I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

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

What about the Prime Minister’s speech?

It did not refer to Russia.

It did refer to Russia.

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

What about Poland?

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

Why did other nations turn on her?

Why should they?

America turned on Russia too.

Why did you not complain when they agreed with Hitler?

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

Look at your capitalist friends enjoying it.

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

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

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

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

What about Finland?

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

It that so?

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

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

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

And then he went on to say—

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

Imagine!

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

I am laughing at the nonsense you are talking.

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

I am sure it’s you.

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

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

What about Russia?

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

I shall answer you.

You are talking nonsense.

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

I said: “Heil South Africa”.

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

How about yourself?

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

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

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

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

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

That, is a scandalous distortion.

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

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

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

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

And then we have this significant remark—

That’s a joke.

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

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

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

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

And then he goes even further—

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

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

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

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

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

And then he went on—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are misleading the House.

Very well, then I shall read the whole thing.

I repeat that you are misleading the House.

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

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

Who was the judge?

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

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

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

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

Then why was the appeal not proceeded with?

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

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

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

I read that out.

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

I say so again.

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

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

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

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

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

Read a little further.

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

Why don’t you read the whole incident?

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

What is the position today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other question is this—

When was that said—25 years ago?

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

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

What, another policy again?

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

We don’t trust you.

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

Hear, hear.

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

That must have been “The old Watch Tower.”

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

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

Give him a little water.

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

He gets no further than 1899.

Give him a little water.

We fought for three years and we lost that motion.

What year was it?

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

Hear, hear!

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

Yes.

No.

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

Why not introduce such a motion?

I shall move it if you will second it.

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

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

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

[Inaudible.]

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

Now you have become a fusionist.

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

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

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

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

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second Agreed to.

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

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

Cocktail parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member must come back to the motion.

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

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

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

You have waited a long time.

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

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

To whom do you refer as “we”?

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

You may perhaps serve on it.

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

Are these Europeans?

Yes.

I suppose they work for Nationalists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—10:

Burnside, D. C.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Payne. A. C.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Wanless, A. T.

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

Noes—98:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Bremer, K.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Faure, J. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Hare, W. D.

Haywood, J. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Lawrence, H. G.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Maclean, J.

Malan, D. F.

Maré, F. J.

Mentz, F. E.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P.‘ J.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, C. F.

Steyn, G. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Warren, S. E.

Waterson, S. F.

Wilkens J.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

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

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—29:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens. J.

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

Noes—77:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire. J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maclean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payne. A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Words proposed to be substituted accordingly negatived.

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

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

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

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

The hon. the Minister, of course, is not a lawyer, but he proposes here to depart from the ordinary procedure which is that one has to take transfer if one buys land. As a lawyer I am very proud of the system of registration of land in the Union. You know, Mr. Chairman, and I think other hon. members know, that our system of registration of land is the most perfect in the world. One can go to the Deeds Office and trace the whole history of every bit of land from A to Z. The Minister now proposes to depart from that system; in other words, he is going to turn our perfect system into a faulty one, and that is the thin end of the wedge. I assume he does not want to pay the few pounds it costs to take transfer. Surely there are Government attorneys to do that work, and the expense cannot be very heavy. The Minister now proposes that the Railways will not be required to take transfer. They return the land to the owner, and then they go to the Deeds Office and inform the Deeds Office that the land has been returned to the owner. I think we would be failing in our duty if we failed to lodge our protest against this departure from the existing system. We have no reason to be as proud of the Railways as we are of our present system. We have one thing that is perfect in our Administrative system, and the Minister now proposes to depart from this principle of the registration of land. One can find out from the Deeds Office today what an individual’s financial position is. In other words, the right we have to find out what a man’s financial position is by going to the Deeds Office and ascertaining what bonds a man has on his farm is now to be taken away from us. I don’t want to move an amendment. The other side of the House wants this Bill to be passed now, but I feel it is my duty to lodge a protest. I do so because there is a principle at stake, a very important principle, which the Minister now wants to do away with. Let him go on like that; the result of this Bill will be that eventually we shall have just as big a mess in our system of registration of land as we have on the Railways today.

The hon. member is dealing with a matter which was also dealt with in the second reading debate. There I explained that when the railways expropriate land …

I was told what you said, but that does not alter the position.

That makes me all the more surprised that the hon. member found it necessary to intervene at this stage. But the position is this, that when we expropriate land, we take full and complete title under expropriatory powers. There is no need to register that land, but in fact, so that there may be no difficulty, so that there may be no doubt as to where our land should go, we do take out title in all cases comprising stations and siding emplacements and land including right of way situated in townships and urban areas, so that anybody who is likely to be alongside us knows exactly where we stand. But the suggestion that we should take out title for the hundreds of miles which run through farms and so on, is a suggestion that is of no practical value, that is of no use to anybody at all, but would involve the Railways, because of diagrams which have to be made, in expenditure which I think this House would not like to place upon the Railways or on the owners of the land. I see no advantage in taking out title in this case, and if we did take out title it would cost us something to re-register that title. I think on the whole the landowner is much more keen on leaving the situation as it is, and I am glad that the hon. member in registering his protest has not taken the matter further.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move the amendment standing in my name as printed on page 210 of the Votes and Proceedings—

1. (4) Should any dispute arise as to the amount of such compensation, the matter shall be settled, at the option of the owner or occupier of such land, either—
   1. (a) by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the law in force in the province in which the land is situated, relating to the expropriation of land by the Government for public purposes; or
   2. (b) by action instituted by the owner or occupier, if the amount claimed be less than seven hundred and fifty pounds, in the magistrate’s court for the district in which the land is situated, or if the amount claimed be seven hundred and fifty pounds or more, in the Division of the Supreme Court within whose area of jurisdiction the land is situated.

As the Minister has met the views expressed by hon. members on both sides of the House in accepting this amendment, I need take no time in debating it. This clause, as amended, in no way disturbs the present provisions of the law relating to the expropriation of land by the Government for public purposes, but adds provision to simplify proceedings at the option of a claimant who as the owner or occupier of land, has a claim for compensation against the Department of Railways and Harbours.

I purposely did not speak on the second reading debate of this Bill because I had a question on the Order Paper in connection with this Bill, which was very important. Clause 2 appears to me to be one of the most peculiar Clauses that I have seen for a long time in this House, and I have done my utmost to try and understand what is the reason for that Clause. During the second reading debate on this Bill the hon. the Minister every now and then seemed to be holding out a bit of sugar to the farming community. It appeared to me that the Minister was making an attempt to give the House the impression that this Bill only dealt with land which might in days to come be bought from farmers, and that is why I put a question on the Order Paper to find out whether that was the position. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister in his reply to my question refused to give the answer. This was my question, and I leave it to hon. members to judge whether the Minister does not owe me a reply to that question—

1. (a) Whether he intends purchasing the Wanderers grounds near Johannesburg station, and if so, for what purpose?
2. (b) The estimated costs of such purchase?

This Clause deals with the purchase of land. My second question was as follows—

My third question was as follows—

The hon. the Minister replied as follows—

I say that in view of the Bill now before the House the Minister was in duty bound to reply to that question, and he should not have given this kind of reply, and before I can allow this Clause to pass, the Minister will have to give this Committee the assurance that the Wanderers grounds will not under the provisions laid down in this Bill, become the property of the South African Railways and Harbours. If he cannot give us this assurance, then the Minister had no right to pretend to the House that this Bill only dealt with land to be bought exclusively from farmers. When buying land from the farmer the Minister wants to avail himself of his expropriation Act, but when he buys plots of ground from large bodies for huge amounts, for millions of pounds, a different procedure is followed. If one talks about the Wanderers on the Rand today, the person one talks to closes one eye and opens the other wide. The impression created on the Witwatersrand is that the Wanderers …

Will the hon. member tell me what that has to do with this Clause?

The Wanderers have ground which has to be bought on behalf of the Railways. This Clause deals with such purchases.

This Clause has nothing to do with the purchase of land.

May I be allowed to read Clause 2?

This Clause only deals with the question of the amount of compensation.

Compensation for what?

For land which has been expropriated.

Exactly, that’s my point. When the Minister buys land from a man on the platteland he uses his expropriation right to the full; under this Clause the matter can be settled in court if the price does not exceed £750. Is not this a case of the Minister having made a promise to the owners of the Wanderers grounds that he would introduce this Bill to satisfy them, because if the price is fixed in court they will get five or seven times as much as they would get if the Railways had availed themselves of their expropriation rights?

The owner of the land can demand arbitration?

Let us read the Clause. Clause 2 reads as follows—

1. “(4) Should any dispute arise as to the amount of such compensation, the matter shall be determined by action instituted by the owner or occupier of such land, if the amount claimed be less than seven hundred and fifty pounds, in the magistrate’s court for the district in which such land is situate, or if the amount claimed be seven hundred and fifty pounds or more, in the Division of the Supreme Court within whose area of jurisdiction the land is situate.”

I shall be glad to be told that I am wrong, and I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he does not intend to abuse this Clause. If I am making a mistake I think the House will agree that I am fully entitled to make that mistake. I fail to appreciate that this Bill will not be used to buy that piece of ground, and other land and plots in the Johannesburg area. That is how I read it, and it is for the lawyers to tell me that I am wrong. I object for this reason; I say that the individual on the platteland is deprived of his rights, and here, where one is dealing with a large body, preferential treatment is applied. There has been a tremendous fuss made in Johannesburg about the Wanderers grounds and the hon. the Minister and his General Manager are the only two people who know why they want to buy the Wanderers grounds. No commission has expressed the view that it is essential for the Railways to buy the Wanderers grounds. On the contrary, it is the private opinion of the Minister and the General Manager that they must have these grounds which would save the building of an extra line between Johannesburg and Krugersdorp, or between Pretoria and Germiston. It would appear to me that the Wanderers grounds are going to cost millions of pounds, and I do not think the country is going to benefit by the Railways buying that piece of ground; only a certain section will benefit. That is my objection and I say that this reply which the Minister has given me is an evasive reply. Unless he tells the House what the position is he must not blame me and others for having had that suspicion ever since he started talking about the Wanderers grounds. He said once that he was going to get the Wanderers grounds, no matter what it cost, and it seems to me that this Clause is nothing but a bit of sugar to induce those people not to kick any longer against the purchase of the Wanderers. The hon. Minister has given us to understand that he is going to take the Wanderers grounds, but he tells the House that it is not in the public interest to let it be known what he is doing. The people living round about the Wanderers have been told that they must move because the land is required for Railway expansion purposes, but the Minister does not tell the House that. For the sake of the Government’s reputation, which the Minister is now jeopardising, the House should now be told very definitely which ground he is going to buy, in view of the fact that he has already intimated to private individuals that he is going to buy that particular ground. Before this Clause is passed the Minister must give us that assurance. If he cannot give us that assurance, then I am afraid I cannot associate myself with this Clause, nor can I agree with him. [Time limit.]

