become independent. They would like to be independent and not have to work under other people. They do not want to be a burden to the state, and in such cases it is the duty of this House to protect those people and to see that they do not lose that characteristic and that they do not cease to adopt that attitude. In 1938 we also had the honour of meeting the right hon. the Prime Minister on the diggings. I think he was Minister of Justice at that time, but I speak subject to correction. He said on that occasion that he saw before him a number of people for whom something must be done. After the meeting the diggers said: “Gen. Smuts was here and we believe that we shall get something for the alluvial diggings.” A few days later a certain English newspaper in Cape Town published an article and described the alluvial diggings as the black spot on our map. I want to contradict that once and for all, and deny that that is the case. That was the accusation which was levelled against the diggers, and it is an accusation which the diggers do not merit. The diggers, and especially the professional diggers, are not people of such poor mettle. I shall tell you where the black spots on our map are. They are the slums of the big cities. There you will find the black spots which are a disgrace to South Africa. One finds them in the slums of Cape Town, Johannesburg and other big cities. Those are the black spots which must be cleared up; you do not find them amongst the diggers. I have already said that the diggers would like to be independent again, but now it seems, judging by the action of the Government, that the diggings are systematically squeezed out of existence. To whose advantage? De Beers and the State diggings. Today the State itself has become a digger; it takes a big quantity of diamonds out of the ground, and De Beers are also working again. Before the diggers are systematically pushed into the background, I want to make an appeal to the House once again and to the Government not to squeeze the diggers out of existence. I shall advance another good reason. A great portion of the wives of soldiers up North and elsewhere are living on the diggings today. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) said the other day that the Government was already engaged in demobilisation. The Government is today at its wits’ end. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said that even today returned soldiers are walking the streets, not knowing what to do. If the Government intends systematically to squeeze the diggings out of existence, it will be depriving the returned soldiers of a haven. I hope that no such attempt will be made. Unfortunately it sometimes happens that people from elsewhere come to the diggings; they visit the diggings and then they find that the diggers do not live in brick houses but in galvanised iron buildings, and they get the impression that the diggers are a poor crowd. The diggers cannot build large brick houses. We already have this difficulty at Bloemhof, where the diggings were de-proclaimed. Today the houses of these people are situated on the land of the town council. I do not know what the result will be. I hope the Minister will find some solution. It would seem that he is sympathetically disposed towards these people. I hope he will do whatever he can. On the diggings it is necessary for the people to have small houses which can easily be shifted from one place to another. They cannot therefore build brick houses. On the other hand, there are large numbers of people on the diggings in receipt of pensions, £4 or £5 per month. It is impossible for the digger to take up residence with his wife and children in a town. They go to the diggings because it is cheap to live there; they live in a galvanised iron building, and live on the few pounds which they receive from the State. They live in buildings of a poor quality, and one gains the impression that the diggings are a miserable place. I want to say this to the Minister, however, that if he wants to wipe out the diggings systematically, the only alternative for these people will be to go to the slums, and there they will not be able to lead anything like decent lives. Many of these people live there because they have no alternative. They live in these small houses because necessity compels them to do so. I therefore make an appeal to the Government to protect the professional diggers. They are entitled to make a living. The Minister himself says that they are an asset to the State. I have tried to rebut the accusations which are continually being levelled against the diggers. It is frequently said, too, that the people who live there are a lot of rogues. In 1926, with the proclamation of the large diggings at Lichtenburg, it was not only people from our country who flocked there, but even people from overseas tried to seek their fortunes there. Naturally, it was not only the decent type of person who went there. Gaol birds from elsewhere also settled there. The police had to take action, because certain things took place which could not be allowed, and in this way the diggers got a bad name. But the professional digger, the original digger, is not a bad individual. I do not want to detain the House any longer. I just want to put the case of the diggers. The alluvial diggers represent that section of the population which must today carry a certificate to prove that there was no conviction against them. In the city slums the crooks congregate; on the diggings that is not possible. There one still finds some of the best citizens of our nation. I hope that those accusations against the diggers have once and for all been rebutted, and that the Government will do everything in its power to help that section of the population.

As the representative of a mealie producing district, I want to adhere to the adage, “Cobbler, stick to your last”, and I want to confine myself exclusively to matters affecting the mealie farmers. With regard to the deciduous fruit industry and the difficulties experienced by the wheat farmers, those have been put before the Minister, and the representatives of those interests launched attacks on the Minister of Agriculture. As far as I am concerned, I want to express my appreciation to the present Minister of Agriculture for the sympathetic and capable manner in which he has dealt with matters concerning the mealie farmers. The present Minister of Agriculture is the first and the only Minister up to the present who has fixed and stabilised the price of mealies from time to time, so that the mealie farmers are able to make a living out of mealies, and he did so with due regard to the cost of production, the increased costs of implements, artificial manure, grain bags, the increased transportation costs, and also having due regard to the most important factor, namely the production per morgen. I shall return to that later. To prove the sympathetic attitude on the part of the Minister of Agriculture towards the mealie farmers, I just want to remind hon. members what happened in this House last year. A plea was then made to the Minister to increase the price of mealies from 12s. 6d. to 15s., and the Minister then announced that he had already fixed the price at 16s. That proves that he took into consideration all the factors and so stabilised the price that the mealie farmer was able to make a living. If the Minister continues along the course which he has taken, I have no doubt that he will rehabilitate the mealie farmers in the near future and restore their independence. We realise that there are many difficulties and problems in the agricultural sphere, but we also realise that the Minister of Agriculture inherited the majority of these difficulties and problems from a previous Minister of Agriculture, and that the damage was done long before his time. The damage was done in the years 1929 to 1933 and especially 1934, and the present Minister had to inherit the confusion which was created at that time. In those years the mealie farmers had to sell their mealies at 4s. 6d. per bag. Just imagine, 4s. 6d. for a bag of beautiful white No. 2 mealies. I can give you the assurance that it barely covered 60 per cent. of the mealie farmer’s costs of production, and the remaining 40 per cent. had to be made good out of capital. The mealie farmers had to eat into their capital. For how long could they do it? There were some of them, of course, who could carry on for years, but the majority of them were unable to continue. At that time we had a Minister of Agriculture who was not concerned in the least whether or not the farmer received a good price. As a result of that the farmer of those days got an inferiority complex. A mealie farmer was ashamed to say that he was a mealie farmer when he met strangers, because the mealie farmers were in a sorry plight and became a burden and a nuisance to the State. In the eyes of many people they could not justify their existence. They no longer had any inclination to produce mealies, because they produced at a loss. But what could they do? I shall tell you what they did. They went from one meeting to the other and from one mealie conference to the other. The then Minister of Agriculture was invited to attend these conferences. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) will remember the conferences at Klerksdorp and Kroonstad and what happened there. Nothing happened there. The Minister relied on one magic word at the time, and whenever he got to the conferences and did not see his way clear to do anything for the mealie farmers, he used the one magic word, “Overproduction,” and that was the end of it. The mealie farmers suffered and perished of misery. They called for help, but not a finger was lifted to assist them. Many of them were only offered an opportunity of earning their bread with pick and shovel and by the sweat of their brow. The meetings did not help them at all. The Minister relied on that magic word only. We were served this magic word for breakfast; we got it for lunch and for supper, and at night we had to sleep with it, so that we got nightmares. Today it is said that our present Minister of Agriculture is dejected and helpless. That is an encouraging sign to us, because it shows that he is concerning himself with our difficulties and problems. The previous Minister of Agriculture was never dejected and helpless. He had a good time. But who were then dejected and helpless? The mealie farmers. We do not mind our Minister of Agriculture being despondent and helpless occasionally, because we understand that he inherited the confusion from a former Minister, and today he has to clear it up, and it must give him many headaches. I just want to come back to the factor of yield per morgen, and I should like to bring a few specific details to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture, because he will need them in fixing the prices of mealies. For the sake of argument, let us take the example of a farmer who ploughed and tilled and planted mealies on 100 morgen. He tills the land thoroughly, and if the climatic conditions are slightly favourable, he relies on getting 1,000 bags out of 100 morgen. But then the drought sets in and the climatic conditions, over which the farmer has no control, are unfavourable, with the result that the farmer does not reap 1,000 bags, but perhaps only 50 bags or even less. In that case it must be clear to everyone that his costs of production per bag of mealies have nearly doubled. It must be clear to everyone that that is the biggest factor when one comes to the stabilisation of mealie prices. There is just one further point I want to mention. During a previous debate I heard hon. members say that it would not have been necessary for the Government to vote an amount for relief amongst natives if the mealie prices had not been so high. In this connection I want to sound a serious warning, because it seems to me that hon. members are of opinion that mealie prices should be on a much lower basis, so that they will be within the purchasing power of the natives. I want to say here that if any hon. member has such hopes, he is making a very great mistake, because we mealie farmers will definitely refuse to produce cheap mealies for the natives. The mealie farmers will refuse to go back to the days when they were on the verge of ruin, and they will not again produce mealies to their own detriment. Where does the fairness of it come in? If it is the finding of the Government that there must be relief for the natives, why must the burden be shifted on the agricultural community? How can you expect the mealie farmers to carry the burden? I refuse to admit that that is fair. If there must be relief, let the State grant that relief, and let the taxpayers and the whole community bear the burden. Do not attempt to shift the onus on the mealie farmers.