I am much impressed by the eloquence of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) in his defence of the Wanderers, but he is completely off the rails in regard to this clause. This clause amends Section 39 of the original Act which has nothing whatever to do with this question of expropriation. Section 39 has nothing to do with expropriation—all it deals with is cases of forcible entry on a farmer’s land. So that the House can be perfectly clear …

Will you give the House an assurance about the Wanderers Grounds?

If the hon. member wants me to give an assurance at this stage that I won’t take the Wanderers, I cannot give him that. The question whether the Wanderers will be taken over has nothing to do with the clause which the House is considering. The Wanderers Grounds can only be dealt with on the question of expropriation, and I think the hon. member should raise it on the Part Appropriation Bill. Section 39 which we are now asking the House to amend reads as follows: … The first sub-section simply says that in the case of a breakdown the Railways have to do the best they can in that particular area to repair the line as soon as possible. I shall read the clause. What is of importance is sub-section (iii). There is a proviso, too, but I don’t think that is apropos of the discussion. Now the particular clause reads as follows:—

1. 39.
   1. (1) In case of a wash-away upon the line or any similar accident the Administration may, without previous permission, enter upon the adjoining lands and may take therefrom such reasonable quantity of earth, rock or other material as may be necessary for the purpose of affecting the necessary repairs, and construct and use thereon such temporary deviations of the line as the Administration may deem necessary.
   2. (2) Whenever, in the opinion of the Administration, the existence upon any land adjoining any line of railway of any tree, bush, growth, fence, embankment or other obstruction is likely to endanger or impede the safe and proper working of such line, or the telegraph or telephone route established in connection therewith, the Administration may, after reasonable notice to the owner or occupier of such private land, remove so much of such tree, bush, growth, fence, embankment or other obstruction as, in the Administration’s opinion, endangers or impedes such proper working: Provided that where, in the opinion of the Administration, such safe and proper working is actually interfered with or endangered by any such tree, bush growth, fence, embankment or ’ other obstruction, the Administration may cause the work which is immediately necessary for the removal of the interference or danger to be undertaken without any such notice aforesaid.
   3. (3) The Administration shall pay compensation to the owner or occupier of the land referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) for any damage which may be done thereto.
   4. (4) On failure of agreement as to the amount of such compensation, the matter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the law in force in the province in which the land is situated, relating to the expropriation of land by the Government for public purposes.

That is to say that the Railways having helped themselves to some gravel or land …

Or some houses. That is what you are doing, in my constituency, near the Wanderers.

The Wanderers have nothing to do with it; this is not a case of a breakdown. We do not acquire any land here. We are not buying land under this clause—we are not expropriating land. All we are doing here is to help ourselves to some sand or gravel or something like that in order to effect immediate repairs to a railway line.

That’s not all.

No; we have to pay compensation to the farmer after the thing is settled.

Or to the townsman as well. They want to be included.

We have to pay compensation to the occupier or the owner of the land.

Or to both.

Now the position is that in the past when there was any dispute the matter had to go to arbitration. Now, in the case of forcible entry on a farmer’s land under the conditions I have described the amount involved is comparatively small.

That is why you want to increase the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to £750.

We have discussed that, and I know the attorneys have their own views about that. Well, we want to give the farmer the right, if he wishes to go to the magistrate’s court, instead of to arbitration, to do so. If the farmer wants to go to the magistrate’s court instead of to arbitration he can do so. Usually the amounts involved are under £100.

Why don’t you go to court? Why must the farmer go to court?

We are the buyers; if the farmer does not agree with us then we merely follow the usual practice. That is the position as far as this clause is concerned. It has nothing at all to do with the Wanderers or with the expropriation of land, or the purchase or sale of land, it only has to do with one particular condition of affairs—and that is when the Railways forcibly enter upon land and help themselves to something in a hurry in an emergency, so that the service may be carried on as soon as possible. And when it comes to compensating the farmer, we are merely anxious to help the farmer—it is purely to help the farmer …

Isn’t it wonderful?

Yes, the Opposition may smile at that. I wanted to make it compulsory to go to the magistrate’s court, but as the farmers did not like that we said, “Very well, we shall leave it to their option.” I know the lawyers make money out of the farmers, both in the case of arbitration and in the case of court proceedings.

So do the Railways.

The Railways belong to my hon. friend.

Do you accept the amendment?

I have agreed to accept this amendment. I thought hon. members understood that this was an agreed amendment. I have taken some trouble to explain the situation because the hon. member for Krugersdorp is jumping to conclusions which I do not think he is justified in jumping to.

I fail to understand how hon. members who are farmers can agree to this amendment. The Minister of Railways comes here and asks the House to agree to the infringement of a man’s private rights. The Minister may perhaps make a temporary deviation of the railway line.

Or a permanent one.

He deviates the line temporarily and if he finds that the deviation is a good one it may possibly become permanent. Anyhow, he deviates the line temporarily and has to pay compensation. The person who has to be paid compensation can choose whether he wants arbitration or whether he wants to go to the magistrate’s court. The result of arbitration will perhaps be that the farmer has to get £100. The farmer takes up the attitude that it is not enough; he wants £500 or £1,000. If the farmer is not satisfied he either has to ask for arbitration or go to court, and if he loses he has to pay all the costs. Now the Minister tells us that that is a general principle of law. It is not so. If the Minister would study the Irrigation Act he would see that if a private individual, or if the State, wants a servitude in respect of a water supply—if it is proposed to build a furrow over a farmer’s land, and if it is proposed to pay compensation for that purpose and the owner wants more money, it is not his duty but the duty of the individual who wants the servitude to go to the Water Court, whether that individual be the State or a private individual. Now the Minister of Railways tells the House that it is a general principle of law that the individual who asks for compensation has to go to court. No, we should treat the Railways on the same basis as any individual. If they want to make use of a person’s land and there is a dispute about compensation, they should go to court. If the farmer says that he is not prepared to accept what the Railways want to pay him, then it is the duty of the Railways to prove in court that the amount offered is adequate. Why should the farmer or the owner of the land have to do so? There are laws containing that principle, but we take up the attitude—and I hope the Minister will support that point of view—that we want to protect private rights.

I think the House is very likely giving away a great principle. I am rather suspicious about the Minister, and I would like to ask him about my constituency. Is there any nigger in the woodpile in this Bill?

No.

Well, for a long time the Railways have been trying to get hold of some flats near the Wanderers in a roundabout way. People in these flats—the majority of them are returned soldiers—were given notice to quit. I had to go down on a Sunday to quieten these people down, but the S.A. Railways were quite prepared to put these people into the streets.

I don’t think that matter is relevant to this clause.

I think that is what they are trying to do by this Bill. I stopped that. Now, is this a backhanded way of doing it? This land is surrounding the Wanderers and we are very suspicious because when it comes to the Wanderers …

Raise it on the Part Appropriation Bill.

Yes, I know. But can this Bill be used for expropriation?

No, this clause cannot be used.

I am not satisfied with the position at all and I am not satisfied with the way the Railways are dealing with my constituency. And I should like to have a statement from the Minister that he will not under this Bill expropriate any ground in the Hospital constituency.

Not under this clause.

Under this particular amending Act; will he give that assurance?

Yes.

I am glad the Minister of Railways has accepted the amendment in which the occupant or the owner of land is given the option of demanding arbitration. I fail to understand why this provision should be made. We have a provision in the law that if there is a flood and the line is washed away the Railways can take land or gravel from the farmer’s land and afterwards pay compensation for it. In accordance with the provisions of the law the amount of compensation to be paid is to be fixed by arbitration. The Minister now amends the law and tells us that he is doing this for the good of the farmer. If there is a wash-away in a town or anywhere else the Minister can use the provisions of this Act and take soil or even deviate the railway line. It affects the people in the towns just as much as it affects people on the platteland, but at the moment I am not concerned with the people in the towns. Let other hon. members deal with that—that’s their business. The point I want to make, however, is that the existing principle in the Act has answered well in the past; why should the Minister want to make a change? The Minister at first wanted to take away the privelge of arbitration and compel people to go to the Magistrate’s Court, there to have the question of their compensation settled. I am glad the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment to give the occupant or the owner of the land the right either to go to the Magistrate’s Court or to arbitration. This applies to compensation up to an amount of £750, and if the amount involved exceeds £750 the owner of the land can either demand arbitration or go to the High Court. I just want to say this to the Minister, that a Magistrate’s Court Bill was introduced and referred to a Select Committee, and in that Bill the magistrate’s jurisdiction does not exceed £200. The Minister now makes it £750 and tells us that he is doing so in order to assist the farmer. But the object is not to assist the farmer. The whole intention is to get as many of these cases before the magistrate as possible because most of the magistrates are favourably disposed towards the Government. If a question is referred to arbitration we find that arbitration is more disposed to giving the farmer what he is entitled to; that is why the Administration prefers to go to the Magistrate’s Court. In my constituency we had the case of a driver of a big Railway bus, with a trailer attached to it, who turned off the Railway into the main road without signalling his intention of doing so, with the result that a motor car ran into the bus and two people were killed. The Administration sent an attorney from the Rand to Montagu to defend the bus driver, not because the Administration was so fond of the bus driver but because it knew that it would have to pay compensation because of the negligence of this bus driver. The attorney who acted on behalf of the widow of the deceased was not allowed to put any questions when the enquiry was held because the Public prosecutor was in attendance. The attorney representing the Administration produced all kinds of records and the magistrate found the bus driver “not guilty”. Everyone knew he was guilty, there was no question about it. The Railway Administration tried to frighten the widow. She decided, however, to go to the High Court, and she put in her pleadings, whereupon the Administration paid her £5,000 compensation plus all costs. The Administration does not like a case to be referred to arbitration. Arbitrators know the value of land, and they see to it that justice is done to the farmer. Similarly, they also do justice to the townsman, and that is why the Minister prefers to compel people in cases where the amount involved is less than £750 to go to the magistrate’s court. The Minister himself admits that in 99 per cent. of the cases the amounts involved are less than £750. The Minister wants to compel the farmer to go to the magistrate’s court. Anyhow, I am grateful to him for having accepted the amendment, but I still think that the amount of £750 is too high for the magistrate’s court. Under our ordinary law the magistrate’s jurisdiction does not exceed £200, and I think the Minister should have stopped at that. In my thirty years’ experience of our courts I have never yet found the magistrate’s court giving a farmer any advantage over the Government, but if one goes to arbitration one does find that the farmer gets the advantage. I know that the Minister of Railways is in favour of arbitration. Still, I am satisfied if the option is left to the farmer. A request has been put forward for payment to be made in advance. I don’t know whether that is possible. I think this principle has been fairly generally accepted. The Divisional Council, for instance, takes a road if it needs it, and pays afterwards. I don’t think that is unfair, particularly in the case of wash-aways on the Railways. In any case the position is that the law as it was, was quite acceptable and there was no need for the Minister to introduce this amendment. This increase in the magistrate’s court jurisdiction to £750 is not acceptable. I do not believe the Minister has introduced this with the object of helping the farmers—don’t let him come and tell me that that was what he had in mind.