I am grateful of the opportunity to also say a few words in this House. Much has already been said on the question of internees, but I do not think we can ever say enough on this subject as it is a matter which affects us very deeply when we think of those people of our own blood in these camps who are suffering the greatest discomfort and privation. I therefore feel that whenever we have an opportunity of doing so it is our duty to approach the Government and ask them for assistance to release these internees from the camps. The families of these people are suffering great hardships as a result of their condition; their position is getting worse and worse, so much so that great bitterness and unpleasantness is being created which will make itself felt in days to come. These people will never forget their treatment. We therefore respectfully ask the Government not to keep these men and women who are in the camps today any longer in this state of banishment, but to release them. There are a few other matters which I want to submit to the Government. We find that millions of pounds are being spent on the war at a time when the farmers are in great trouble. I was surprised to hear one of the previous speakers say that the Minister had treated the farmers well by giving them 16s. per bag of mealies. I can assure hon. members that the farmers in my area are highly dissatisfied. They expect more. The costs of production are very much higher than they use to be, and they say that they cannot come out on 16s. We want the Minister to meet the position of the farmers—we not only want them to assist the grain farmers but also the cattle farmers. The grain farmers in my neighbourhood are passing through difficult times. Implements, the things they need on their farms, are so expensive that a small farmer cannot afford to buy a decent plough or harrow which he needs to cultivate his lands. The price have gone up by more than 50 per cent. If the Minister is really sympathetically disposed towards the farmers he would do something. The war has been going on for a number of years, and this really was the opportunity for the farmers to rehabilitate, themselves. The other side of the House is telling us that the war has already been won. If that is so and the end of the war is near, we should make the necessary provisions to enable the farmers to carry on under normal conditions. I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture in his seat. We expect him to intervene and try to put matters right for us. I am not merely speaking of the farmer who himself will benefit from this, but I am also speaking of the consumers. The farmers and the consumers must be brought closer to each other, and they must cooperate. We have before us the example of the Tobacco Co-operative Society and the Wine Growers Association. Those people are contented and happy today because they know what they are working for. The other farmers who are producing commodities, and the cattle farmers, are in a state of uncertainty. In other countries the farmer who fattens his stock for the market knows that he is going to get so much per 1,000 lbs. weight. He knows he is going to get so much for an ox weighing 800 lbs. and so much for an ox weighing 1,000 lbs. but in this country we do not know how much we are going to get, we are dependent on the middleman. He offers us any price he likes—he offers us a price which he thinks we should get. And the same thing applies in regard to sheep and pigs. It is impossible to go on like this, and that is why we expect the Government to make an effort to do something to enable us to carry on on a proper basis. I also want to tell the Minister that the farmers on the platteland have to put up with many discomforts on account of the scarcity of houses. The housing scheme which we had was a very good one. Many poor farmers who had no homes at all were given the opportunity of living in a house again; but the war has put an end to all that, and there are large numbers of farmers today who have no housing accommodation for their families. In the past company lands were made available for the farmers and the farmers were allowed to live there. The small farmer and the poor farmer went to those company lands, settled there with a certain amount of stock and cattle; he had to pay £6 per head for each of his cattle, and he managed to carry on his farming operations there, but now the Government has bought up that land. I am not saying that the Government did the wrong thing in buying that land, but the trouble is that the farmers now have no place to go to. Today they are on one bit of land and tomorrow they are on another bit. They are forced to roam all over. When they apply for a bit of land they find that they cannot get it because the land is held up for returned soldiers. I think the Government should make some arrangement in order to give these people an opportunity. A man must have a bit of ground. He cannot continue roaming about in the way he does today. Let the Minister try to bring about some change in the policy that is followed at the moment. In the Bush Veld there is a lot of land which is still uninhabited—land that has no water. Let the Government arrange some scheme, to accommodate the large numbers of people today who are roaming about the country.In our districts we are also experiencing difficulties in regard to water bores. Marico is a very large district and I am sure the Government must be aware of the fact that there is only one water boring machine in the whole district. I have made representations to the Irrigation Department in Pretoria and I was told that the Department had no bores available to send to Marico. I understand that the Minister of Lands has now told the House that he has the boring machinery, but that he has not got the necessary staff to do the work. I can assure the Minister that in my district there are men who understand these water bores, and know how to work them. All he has to do is to appeal to them, and in all probability he will get more men than he needs. We require these water boring machines in Marico. We thank Heaven for the magnificent rains we have had—if we had not had these rains the position would have been very serious. But I am not speaking of today only, I am speaking of conditions generally, and I say that the Minister should step in and see to it that we have more water bores operating in the district. The people are very anxious to use these machines. Today they approach the Magistrate and the Magistrate tells them to make application. But the people say: “What’s the use of making application for a water bore if there is only one boring machine in the district, and that bore is only used for school grounds and such places.” All these things handicap us in our farming operations. Until a few years ago we had our soil erosion schemes, and those schemes were carried out most excellently in the interests of the country. I feel that the country is today suffering severe losses owing to the Government having put a stop to that scheme. There are small farmers who have nice pieces of ground, but they are unable to work their land because they have no labour and they have not got the capital required to undertake the work. These people have inherited the land from their parents; they want to live there and they are not keen on taking up a bond, but they have not got the capital to develop the land. I myself have visited some of these places, and I have found that the owners are quite prepared to do all the work so long as they can be assisted with draft stock and the necessary implements to construct dams on proper sites. I should like the Government to again give us those opportunities and I should like the Government to assist these people in the construction of dams, and also to assist them towards eliminating the soil erosion which is going on on our farms today. We know that with the great floods we are having today, the water is washing everything away, and we know that the water is not being stored. Our land is a national asset and requires protection. I appeal to the Minister to see to it that these small farmers are assisted, and that the erosion schemes are restarted. So far we have spent nearly £300,000,000 on the war—why cannot we spend £100,000,000 to cope with this serious menace and safeguard the heritage of Afrikanerdom. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that it is the wish of the people in my area —and I am sure it is the wish of this House and of the whole country—that the Government should take steps to restart soil erosion works on the same basis as they were carrying on before the war. There is another matter I also want to bring to the notice of the Government, and that is our position in regard to labour. The Minister of Labour stated yesterday that native labour was streaming in across the borders everywhere, and that the position was becoming so serious that it would have to be controlled. I should like to ask the Minister how it is that we are unable to get any labour? Why are the people who are drifting in not allowed to work for us, because the position is that we, the farmers, are to all intents and purposes prevented from employing them. These natives who drift into the country are mostly young natives coming into the country from Rhodesia and the Protectorate, and when they cross the border the law prevents the farmer from engaging them. They are mostly young men, as I have said, and they have no passes, and we cannot employ them unless we have the consent of the father, the guardian or the chief. Four, five or six of them will come to a farm looking for work, but we are not allowed to hire them. I discussed this matter with the magistrate some time ago and he told me that under the provisions of the law we were not allowed to hire them. He said that they must have a pass. Well, we have this position, these people come to a farm and the farmer needs labour. He hires them; the parents then find out that he has done so, and the man is taken to court and has to answer a charge. I do not know how long that Act has been in force, but so far we have always hired these people and they have stayed with us for months and years, and that is the way we have always solved our labour problem. Now we are not allowed to do so, and as things are going now I can assure the House that farming in my area is deteriorating very rapidly. I know of one very competent farmer who told me the other day that he had no labour at all. He has 200 cows which have to be milked. He managed to get three Italians but they know nothing at all about cows. I therefore ask the Government to do its best to come to our assistance in regard to labour, and I want to ask the Minister of Native Affairs to allow us to employ those people who come to us for work. They come from across the borders, and we should be allowed to hire them. We pay them a wage, and the parents can get the money from them. We feel we are being seriously restricted if we are not allowed to hire them as we did in the past, and all these are things which handicap us in our farming. Well, I expect the Government, which is so proud of the victory it scored in the recent elections, will show itself prepared to do something for the farmers. We are very anxious to have something done in this respect; we are only putting up this plea because we are in real trouble in regard to labour—our labour position today is very precarious. We need help, and if we do not get it we shall have to give up farming. I am very glad to have had the opportunity of saying these few words, and I again want to appeal to the Minister and ask him to release those people whom he has interned. I was told the other day that one of the criminals released by the Minister a little while ago told another man, “This is a good Government”. When his friend asked him “Why”? the reply was “He catch me and put me in die tronk, and now he give me a chance to get another dop”. Let the Government give us the chance, too, of saying that we have a good Government and that it has come to our assistance in all these troubles and tribulations which we have to contend with, and that it has met the requests we have made to it.

Speaking as a man who makes his voice heard in this House for the first time I also wish to raise a few points. We hear a lot of talk here about new members—I do not think there is any need to talk about new members because all of us are new members. Before dealing with the few points which I wish to raise I wish to associate myself with the hon. member who has uttered a word of warning, namely that we are no longer going to tolerate all this strife and quarrelling, and all these interjections; we are not going to tolerate interjections such as those by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) while the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) was speaking. Our voters dislike these things most intensely. I am not going to say much about that, but we on this side want to hold out our hand to the Opposition, and if they are prepared to accept our hand of friendship, very well, but if not we are going to do the very same thing to them as we did on the 7th July. Now I want to say a few words about these estimates. I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice the position of that section of the members of the Department of Justice who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the country—I refer to the police. If ever we have had people in this country who should be praised, it is the police. If we see the conditions under which those people have to maintain law and order we can only express surprise at the way they succeed in doing so. I should like to mention some particular instances and if Mr. Speaker wants me to do so I can mention the name of the particular policeman concerned. We find for instance that a policeman who is responsible for the native population of 54,000—in addition to the number of Europeans living in the area—has to act as public prosecutor in addition to carrying on his ordinary duties, and in addition the court house is two miles away from his office. In spite of that he has done his duty well, so well that he deserves praise for the way he has done it. We know that we get similar instances near the Witwatersrand. And then we find that these people doing all that work have to use bicycles. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether there is no possibility of supplying those people with better means of transport. Cannot the police service be made more attractive so that more young men will be willing to join that service? I hope the Minister will take notice of my remark so that we may see some improvement in future. I also want to say a few words to the Minister of Agriculture on the subject of stock inspectors. Our stock inspectors have to cover a very large area and their pay is very small. They have to make great sacrifices in order to do their work in these far flung areas in this country; they are not only stock inspectors but all kinds of other work is put on to their shoulders. They are practically speaking responsible for their own transport because the allowances they get for means of transport are very poor. I therefore want to bring their position to the notice of the Minister, and I want to ask him to see whether something cannot be done to make their position easier. I want to say now, and I think the whole country feels it, that in regard to the Oudstryders we are greatly indebted to the present Minister of Finance. No man has done as much as he has done for the Oudstryders. Many elections have been fought in which the Oudstryders have been used as an issue, and many a member of Parliament has been elected on the issue of “assistance to the Oudstryders,” but nothing was done to help these people until the present Minister of Finance took the steps which he took last session. On behalf of the Oudstryders I want to thank the Minister. Even if they only got a few shillings it shows that there is at least some recognition of the acts performed by these men. We trust the Minister will see his way clear to do a little more for the Oudstryders, because they need help very badly. Now, I want to touch on another subject. When we go to the platteland we only find old people there. All the young people have gone to the towns. The young generation—and I am proud of the fact—is today almost entirely in the service of the State. I have asked numbers of those people why they do not set up housekeeping so that they can help in building up the population of the country. The reply I got from one official was that the cheque he got for his work was not sufficient to enable him to set up a home. He showed me his cheque. I cannot say exactly how much it was but it was between £12 and £15. I therefore want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to do something for the second grade clerks. Why are these young fellows in these posts if we cannot encourage them to set up homes? If we don’t give them some encouragement we may be faced with a serious position in days to come. What struck me particularly a little while ago was to hear that the postmaster—man or woman—every month had to pay out large amounts of money in pensions, allowances and all the rest of it— I know of cases where officials had to pay out as much as £3,000 per month, and then I learned that the person bearing all that responsibility was earning £9 or £10 per month. Surely that’s wrong. Surely better provision should be made for those people. With the developments that are taking place in these days I want to ask the Minister to do something for that section of the people. I think it is absolutely wrong to pay those people these meagre salaries. Let me tell hon. members what goes on in these post offices. One finds rows of people standing there waiting to be paid out; the postmaster has to look after the telephone exchange; he has to keep running up and down to attend to all sorts of things. If I ring up and he does not put me through quickly enough I get annoyed because I am in a hurry. I hope all these things will be considered by the Minister. I also want to express my thanks to the Minister of Justice. In spite of the fact that the people in the Bronkhorstspruit area caused such a lot of trouble, the Minister has informed me that he has proclaimed Bronkhorstspruit as a magisterial district. That is a great step forward for that part of the country, and I hope the people there will appreciate it, and I want to thank the Minister on their behalf. Now that the Minister of Railways is here I want, as the representative of the Pretoria District, to thank him for the development which has been created there. Some time ago I had the honour of taking part in a ceremony in connection with the laying of a corner stone for the Railway Institute at Kaalfontein; the whole country expects great developments there and looks forward to great progress being made there for the benefit of the rising generation. On behalf of Pretoria District I want to thank the Minister for the honour he has conferred upon us. I do not like interfering in matters of this kind, but seeing that almost every member of the Opposition has spoken about internment I feel I should also say a few words on this subject. Not a single Opposition member who addressed the House today has not spoken about internment. I don’t know whether they have ever done anything for internees but those people are flesh of my flesh and blood of my blood, and I con sider it my duty to do something for them, and I have always done so. I have come to this conclusion, that the allegations that these people have been wrongly interned without rhyme or reason are devoid of truth, and that an enquiry will show that it is the case. I have often been told that these people have been innocently locked up, and that there are no charges against them, but whenever I have taken the relations of these people to the Government officials and whenever their case has been enquired into, it has been found that these people are not so innocent and they have not been interned without reasons. Hon. members have also stated that a number of these men have been released but that on being released they have been unable to get their former jobs back. I deny that. The people who are released from the internment camp get their old work back again. They still talk German and they still sing German songs, but they get their jobs back. No, the impression is created in my mind that some hon. members come here and make a fuss merely in order to get publicity in the papers to show that they have got so many things out of the Minister and that the Minister had admitted this or that. No, we must come here with concrete facts. I would also be very pleased if we could do away with internment camps, but let hon. members cast their minds back and see what happened at the start. Whenever I went to my post box I got a whole heap of anonymous letters in which I was told to look out for this or that. Well, I don’t scare easily. When I was thirteen years of age I was in the field defending my republic. I hope the internment camps will eventually be abolished, but hon. members opposite should not say that the people in the internment camps have been put there without rhyme or reason. I accept what the Opposition said here today, that they are opposed to sabotage, but let them be honest and frank about it. When certain people refused to give evidence in court—who were the people who applauded them? Who were the people who came and cheered them at the magistrate’s court, and who were the people who, when the acused were discharged, welcomed them with the Vierkleur? Let my hon. friends put their hands up and say: “We are not guilty”. No, we cannot carry on in that way; we have very definitely had instances in this country where the authorities have had to take action in order to prevent serious trouble. There was a time when a man could not safely go as far as his kraals, or as far as the post office—one could not safely carry on one’s business. No, it’s no use making a big song about these people, we know that the Minister is sympathetically disposed and that he will do his best. I therefore want to ask again that hon. members, especially the hon. member for Waterberg, should show some respect for other members, and I want to ask members not to raise matters here with the sole purpose of the public outside hearing what they have to say.

Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House Control Boards have been very much under discussion and especially during this debate. I should like to speak about the Board with which I have been closely associated for two or three years; I am referring to the Livestock and Meat Industry Control Board. I am afraid that most of the troubles arising from control in this country have arisen because control has been too one sided. It has been said on more than one occasion that we must bring the producer and the consumer nearer together. That is all very well but how are you going to bring them together and what are you going to put in the place of the middleman? The farmer cannot be on his farm producing, and in the town distributing at the same time, and I am afraid that this gap between the producer and the consumer has been the cause of the collapse of control. Let us go back for a few minutes to the history of control, and especially the Board which I have referred to. This Board originated I think during the days of the slump in 1932 when the present member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) held the Portfolio of Agriculture. As a result of that terrible slump a commission of investigation toured the country sitting under the late Secretary for Agriculture. The idea was to regulate the supply of cattle coming into the market and so give some protection to the producer. What happened? Prior to the Board being formed I had the privilege of giving evidence to the commission of enquiry and as a result of the evidence which was then given at the various intervals the Control Board came into being. We really all thought then that we were going to be in for a rather better time than we had had during the previous years, but when the constitution of the board was made known to us it was realised that our hopes were doomed to disappointment. I think I am correct in saying that the constitution of the Board was fourteen members, thirteen representing producers and other organisations, and one representing the meat trade. One can realise the lack of balance in a body constituted in such a way. The one meat trade representative on that Board had to represent a community which distributed all that the others produced. I say it is due to the unbalanced constitution of this Board that things have gone the way they have. No doubt they were well meaning in their efforts. Now they decided to reduce the surplus stock in the country by export. No doubt a very audible idea. And it was also decided that the market to be selected was the Smithfield Market in London, the most critical market in the world. And it was a market which was definitely not hungry, it did not require South African beef because it was getting ample supplies from other sources. However, arrangements were made that beef should be sent to the Smithfield Market. This was followed by many of the officials of the Departments of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry going round the country and selecting the best that we had, the very best. This was exported as I say to a market which was not hungry in those days, and in consequence a very heavy subsidy had to be paid for what should have been consumed in this country. I am not in agreement with the principle of exporting anything that should be consumed by the public of South Africa. I say that the producer is entitled to a profit on what he produces, and if he produces the best let him be paid the best price. And I would say that the man who is producing, feeding and breeding solely for beef is the man who should receive the best compensation. But the trouble has been that people in other countries have had the privilege of consuming that good beef, whereas we have to pay the price for stuff that is old and should have been in the abattoirs twelve to fourteen years previously. I say that the abuse has up to the present time always been hurled at the distributor, and reverting to the meat trade, dealing as it does with a highly perishable commodity, a commodity which is more difficult to handle than any other perishable commodity, you have contained in a carcase of beef the multifarious joints used for multifarious purposes, and the butcher who knows his trade formulates a price list that will create a demand for all parts of the animal. In the past the disgruntled housewife or several disgruntled housewives have written to the Press—one sees their letters in the Press from time to time, usually under heading of “Pro bono publico,” “Poor Housewife,” “Mother of Seven,” and so on, and when they have written they have always attacked the meat trade, and in doing so they have always quoted the top prices charged. In consequence the trade have been looked upon rather adversely, or at any rate with suspicion, but the reason why top prices were charged for certain parts of the carcase was not to create a demand but to put people off them and create a demand for all parts of the carcase at a reasonable price. Well, Sir, I do hope that the Minister in charge of that department will give this House the assurance that there will be an improvement in the personnel of that Board, so that the meat trade, which represents the distributors and all the producers, will have an opportunity, not of arguing with them but of advising them. I hope that will be given consideration. Now to digress from that rather tough subject.…

Like the meat.

I should like to do something, possibly a little unusual in this House, and that is to thank the Minister of Transport for his promise made to East London in respect of certain improvements. We have for long years been pressing and pressing hard for a new station. Now that new station has been promised to us, and all I ask is, when is that promise likely to be given effect to? The Minister may tell me that I should know something about this, having been on the committee that has been negotiating about this matter, but I do want to ask the Minister to expedite this whole business. East London is a very important town—and I stress the word “very”—and I say that our station is a disgrace. Another question I wish to ask is whether there is any possibility of the return of the 50 ton crane which was removed from the harbour.

I think that subject can be better discussed on the Railway Part Appropriation Bill.

Very well, sir, then I shall leave it at that, and hope that what I am asking for will be given effect to. I shall come back to it at the appropriate time.

No doubt, Mr. Speaker, this will be the first and last time I shall have the privilege of addressing this House without undue interruption. I propose to make the most of my opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I speak as a discharged soldier of the war. It is an honour and a privilege, therefore, to speak in the interests of our men and women who form the basis and foundation on which this country will be built in the future. Feeling, as I do, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will pardon me if I speak with some degree of passion. I must, Mr. Speaker, at the outset make my position clear in this House. I will oppose any measure which, in my opinion, does not meet the legitimate needs of our serving men and women. I do not wish you, Mr. Speaker, to infer from these remarks that I will not collaborate with the ministry concerned, or that I will not actively assist those persons charged with the difficult and arduous task of resettling our men and women. I say resettling, Mr. Speaker, because our men do not want to be rehabilitated. On the contrary, I will do everything in my power to assist the authorities. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to waste the time of this House by indulging in platitudes and idle statements carrying no substance. All members are agreed that our men and women should be awarded their just rewards. I shall not, therefore, preach to the converted. Mr. Speaker, the soldier, what he stands for and what he has accomplished should not be regarded as a political problem. It is a national problem and should be placed well beyond the scope of petty party politics. A great responsibility, therefore, rests upon the House. I propose to confine myself to essentials, and I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that unless certain fundamental principles are observed, the finely-laid schemes of the Government relating to demobilisation, will fail. Firstly, there is the public’s responsibility, and the rôle the civilian must play when our demobilisation machinery gets under way. There is that duty an employer owes to the soldier, the man who has been away for years and who returns to an atmosphere strange and unsympathetic. The public must assume a great responsibility, and education, the lack of which is the root cause of so many of our problems, will have to be exploited in the interests of our returning men and women. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there is the soldier’s rôle and the part he must play on demobilisation. Everybody will, on the declaration of peace, look into the future in terms of peace. That is a natural consequence. The soldier in particular will want to resume his normal life, at the earliest possible moment. But it should be impressed upon him that the maximum amount of patience must be exercised so as to avoid congestion and a collapse of the whole demobilisation plan. This must be done now and through the medium of our information and welfare officers in the army. Here are two vital principles, Mr. Speaker, the observance of which will go a long way to ensure success for the Government’s plans. There is also a high degree of responsibility resting on the shoulders of senior officers in executive positions in the army. Failure to remain at their posts on demobilisation will gravely affect the whole situation and prejudice government property and assets. Another vital point, Mr. Speaker, is the subject of priority on demobilisation; that is to say a man who has served for three years should most certainly be given priority over the man who has served so many months. I come now, Mr. Speaker, to our dispersal depots, which I maintain should be adequately equipped to cater for the many hundreds of men who may find themselves placed there for some considerable time. There should, in my opinion, be centres where men can avail themselves of study, recreation, lectures, physical training, etc. In short, Mr. Speaker, our dispersal depots should be raised to a higher level and function, in effect, as a channel through which our men and women can secure some measure of mental rehabilitation. Rehabilitation in this sense is applicable. A great deal, Mr. Speaker, has been heard and written about co-ordination. After all, Mr. Speaker, in a business all departments are housed under one roof for effective control and administration. This principle should be applied with vigour in carrying out the principle of co-ordination as it effects the soldier ready for discharge from the army. In my opinion, all organisations such as social welfare, the Labour departments, etc., should be housed under one roof, thus making it necessary for a soldier to pass through one channel only. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, individual personal attention by sympathetic people and by men who know how to handle them is a vital principle in the handling of our men and women. I believe that the Union should be mapped out into regions with a central organisation in each of the main centres. The Western Province would, for example, have Cape Town; Port Elizabeth for the Eastern Province, and so on. Each region would be self-contained and have in its main centre its own central organisation. In the rural areas we should establish strong voluntary committees, such committees to maintain the closest possible liaison with the central organisations, so that all forms of employment and work available can be assessed throughout the region and be made instantly available to the central organisation. In this manner the central organisation will know the exact position at any given moment, and men seeking employment can be advised immediately of what employment is available in the areas from which they originally came. Mr. Speaker, I come now to another very important point, and that is the temporary employee, the man who has taken the place of the man on active service. There is another temporary employee, and that is the home-front worker. It should be recognised, Mr. Speaker, that many factories will be closed down at the end of the war. That means that we shall have more men on our hands. Another temporary employee exists in the form of many returned soldiers who are today filling temporary positions. They, too, will require settled and permanent employment. The central organisations which I suggest should be established, should become provincial institutions to take the place of our out-of-date labour exchanges. Run as a proper business with ex-North personnel with responsible positions, the central organisations must succeed. Concerning the home-front worker, I must pay him a warm tribute. There are many men who because of the important work they are doing, are precluded from going on active service. That service must be recognised and appreciated. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will not weary this House. I commend these thoughts to the House. Time does not permit a detailed survey of each vital point. I repeat that I shall do whatever I can to assist the responsible ministry. I shall adopt the principle that before endeavouring to destroy a plan we should think of a better one to take its place. Our men and women do not want the moon and stars; they want only a fair and reasonable chance of becoming fit members of society, and of justifying themselves in the future. This House has the power of ensuring that those hopes are realised. We must not fail in our duty.

I am glad to hear from the Minister that there are prospects of our getting more fertilisers this year. I think every mealie farmer will rejoice at this news because last season there was a great shortage of fertilisers. In passing I want to say that I associate myself with those who have expressed the hope that the mealie price will be fixed on a higher basis this year because the farmer’s production has gone down owing to the fact that he was not able to get all the fertiliser he required. I don’t propose, however, saying any more on this subject; we shall have a further opportunity at some later stage. I do want to say a few words, however, on the question of the allocation of fertiliser. Fertilisers were rationed and the basis for the allocation was the quantity of fertiliser which a farmer had received in the previous three years. His ration was based on that. Now I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are parts of the country which since the outbreak of war have produced mealies on a larger scale than before the war, while there are also parts which have produced less than before the war, and which are producing more wheat. It is possible that a number of people who are getting a lot of fertiliser are producing very little mealies now-a-days, while others who are producing a lot of mealies, in comparison with what they got before the war, are only getting very little fertiliser. In my part of the country the production of mealies has increased very greatly, but the people are getting very little fertiliser. I hope the Minister will take that point into consideration when fixing the quota. Now, there is another subject which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and that is the necessity for the extension of farm telephones. We notice that an amount of nearly £3,000 has been voted in respect of telephone lines. The position today is that people only get about 11 gallons of petrol as their basic ration. In my constituency there are many people who live from 20 to 30 miles and more from the nearest station, and there are very few farm telephones there. As a result they have to suffer serious inconvenience. Their children arrive at the stations; all kinds of goods are sent to them to particular stations, they have not got enough petrol to go to the stations to find out whether their fertiliser has arrived. Perhaps they have not got a farm telephone anywhere near them and they are in trouble. Last year we often found that fertiliser arrived late—we often found that fertiliser which should have been delivered in December only arrived in January, or so late in December that people could not do any sowing. And further delays ensued owing to the farmers not being able to find out when the fertiliser arrived at the station. I hope the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will take these points into consideration when he deals with the question of the extension of farm telephone lines. Let those areas which need telephones very badly have a larger quota. The farmer who gets 11 gallons of petrol is perhaps 20 miles or more away from the post office where he has to go to get his ration. It means that very little petrol is left. I also want to deal briefly with the system in force for the cartage of mealies. We as farmers greatly appreciated the introduction of the system under which mealies were carried by military lorries. Originally the mealies used to be carried by the farmers’ own lorries, by railway buses, or by private individuals who had lorries and would undertake the cartage of mealies. Those three channels were practically done away with as a result of war conditions. The farmers did not have many lorries left, they had little petrol, and they were short of tyres; the motor buses were not available last season and the lorries belonging to private individuals in many instances also stopped running last year. For those reasons we as producers were very glad to hear that military lorries were being provided, but I do want to say that we strongly disapprove of the way in which the scheme is being carried out. The position is this that a number of military lorries are concentrated at certain centres—afterwards, camps for Italians were also established there. Now, those military lorries first of all had to take the Italians out in the morning and bring them back in the evening. The lorries had to be back at 5 o’clock in the afternoon, and before 8 o’clock in the morning they had to take the Italians away. So between those hours they are not available to carry the farmer’s products. Owing to the shortage of labour the farmer is obliged, on the arrival of the military lorry, to load up the mealies himself with the aid of one or two undersized natives. The lorries are usually sent out in convoys of five—one white driver and four natives. The natives selected are the youngest and strongest men. Now the farmer is in this position, that he himself has to produce the mealies. His natives have been taken away, they have been put into uniform and they are getting big pay. Now they are being sent back to the farms to go and fetch the mealies on the lorries. The farmer himself has attended to his ploughing, he has driven his tractor, he has done the harrowing, in order to produce mealies. Those natives, with a lower scale of development, come along and are given a higher status than the man who has reached a high level of civilisation. The native in uniform is protected. He is a soldier of King George—as he says himself. One cannot touch them and one cannot compel them to assist the farmer to load his mealies. The farmer himself has to load up the mealies and these young strong natives sit on top of the bags and laugh at the farmers who are struggling to load up the mealies. This is a matter of great principle. Since time immemorial it has been a principle that the lowly developed native shall not be put over the white man. It was that sort of thing which led to Slagtersnek—it was the fact that the lowly developed native was given a higher status than he should have been given. Now we have this position and we know that it has already led to serious clashes. I want to protest against this. These natives sit there and while the farmers are working hard to get the mealies loaded, the natives jeer at the white men, and if the farmer says: “You kaffirs should not make those remarks,” the answer is: “Who are the kaffirs, not we; the kaffirs are the people walking behind your ploughs.” That is the sort of thing which is happening today. Would the mining magnates, the factory owners or the owners of shops tolerate such a condition of affairs? The position is really serious and I want to protest against it. That is not all; I can give hon. members the assurance that the production of mealies and wheat is greatly affected by the shortage of farm labour. In my constituency a great many ploughs stood still this last season. I further want to say that serious injustices have been committed in connection with the cartage of the mealies. It used to be the custom for the farmer to hand in his name to the stationmaster and the mealies were despatched in order of the names handed in. Now, a change has suddenly been made, and the farmers find that their names are no longer on the list, that new regulations and new lists have been framed, because the whole position has now been handed over to the military authorities, with the result that those farmers who took the first steps to provide for the cartage of their mealies now find themselves last on the list. Hon. members will realise that in those circumstances those military lorries transport very little mealies, because at 5 o’clock every afternoon the Italians have to be back in camp. I can assure the House that in my constituency there have never before been so many lorries to transport mealies as there are today, yet never before have so many bags of mealies had to lie and rot on the ground. I notice that the Minister of Social Welfare in November last year stated in Cape Town that 31,000 Europeans had already been discharged from the army. Could those soldiers not have been used as drivers on lorries instead of the natives? The natives could then have been used for the purpose for which they joined up, namely, for the war. Why should those natives be allowed to jeer at the farmers in the way they are doing? I want to protest most emphatically against this sort of thing. Some of the more astute farmers have found that the trouble lies in the management of the military camp, and they very soon also found out that if a fat sheep was sent to the camp every now and then they stood a better chance of getting their mealies moved. I can assure hon. members that more and more fat sheep are finding their way to the camps, and at one stage the camp had the appearance of a political braaivleisaand. The other forms of pay to the military authorities continued to rise, so that eventually it was found necessary to appoint a controller. Afterwards an arrangement was made to this effect, that if a man wanted his mealies moved he had to pay £1 extra for every 100 bags of mealies, but that £1 did not go to the Government, it went to the authorities concerned in the camp. If a man pays that amount of money, he stands a chance of getting his mealies moved after 5 o’clock. Unfortunately slaughter sheep are not controlled, but if a man was prepared to pay £1 per 100 bags one might still find that one’s neighbour continued to send fat sheep to the camp, and in spite of everything one’s mealies were not being moved. Well, the result has been that there has been endless trouble about this matter. Having experienced all these things, we come to the conclusion that if conditions in the Army up North are anything like the conditions in these camps, it is no wonder to us that Tobruk fell, nor are we surprised at the fact that Rome has not yet fallen. We hope the Minister will have a thorough enquiry made to put this trouble right. Not only have these irregularities been committed, but other things have also happened which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. It was about the 15th or 16th January when I got to the station and noticed that there were a large number of military lorries there. I approached the proper authorities and I asked them to send lorries to cart my wheat. What was the reply? “No, we cannot cart your wheat, our instructions are only to cart mealies”. Imagine! There is a military lorry there which has been sent for the purpose of carting mealies, but it is not allowed to cart any wheat. The farmers’ wheat lies and rots on the ground, but these people have received instructions only to cart mealies. We want to raise our voices in protest against organisations of this kind, and we do hope that a different system will be introduced next year and that better arrangements will be made. I can assure hon. members that if one quarter of the military lorries had been sold to the farmers to enable them to cart their own products, the farmers would not have suffered the losses they are suffering now. I know of one man who lives 19 miles away from a station; he has a very fine main road. Generally only one lorry used to make two trips per day over that road—the most those lorries ever carried was three lots of mealies in one day, whereas the farmer, if he himself had had a lorry, would have made seven or more trips, because he would not have stopped at 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Many of the farmers have asked to be allowed to buy lorries, but their requests have not been granted—their products have simply to lie and rot.