The Minister has explained to us that this amendment only concerns a little bit of soil or gravel which the Railways may require in connection with a wash-away. I should have been glad if he had given all the facts to the House because we would then have been able to judge. The law in this connection reads as follows—

It may be any embankment, a dam wall or anything else.

So this goes beyond the question of a wash-away.

I read that out to the House.

But the Minister in his reply did not explain that to the House. This amendment goes beyond the scope of an ordinary wash-away. I am prepared, however, to support the amendment. At first I objected to the amendment of the Act. The Minister discussed the matter with me privately, and the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) put his amendment before me and asked me whether I approved of it and whether I would be willing to support it if he moved it. I agreed to do so. I am satisfied with the amendment with this proviso, that I would like the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court to be restricted to £200. The Minister said that as a rule the amounts involved were small amounts of £75 to £100. If that is so, why then give the magistrate’s court such great powers of discretion?

Clause 3 of the Act already gives that discretion.

It is given in regard to expropriation. I am coming to that. I was just going to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared so to amend the law that the owner of the land would have the same option of going to court or to arbitration where expropriation of land was at issue. It is no more than fair to give the owner that right. In the event of a wash-away if some obstruction or some other type of danger has to be removed from the line, if an embankment or some other obstruction has to be broken down, because it constitutes a danger to the Railways, and a question like that can be referred to arbitration or to the Magistrate’s Court, then surely similar provision can also be made in regard to expropriation of land? I do not think it unfair to ask these things from the owner of land, because it is necessary to have the Railways, but when the Railways infringe on a man’s land the owner must have the choice of either going to arbitration or to court. If the owner is not prepared to accept the Administration’s offer, he has only one option and that is to sue the Administration in the Magistrate’s Court, which has jurisdiction to an amount of £750. We can argue as much as we like but my experience goes to show that magistrates generally regard themselves as the protectors of the interests of the State. They are the Government’s chief officers in certain areas, and they look upon it as their duty to protect the Government and to whitewash any acts committed by the Government. The magistrate naturally is more disposed to give the Railway Administration the benefit of any doubt when an argument arises. I shall be very grateful, and the public generally will also be grateful, if the land owner in cases of expropriation can also be given that right.

The hon. member cannot go into that question now because the Committee must confine itself to the clause.

If the principle can be accepted in the one case then to my mind it can also be accepted in the other case. I am quite satisfied with the amendment and I am willing to support it, but I should be grateful if the Minister would agree to accept a further amendment, namely, that the Railway Administration, which is the interested party—well, expropriating land is not to the interest of the owner of the land, it is to the interest of the Railway Administration. It is not the owner of the land who is interested in, or to whose advantage it is to have a tree cut down or to have an embankment removed. The Railway Administration is the party interested, and if the owner and the Administration are unable to agree on the amount of compensation to be paid, and if the owner wants to go to arbitration or to the Magistrate’s Court, the Railway Administration in any event should pay the costs. Why should the owner pay—why should he pay even if he does lose the case? He is not the interested party, the Railway Administration is the party to whose interest it is to have these things done. All these things are in the interest of the Railway Administration. Why then should not the Railway Administration be called upon to pay the costs of the arbitration or the costs of an action before a Court of Law. If the Minister is willing to accept such an amendment we would greatly appreciate it and it would give a considerable degree of satisfaction to the House. The Minister is threatened with a serious storm by members who feel that the Administration must not go too far. The Minister should use his discretion carefully and should not interfere too far with the interests of private owners.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has made the allegation that we on this side of the House are prepared without raising our voices to allow the rights of land owners to be curtailed by this amending Bill. As we see the position that is not the case at all. The Minister has already given us an assurance, and we accept his assurance, because it is in accordance with the facts, that this Bill does not aim in any way at interfering with the rights of land owners. The only object of this Bill is to simplify the fixing of compensation due to certain people and we are not called upon at this stage to surrender any existing rights. We accept the amendment which has been proposed. The farmer or the owner of the land now has an option. Under the existing law the magistrate in case of expropriation has jurisdiction up to £750. That jurisdiction is not increased by this clause, but the land owner now has the option of asking for arbitration as well. He can therefore either go to arbitration or to the magistrate’s court, and he is left the option of saying which court he selects. Then we come to the question of costs. Under the existing law the farmer never has to pay all the costs of arbitration. As a rule, if the arbitration court grants an amount less than that asked for by the land owner he has not got to pay the costs of the Railway Administration. At the most he has to pay his own costs and perhaps certain of the arbitrators’ fees, but never the costs of the Administration. That is why we are so keen on this clause in regard to arbitration being retained for the benefit of the land owner. As the law stands today the land owner never has to pay all the costs in regard to arbitration. We know that arbitration is often expensive, and the land owner has the option of selecting to go to arbitration or to the magistrate’s court. The Minister may, however, be willing to consider another suggestion. Under the old Proclamation of 1902 and 1903 the magistrate was given the right to call in two assessors. He could call them in and ask them to assist him in determining the amount of compensation to be paid. I want to suggest that that should also be embodied in this Bill. But if the new Magistrate’s Court Bill which has been referred to a Select Committee is accepted, the magistrate will in every case have the right to call in the assistance of two assessors. We therefore feel we are entitled to support this Bill with the amendment accepted by the Minister because the Bill in no way curtails or interferes with the land owner’s rights; on the contrary it facilitates the process for the obtaining of compensation as compared with the position existing today, and the owner will have the option of going to the magistrate’s court or of asking for arbitration—he will be able to go to the High Court—it will merely depend on the amount involved.

I wish to move an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). That amendment has already been accepted by the Minister and I now want to move this. To add at the end—

That will solve all our difficulties. Why should the farmer or the owner have to bear the costs? I do not know what the Administrative Act in the Transvaal is.

I am sorry but the hon. member cannot move that amendment as it contemplates increased expenditure.

Then I want to ask the Minister to move it.

The hon. the Minister cannot move it either without a recommendation from the Governor General.

I think the Minister should reconsider the whole matter. He is now depriving people of certain rights and when he has taken away those rights, the people concerned, if they are not satisfied, and if a court action results, may have to pay the costs. The position in the Cape Province is not as described by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). We have arbitration proceedings here in regard to a road being made over one’s property. In such a case if one objects to the amount offered for compensation, and one demands arbitration and gets a little less than the amount offered, one has to pay all costs connected with the arbitration. Consequently, so far as the Cape is concerned, the position is different from that described by the hon. member for Ermelo. I think the hon. the Minister should consider the whole matter. If important developments take place in the future the Minister will find that some of the farmers will be very hard hit, and I think it is most unfair to deprive a man of his private rights, and if that man defends his rights and asks for compensation, to make him pay costs in connection with his case.

I wish to associate myself with the plea put up by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and I am doing so as a man who has experience of the railway running over my farm. I want to say at once that a railway line is not a blessing to the owner of the land over which it runs—it is a sacrifice. The owner has all the difficulties in connection with the fencing off of his land. He has to pay part of the expense in connection with fencing off the railway line. The railway line is run for the benefit of the State and not for the benefit of the farmer, and if there is a wash-away and the State offers compensation which the farmer refuses to accept, then it is the duty of the State to go to court and bear the costs. That is why I want to support the hon. member’s plea. I feel the Minister should accept the adjournment of the debate so that the Minister can get authorisation for the Additional Expenditure. The Administration should bear the costs.

May I be allowed to support the plea put forward by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie)? This is a very important matter to farmers and I want to ask the Minister to be good enough to report progress so that he may obtain the consent of the Governor General to overcome the difficulty mentioned by the Chairman. If the Minister is not prepared to do that then I would suggest that he might introduce the necessary amendment in the Senate in order to satisfy us on this side of the House. If the Minister undertakes to do so he will give general satisfaction.

The hon. the Minister was very considerate in regard to the amendment which he has already accepted but I would like him to realise that he will not always be occupying his present post, and that the present management will not always be there to apply the law. The law will also apply to other parts of the platteland—it will apply to small bits of ground, valuable bits of ground, where a few feet of ground or an embankment, a fence or a dam may have very much more value than in the Karroo or on the platteland, where people have large farms. The Act will also apply to other public bodies, and in pleading with the Minister to make concessions in regard to the costs we do so particularly with a view to assisting the man who has no extensive lands, and who has no great means, and who, if he has to stand on his own, will feel it is impossible for him to start an action against the Administration. It will also have the effect of making the officials of the Administration a little more considerate if they know that if an action arises, either in a court of law or before an arbitrator, the Administration will have to bear the costs. It will make the Administration a good deal more considerate in respect of claims, and I want to appeal to the Minister to accept this further amendment. He can afford it. The Railway Administration is a powerful body which makes large profits. If an individual sues the Railway Administration, I would almost say that it is tantamount to suing the most powerful financial concern in the country, a concern which has all the Government attorneys and all the legal talent at its disposal, a disadvantage which is immediately felt by the man who is faced with the choice of starting an action against a most powerful Administration. If the Minister accepts this amendment his officials in future will be a little more considerate and they will not act unduly harshly or unfairly towards land owners, and in this connection I again have in mind the owners of small bits of land which perhaps are valuable.