In view of the forthcoming budget, there are one or two matters in connection with our public finances that I think might well deserve the consideration of the House this afternoon. The White Paper which was presented to the House by the Social and Economic Planning Council early this week has raised very considerable discussion in the country in regard to the ability of the country to carry the load involved in that plan. I think it will be agreed that South Africa needs industrial and mining development on a big scale, and the finances to provide for that development must obviously come from industry itself. I am thinking now entirely in terms of the present economic system; and if under that system industries are to continue to be excessively taxed then they will not be able to build up the reserves for reconstruction—reserves so necessary to the part that industry must play in the post-war world. That raises the whole question of taxation. There is no doubt that the time has arrived when we must consider the simplification of our tax system. It has certainly become far too complicated. The result has been that it has led to a good deal of evasion, and to a great deal of speculative investment with the resultant accumulation of non-taxable profits. I trust that the Hon. the Minister of Finance has this matter well in hand. I should like to offer a few constructive suggestions in this regard. In the first place I think we might well consider amalgamating the Normal Tax and the Super Tax into one tax on income. Secondly, the Fixed Property Profits Tax might well go as it stands. It certainly has not reached its objective, nor has it been very effective in controlling inflationary values. I would suggest that instead of that, irrespective as to when the purchase of property may have taken place, either before or after the war, a flat rate of from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. be imposed on all sales. Then it is doubtful whether the present Personal Tax is worth while. Let us have a thorough-going savings tax, something that would involve compulsory saving from all incomes above a certain limit, paying to the saver an interest of 2 per cent. and allowing the savings to be redeemed in a period of five to ten years, I believe that a measure like that is absolutely necessary if we are really going to come to grips with the dangerous inflationary tendency in the country. And then, with regard to the Excess Profits Tax and the Trades Profits Levy, there is no doubt that for short periods, that is, in order to help finance the war, those taxes have been successful. But when we consider the approach to long-period planning, as involved in our reconstruction measures, then I think we might consider dropping them in a year’s time. Instead the Minister might consider increasing the estate and succession duties, in that way giving the community a greater share of community-created values. That method at least would not have the effect of slowing down enterprise. Above all it is very essential, that by our taxation policy we encourage investment in productive enterprises today, that we relate our taxation measures to the productive capacity of the country in order to stimulate it; for this country’s development depends largely on an increase in the share capital of the country. I want to make a suggestion here which may be novel to the House. It certainly is not novel to certain leaders of industry in this country and England and the United States. I want to suggest to the Minister—I do not suggest it could be applied in the forthcoming budget—but that in future budgets he consider having two budgets for the country: one for the ordinary standing expenditure of the country, this budget to be balanced annually, and its costs to be met out of the ordinary current revenue of the country; the other budget to be a special budget to meet the heavy capital and the extraordinary expenditure of reconstruction. I mean by that the housing costs, the health and the nutrition costs, the aids to industry and agriculture, and the costs involved in a public works programme. In regard to that also, when we come to our social insurance provisions, which we have already discussed briefly this week, the receipts from those in the form of savings from the people might well be accounted for in the same budget. The second special budget—it would mean three budgets in this country including the Railway Budget—this special budget would have to be covered to a very considerable amount by taxation; wholly in taxation in times of prosperity, but not so in times of depression; and therefore we should have to revise our ideas as to whether it is always advisable to plan for a balanced budget in our national finance. As I see the position, if we can establish such a special budget, we should have to meet the reconstruction costs in some way from special credits created in this country. After the war the national debt will be at least, I should think, £600,000,000; and if we estimate the servicing of that debt, using the average rate of 3¾ per cent. then the cost in interest will be something like £22,000,000. I submit that, in regard to the national debt of S.A. we have practically reached saturation point. Take also the case of the English public debt. When this war began that debt was roughly £8,000,000,000. When the last war terminated it was roughly £8,000,000,000 and between the two wars the interest on the national debt was just on £6,000,000,000. And if after the war the interest is, say, £30,000,000,000, that will involve the English taxpayer in an interest payment of at least £3,000,000 per day; and I am quite certain that the British taxpayer is not going to stand for a permanent burden of that size. The time has come when we shall have to face up to financing our public obligations by means of special credits, and I want to suggest here that we have adequate means to do so in the country. The hon. Minister uses this method today. He has access to several millions of pounds of public money at a low rate of interest, and I would suggest that we use our central bank to finance State expenditure. I am not suggesting that we nationalise the bank but that we use it on business principles and that we expect it to provide the credit at a managerial rate of say 1 to 1½ per cent., provided we undertake to liquidate the debt involved, by the establishment of a sinking fund, so that by such amortisation we get rid of the debt in a period of say, fifteen to twenty years. There would be very considerable advantages in this business-like management in the financing of reconstruction in that way through our central bank. It would in the first place establish the policy of cheap money in the country, and be a very effective measure in heading off depression after the war. The second advantage would be that it would involve no increase in the funded debt of the country. Thirdly, it would lessen the burden of taxation, and—this is the most important effect of it—it would be a very significant stimulant to our economy by making possible a policy of State expansionism controlled by a special reconstruction budget. This would ensure industrial and trade development and create a sustained market demand without which there cannot be prosperity, an increased national income, and full security in this country. No price, we are told, is too great for this country in order to win the war. We want the Government of this country to assure our people that, no matter the cost, that no price is too great, to win the peace and social security in a broad sense for the people. The approach to reconstruction is going to demand courage of this Parliament, experimentation, and above all faith in the potential productive capacity of our people. Before I sit down there is one other matter that I feel I must bring to the notice of the hon. Minister in view of communications I have had from Natal today. It is a matter in connection with native education. Hon. members will know that since Union the provinces have administered native education, and that some seven years ago a special inter-departmental commission was set up which recommended that native education be Union controlled. This question has again come to the front, and there are important considerations emerging out of the discussions, and I would like the hon. Minister, who, I know, has a dual personality in this respect—he is both Minister of Finance and Minister of Education, a somewhat unholy alliance—to give us an assurance as to what will be the policy of the Government in regard to the control of native education. Two points that arise and have been emphasised in the Natal Province, are, firstly, that the administration of native education be left as it is with the Provinces; the second is that the native child be the basis of a subsidy for native education to the Provinces. It is hoped that the Minister in charge of Native Affairs, and the Minister of Education, who is also the Minister of Finance, will indicate the policy of the State in this connection.

The attention of South Africa today is focussed on three major issues. The first one is the successful prosecution of the war to its logical conclusion, namely, victory for the Allies and for South Africa; secondly, adequate provision for our returned soldiers, and thirdly, post-war reconstruction. As regards the first my submission is that we can leave that part safely in the hands of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. By his masterly leadership he has saved South Africa—the honour of South Africa. In consultation with Allied leaders, and under his leadership, South Africa will be accorded a seat of honour at the Peace Conference. In regard to the second, there is a certain amount of anxiety today in the country as to what the lead of the Government will be on the question of provision for returned soldiers. The absence of any Statement on the part of the Government cannot be interpreted as inaction on the part of the Government, and let me say here that the soldier’s future lies with the United Party and with the present Government and not with the Opposition in South Africa. We have been pledged by our leader to that great task of looking after the men when they come back. I am convinced in my own mind that the present Government will meet all its obligations towards the returned soldier. But, Sir, I must stress the necessity of early action, the necessity of a statement as soon as is humanly possible, and might I add that such a statement will definitely accelerate the country’s war effort and increase the country’s contribution towards that great task, namely, finishing off this war. We are all anxious to help the hon. Minister concerned with this question. No doubt a number of schemes have been submitted to him for consideration. I could add my quota but I will do so when an appropriate opportunity arises. I just want to add that local authorities, many private enterprises have big schemes in mind. As regards the third point, that is the main thing today, namely, post-war reconstruction. Let me preface my remarks by saying that a serious attempt has been made in this House during the past few days to blame the present Government for all the economic ills which exist. Fortunately the country knows that when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister took over in 1939, the Government was confronted with one big task, namely to build up a war machinery and to clear out the Axis from Africa, and strangely enough, in spite of all these sneers, in spite of all the abuse to which we had to listen during the last few days, that same Government which is called a Commission Government and which is called by every name under the sun, completed three important tasks. In the first place the Government built up a war machine from nothing. In the second place, that Government was to a large extent responsible for knocking out one of the Axis powers, and thirdly South Africa was primarily responsible for preventing joint action in South African waters of the remaining powers, namely Germany and Japan. I submit that when the history of South Africa is written, posterity will have no reason to be ashamed of the part played by this country. On the contrary the contribution of this country towards the maintenance of Western civilisation will be afforded a chapter in golden letters in the history of the world. But the present Government was elected under the same leadership as the last Government. We still have that primary task to perform, but we also have other tasks to perform. We have problems to solve, problems which were left to this Government by the gentlemen on the Opposition benches, who are trying today to abuse the Government in its attempts to solve those problems. But the country knows that the Government is determined to solve the economic ills of this country. The problems in this country today are not racial or constitutional. The problems in South Africa are economic. People are not interested any more in academic discussions as to the form of government. The country should move. No, the people are interested in the economics of the future. A change has come about in the economic world. Allow me this afternoon to submit a slogan for the present Government, a slogan which only the United Party Government can live up to; a slogan which can only be fulfilled under the leadership of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister; a slogan which will catch the imagination of the South African people. It is “Away with Poverty.” South Africa has contributed an important share towards the destruction of Nazism and Fascism and South Africa should also be in the vanguard, in the front line in the war on poverty and social evils in this country. We in South Africa are at the half-way house between the West and the East, and we have vast resources at our disposal, resources which will be needed by the other nations of the world after this war. There is no reason whatever why this country cannot be a prosperous country and the world’s prosperity-base in the future. The problem of poverty and social evils which confront us are difficult ones and possibly need something in the nature of a social revolution, both in mind and action. Reconstruction after the last war failed, failed badly, because the then leaders could not adjust themselves to the big changes brought about by the war, changes which have been accelerated by faster communications, radio and the mechanisation of industry and agriculture. In South Africa poverty is a legacy of the South African war. From that war emerged a landless community without means and without opportunity to adapt themselves to the new conditions. Some of them remained in the country and eked out a poor existence; others drifted to the city; there to be confronted with the competition of the highly skilled and highly organised artisan class and the low paid native worker. In those years instead of helping these people they were neglected by the Government, the Provincial Council and the local authorities and they were exploited by political parties. In those days the production of surpluses at Budget time was more fascinating than the plight of the poor whites. Also the Trades Unions—and this is important—in the post-war period, the Trades Unions failed to adapt themselves to South African conditions. Instead of assisting they allowed the unskilled workers to drift about aimlessly unorganised and undisciplined instead of helping them to become absorbed in industry which could carry them: I say that the economic structure of the world has changed. The colossal figures which we have seen in the budgets of the democratic nations during this war have proved beyond doubt that money today is not the primary concern; what is the primary concern is the productive capacity of the people of the country. Every human effort has been organised in this war of destruction and surely it can be harnessed for constructive work in the war on social evils and on poverty. The question, today, is what is to be done to achieve that object? Here in this country we must have a Ministry of post war reconstruction with unlimited powers, so to speak, and the Government must be prepared to finance a long term plan with unorthodox financial methods. That is to say we must break away from the old methods which have always imposed heavy burdens of interest on the taxpayer. The first thing should be the building of homes which are badly wanted. Every local authority should be compelled to eliminate every slum within its boundaries, both European and non-European. While being compelled to do so it should also be given the necessary assistance to carry out that big task. In that direction alone practically the majority of your artisan class and a large percentage of your unskilled workers will be absorbed. Secondly, we can create a shipbuilding industry in South Africa. In spite of the recent report on shipping, South Africa will need an effective shipping service, allied to its existing railway, air and road services, particularly with a view to the new markets and trade expansion with neighbouring territories round the coast of Africa. Let me say at once we cannot successfully carry out any post-war planning if we aim at any policy of isolation. If isolation has been undesirable during the war period it will be still more undesirable in the post-war world as far as South Africa is concerned. We must encourage existing industries and accelerate the opening up of new industries. And I might add that while these industries are being built up it is of importance to maintain the gold production of the country. Then the tourist business should be encouraged to the utmost. Instead of touring America and other countries people should be encouraged to come to South Africa and enjoy its scenic beauties. The tourist business should mean £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 per annum to this country. There should be an extension of the number of public utility companies first of all for services of a national character and secondly for other services, which did not attract private enterprise. We want also the fullest development of the country’s mineral resources in the national interest. I come now to a matter which I hope will interest our farmers in this House, and that is the question of bringing the landless man to the manless land. In that connection it should be noted that we have large tracts of land in this country which are unproductive—something like 90,000,000 of morgen held for speculative purposes producing nothing whatever. These should be taxed and taxed very heavily until they are used for production. Our land could be made more productive and settlers should be given an opportunity to be taught farming before they start on their own at suitable centres of education. Industries dealing with farm produce should be developed in centrally situated in rural areas; there should be expert advice available to the farming community, as to the most economic crops and the best crops for particular districts; co-operative marketing to protect the farmer against the fluctuations which occur occasionally in this country; insurance against loss through droughts and pests and finally efficient distribution to the consumer. There are a number of other points such as the conservation of water supplies. I had the occasion recently to cross the Orange River. I found it in flood and drought conditions prevailing on each side. What a crazy world! If we were to build the necessary dams we could provide work, productive work, that must be our aim. The co-operation of the trade union organisation in South Africa should be sought to assist in absorbing those unskilled men in industry. They, I am sure, will be able to help the country in that respect in improving the economic conditions of the country. Last, but not least, is the question of increasing its productive capacity, the purchasing capacity and the income of the low income groups in South Africa—both European and Non-European. I think that during the present war the country has shown that when it has the purchasing power it is not necessary to look for a market for agricultural products. In outlining schemes of this nature, one of the first considerations is always finance. Many a scheme has been wrecked on that consideration. Many a national scheme has perished in the bottleneck of high finance. The trouble about the world and possibly about democracy and possibly about this country, is that instead of making finance the instrument of economic policy, we are inclined to make it our master. Let us handle finance so that it shall be our instrument in doing our work. Economics are changing. The curtain fell on economic theories in 1890. The curtain fell once more in 1920; the curtain fell for a third time on economic theories, in our recollection, on the 3rd September, 1939. We have entered a new era as far as economic organisation is concerned. Let us live up to that. Let us live within that new era. The country is looking to us to increase production. What support one will get in this House for the slogan of “eradication of poverty” one does not know, one does not know what support the country will extend to a campaign for the eradication and elimination of that great evil. And the final word is, let our slogan be “Farewell to poverty in South Africa.”