I think that I had better try to get this House back to reason once more. We are on a very small Clause, on a very small feature of an important Bill, on account of it having been omitted to state who should pay costs in law suits. The points that have now been raised, really surprise me, and the latest proposition is an interesting one indeed. The position is this: We take say some gravel or a tree or some wood from a farmer on the occasion of an emergency. Later we take steps to compensate that farmer. The suggestion now made is that if a farmer does not agree to our offer of compensation and decides to go to court to determine whether the amount of compensation is reasonable or not, we shall pay his costs in any event; that, I must say, is a singularly bright idea. Just imagine what it means. No farmer, if he had any wits about him at all, would promptly agree to our first offer. He would at once say that we would be mulcted in a great deal of costs if we took him to court, and …

Surely there are honest farmers.

Of course there are honest farmers.

You said: “No farmer if he had his wits about him.”

Of course, I do not wish to impugn the honour of any farmer. The hon. member knows quite well what I mean. Let me say this, that if the farmer himself did not think of questioning our offer, his attorney would in the course of his business be compelled to do so. The hon. member knows quite well the sense in which I meant the remark. I do not question the honour of the farmer. Why should I? But this suggestion is that we should pay the costs, whether we are right or wrong, and if we do not get heavily mulcted in costs under such an arrangement, I should be surprised. I do not want to go into the merits of the question, but that is something I cannot accept and will not accept. This clause deals with a very small part of the Bill. The reason for this suggestion of £750 in Clause 2 is that it is the same level of compensation which was agreed to by the House in Section 3 of the principal Act; in that section the House laid down £750 as the level below which the case should go to court instead of arbitration. If the House so desires I am prepared to drop this clause altogether. The clause is of no advantage to the Railways. It was designed, and I am asking you to accept it, entirely in the interests of people who have claims against the Railways. Here I am actually helping farmers with claims against the Railways. Now the hon. member wants me to amend the clause in a most ridiculous way, and one that cannot be entertained, though if he wishes it I can drop the clause. I think we should bring Section 39 of the Act into line with Section 3. Then we would have the Act laying down the same thing throughout. The matter would have been attended to in Section 39 if the legal people had noticed this point. It was an oversight on their part, and the intention in this clause is to remedy that oversight now. If as the result of the passing of this clause and our experience of its working, we want to do something else at some future time, then we can always consider it and review the amendment if new legislation is necessary. All I ask is that this measure should be passed now, and that we should see how it works. I shall not in any case, be able to accept any amendments of the kind that have been indicated.

I should like the Minister to try and realise that the farmers have had bitter experience of the matter of compensation so far as the Railways are concerned, and they have not always received fair treatment. The Minister has now withdrawn his allegation but he said a peculiar thing, namely, that the farmer who uses commonsense will not immediately accept the Railway’s offer of compensation but will try and get more by going to court, if our suggestion is accepted. I leave it at that—I do not know whether the Minister intended casting a reflection on the farmer’s honesty or not. He says that he did not mean that. Well, I accept that, but now we have to draw his attention to what the Railways have done in the past, and we have to point out that the attitude of the Railway Administration, not only towards the farmers but also towards other people, has not always been very considerate so far as claims for compensation against the Railway Administration have been concerned. On the contrary, one can say that in a hundred cases out of a hundred the Railways, whether they were responsible or not, even when it has been perfectly clear that they were responsible for a particular happening, in the first instance refused to pay. They come along with all kinds of schemes to scare people off and to force them to accept a smaller amount, and only those people who have the courage eventually to say that they are going to court are paid a fair amount of compensation. That sort of thing is very distasteful to me. It places the Railway Administration in a false light when they try to reduce the amount of compensation to poor people who may have suffered serious damage. I myself in my capacity as an attorney have had experience of that kind of thing. The Railway Administration refuses to pay and tries to bring down the amount as much as possible, and only when it sees that the man concerned is going to court does it agree to pay adequate compensation. The sooner the Minister brings about a change in the attitude of the Railway Administration in this regard the better. This is a distasteful way of doing poor people out of money to which they are entitled. In regard to damage inflicted on farmers, we often find that the Railway Administration by building a bridge or by building a furrow, turns the water from its natural course into a different direction which often results in a farmer suffering heavy losses. I have a case here which I myself investigated. On the 1st December I wrote a personal letter to the Minister about this case—it was a case in my own constituency. It is the case of a certain Z. Minnaar of the farm “Deelfontein”. I myself went into the matter and made an investigation, and I saw with my own eyes the damage done to the farmer by the Railway Administration because that farmer’s water had been turned away from its natural course into a different direction. The Railway Administration built a totally ineffective small bridge, with the result that every time there is a heavy rainfall the water cannot pass underneath the bridge and it is turned in a different direction, with the result that the poor farmer suffers heavy damage on his lands which lie in that direction. On the 1st December, 1943, I wrote fully to the Minister about the case. Three days later, on the 4th December, I received a reply from the Administrative Secretary in which he informed me that the Minister of Transport wished to acknowledge receipt of the letter about the wash-aways on the particular farm, and the damage done to the lands, and at the same time he informed me that a further communication would be addressed to me as soon as possible. The “as soon as possible” period has not arrived yet. This is nearly March and the damage was done on the 1st December, or rather it was on the 1st December that I wrote about it, and since then further serious damage has been done, but I have received no other reply. I, therefore, want the Minister to realise what the farmers’ difficulties are, and why they want, wherever possible, to have a hundred per cent. protection when they have to deal with the Railway Administration. In regard to the case which I have mentioned, I hope the Minister will pay compensation and that the Railway Administration will take immediate steps so that that farmer will not have to suffer heavy losses every time there is a heavy downfall.

I feel that the Railway Administration has always treated the farmers unsympathetically. In many instances bridges have been built in such a way that the water dams up in one place and causes considerable damage and difficulty to the farmers. I can mention one instance in my area of a small farmer who had only 30 morgen under irrigation; the Railways have now concentrated all that water under a bridge, with the result that a large proportion of that man’s lands have been washed away. The Railways were asked to pay compensation and it took a lot of trouble to make the Railway Administration realise that farmer’s difficulties. In such cases the Railway Administration is not taking up a sympathetic attitude, and that is why we feel we must protect the rights of the farmers. The farmers are not opposed to the Railways, but the Railway Administration very often takes up an unsympathetic attitude towards the rights of the farmers.

I wish to associate myself with the opinion expressed by many hon. members on this side of the House. I represent an urban constituency and this is not an instance of what has only happened to the farmer. In Gezina, where about 25,000 people are living in a congested area, a railway line was built not long ago right through the constituency, and it will be easily understood that the railway line runs along the properties of perhaps thousands of people. When the railway line was built we found that the Railway Administration had taken options over the necessary properties. The matter was put off and put off and I came into contact with any number of cases of people whom I contacted and who wanted my assistance. They did not know what to do. They did not know when there would be an arbitration court, and they did not know whether the Railway was going to buy their property. In those days properties elsewhere were going up in price and the general feeling was that if they had to sell at the price fixed and perhaps only be paid in six months’ or a year’s time the price of property by that time would have gone up to such an extent that they would be the losers, and they would not know where they stood. We are glad that the Minister is prepared to meet our request to a large extent. I am particularly thinking of my own constituency where thousands of the people are Railway workers and Railway officials. Surely it is our object to encourage people to own their own land and develop their own property. If the interests of the Railways in the constituency are to clash with the interests of thousands of the officials living there, then surely it is going to be very difficult for the officials to pick a quarrel with their own employer? The Railway man will be afraid to go to court or to ask for arbitration, and if in addition to that a man may be involved in costs, the position will be quite impossible. We appreciate the fact that the Minister has met us in that respect, but I want to point out that there are many Railway officials in my constituency who are greatly interested in this matter, and who should be protected.

I now understand that this compensation under clause 2 only refers to cases of wash-aways. Hon. members know the law, but I know the circumstances, and I therefore know that it is possible for an artificial wash-away to be caused, and to be used as a reason to obtain possession of certain ground. The Railway Administration may avail itself of such an opportunity, it may use such an artificial wash-away as a means to get possession of the land which this Bill refers to. I have in mind at the moment the sub-way in Smit Street. If an inch and a half of rain falls the water stands so high that a motor car would be submerged right up to its hood, and the Minister of Railways would then be able to avail himself of the opportunity to get hold of the Wanderers Grounds and of all the other plots adjoining the Wanderers. Hon. members know the law, but I know the conditions, and I want an assurance from the Minister that he is not going to try and get hold of the Wanderers Grounds and surrounding ground in that way.

The hon. member must not proceed along those lines.

I want to ask the Minister to give us an assurance that he will not try to obtain the Wanderers and the surrounding land under the provisions of this Bill for Railway purposes.

Order, order.

I am sorry I am out of order, but there is this danger, that under this Bill the Railway Administration.…

The hon. member is out of order.

I quite appreciate that we are only dealing with cases of wash-aways here, but it only wants a little bit of rain for a wash-away to take place in that particular neighbourhood and I am afraid the Minister will then be able to use this Bill in order to deprive people of their rights. The Minister gives us a halfhearted reply but the House wants an assurance from him. If that is not his intention let him give us an assurance. Failing that he must forgive me if I say that I am afraid that that will be the case and that there will be that danger.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

Amendment and Clause 2 considered.

Is the Minister in a position now to reply to the question which I have insisted on putting in the Committee stage. I shall be glad if he will reply to that question.

I understand that the question relates to the Wanderers Grounds in Johannesburg. It would be entirely out of order to discuss that now.

Amendment put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 22nd February.

When this debate was interrupted I was saying that I thought the payment made by the Railway Administration to non-Europeans is a scandal. I was saying also that I agreed with the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) that the conditions under which some of the Europeans had to work were also scandalous—that it was absolutely impossible for them to find decent amenities of living. I, too, would like to see some improvements in the living conditions, and I hope the Railway Administration will put into practice the Blue Print, that was envisaged by the predecessor to the present Minister when he suggested that a large measure of the Railway Administration’s funds should be used for the purpose of finding decent living conditions for the poorer paid section of our Railway employees. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) suggested that the Railway Administration should pay to its artisans the rate ruling for artisans in similar grades in outside employment. My objection to the Labour Party is that it always overplays its hand. No reference was made to the fact that the majority of the artisans in the Railway service—I am thinking now of the artisans in the mechanical department, and also in the transportation service—do in fact receive quite a substantial grant or bonus on top of the ruling artisan rates prevailing in the Administration. The wage plus the bonus does not compare unfairly with what is paid to artisans outside. I quite agree that they are fully entitled to that, but my complaint against the Labour Party is that they champion the cause of the more highly skilled Railway workers. In fact, they champion the cause merely of the more highly skilled and more highly paid, and they do not give sufficient attention to the arguments raised on behalf of the non-European or coloured sections. I have not yet heard a single word from the Labour Party about the scandalous wages paid in this area to coloured people—I have not heard them say a single word about the fact that coloured men and their families are compelled to live on 3s. 3d. per day without any other basis. 3s. 3d. per day is the pay of some the coloured employees of the Railway Administration. It cannot be justified. If social security is to be devised within an economic system, that permits wages like this, then social security is a myth, and a figment of imagination of some distorted vision. We have to do something more and I hope that the Parliamentary Labour Party will sponsor the cause of the non-European and coloured employee in the Railway Administration. I learn with regret that the Labour Party is not prepared to give the non-Europeans even the protection under the Act which is extended to any employee—they do not even recognise them as employees. How can they reconcile their action with the action of the present Minister of Railways who walked out of a previous Ministerial position because he wanted the claims of the coloured employees to be recognised. I am sure that the principle for which he was prepared to give up his position in the Ministry should be followed by the Labour Party. In conclusion I should like to raise one particular point. We know there are many funds and benefits which are subsidised by the Railway Administration. The sick fund is of great benefit to members of the Railway Administration. It is an accepted fact that the Railway Administration subsidies the funds of the sick fund to more than 50 per cent. There is more money in the sick fund contributed by the Railway Administration than by the members. Now the ruling given by the Minister’s predecessor on an occasion when an employee of the Railway Administration who had contributed for more than twenty-five years to the sick fund, and who was pensioned off as a result of an injury, sustained during the course of his service, but not arising out of his service, caused a good deal of dissatisfaction. This man had to be pensioned because he could no longer hold his employment. He had to go on pension at the age of 48 and he made application to this House asking for the addition of sick fund benefit to be given to him. The Railway Administration in its regulation lays it down that no employee under 50 can enjoy the benefits of the sick fund. I was a member of the Select Committee which recommended that this particular employee should be entitled to the benefits of the sick fund but your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, ruled that it would be an infringement of the rights of Parliament to interfere with the sick fund. [Time limit.]

I have only a few minutes left before business is suspended and these few minutes I should like to use to touch briefly on some minor points. As the Minister knows many more passengers use our Railways today than the Administration can cope with. The Railways even write to members of Parliament asking us to use our influence to induce people to use the Railways less. Now I have been wondering whether it would not be possible to reduce certain types of passengers. I refer to the soldiers who continually travel up and down over our railways on vacation. Let me explain the position. If a soldier returns from Up North where he has been fighting, I say give him every possible facility so that he can travel wherever he wants to go. But there are a large number of people who are not really soldiers who are employed on clerical duties in the army, and who merely, because they wear uniform, are classified as soldiers. They travel all over on our trains.

And it seems that that is all they do.

Yes, it really looks as if that is their job. If we travel by train we always come across some of those soldiers on the train. One of them told me the other day that he had been given ten days’ leave so he had decided to come from Johannesburg to Cape Town to stay with an aunt because his railway ticket would cost him less than a ten days’ stay in Johannesburg. He was one of those soldiers doing a clerical job. They even come from Johannesburg to spend a week-end in Cape Town. As I have said, let us give every possible facility to the people who have been up North to fight, but these other people are clerks and they are not soldiers in the sense of being fighters. They occupy clerical jobs in the army and they are to a very large extent responsible for the many passengers travelling over our railways. If those people had been employed in their ordinary private capacity they would not have used the railways so much. If they had not been given the privileges which soldiers enjoy today they would have travelled much less than they are doing today. But today they feel an urge to travel which is due to the cheap railway tickets they can get every time they go on leave. It is a temptation to them to take a long journey by rail.

Strengthened by a good meal I shall now resume my speech. Just a few words more on the subject I was discussing, namely the unnecessary travelling by soldiers who are not really soldiers, but who hold clerical posts in the Department of Defence. I have given a few instances to show the way these people travel up and down. I can also mention other cases which I have personally come across, such as the case of an individual on a fortnight’s holiday. After having had his holiday he returned by train, and when he got back he was told that his services were not yet required and that he could have another fortnight’s holiday, so he again took the train and returned to the place where he had been spending his holiday. A friend of mine was coming in by bus this morning when he got into conversation with a young fellow in uniform. He asked him whether he was here on leave and the young fellow replied: “No, but I have been sent here in connection with the Cavalcade,” so my friend asked him what his job was and his reply was that he was just assisting here and there. He had not asked to be sent here—he did not want to come here because his home was not here, but he had simply been sent. The Department of Defence does that sort of thing with the result that it is placing an even greater burden on the already sorely tried Minister of Railways, instead of helping him out of his difficulties. If that sort of thing is stopped it will help the Minister of Railways very much. Now I want to say a few words about the stupendous event which has overtaken South Africa. I refer to the arrival here on Saturday morning of Noel Coward. Hon. members will ask me why I want to talk about that. Well, on Saturday morning Sir Evelyn Baring, the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, and Mr. Noel Coward, the well-known crooner, arrived here.

What is a crooner?

A crooner is a man or a person who sings in a peculiar way because he has something wrong with his throat. He differs from a Cabinet Minister who talks peculiarly because there is something wrong with his intelligence.

What is a “crooner” in Afrikaans?

Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us this evening after he has been to the performance for which he has to pay £5 for a seat, that the Afrikaans word is “neuriesanger”. Well, this Mr. Noel Coward and the Governor of Southern Rhodesia arrived here on Saturday morning. The Prime Minister sent a representative to meet Mr. Noel Coward. I don’t know whether he sent a representative to meet the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, but when the train entered Cape Town station, there was a magnificent private coach for Noel Coward and his private secretary. They could not travel like ordinary people in an ordinary train, they could not travel in the same way as a highly placed British Lord, or a refugee member of a Royal House, in an ordinary compartment. No, they had to have a special coach. Well, perhaps it is the right thing that he should have a special coach because our Ministers travel in special coaches and they do not even know how to croon, but the Governor of Southern Rhodesia did not have a special coach—he had to travel in an ordinary coupe like any ordinary member of Parliament. We almost thought that the Pretoria station master had made a mistake and had taken Noel Coward for the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. He must have arrived on the Pretoria station in so stately a manner that the station master made a mistake with the result that he was given a special coach and the Governor a coupe. Whatever the position, this best or second best crooner in the world was given a special coach by our Railways. I was very anxious to know when I heard all this who this Mr. Noel Coward was, and I went to the library and turned up Sir Seymour Hicks’ book—Sir Seymour Hicks is the well-known English actor. He wrote a book “Gone with the Wind up”. Sir Seymour Hicks is eighty years old; he is the doyen of his profession, and in his book he bitterly attacks English actors and actresses who ran away to America when war broke out. I am glad to be able to say that when I had finished the book I had not found Noel Coward’s name in it. But shortly afterwards I read in a newspaper that he was fined £5,000 in England because he had illicitly sent his money to America because he was afraid of German bombs and German confiscation. I don’t think we have ever before given anyone a special coach here, because he was fined £5,000. I also found out that he is not only a crooner, but he is also a dramatist—a man who writes plays. So I thought I would study his books to see if they were so good that he should have a special coach. I managed to get one of his books and I think I ought to read a few extracts from it to let hon. members see whether he ought to have a special coach. I know he is in close touch with the Government, and even if the particular quotation I am going to read does not appeal to all members of Parliament it may perhaps appeal to the two bachelors in the Cabinet, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mines. Perhaps—I say perhaps—it may be good for them to read it because apparently, or perhaps, they may improve and become more natural. Let me quote this bit—

I hand this to the Minister of Finance to use it as he thinks fit. But if that is not reason enough, for giving Mr. Noel Coward a free special coach perhaps there are other reasons. He is also a poet, he is a very serious poet, and I assume that not only in public but also in private he will let the Cabinet have the benefit of his poetry. He has a special talent, so I understand, for training choirs, and I can quite conceive of his putting the eleven remaining members of the Cabinet through their paces, so that when the Prime Minister leaves for the Imperial Conferences they can take up their stand on the quay, on the spot where passengers on the ships throw paper streamers to the crowds on the quay, and we can imagine our team of Ministers standing there, each with a bit of streamer in his hand. We can picture the choir there, each member with his mouth wide open—one a little wider than the others—singing the refrain—

I can quite imagine the Prime Minister responding from the deck with one of his own poems. Hon. members did not know that in his young days he too was a poet; probably he would respond by singing one of his own poems—