I want to revert to the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and I want to pause at that amendment for a little while because I am anxious to put another aspect of the amendment before the House. In ordinary times, and in normal circumstances, this amendment would be so self-evident and so self-explanatory that it would be unnecessary to discuss it. We simply ask in the amendment for certain people to be released because they have not yet been tried, and because no charge has been lodged against them. For that reason I say that all sides of the House should regard this amendment as unnecessary because surely it is unnecessary to request that people who have not yet been tried, and against whom no charge has been made, shall be released. But I feel that we must all agree that in abnormal times people are not normal in the way they think and that is the reason why we have to propose this amendment here today. History has proved that in times of war a nation—not even to speak of Governments—thinks abnormally. Let us study the expressions used by our responsible Ministers in this House. They will prove at once that during these past four years of war the Government has not been normal in the way its thoughts have run, but abnormal. Let me remind the House of the words of a man like the Prime Minister, even. He told us that he was going to wage this war “to the very gates of hell.” When an individual thinks normally he does not use such an expression. The other day the Minister of Lands was in this House, when complaints were voiced about the scarcity of water bores, and he replied that even if he had to send every one of his water boring machines up North he would do so in order to see the war through. Another instance of abnormal thinking. We have not the right to take everything away for the purpose of seeing the war through in some other part of the world. If we cast our minds back and study the histories of people who have conducted wars, we find that the self same people who in times of war were lauded up to the skies, disappeared from the scene when normal times returned, and that those who in wartime wanted to crucify them, became the leaders of the people when normal times returned. Let us take Great Britain as an instance. In the last war Lloyd George was the man who saw Great Britain through to victory. Ramsay MacDonald was the Leader of the Labour Party, which was in Opposition. In the days of war Lloyd George was the world’s great man, and Ramsay MacDonald during the war was not even allowed on the golf course in his home town, Edinburgh in Scotland. But what happened after the war? Ramsay MacDonald became the Prime Minister of Great Britain while Lloyd George was relegated to a corner of the British House of Commons supported by only a small party. Take President Wilson in America. While the war was on he was the great man who saw America through the war. What became of him after peace was declared? He disappeared from the scene. In South Africa we had the present Prime Minister, who with the late Gen. Botha, saw the war through on behalf of Great Britain—as we usually do where Great Britain’s wars are concerned. They were the big men of those days. Gen. Hertzog was the Leader of the Opposition then, and because he was opposed to the war he was ridiculed and was even assaulted in this House of Parliament. After the war he became Prime Minister of South Africa. I say again that in wartime nations think abnormally. The one subject which is predominant over everything else is to see the war through—it matters not whether right and justice are done. Normal times return after the war. We have interned people at a period when there was a lot of abnormal thinking. Let us be careful and remember that normal times will return and when they do return it will be held against us that we have detained those people in the internment camps—even though they may have been guilty—that we detained them when it was not necessary to do so. The Minister of Justice has told us that these people are not detained for punishment but that the object is to safeguard the safety of the country and the nation. The reason why they were interned was to get them out of the way as they were regarded as a danger to the State, but there was no intention of punishing them. One member after the other has got up on the other side of the House but none of them have used that argument. None of them have said that these people are detained to ensure the safety of the State. No, they are detained there—and the charge in one instance against an internee was that he had spat in the face of a child. Those are the kind of reasons why people have to be punished and kept, in the internment camp. I want to say here at once that I am not prepared to take it for granted that the Government will release these people. With all due respect to the Minister of Justice, I want to tell him that on subjects of this kind I do not always accept his word, and I am not saying “thank you” today. I shall say “thank you” when these people are released, and I hope I am making a mistake in expecting that many people are going to be sadly disappointed. I have been speaking about our own internment camps. Now I want to talk about something else—also about an internment camp, but one on a very much larger scale. I want to talk about the treatment of Union citizens in Rhodesia. It is unquestionably true that the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner in Rhodesia is treated worse than any section of the population in the Union of South Africa. The Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner is treated with contempt by the English-speaking people in Rhodesia. There can be no doubt about that. To show hon. members the spirit prevailing towards the Afrikaans-speaking people I want to quote a few newspapers and after that I want to deal with the persecution of Union citizens in Rhodesia. Let me quote from one of the Rhodesian papers on the subject of the incorporation of Rhodesia into the Union, which apparently is being discussed there. This paper makes the following remarks—

The great objection is to the Dutch Afrikaner. The quotation goes on—

Another paper says this—

The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs went there and made some fine speeches, but he did not say a word about these things. Then the quotation goes on—

That is the spirit prevailing in Rhodesia towards the Afrikaner, and I want the House to remember that in Northern Ireland De Valera succeeded in preventing people, who were not volunteers, from being commandeered. In Southern Rhodesia we have this position, that Union citizens are kept out of the public service, not merely because of their language and all the rest of it, but they are now described as the “serpent” which Rhodesia would be pressing to her bosom. And these Afrikaners have been conscripted for war service. And what is worse—they are stopped from returning to the Union of South Africa. Let me refer to a question I asked the Prime Minister in this House the other day. I do not know whether the Prime Minister really had so little information when he replied to me. Nor do I know why he replied in the way he did. I asked him first of all whether Union citizens in Southern Rhodesia were affected by conscription in that territory. I then asked him whether Union citizens in Southern Rhodesia, who refused to take the Blue Oath, were forced to work on the roads at 2s. 6d. per day, and whether they had been deprived of some of their civil rights, and if so, what steps he proposed taking. The Prime Minister replied that in terms of an arrangement arrived at, the Government of Southern Rhodesia released Union citizens in Southern Rhodesia from service under their conscription regulations if they had been resident in that country less than two years. He added that this period could be extended in respect of people who proved to the authorities that although they had been in Rhodesia more than two years, they had not identified themselves with the Southern Rhodesian community. I do not know what it all means. The Prime Minister further replied that Union citizens were not entitled to the franchise in Southern Rhodesia unless they had surrendered their claims to be absolved from military service. I also asked whether the Prime Minister had any information regarding the work they had to do on the roads and his reply was that he had no information on the subject. I then asked him what he had done to cope with the position. His reply was that that part of the question fell away. That is not a reply at all. I have a letter here from a man to his mother. Not only is that man not allowed to leave Rhodesia but he is compelled to work on the roads for 2s. 6d. per day, but the letters which his mother and father write to him are withheld from him. Now this is what he writes—

Even his letters are withheld from him. I said that Southern Rhodesia was a big internment camp. The Afrikaner cannot get into it, and cannot get out of it. Later on I shall deal with the question of Union citizens being deprived of their rights. Let me say this—in case members think that these people did not want to fight or had refused to take the oath—that among them are men who have already been to the front. Not one of them has refused to do military service in the army. The only thing they have refused to do is to take the oath under which the Southern Rhodesian Government can send them anywhere it pleases. Among these people are returned soldiers; they are not allowed to leave Rhodesia, and they have now lost their civil rights. The letter goes on to say—

I want to quote other instances of people who are referred to in a letter to an attorney who had been requested to act on their behalf. I quote these things to prove what these people have had to go through and also to prove what they are expected to do, and yet the Prime Minister says that he knows nothing about it. The Prime Minister could have given us this information; I don’t know why he did not want to do so. Perhaps he still feels that blood is thicker than water. Now, this is what we read in this other letter—

And then he goes on to describe the kind of work they had to do—

That is the Blue Oath. These men had already taken the oath of allegiance. They had not refused to do military service. The only difference was this; they had refused to take the Blue Oath—

This is being applied more and more as time goes on—

These people then go on to make certain suggestions to the attorney for the purpose of assisting him in handling their case. And then the letter goes on—

I should like hon. members opposite to take note of this. These men have done no harm. They are not allowed to leave Southern Rhodesia but they are kept there and they have to work on the roads. And then the letter goes on—

The Prime Minister says that he knows nothing about this. The rights and possessions of the wives are also taken away. Perhaps the Prime Minister takes too many trips overseas. Let him take a trip to Rhodesia and find out how his own people are treated there: that would be better. These people have not refused to do military service, but they have refused to go beyond the borders of the country. The Prime Minister in his reply said that a man who had not been two years in Southern Rhodesia was absolved from military service. I have before me the form which people have to sign and it makes no difference whether one has been there a year or six months or five years—the law applies. I have the law here and it says that anyone failing to take the oath of allegiance, or evading service in His Majesty’s Forces is guilty of treason. And then they give the reasons why a person shall be liable to have an order made against him. And it goes on to say this—

Men who have not been there two years are not specifically exempted—

And what is to happen if he refuses to take the oath?—

If a man is brought into court it is not enough for him to have taken the ordinary oath, which we have here too, he not only has to swear the oath of allegiance to the King, but he has to swear—

That compels people to render service in any part of the world wherever there may be British forces. That is what they objected to. It is this footnote which causes all the trouble. These men have no objection to helping in the defence of the country, but they do object to going beyond the borders of the Colony. I think we should be fair and I hope hon. members opposite will realise the force of our argument. Some of these men have already been to the front. They are willing to do their duty but they are not prepared to go to Europe or to other parts of the world. The thanks they get for having done their fighting is that they are deprived of their civil rights. They are put into labour corps and they are forced to do road work at 2s. 6d. per day. Many of them are today roaming the forests because they are afraid of being arrested. People are taken away from their farms but they refuse to work on the roads for 2s. 6d. per day. They roam about the forests and fortunately they have not been caught yet. As I have said, in war time people often do not think normally, but afterwards they are often sorry for what they have done. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether in those circumstances he is not prepared to come to the aid of his fellow Afrikaners. These people were quite prepared to go and fight but they refused to go to Europe. Is the Government going to sit still and allow Afrikaners to be forced to work on the roads at 2s. 6d. per day, is the Government going to allow these men to roam about the forests? We talk about what we must do for the soldiers returning from the war. Here we have soldiers who have already been fighting and their reward is that they have to roam about the forests because they refuse to take the Blue Oath. Let hon. members opposite think of what will happen after the war—do not let them think only of one thing—do not let them have a one track mind and think of the war and nothing but the war. Let them think soberly for a moment. They themselves admit that the enemy is away from our gates. That being so let them see that justice is done to the Union citizens in Rhodesia. The Government here is not a national government in the same sense as the Government in Great Britain is. I think any fair and reasonable person must admit that although the Government got a majority at the elections it was not the people as a people who put them into power.

Of course it was.

Let the hon. member come to the Western Province. Are hon. members representing constituencies in the Western Province here because they have been returned by the majority vote of the people?

Yes.

Are the Hottentots your people?

We admit that the majority of the people who have the franchise in South Africa did vote for the Government, but when it comes to the people of South Africa, there we differ from them. Whom do members opposite represent? They represent a conglomeration, a mixture of elements which will never constitute part of the people.

How many? What is the percentage?

In the Minister’s constituency the percentage is not particularly high. He might perhaps have got a majority even without that element, but if one takes constituencies like Paarl right up to Hottentots-Holland, can any hon. member say that the people of South Africa have sent the representatives of those constituencies to this House? They will have to admit that the great majority of the Afrikaans-speaking element at any rate is represented by this side. And we on this side represent the people of South Africa, the oldest and most settled section of South Africa. I want to ask hon. members whether they want to call that element which voted for them the people of South Africa?

What did you say three years ago?

I can say this, that everyone who voted for this side of the House, rich or poor, represents the Afrikaner element. If hon. members opposite feel that they constitute the Afrikaner nation, the “serpent in the bosom” as the Rhodesian papers called us, let them stand up for their own blood in Rhodesia. Let them prove that blood is thicker than water and let them raise their voices against the persecution of our Afrikaners in that country. I want to appeal to them and I am not doing so for political purposes, or for the sake of political gain. These people in Rhodesia have no votes in our election. The Minister of Native Affairs has an Afrikaans name, but he has changed the pronunciation of his name. Perhaps he has no feeling for his fellow Afrikaners who roam in the forests there. The Minister laughs. These people do not travel by aeroplane up North; no, they roam about the forests, and they have done their duty more than the Minister has done. They have been to the front and they have fought there and now they are persecuted. That is why I am appealing to the Government from the very bottom of my heart on behalf of my fellow Afrikaners, and I ask the Government to help them, so that they shall no longer be persecuted by a foreign Government. We have had one war because the English claimed the franchise for the Englishman living in the Transvaal. We now ask our Government to protect our Afrikaans-speaking people in Rhodesia, and to allow them to return to their mother country.

I do not intend taking part in the debate on internees but I wish to say that I welcome the statement made by the Minister of Justice, that he will show leniency to some of these people. I agree that a large number of internees were interned who were misled youths, misled by their leaders, and the leaders escaped internment while these deluded youths were interned. I therefore appreciate the fact that the Minister has agreed to act leniently towards these people and that he may release a large number of them. I have already myself approached the Department on behalf of these deluded youngsters, but I do think that the real bad character, the man with criminal intent, should be detained. But they are in the minority, and I think the majority of them can be safely released. I am not going to say much on this question of internees. What I have really got up for is to say a few words on the subject of food production. Food, as we know it in this country, is not at present a balanced food. I am now talking on this subject and combining agricultural and public health questions in relation to food. Now, food is short of proteins in this country. We do not produce nearly sufficient proteins in this country for its requirements. We are a starch producing country and we do not produce sufficient proteins. Therefore, I am interested to learn from the Minister that there is a reorganisation plan being considered by the Department of Agriculture. I do think steps should be taken immediately to reorganise agriculture in some respects—that is in respect of the production of more proteins. By proteins I mean more meat and dairy products, products such as eggs, butter and milk. Those are the products we are short of. I come in contact with these things every day of my life. As a district surgeon for many years I have cases coming to my notice almost daily, and the majority of the people in our country areas are not suffering from the want of medicine so much as the want of proper food. A mother will come to me and say: “Here is my child, she is ill.” I examine the child and I say the child is not ill but it is suffering from a deficiency of proteins, a deficiency of a balanced diet. The child is a year or two years old and I ask the mother what she gives the child to eat, and the reply almost invariably is mealie pap. I say: “What else?” and I am told: “Nothing else, sometimes a little tea.” Well, the physique of the nation is deteriorating as a result of that kind of thing. And this applies more especially to the physique of the native population. I therefore think that the time is ripe to take action. I do not think we can wait any longer with the reorganisation of our farming and public health systems. In regard to farming we should start here. We have 1,500 plots under the irrigation canal in my constituency and wheat and tobacco is being grown there. Now, that’s all wrong. It is robbing the soil of its fertility by growing the wrong crop. We are going to settle returned soldiers on these plots. The right procedure would be in those areas to put settlers on 30 morgen plots and put them under supervision and see to it that these people carry on the right type of farming. We should tell these people that, their first duty is to their own household—their first duty is to produce a balanced food for their own household, which means, of course, that a man must have cows and fowls and he must see that his family gets butter and fruit and vegetables. Those are the first essentials. It is no use telling a man to go and produce wheat and tobacco—products which rob the soil of its fertility. These 1,500 settlers who are to be settled there should be an example to the rest of the country. We have large numbers of instances of irrigation schemes which have been silted up where the soil has been robbed of its fertility through wrong agricultural methods, and I do urge that we should start these people on the right lines. They must start with the idea of producing the right food for their families; they must stop producing starch and starch alone. This is a pastoral country and there are large parts of South Africa which are unsuitable to wheat production or any other cereals. We know that after the war we shall again have to become a wheat importing country. I know that at the present moment it is essential for us to grow wheat because we cannot import, but after the war we must become a wheat importing country again, because present conditions cannot last. First of all, we are depleting our soil, and in the second place the price of wheat at 36s. per bag will make it uneconomical to continue producing it here when we shall be able to import wheat at 12s. per bag. The first essential, therefore, is the production of proteins and protein is to have a mixed form—we should go in for mixed farming methods. The first thing is to have a cow, and to re-introduce into the soil what you take out of it. Put the manure of the cow back into the soil. Then we shall start building up a healthy nation if our farming methods are correct. Now I don’t know what the recommendations of the National Health Commission are going to be. I understand that we shall have to wait until after the Session for their report; but I don’t think this country can afford to wait for the report, because something must be done immediately in the public health line. We have disease ridden areas with very few doctors to attend to the people and the proper procedure would be to enlarge and extend the district surgeon system. The district surgeon system is working well but we are short of manpower and that applies particularly to the native areas. In an area like Middelburg we have four doctors to cope with a large European population, and with 80,000 natives. Now, the manpower being short I consider that steps be taken to educate the native—that is educate the native to attend to himself. The rehabilitation of the native must come from the natives themselves. Native doctors should practice in native areas, but they should be given instructions not to attend European patients, only to native patients. This is a matter which we cannot tamper with. I know that in Durban they train what they call medical aids. Well, these medical aids are more of a danger than of a help to the community. I have personally come into touch with them in Durban—they are neither fish, flesh nor good red herring, but they think that they can act as medical practitioners in many cases. The sooner we can train the natives and give them the opportunity to attend to their own people the sooner shall we get a healthy native community. It is essential to do that. I cannot suggest any other method, I think a native medical school should be built in Durban. I do not approve of natives studying in the same universities as Europeans in this country, and I think that the establishment of a university for natives and for Indians in Durban will meet the case. These are a few suggestions which I hope the Government will take into consideration. My first suggestion deals with the re-organisation of agriculture, and the second deals with our public health system, and I think the system which I have outlined is one which can cope with all contigencies.

Seeing that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is in his seat I should like to bring a few matters to his notice. First of all there is the question of supplying agricultural implements to farmers, and I particularly want to mention tractors. I feel that this is a matter to which the Minister should give his serious attention. One tractor after another is caving in and there is a great scarcity today. The farmers did all they could to lengthen the lives of these tractors, but they are now getting to a stage where no more can be done. The sooner the Minister sees to it that we get tractors, the better it will be for the agricultural industry. Spare parts are not obtainable and the farmers are faced with considerable difficulty. The same thing applies to other agricultural implements, such as wheat planters, combines, and all essential machinery. Even the cutting machines in most cases are in such a condition that they are more often in the garages than not because of the shortage of spare parts. The Minister has fixed prices for threshing, but I think he should also lay it down that the threshing machine must be sold in good order and condition. Many of those machines are no longer in a condition where they can properly classify the wheat. If the threshing fee is to be 2s. then the threshing machine must be in good order. Another factor which is causing a lot of trouble is the conveyance of products to the elevators and the stations by means of railway buses. I myself had to wait three months before I could get my grain moved and sometimes one finds that one or two buses are sent out, but they are continually in the garages. We are on the eve of the wheat season and thousands of bags will have to be moved, and even at this stage people are writing to me about the difficulties of getting conveyance. I think this is a matter which should have the Minister’s attention. Now I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Minister for the concession he has granted in regard to the supply of lucerne seed for the fertilising of our lands. I want to ask him as soon as possible to put into force the subsidising of this enterprise. We shall be sowing wheat again very shortly and it will be a very good thing if people are able to sow lucerne seed in between the wheat so that in two or three years’ time we shall be in a position to render that part of our lands more fertile. This is a matter which all farmers may not be conversant with, but in view of the scarcity of artificial fertilisers the best thing to do is gradually to put one’s land under lucerne. I myself now have lands which I have been cultivating for two years after just having had them under lucerne, and no fertiliser is anywhere near as good as lucerne for that particular purpose. As I have already said on a previous occasion, my constituency is a big dairy farming area. We have no fewer than 20 cheese factories there. The one thing that is essential there is irrigation. The land is suitable for lucerne and we are very anxious to have an irrigation scheme. We have the Leeurivier scheme there which was investigated some four years ago. The wall has been surveyed, the furrows have been surveyed, and the soil has been examined, but the work has now ben stopped on account of the war and I very urgently want to ask the Minister of Lands, in view of the fact that ours is a big dairy district, to put this scheme on its legs so that his Department may proceed with it as soon as possible. About 70 farms will be affected by it. Even the Caledon scheme is in my constituency, and that scheme, according to experts, will be the biggest scheme in the Union. I hope the Minister will also proceed with that work. The canals can be constructed in the meantime. This scheme does not apply only to my constituency, it also applies to dams which are being constructed in the Vet and other rivers. The whole country will benefit from it because it will irrigate some of the most fertile soil in the Free State. Now I want to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that in view of the fact that about £6,000,000 have during the last few years been spent for the purchase and development of land for the natives, an amount of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 should also be set aside for the purchase of land for landless farmers. There is a great demand for land; there are thousands of farmers who are tenants, bywoners, and who sow on shares, but the rent these people have to pay is so high now that they cannot make a living. If they are given the opportunity of securing land they would look after it. Quite a number of tenants have already been assisted to get their own land, and they are making a success of their farming, although the land in those areas is expensive. The soil is good and these people are practical farmers who understand the soil. I am speaking now of meritorious cases—I am speaking of people who have shown what they can do. Finally, I also want to ask the Minister of Defence to help us in regard to cartridges, not to shoot down the British connection but because the farmers need them. Perhaps he will not be prepared to give us the type of cartridges which we are anxious to have, but let them give us those long .22 cartridges. The short cartridges only ruin our rifles and one cannot shoot far with them. My constituents are troubled very greatly by dogs from Basutoland and by jackals, and they would greatly appreciate it if the Minister would assist them by making those cartridges available. Now I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance, and I want to ask him, in view of the fact that we are passing through difficult times, when the cost of living is abnormally high, to pay the officials drawing small salaries more than they are getting today. He should increase their salaries a bit. We all know that one cannot buy much for £1 today. The value of money is less and the product which we buy is expensive. While the Minister is collecting a lot of money for the continuation of the war it is his duty as a Minister also to look after his own people, seeing that they have to stint themselves and are suffering privations on account of their small pay today. That also applies to the unskilled workers on the Railway and in other departments of the Public Service. These people cannot come out on their salaries and I hope the Minister will give the matter his attention. I also want to ask the Minister of Finance to give the provinces a larger grant so that they may do more for education and may be able to allow compulsory education to continue to standard VIII. It will mean the imposition of taxes and the provinces are restricted in their sources of taxation. It will mean a lot to us if we can take compulsory education up to standard VIII. Now I want to come to my final point, although not the least important, and that is the salaries of teachers. If one bears in mind the length of their studies, they are among the lowest paid people in the country. They devote themselves to educational work and I feel that we should try to attract the very best type of people to teach our children. The fact remains that when the young people start on their career the salary is very small and by the time they get a better salary they usually have families, and the result is that right throughout their lives they can only just manage to come out and no more. As these people have to sacrifice themselves for the education of the nation I consider it our duty to see to it that we attract the best brains to undertake this noble work, and we should see that they are paid a salary which would justify their undertaking this work. I am asking this in view of what is happening in the Cape Provincial Council. It has been stated that a tax is to be imposed in order to pay the teachers higher salaries. To my mind that is a disgrace. When one imposes a tax one does not say for what reason one does so. We would not like it to be said that a special tax is imposed in order to pay, or to increase our salaries as Members of Parliament. That would only cause trouble. I feel that the Cape Provincial Council has only taken up this attitude in order to stir up the public against the teachers. I therefore want to appeal to the Minister to give the provinces a larger subsidy so that the Provincial Councils will be able to pay the teachers better salaries. There is one other matter which I want to touch on very briefly, and that is the Cape Coloured vote. There was a lot of commotion in this House when that question was mentioned. I am a Freestater and I have nothing to do with the question of the coloured vote, yet I was struck by what was going on in the Cape Province, and it came as a real shock to me. Europeans and non-Europeans live together, and unfortunately it does not stop at that. Then afterwards we get mixed marriages which constitute a disgrace to our nation. I hope the Government will strictly apply the segregation policy and will put a stop to that sort of thing.