I notice the Minister of Native Affairs is very much affected by this last verse, he is nearly in tears. But I ask hon. members whether this is the type of man to give a special coach? He we completely lost our sense of proportion in South Africa? Have we lost it so much as to make heroes of a Hollywood star and an Adelphi star and other music hall stars? Have we lost our sense of proportion to such an extent that people of that type are given a greater reception than even the Governor General, than even the heads of neighbouring states and that they have special coaches placed at their disposal. The Prime Minister sends his representative to meet those stars at the aerodromes or the railway stations on their arrival. Have we completely lost our sense of proportion in South Africa? Some young official in the Department of Railways whose head had been turned by listening to Noel Coward’s crooning over the wireless may have made a mistake, but I think it is high time we got away from this sort of mad extravagance. The other aspect of Noel Coward’s visit, why he has come here, and whether it was necessary for him to come here, is one which we cannot deal with now; we shall do so on another occasion. I now come to another matter. The Minister told us recently about the difficulties we are experiencing with our locomotives. We have some 500 locomotives which are so antiquated that they should be sent to the workshops for repairs, but they cannot go to the workshops for repairs at present because traffic requirements are such that it is impossible to withdraw them from the service. That may be true—I believe it is true, and I know that the demands made upon the Railways are enormous. I was very surprised to notice a report in the Press this morning, however, stating that we had sold 40 locomotives to Uganda or Nyasaland, or some other Government in Central Africa. At a time when the Minister tells us that it is practically impossible, with the tractive power at his disposal, to do the work required of the Railways, at a time when the farmer or any one wanting to despatch goods by rail knows that it is practically impossible to get his goods despatched at once, and that it often takes days and weeks and longer on account of the necessary rolling stock not being available owing to our tractive power being so small that the trains cannot be made long enough to carry all the goods that have to be carried—at a time like that when the demands on the Railways are greater than ever before, the tractive power of our railways is cut down by I think 40 or 60 locomotives, which are sold to some Government in Central Africa. I do not know what the exact number is, I don’t know whether it is 20, 40 or 60 locomotives, but the point is that at a time when we cannot provide for the needs of our own country, locomotives are sold to neighbouring states. I feel it is not only reprehensible but it is evidence of definite disloyalty on the Minister’s part so far as his duties are concerned, because the Minister is not looking after the interests of South Africa but after the interests of another State, whatever that State may be. I see the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) is here. He made a speech in this House when this debate was on last, about which I want to say a few words. The point he made was that our side of the House did not have the right to object to promotions in the Railway Service because, so he said, the same kind of thing used to occur in the days of the Nationalist Government. I am only trying to put it exactly as he put it. He says that in the days of the Nationalist Party Government he made application for the position of district surgeon at Middelburg, and the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion wrote to him that before he could be appointed to that position he would have to resign his post of Railway Medical Officer. A little later, however, so he says, the same Minister appointed a doctor from Koster as district surgeon at Klerksdorp and that doctor was also appointed as Railway Medical Officer at Klerksdorp. Consequently, the man at Klerksdorp occupied the two positions whereas he, Dr. Eksteen, was not allowed to occupy the two positions at Middelburg. The hon. member asked why, if we wanted a select committee to investigate the position, we restricted it to the last three years—he asked why we did not get the select committee to enquire into the whole position from the very start of the rule of the Nationalist Party. We are quite satisfied to do so, we are quite prepared to go back to any date the hon. member may suggest, and we are quite prepared to have anything the hon. member wants investigated. Let him fix the date, but if he does so he must vote for our amendment. That is my first reply to his speech. We accept his suggestion but then we have the right to expect him to support our amendment. He further said that he was appointed as district surgeon while the other two doctors who had applied for the post were Nationalists.

No.

He said that the Nationalist Party was unable to decide which of the other two doctors they should appoint, and that the Minister subsequently appointed him, Dr. Eksteen. Well, then his whole argument falls away. He accuses the Leader of the Opposition of partiality, but the evidence he has produced) shows that an S.A.P. man was appointed over the heads of two Nationalists.

What happened at Klerksdorp?

I am coming to that. I have no objection to the Leader of the Opposition appointing the hon. member. I have known the hon. member for many years, and I do not know what particular ability the other two doctors had. In appointing the hon. member at Middelburg, the Leader of the Opposition anyhow did not do anything wrong. But that is not my point. What right has the hon. member to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of partiality if the only instance he can give is a case where the Leader of the Opposition went out of his way to appoint an S.A.P. man over the heads of two Nationalists?

A Nationalist was appointed over the heads of four S.A.P.’s at Klerksdorp.

I am coming to Klerksdorp now.

He has no objection to an S.A.P. man being appointed over Nationalists, but if a Nationalist is appointed over the heads of S.A.P.’s then he does object.

At Klerksdorp a Nationalist was appointed over the head of S.A.P.’s. The hon. member says that that was wrong, but when a South African Party man was appointed over the heads of Nationalists it was alright. But, so the hon. member says, the Leader of the Opposition would not allow him to hold the two posts of district surgeon and Railway Medical Officer, while at Klerksdorp the one doctor did not occupy the two posts. I want to remind the hon. member for Middelburg however, of the fact that Railway medical officers are not appointed by the Minister of the Interior, nor are they appointed by the Minister of Railways; they are appointed by the Sick Fund of the Railway Board which is controlled by Railway officials who are elected by their fellow Railway officials. They are the people who make the appointments. And if the hon. member were to enquire into the Klerksdorp case he would, I think, find that the doctor at Klerksdorp was appointed as Railway Medical Officer after he had been appointed as district surgeon by the then Minister of the Interior. Consequently, the then Minister of the Interior had nothing to do with his appointment as Railway Medical Officer, nor did the fact of his being district surgeon have anything to do with the appointment.

What about the policy of appointing two doctors for the two posts?

But surely I have explained that. The position is that at Klerksdorp the man had been appointed as district surgeon and the Railway Sick Fund thereupon on its own initiative appointed the man as Railway Medical Officer. After the appointment had been made the Department of the Interior had no further say because as the hon. member should know a district surgeon can only be dismissed if he neglects his work, or if there are special reasons—which have to be very serious. I think after these few words the hon. member will feel that he should try, because of his sentiments towards this side of the House, not to allow his arguments to get confused. He does sit on the other side of the House, true enough, but his natural sympathy belongs to this side and he should at least try and hide that fact while he sits on the other side.

The hon. the Minister has had a good many criticisms hurled at him since the debate started. I know that it is rather unusual for any member to praise the hon. Minister, but I intend to preface my remarks by congratulating him for having followed my advice. Some little time ago I suggested that the Railway Department should acquire by expropriation or otherwise the land at the head of the bay in Durban, and I am very glad to say—and here I congratulate the Minister on his action—that he has expropriated a good deal of this land. But I think the Minister has only taken half a bite at the cherry, and that there is a great deal of additional land at the head of the bay that should be expropriated. That land is all cut up into small allotments with hovels scattered about—it is not what one might call beneficially occupied. If the department would only expropriate the whole of this land it would be able to lay out a comprehensive scheme at the head of the bay. In this connection I, of course, exclude the land occupied by large factories, and the shops along the main South Coast road. But the whole of that area lends itself to future industrial development, and I consider that the Railway Administration should expropriate the whole of the land. Now is the time to do it; money is cheap and money can be borrowed at a very low rate of interest. I suggest that the Minister makes a whole bite of the cherry, in other words that he expropriates the whole of the land. I have from time to time brought up the question of harbour development, and a great many developments are taking place there. The Minister has hitherto been very reticent in regard to disclosing what is being done, but after all the Durban harbour belongs to the people of Durban, and they are entitled to know just what is going on, but they are absolutely in the dark. The hon. member seeks to excuse himself on the grounds of secrecy being necessitated by the war. But the position has changed somewhat of late. The blackout has been lifted in Durban; and I do not think that this secrecy is any longer justified. It think it is time, too, that the Minister took into his confidence the people of Durban, and members of this House and told them what developments are taking place in Durban bay. I do not want the Minister to come forward with the old-time excuse about the Harbour Advisory Board. I know about the Advisory Board and everyone knows it is a “rubber stamp,” so that I should not like to see the Minister sheltering himself behind it. Another point is this, Mr. Speaker. We would like to know about the available land at the head of the bay. That has always been looked upon as Durban’s industrial expansion area. As a result of an enquiry I made, the hon. the Minister stated that it was intended to use 300 acres of this valuable land for Railway workshops. I do not want the Minister to say that I do not want new workships, as he did last Session. That is not the point. The present workshops are occupying an area of 10 to 20 acres and it is proposed to move them to the head of the bay, and I cannot see the justification for requiring 300 acres for Railway workshops. But possibly the Minister can advance good reasons why the area required should jump from 20 acres to 300 acres, which he is now providing for that purpose. Another point I would like to know is this; whether the Minister would be good enough to enlighten us as to whether any provision is being made at the head of the bay for a ship-building industry. I know that a great many people are opposed to the establishment of a ship-building industry. There are possibly ulterior motives influencing the opposition to the establishment of that industry in South Africa. But I can see in this ship-building industry an outlet for our returned soldiers, and that, in many cases, it will provide careers for them. Furthermore, when once we have established a South African Navy there is the possibility of our being able to construct ships in South Africa for the Navy. I think the Administration should make provision for the start of a ship-building industry, at the head of Durban bay. I think everyone will admit, Mr. Speaker, that Durban is one of the most important strategic harbours in the whole world—that is a proved fact. If any proof were needed it has been furnished during this war. I would only like to add this; Durban is not considered an all-weather port, and when we have boisterous south-west winds, Durban is not considered a port into which ships can gain access with safety. A short while ago the Durban Chamber of Commerce debated this question, and I have before me a report of that meeting. The headlines state: “Durban must be an all-weather port,” and the article goes on to say that it is imperative that Durban be made an all-weather port, and that the Durban Chamber of Commerce had submitted this view in a memorandum to the Shipping Commission. I heartily endorse that idea, and if the Minister wishes to have my advice I am prepared to tell him how it can be made an all-weather port at no very great expense, but not in the way they are going about it now, spending millions of money without any prospect of making it an all-weather port. I am prepared to show the Minister how it can be done.

What about the sharks?

I am afraid the Minister has got into a very frivolous mood after the speech of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), but there is nothing frivolous in what I have to say. I would like to refer to an advertisement appearing in a Durban newspaper, in which the South African Railways and Harbours advertised certain vacancies for architectural assistants, quantity surveyors etc. In these advertisements I do not notice one word stated that any preference will be given to returned soldiers who make application. I think that with all our government appointments, not only those on the Railways, returned soldiers should at least be given consideration. I do not ask any special preference for returned soldiers; it is a question of qualification; but I think that where qualifications are equal then the man who has fought for his country, and done service for his country, should be given a preference. I would like to suggest to the Minister that in future these advertisements announcing vacancies in the service should mention that special consideration will be given to applications from returned soldiers. Now I want to return to a hardy annual, the question of the Railway station in Durban. This is a subject on which successive Ministers have made promises for the last twenty years and when the hon. the Minister was appointed to his present portfolio he came down to Durban and created a wonderful impression by telling people there that Durban not only deserved a new station, but that Durban would have it at once. That was four and a half years ago. I am very glad the Minister has appointed an architect in a consultative capacity to ensure that the design for the new station will be in keeping with the surroundings. I would urge this upon the Minister, that he should get on with the job because the station, as it is at present, is positively dangerous. The long mail trains come in alongside a curved platform, and in some cases the distance from the edge of the platform to the step of the train is 3 ft. It is a positive danger to the public, and I consequently urge the Minister to expedite the building of the new station. Since the closing of the Mediterranean the two principal ports in South Africa, Cape Town and Durban, have been hard put to it to cope with the tremendous increase in traffic. Speaking for the port of Durban—I leave it to someone else to speak for Cape Town—I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the activities of the port of Durban, after the closing of the Mediterranean, were increased tenfold. Some master-mind was responsible for the efficient carrying out of this work, for the piloting of huge vessels and the control of the terrific number of shipping movements in the harbour. There is someone there, I think, who deserves recognition; some master-brain, who should receive immediate recognition, for the efficient way in which he controlled the port’s activities.