The hon. member is anticipating the motion of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel).

It is not my intention to do so, Mr. Speaker, and I shall leave the question of segregation. I only want to touch on the question of Europeans and non-Europeans travelling together on the trains and buses. The other day I saw a black native getting into a train, he was absolutely dirty …

I think the hon. member should leave that question until the Railway Estimates are before the House.

Very well, I shall do so.

I wish to take the opportunity afforded by this debate very briefly to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance on a subject that I know has engaged his attention before. In a statement to the House a few days ago in reply to a question put by myself, the Minister outlined the conditions on which his department is prepared to pay—ex gratia apparently—cost of living allowances to Government pensioners. According to the Minister’s reply these allowances are not paid as of right to pensioners, but on application a committee, appointed under the Act we passed last year, may recommend cost of living allowances to Government pensioners subject to a graduated means test in accordance with race. Apparently no grant may be made which would have the effect of increasing the total income, including the pension, of a European Government pensioner to over £180 per annum, of increasing the total income of a coloured pensioner to over £90 per annum, and in the case of a native pensioner who has been in the employ of the Government beyond the princely sum of £30 per annum. These are the maxima except in very special circumstances, where some extraordinary contingencies may be taken into consideration. In the first place I do wish to put this before the Minister. I can see no reason why, on the face of it, ordinary cost of living allowances should not be paid to Government pensioners—whatever their race—who have spent their lives in the service of the country. These people are faced with the same towering cost of living—rising now to inflationary proportions as the result of the war. It is not their fault that they have been placed in that situation. The pensioners, particularly non-European Government servants, have pensions on the meagrest, of scales, they are a low income group and are thus particularly hard hit by the rising cost of living. They are not in a position of a business man making large profits out of war conditions, and whose rising cost of living is off-set by an increase in his income. Even if these people were paid full cost of living allowances, they would still not be in the same position as they were before the war. I know that the official cost of living figure is about 25 per cent. or 26 per cent. increase; the organised trade union movement has made an investigation of its own into the cost of living of the lower income groups in a practical way, and they have come to the conclusion that it is nearer 40 per cent. But so long as the cost of living allowances are paid on the scale corresponding to the official index figure, I do want most strongly to submit to the Minister there would appear to be no equitable reason as to why they should not be paid to Government pensioners as of right. My second point is, assuming the Minister refuses to consider this contention I have put forward, assuming that, I wish to ask him on what basis has this scale of discrimination as between pensioners of different races been laid down. The ordinary policy that has been pursued in relation to the cost of living allowances since they first became payable, has been that the lower income groups should, in proportion to their income, get more than in the case of the higher income groups. Now this scale of means test that I have referred to infringes that principle directly. It results in the allowances on pensions of the higher income group being proportionately higher, and the allowances on pensions of the lower income group being proportionately lower. In the case of the native pensioner, it would mean that any pensioner who drew the meagre sum of £2 10s. a month, would not be eligible to have his case even considered for cost of living allowance, unless he was bedridden or there was some very extraordinary circumstance involved. Now the scale of pensions payable to natives in the service of the Government is a miserable one indeed, as the result of the miserable standard of wages paid to natives in the Government service. Nevertheless there are quite a number of this type of pensioner receiving £2 10s. a month or more and to exclude them from the right to apply for compensation for the increased cost of living With which they are faced, through circumstances beyond their control, does not seem to be in accordance with justice. In the case of a Government servant who is still in Government employ, the minimum cost of living allowance he receives at the present time—I am not saying for a moment it is too high—is £1 10s. a month—£18 a year. For a native pensioner to be eligible for that allowance on that scale his pension would have to be not more than £1 a month—less than the actual allowance itself. In the case of private employers, they have under War regulations to pay a minimum cost of living allowance of 17s. a month to any employee who earns less than £1 a week. Even to receive 17s. a month, an African pensioner, under these rules the Minister has laid down, could only be in receipt of a pension of £1 13s. a month. Another point in this connection I want to put before the Minister is whether he does not agree that the gaps in the means test for the various racial grades of pensioners are not far too wide. The Minister knows that I am in principle opposed to racial discriminations of this kind in the economic field; but even assuming it is admissible does the Minister really feel that the native’s standard of living in the lower income groups is only one-sixth of the European and only one-third of the coloured? That is what has been laid down. There have been numerous investigations of a scientific nature by qualified people in various urban areas in this country with the idea of finding out what is the minimum on which any human being can keep himself, and we have been told that there is a minimum and it is a minimum which is applicable to anybody of any race. The factor of the standard of living only comes into the picture in the case of the higher income groups. In the case of the lower income groups, there is no scientific basis whatever for these differentiations. I want particularly to stress this very wide discrimination in the means test that the Minister has laid down as between native and coloured. I do not want for one moment to be taken to be departing from what I have said about objecting to the whole discrimination in these scales, including Europeans, but the discrimination is particularly clear in the case of that between Africans and coloured people. Native and coloured unskilled workers in Government employ earn very, much the same wages; on the South African Railways and Harbours they do earn the same wages, with the exception that recently a married allowance of 6d. a day has been introduced in the case of coloured workers. But there is no case in any branch of the Government service in which one will find a ratio of three to one as between the earnings of native and coloured people, and I do want to impress on the Minister the advisability of revising this discrimination. It is a matter which is capable of being dealt with purely by administrative action. There is no scientific basis for the discrimination, and I want to urge upon him that cost of living allowances for pensioners should be paid on the same basis as they are paid for employees, and related to the amount of their pensions. It may well be if that were done there would still be cases in which the cost of living allowance payable would be so low that it would be necessary to use a system of discretionary grants over and above the ordinary cost of living allowances which will be paid. That is quite a difference matter. What I am contending for now is that in the first place a pensioner should get not less than the ordinary cost of living allowances applicable to workers who are in employment. In the case of the native ex-Government employee, therefore, the minimum cost of living allowance should be £1 10s. per month, and that is not a very large sum of money to ask.

We have very big issues before the country, in which taxation is a matter of some considerable importance. I therefore ask the House to turn its attention to this subject for a few moments by reason of that fact. In, however, discussing the matter of taxation we come against a very great difficulty for the reason that during the years of war our taxation has become such a complex subject. It has become an extremely difficult subject. At one time there were many in the country, who did understand it, but today even they are rather at a loss. That makes it a particularly difficult subject to debate in this House, but I am going to ask the House to bear with me for a few minutes, because there are many important subjects confronting us, which, I feel, are vital. At the outset I may say that in any remarks I make I in no way question the amount of revenue raised from taxation. I am fully conscious of the great difficulties that beset any Minister in wartime, when he is faced with the task of raising globular sums, and I say that this country is prepared to pay the bill for this expensive war and to foot it cheerfully. My criticisms, such as they are, are directed mainly along three lines. Firstly, I submit that our taxation structure is far too complex. We have far too many taxes, which are only leading to confusion, and which are doing a great deal of harm in creating much unnecessary work. Secondly, I submit our taxation is too discriminating and inequitable. And my third point is that our taxation is retarding progress. These are the days when grandiose schemes are being planned. These are the days when we are facing in the reasonably near future, no matter whether this year or next year, the absorption into civil employment of the largest army that South Africa has ever recruited. This is a problem, which in itself is Herculean, and one which the Government has given a solemn undertaking to see through. The Prime Minister the other day was warning the country about the high cost of reabsorption of the army men into employment. I think we all realise it is going to cost a very considerable sum of money. We are faced with the introduction of social security measures, which are being pressed today; and generally, sir, our whole future thought and outlook is directed along lines designed to develop this country, to develop the resources of this country and avenues of employment. And no matter from what angle you look at it, it is obvious that fundamentally taxation must form an important basis or foundation for all these projects. I therefore approach the subject from this angle. I want first to deal with the aspect of complexity, to give my views on the subject, if I may, Originally, before this war, taxation was simple. We had normal tax, super-tax and provincial tax. In the first year of war three new taxes were introduced. There was the excess profits duty, the gold mines special contribution, and the diamond mines special contribution, which were all related and were of the nature of an excess profits tax, although the gold mines contribution was not necessarily of that character. In the second year of war we had a further three new taxes introduced. In 1941 the Minister introduced a nonresident shareholders tax, the undistributed profits tax on companies, and the motor car sales tax. This process or multiplying taxes did not cease at that point. In 1942 we found a further three taxes introduced, namely the trade profits special levy, the personal and savings levy, and the fixed property profits tax. At this stage we had no fewer than twelve taxes in force in this country, and No. 13 the railway passengers’ tax arrived in 1943. Many of these taxes pyramid upon one another. They are interlocking, and a profit in certain cases become subject, to many taxes. The profit earned by a company may be subject to no fewer than six or more taxes, and the process of assessment is in consequence of this policy becoming very very difficult. I have all along criticised this principle of multiplying and pyramiding taxes, not only on account of the complexity is produces, but for the reasons that these different taxes have been introduced with the idea of endeavouring to select those best able to pay. But, sir, in the process there has been a great deal of miscarriage in the application of the principle. Other countries have not seen fit to introduce so many discriminatory taxes. Taxation in other countries has been maintained in a far simpler form, and I think that we would be getting at the root of the trouble and setting out on the right road if the Minister would now decide to reverse the policy he introduced in 1940 by the gradual elimination of certain of these new taxes and the consolidation of taxes by merging one into the other. For example, I see no reason why on the one hand we should have a normal and super tax and on the other a personal and savings levy. I see no reason to distinguish between those as two separate taxes. Why could not the personal and savings levy be part of the normal tax. Normal tax, then, would have merely a flat amount as a foundation and be subject to the graduated rate of tax imposed. There would be the collection of one tax only. This would lead to a reduction of work, because today, if one is an income tax payer, one not only pays normal and super tax but also personal and savings levy. If the tax assessment has not arrived, one is faced in July with paying the flat amount and then subsequently the percentage due on the normal and super tax assessments. In the payment of the personal and savings levy, therefore it just means that one makes no less than three different payments, and one has different forms to fill up, and, of course, that means much duplication of work. So much for the question of complexity. Then I come to the next point: inequity. I submit that the attempt to levy sectional or discriminatory taxes, which apply to certain businesses and not to others, has created a most undesirable position, which is accentuated because simultaneously a complete confusion of principles has developed. I think that one of the worst treated busineses in the country under this system of taxation is that of the private company. When I say that there is a complete confusion of principles let me illustrate my point. A private company is treated as a partnership for the purpose of apportioning profits. It is treated quite differently from a partnership from the point of view of losses. A private company is treated differently again in the matter of excess profits, and in the application of the trades profits special levy the most glaring inequities occur. One has the instance—and this is not an isolated one—where the individual with an income of £450 per year, an income which he enjoyed years before the war, finds his income in 1942 reduced by this one tax to the extent of £175. And because that tax is levied at source on the company a shareholder in receipt of half that amount, say £225, will obviously have to pay half that amount of tax, which is £87 10s. I submit that a tax of £175 on an income of £450 cannot be defended. One can find on looking through the Income Tax Acts many such glaring inequities. At one point a taxpayer is taxed in one manner and at another point in a different manner. Let us consider the case of the gold mining taxation. The taxation of the gold mines has become confused, because the pre-war taxation was based on the taxable profit of the mine, but the special contribution is levied on a different profit—it is not a levy on the taxable profit of the mine, but on the gross working profit, and that is producing undesirable effects, because where mines are on the border line of profit they are hard hit, because profit which should not be subject to tax is being taxed. We have the other case of the imaginary gold realisation charge on the gold mines. A legitimate charge at one time, but one which ceased to exist early in 1940 and has been continued since as a fortuitous tax. This is a tax on the product, not on the profit, either gross or taxable, a principle which, I submit, is subject to grave criticism. We are facing very difficult times, and I think the Minister is aware of that. The Minister is aware of the fact that there are large mines on the Rand, which are now working at a loss, because the Minister is taxing the product and not the profit. On account of taking 3s. odd off the price of gold, he is reducing the price of the product to that extent, and where mines are working on the borderline the position is serious. I can cite the case of the Van Ryn Estate, employing over 450 Europeans; the working costs are now 167/9d. per ounce, and they should get the full price of 168s., but they are receiving 168s. less the imaginary realisation charge of over 3s. The result is that they are actually working at a loss. I feel it is such a mistake. Why not base the several taxes on the taxable profit of the gold mines? That is the correct principle. Why produce this mixed grill, why have one tax on the taxable profit and another tax on the gross profit and then further tax the product? Let us have some consistency. Let us have a tax on the taxable profit—even at a higher rate if necessary—it would not produce so many undesirable results. I now come to the question of how taxation is retarding progress, and I think this is becoming a matter of vital importance. This is the day when we are planning grandiose schemes, when we are looking to the expansion of industry in every form in order to absorb into civil employment those large numbers of men and women coming back from the war; and this is the day when many people in business find themselves, through this cumbersome taxation, in a position where they are unable to set aside any reserves, and when the war period ends, and the blizzards set in—which are likely to set in—I think it is inevitable—they will find themselves unable to tide themselves over. Now I would like to quote to the House some views expressed recently by eminent people. I shall start off with Dr. Van der Bijl, who addressed the Industrial Development Corporation on the occasion of its recent annual general meeting. Dr. Van der Bijl for two years has raised the difficulty, which the present system of taxation presents to the progress of business, and this is what he said—

I must call the hon. member’s attention to the notice of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), on page 140 of the Votes and Proceedings. I must ask the hon. member not to anticipate that motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may just quote a recent report of a speech made at the annual meeting of the South African Federation of Engineering and Metallurgical Associations. This speech was made on behalf of the President, Mr. H. C. Gearing of Cape Town …

Perhaps I had better read to the hon. member what is contained in the motion of the hon. member for George. It says this—

I must ask the hon. member not to anticipate that motion.

I am sorry that motion is standing in the road of this debate, but I accept your ruling of course. It is unfortunate that I should be precluded from speaking on this important aspect, because this is the only occasion, which will present itself before the Budget is introduced in the near future. However, in regard to taxation in the future, I do wish to submit for the consideration of the Minister that there are certain fundamental principles which he should bear in mind. Income tax should be a tax on income, and it should be an equitable tax on income. Where two persons earn the same amount they should pay income tax to the same amount. I can see no conceivable justification—except in respect of war profits—for the wide differentiation in tax, which exists today. I know of instances where on the same incomes one person pays three or four times as much taxation as the other. I submit that taxation should be equitable, and that like incomes should be taxed in like amount be the incomes small or large. All attempts to discriminate between sources of income should be abolished, and income should be treated as income. I submit further to the Minister that there should be consistency in principle. Where in the case of a private company the profits are apportioned to the shareholders, the losses should also be apportioned. The Minister has told us that this is not practicable. He has said that if this was done the losses would be apportioned twice over, but I submit that if this procedure results in the profits not being apportioned twice, it cannot result in the losses being apportioned twice. I submit further that taxation should be fairly spread over the broad shoulders of the general body of taxpayers and that certain persons should not be asked to pay several times the rate of tax that others with industrial incomes are asked to pay. I submit further that income should be taxed as far as is possible in the hands of the recipient and not at source, as is so much the case today. The individual should be taxed according to his aggregate income. That is sound, and it is calculated to yield fairly the greatest amount of revenue. As a result of so much taxation being levied at source, it does occur that many people with small incomes are paying tax at very heavy rates; and it also results in this, that some persons, who are in receipt of big incomes, which accrue largely from different sources, are even lightly taxed and are quite prepared to pay at source. I would cite by way of example the trades profits special levy. This is a levy on the pre-war standard of income at 6s. 8d. in the £—as an average. 6s. 8d. in the £ is the rate of that tax. Now the individual, who receives £450 a year, whose case I have already quoted is taxed at 6s. 8d. under this tax, because the company is liable to pay the tax. In other words the tax is levied at the source irrespective of the individual shareholders’ true income and appropriate rate of tax. Compare this case with that of the large income earner, who also pays 6s. 8d., when his appropriate rate of tax may be quite considerably greater—10s. or more. It is all most inequitable and unfair. Furthermore, if he were an individual in receipt of an income from his own business or some partnership, he would not pay the tax except upon income exceeding £3,000 per year, but at present as shareholder in a private company he is paying through the company 6s. 8d. in the £ on his small share of profit. To men with large incomes it is immaterial whether they pay the tax on the one hand at 6s. 8d. and on the other at 10s., but to the small taxpayer this system of levying tax at source is iniquitous. It is acting most unfairly, and I think the Minister should guard against it in his future policy. These are just simple fundamental commonsense principles. The Minister has asked for advice on the subject, but I do want to submit that he has been rather averse to accepting any advice. It is not for private enterprise to come forward with a cut and dried scheme. The Minister last Session was critical of certain efforts made by people, who wanted to give him advice, but I do submit that those engaged in private industry have not got the records available which enable them to formulate any sound scheme. I submit that the principles I have outlined, namely, that income tax should be a tax on income levied on the recipient irrespective of the source, that there should be no discrimination but consistency, that the aim should be to spread the burden of taxation evenly over the broad shoulders of the income tax payers, are principles which should be applied in South Africa equally as they are applied in other parts of the world. The Minister has given us replies on many points year after year—year after year we have had his familiar replies. I want to say that these replies do not satisfy people in business. His reply that the losses of a company cannot be apportioned because they would be apportioned twice will not hold water. His statements in many respects are not helpful, and I feel that the time is ripe, and that if we are to surmount the critical period ahead of us, the taxation methods in this country require to be revised very fully. I am sorry I am precluded from speaking on the question of retardation of industry. I do say that many of the Minister’s utterances are not acceptable either in commerce or industry or business circles generally. I believe that the wave of criticism, which is developing against his taxation structure, against the complexity and inequity of the system, is growing. It is a tide, which is coming in, and I think the time has arrived, when thorough attention should be given to this matter, and a taxation policy for the future be formulated—and formulated on sound principles, such as adopted by other countries. Finally, I think these words are rather apposite. They come from, I believe, the Beggar’s Opera, and this fact makes them all the more appropriate—

I should like to take this opportunity of discussing the industry with which I am connected, namely agriculture; and today I propose to make a comparison of the agricultural industry with that of the manufacturing industry. I believe that it is of the highest importance to us as a people that there should be an inter-relationship between the produce of the farm and the products of the factory. It is often repeated in this House that our farmers have no say. We have no representation in the Chamber of Commerce. We have no representation in the Chamber of Industries. We are not acknowledged by trade and industry. They have the advantage over us as farmers, and just for the reason that they can meet together, that they can organise an association and then proceed to produce and manufacture. Those products are sold; the manufacturer’s production costs are added, and a return is also included for the investors, and after that the price is fixed that has to be paid to the farmer. We as agriculturists are in the unfortunate position that we are unable to do this. We have no control over the elements. We have no control over climatic conditions. I have heard it stated here that the farmers are entitled to a profit of 6 per cent. If you as a farmer experience a year such as has just been experienced in the Free State and the Transvaal you will starve if you are satisfied with a return of 6 per cent. What happens is this. The farmer ploughs his land; he cultivates it nicely; and then there comes a downpour that washes everything away, and within a couple of weeks you will find that same farmer on the land with his costs of production doubled. I know of certain parts in my constituency where farmers have prepared their lands for a third time. That is going to mean a capital loss to those farmers. We as farmers want to have stability; that is our goal. We have contributed more than any other section of the community to create stability. Hon. members in this House are aware that in many instances the farmers’ products are disposed of and delivered at less than a third of the value the product would have fetched if there had been control. Therefore I maintain that we, as farmers, have contributed more than any other section of the community towards stability. But as farmers we have gone further. The Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat today; I am sorry, because I should like him to have heard what I am saying. Time and again he has had recourse to the radio to appeal to the farmers to produce. He has warned the farmers that starvation is staring us in the face. What has the farmer done? He has set to and produced, but what has the farmer missed? He has missed this protection on the part of the Minister; he has not been accorded that protection that he expected. We have found, where appeals have repeatedly been made to the farmers, that an appeal is made in the evening and that in the morning the farmer is in the position that his tractor is standing idle, and he has to try to repair it and get ahead with production—and this is what we have found from time to time. But we have also found that where the farmer has done his duty, where he has declared that he is willing to produce, that in other respects he has been left to the tender mercies of people who declare that they have the war effort at heart,—I know them and I know of them. With the one hand they contribute to war funds, and with the other they take money out of the pockets of the public. These people have not behaved in the spirit that the Government expected. We, as agriculturists have made the largest contribution towards stabilisation, but what do we find today? Today we find that the Government has appointed a new controller. What is the reason? We as farmers who know the Minister of Agriculture in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture, and in his capacity as Controller of Food, and also as Deputy-Food Controller etc. were always of opinion that the interests of the other section were accorded too great a measure of protection. But there is something else behind this. Trade is active in its efforts to destroy these control boards. Let them tell us today whether they want this control. Let them tell us if they want control boards under the Marketing Act of 1937. No, they want to abolish all control; their wish is that all co-operative effort must come to nought so that they can return to the old game that they played. I too am a mealie farmer. I listened to the address given by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Visser), who spoke as a mealie farmer. I have a high regard for the Minister of Agriculture. I knew him before I was a member of this House. Today I want to make an appeal to the Minister I have also sold mealies, and I have also farmed, and I have never forgotten that in 1937-’38 this side of the House appealed to the Minister when the farmers had to dispose of their mealies for 6s. 3d. and 6s. 6d. The hon. member for Ventersdorp did not do that. I would like to ask the Minister not to hand over the farmers to the speculators. The farmers have stood by him since the beginning of the war. They have faithfully performed their duty, and at this stage pressure is today being exercised. Pressure is being exerted on the Government to kill the co-operative movement and thus to give those people the opportunity to return to their old practices. We have had considerable discussions about mealies. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Visser) has studiously avoided pricing mealies, and I shall follow his example. Last year we as mealie farmers were saddled with a price that we had not asked for. We asked for more, but then we were told later “Earlier you asked for a price of 12s. 6d. and then 15s., but now the Minister of Agriculture and the Government have given you 16s.” I am not going to commit myself to a price. I should first want to know what the crop is going to be. I believe the Minister of Agriculture and his department are able to determine today more or less what the size of the crop will be. The Free State Agricultural Union, the Free State Maize Producers—when the Minister announced the price at 16s., gave the guarantee that the price would be at least 16s.—protested and said that for three years they have sacrificed their mealies, first for 9s., the year after that for 15s., and after that for 16s. The Free State farmer has made up his mind that this time before he puts his hand to the plough he will know that he will get 20s. for a bag of mealies. I say, however, that we must not fix the price before we know what production and what the crop is going to be. There are one or two other matters of importance that I should like to touch on. I want to point out in regard to production costs that one must not merely estimate on the yield per morgen: you also have to reckon on what you spend per morgen. Take, for instance, farm requisites. For all our supplies we today must turn to the Director-General of Supplies. We know that quite a lot is being done for us farmers today, and we are thankful to the Minister of Agriculture and also the Controller of Tools and Implements. Good work is being done in this direction, and I hope that they will continue to provide as many implements as possible. Today we are getting a considerable quantity of ploughs, harrows, hoes, and the principal items of equipment that are most generally used. We are grateful for that. And now I want to ask the Minister bearing in mind that we have co-operative movements in the country which handle a portion of our supply of farming requirements, how is it that protection has to be granted, why must the farmer pay a premium in order to protect importers and to keep them in business? The policy of the Director-General of Supplies is that after the co-operative associations have been grouped, and a resolution is taken to purchase through the co-operative societies, then according to the Director-General of Supplies, an extra 20 per cent. must be added to the price. Today the farmer must pay this extra 20 per cent. For whose protection? To protect the people who, as soon as shipments of supplies reach them from the factories, will sell those goods at the expense of our own country. At present they all have to be kept going by granting them a quota. I am sorry that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is not here, for he is concerned in this matter and has had a great deal to do with the manufacture of implements and with the company that produces almost 50 per cent. of the country’s requirements today. I wonder what he thinks about this. Does he think that those importers must be protected, or does he also realise that as soon as the first shipment can be landed here, that they will again import the goods from overseas? We farmers are prepared to support our local industries. We have made use of articles which have not been of a very high quality. We have fitted in the rough ploughshares and have ploughed. Today our factories are engaged in making improvements. But I should like to know why the Government is according that protection which I have referred to. Another matter which I would like to touch on is the position in connection with grain bags. A few days ago the Minister intimated that grain bags had been purchased in Calcutta. I wanted to put a question to the Minister direct, but unfortunately he is not here. It is whether the Minister intends to allow the bags to be distributed again through the various boards, the Mealie Control Board and the Wheat Control Board, as was done last year. I should like to have an answer to that. I shall warn the Minister in advance that he must not load unnecessary costs on the bags. Let him arrange for their distribution through the boards and the co-operative associations. Last year thousands of bags were handled by the boards at the small cost of 3 per cent. and by the co-operative associations at a small cost of 2 per cent. I would ask the Minister to follow that course again otherwise the bags will be bought up by people who want to make unnecessary profits out of the farmers.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 11th February.