I am sorry to disturb the jovial atmosphere of the House that has been created by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt).

Musgrave?

I beg the hon. member’s pardon. I want to deal with the question of promotions in the service. I was perturbed as I listened last week to some of the virulent attacks that were made on the personnel of the Railway Service. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that nobody queried the efficiency of these gentlemen, but individual attacks were made on them, virulent attacks, and that is where I feel rather concerned. One of the gentlemen attacked was Mr. Marshall Clark. Now, Mr. Speaker, who is Mr. Marshall Clark. He is 100 per cent. South African, and in spite of his name being Clark he is still a South African. His father was a railwayman and he left his mark on the South African Railways. Mr. Clark himself is a brilliant engineer; he has gained much experience in the North. He first of all became prominent during Mr. Pirow’s time. Mr. Pirow selected him and he was given important work. He was recommended by Mr. Watermeyer, the then General Manager of Railways. They discovered that he was a brilliant man and naturally he made rapid progress, like other gentlemen in the Railway Service. I am not going to mention the names of other people who made rapid progres because it cuts no ice, but this man made rapid progress because he was an efficient man. And in the Railway Service efficiency comes first and seniority second. The Minister of Railways said the other day that the barber shop system of next gentleman please, should be done away with, and that the question of efficiency should come first.

We object to undue influence.

Mr. Clark was given an important job on the Reef Railways; he made certain improvements on the Reef Railways and not every engineer can do that. He had to straighten out the lines and alter the levels while the Johannesburg traffic was in operation. He was an outstanding man. He showed operating ability.

Do you say that not every engineer can do that?

Yes, I say that.

Did the others get a chance to show what they could do?

He was chosen by Mr. Pirow and recommended by the then General Manager, Mr. Watermeyer. The point I want to make is that there is no discrimination in the Railways, and that there is no racialism in the Railways.

What!

If there were, you would have had protest meetings all over the country by railwaymen.

You don’t know anything about the Railways.

Proof of my contention can be found in the fact that the Railway constituencies are represented by members on this side of the House.

I have proved that that is not so.

There was a virulent attack made on Mr. Clark but a worse attack was made on Mr. Chittenden. I won’t say what I think of that attack in case Mr. Speaker pulls me up, but it certainly was a virulent attack. What I feel is this, that members opposite who attack Mr. Chittenden are speaking from a privileged position. I challenge those hon. members and the Leader of the Opposition too—I am sorry that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) saw fit to make the attack he did—it will do no good to his already dwindling reputation. And he should leave these matters rather to some of the backbenchers on his side.

What are you?

Of course I am a backbencher, but I challenge those hon. members who made those virulent attacks on Mr. Chittenden to say to him outside this House what they said about him inside this House.

So what?

What is it that you object to?

I listened carefully to the speeches made by hon. members opposite, and although there are 14,000 members of our Railway staff up North, who have joined the forces.…

Better men than you are.

Not a single word of praise was spoken about those men.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

X know hon. members opposite do not like them because they do not represent them.

You are a flag wagger.

And not a word was said about the men here who are running our Railways. They are breaking records.…

Where were you when I spoke; I said it.

The hon. member who has just interrupted need not say anything; the Railways treated him better than he could ever have hoped for. Let him be quiet—let sleeping dogs lie. We would expect them to have said something about our Railways—to have spoken a word of praise on behalf of the men.

They are not your Railways, they belong to the country.

The hon. member is splitting hairs. Now this report of the General Manager’s was referred to. I want to say something about the report. It says here—on page 7—

What we object to is political considerations.

I believe every word that is said here. The report goes on—

And then later on the report says this—

Years ago, hon. members know perfectly well, that our railwaymen had to be imported. The same thing happened in the Police Service, and the Post Office service—we know that Dutch-speaking South Africans were not attracted to these services, and now hon. members come here and say: “Why are the Dutch-speaking South Africans not equal in numbers and position with the English?” A number of figures have been quoted, but those figures when taken out of their context are misleading. It was asked why is the English-speaking man in the Railway service in the majority? Why does the figure stand at 79 per cent. while the figure for the Afrikaans-speaking South African only stands at 21 per cent.?

Because of political influence.

Yes, that is what we can expect from the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). The position is this—it is misleading to take these figures out of their context. The true position is this, that the Afrikaans members of the Railway Administration have increased in the last three years from 14.5 per cent. to 20.49 per cent. whereas the English-speaking members of the service have decreased from 85.42 per cent. to 79.5 per cent. The Afrikaans-speaking figure is coming up and the English-speaking figure is going down. And that is due to the fact that in the past these people were imported from overseas. We find the same thing in other services simply because we could not find people in this country to do that work. And you find these facts reflected in this report. In the Marine service we find the same thing. The report says this—

Not a single Dutch-speaking South African among those 46 appointments.

Then why are you afraid to appoint a commission, if that is correct?

Here you have the beginnings of this same trouble again. The report deals with that. It says: “The position here too is changing, and within a few years it will no doubt be found that Afrikaans-speaking men presently employed in the lower grades of the Marine group—although few in number—will be represented on the senior officers’ establishment. Development in this direction will undoubtedly be accelerated as a result of the increasing flow of Afrikaans-speaking recruits to the Marine branch and the experience being gained by young South Africans in the Naval services at the present time.” I repeat. The reports says—

Well, here you have the beginnings of trouble again. In 25 years’ time if this House is divided as it is today, you will have the same outcry, and it will be asked why are so many men in the Marine service English-speaking. And then you go further and you come to the engineering side. In the engineering side the proportion of English-speaking to Afrikaans-speaking incumbents of the most senior posts is 86 to 14, while in the two lower groups the comparative relation is 84 to 16 and 83 to 17 respectively. But when you come to the major professional branch of the service—the sick fund—it is found that the division is much nearer equality, being 53 to 47 in respect of doctors, and 48 to 52 in the case of surgeons and specialists. There you have a different position. It is because the South African boys’ inclination is to take up medicine. The Afrikaans-speaking South African has been more attracted to the medical branches than to the other branches. And the report has this comment—

That is the whole point, and I feel that no case has been made out for the appointment of a commission. Now I want to say something about the Cape Northern System of Railways. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are various systems in the country and I think the Cape Northern system has been the stepchild of the Administration because so little development has taken place in the Cape Northern area. The Cape Northern area will still come into its own because I believe there is no area so heavily mineralised where you find such great deposits of minerals and base metals as there, and although we have not come into our own I believe that in the near future we shall. Today I have the same complaints as other members—our stations are antiquated, they fail to meet present day requirements, and the time has arrived when these things should be improved. The platforms on rainy days are in such a state that one can hardly stand on them for water. The offices are dark and unsuitable. The head office for the Northern System was built some 5 years ago but it has become inadequate. The old head office still being used also is quite out of date and badly ventilated, and I hope that when I talk about these things my words will not fall on deaf ears. The marshalling yard for this area at Beaconsfield is a good one, but there are no facilities for the men. Although ground is available near by and cheap to acquire, houses have hot been built and the transport facilities to take men from their houses and back are not available. I want to bring this to the Minister’s notice so that when the time comes, suitable houses can be built for these men. Recently the Railway Workshops Commission visited the Cape Northern area. It visited Kimberley and I hope that when the time comes, after this war, for reconstruction, and for planning, this area will get consideration, and far more consideration than it has had in the past. I say this on account of its importance and I say it also because between Cape Town and Mafeking, a distance of one thousand miles, there is not a single repair shop worthy of the name, and over a large and important stretch of country like that, when we are anticipating trade from the Belgian Congo and from other territories, there is ample room for up to date repair shops and Railway workshops. There is every facility for getting ground cheaply, water and electric light and power. There is a technical college, and all the required amenities and I hope that when the time comes to improve this system the Cape Northern area will receive the Minister’s serious consideration.

If everything which the hon. member who has just sat down put to this House is true, I would like to ask him what objection he has to a Commission of Investigation. A commission could then show the world outside that all the allegations made by this side of the House are unfounded and that my hon. friends on the other side are perfectly correct. He is attempting to bring us on this side of the House under suspicion in the eyes of the Railway workers. He wants to create the impression that no praise and appreciation was expressed by this side for the services which have been rendered by the Railway officials. I want to deny that emphatically. This side spoke with the highest respect and appreciation of the services of those people. But the unfairness of the whole situation is this. The Afrikaans-speaking section of the staff are not accorded their due rights, and we want justice to be done in this country. I think the time has arrived when the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people has the right to demand what is its due. Why should they be treated unjustly while the English-speaking section receives all the benefits? We have not the slightest objection to an officer, whether he be English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, receiving promotion according to merit. For that reason we ask for this commission of investigation to prove who is right and who is wrong. If hon. members on the other side are so certain that their case is fundamentally sound, why are they afraid to have a commission of investigation? No, there is a great measure of injustice. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) described the great fuss which is made of a person who came to this country from oversea. He travels in a special coach, but the people of the Union of South Africa have to stand outside in long queues like coloured people to reserve accommodation. People who are sent to the coast by the doctor, have to struggle for days and queue up before they can get accommodation. But these big lords from overseas can travel in special coaches. Even I as a member of Parliament must reserve accommodation well in advance, and then I am pushed in anywhere. But these big lords travel about, and we do not know what they are really doing. It is becoming high time for the people of South Africa to protest against that type of thing. There are signs that great dissatisfaction is being caused by this injustice which is done to the people of the Union of South Africa. We already have this sign that the mineworkers are bitterly dissatisfied. I do not think the matter is going to remain where it is, and then it will be the Government which will be responsible. I want to warn the Minister of Railways that the second biggest disaster which is going to hit the Union of South Africa, will be when those people who are today rendering national services to the people of South Africa, indicate their dissatisfaction. The people who have to earn their bread and butter on the railways receive a meagre wage. The other day I travelled by train and I asked the chief steward what their monthly takings were in such dining saloons. His reply was approximately £1,200. I then asked him what those young men receive who work from morning till night, and it was a great surprise to me and the shock of my life when I was told that they receive from £7 10s. to £9 per month. They have to live on the alms which they receive from the travelling public. Is it not a disgrace that this big organisation which shows such big profits, should make slaves of these Europeans who have to work for such a meagre wage? The time has arrived for this great organisation to see that these people are better remunerated. I have always said that I have the highest regard and respect for the Minister of Railways, and I hope and trust that he will personally give his attention to this matter and that he will see to it that those people to whom an injustice is being done receive their due rights. We spoke of the great expenditure which is being incurred and the manner in which these people are being treated. At the beginning of this Session I saw the Minister personally in regard to certain matters affecting my constituency. Before the commencement of this Session I travelled through my constituency to ask my constituents what I should try to do for them. I told them that the Government has millions of pounds at its disposal, and that it was a Government which did not care how many millions per month it spent on the war. But the result of that is that we have to come along as beggars to ask for charity out of those millions which are being wasted. The farmers told me that they would like a direct train service between Marquard and Johannesburg. At the moment they have to load their cattle at Petrus Steyn. It then goes over Arlington and Gunhill. If there were a direct train service it would take half the time which is taken now. The Minister caused investigations to be made. I do not know who conducted the investigation, but it is now said that it will mean that the cattle would have to remain on the train twenty-four hours longer. That is childish. It is a very short distance. If the cattle are loaded at Marquard in the evening, they reach Johannesburg the following day. Is that forty-eight hours, or is it shorter? If the department does not want to meet these people, there will simply be more and unnecessary work for the people at Arlington and Gunhill. At the moment the position is that the trains have to be shunted there. The cattle are badly bruised and shaken, with the result that inferior meat reaches the market. If we get a direct line, there will be less shunting and less bruising, and the cattle will arrive on the market in a better condition. An hon. member indicated here the other day that the workshops of the railways are at present being used to manufacture toys. I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister in all seriousness. When we order trucks for cattle, we have to wait until we can get an empty truck. Recently I had to wait fourteen days for a truck for pigs. I now understand from the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) that the workshops are being used to manufacture toys. I think that an organisation like the railways should not waste its time making toys. We need these services, and it is a great injustice to the public to do this sort of thing. Why should the time of the Railways be wasted in making toys? In addition to the money which is wasted, it means that the Railway officials have to give their services to the State in the most difficult circumstances, and if those people begin to indicate their dissatisfaction, no one in the country could blame them. They have every right to be dissatisfied with the manner in which they are being treated. The railway line from Arlington to Wolwehoek has been in existence for years. The other day I arrived at Heilbron and it then came to my notice that the men who travelled from Arlington to Heilbron have to wait there until they can again return to Arlington. They work practically day and night and ought to have proper rest, and the room in which they rest is a disgrace to the Administration. It is not fit for a Hottentot to sleep in, and it is scandalous to see under what conditions these men have to work. The bricks have been transported and have been there for a long time. Perhaps some of them have by this time become worthless, but as yet no proper rest room has been built. I brought this matter to the Minister’s attention. He promised to look into it again and to let me know the result of his investigations. We have this position that men who work on the Railways have to live in galvanised iron pondokke. It is a disgrace to a modern State such as the Union of South Africa and to an organisation such as the Railways which has an income of millions of pounds. Such a great organisation must not leave its workers in such misery and poverty. I want to express the hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter and that he will take steps to see that these conditions are improved. Proper houses ought to be erected for these people. At Heilbron it is disgraceful to see the little building in which the goods office is housed. It is a little cement building which is smaller than the pigsty on my farm, and in that office two men and a girl have to work. I do think that in this connection the Government should take care of those people who are rendering service to the country. We must not only look after the big lords who receive thousands of pounds. We on this side fight for those people who render service and who deserve consideration, and who are poorly treated today. The hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) made the remark that there were 14,000 Railway Officials in the North, and he added that we on this side have spoken nothing but ill of those people. That is absolutely untrue. I have the greatest respect for those men who have the courage of their convictions and who proceeded to fight for their convictions. There are, however, many men amongst them who did not join up because of their convictions. I want to say that when those soldiers who enlisted return, I shall be extremely willing to do whatever I can for them. Then I want to come to another small matter. Formerly it was the custom of the Administration to make fire-breaks along the line. I believe that the position is now completely different. The owner of the land must make the fire-breaks himself. If the owner fails to do so, the Administration undertakes the work at something like £4 per mile. That was said to me at the meeting, and I was also asked to request the Minister to take steps to bring about a change in order to meet the farmers, and to introduce the old system again whereby the men who work on the line, undertake that work. There may be farmers who would be prepared to plough the furrows, as long as the Administration undertakes to make the fire-breaks. I think it is most unfair to expect this, because there are farms through which miles and miles of railway line runs. Then the farmers are still expected to make those fire-breaks. I think that this is a part which the Administration ought to do. I have referred to the inconvenience which the people have to suffer and the conveniences extended to certain other people who come to this country from overseas. Then I just want to ask the hon. Minister to cancel all these regulations and the permit system which is now in vogue. One of the farmers at Winburg went to the Transvaal shortly before the terrible floods. He then wanted to return to Theunissen and transport his car per truck. He had the greatest difficulty before he could eventually get a permit to have his car transported. He wanted to pay for it; he did not want it free of charge. But it seems to me that the time will come when one will have to have a coupon or permit to kiss one’s wife.…

You mean if you want to kiss another man’s wife.

And we want to ask the hon. Minister to see to it that the people do not unnecessarily bear those burdens.

Before I come to the Wanderers grounds, I just want to say this to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). He is one of the hon. members in this House who would not deliberately misrepresent what a member said, but unfortunately he has been in this House for the last ten years without having the slightest idea in regard to many things which have taken place here. He made an attack on the Labour Party because, so he alleged, the Labour Party has never pleaded for the underdog in the Railways. That criticism on the part of my hon. friend is devoid of all truth, and I just want to refer him to what has taken place in this House every year. I want to refer him to the motions which have been moved by the Labour Party, in which we pointed on each occasion to the lower paid section of the Railway Department, and we are still doing so daily, so that I cannot say any more than that my hon. friend’s criticism is absolutely unfounded.

To which motion are you referring?

The motions with reference to the lower paid officials in the Railway service. Not a single Session has passed during which I or my colleagues have not severely criticised the low wages which are being paid to many Railway officials.

What does “The Guardian” say?

I am now dealing with the hon. member’s opinion, and not with what. “The Guardian” says. Not a single Session has passed in this House since I have been a member where we have not emphasised with all the power at our command, the necessity of placing the lower paid section of the Railway workers on a higher standard. The motions which we move on the estimates every year amount to that.

Will you recognise their organisation?

My hon. friend’s attack was directed against the Labour Party. Let me tell the hon. member this, whether one recognises them or not, 10s. per day without recognition will mean more to them than 5s. per day with recognition. I do not want to say anything else on that point. The Railways are in a peculiar position in South Africa, and its position has become even more peculiar as a result of the war. This is a Department which has been placed in the position of being able to milk the Department of Defence—metaphorically speaking, of course. The Department of Railways is a Department which as such makes profit upon profit out of the war situation, and except for the people in the Railway service who have joined the army, the Railway Department contributes nothing towards the war effort. What it does do, in the first instance, is to milk the Department of Defence on an enormous scale; and I think that if the Minister will reply to the complaint, which was made here this morning by one of the hon. members on my right, he will have to admit that the Railways reduced their tariffs not out of love for the Department of Defence, but in order to milk the Department of Defence. Today they are doing the same thing as far as the farmers are concerned. The tariffs on the Railways are of such a nature today that sometimes it does not pay one to convey a product, which lies and rots in one part of the country in the form of over-production, to another part of the country, where there is so-called starvation. Now we hear the complaint that there is a shortage of trucks on the Railways. If that is true, I want to ask the hon. Minister why the fruit and vegetable train which leaves Matapan station—to give only one example—leaves Matapan station on Wednesday evening, and sometimes takes a full week before it delivers vegetables to all the stations on the Witwatersrand. It has happened that it takes a full week for those vegetables or fruit to reach the Johannesburg station. Then the hon. Minister, or his management, tells the country that there was a shortage of trucks. Here it takes a week for a truck to go from Matapan station to the Johannesburg stations. But we hear that there is a shortage of trucks. We find, however, that a truck which is loaded at Matapan station near Nelspruit, stands over for a few days at various places, with the result that a whole week passes before that truck reaches its destination. Where are these trucks detained? Then the hon. Minister tells us that there is a shortage of trucks. This fact which I have just mentioned disproves that propaganda on the part of the Minister that there is a shortage of trucks. That is not the trouble. No, there is some radical fault with his management, because if a truck leaves Matapan station on Wednesday evening and takes a week to arrive in Johannesburg, it runs counter to all his arguments. He is not short of trucks. No, what the hon. Minister lacks is an efficient system of management. If the Minister adopts a slightly more practical and less highhanded attitude as far as the Railways are concerned, he will be in a better position to meet the traffic requirements for which his department is responsible. If we have to judge the Railways today by the Minister’s present policy, it is enough to put the public off. Now I want to say a few words in regard to the stingy policy of the Railways. I want to say a few words in connection with the members of the public who use the Railways as a means of transport from one centre to another, and who are forced to make use of the Railways. I want to tell the hon. Minister that he is damaging the reputation of the Railways through his policy. He is leaving the Government in the lurch; he is following a policy which will result in the public refusing to make use of the Railways after the war when the traffic position returns to normal, because the present situation, to say the least of it, is giving the South African Railways such a bad name that after the war the public will definitely refuse to avail themselves of Railway facilities; they will use their own cars when it is no longer necessary for them to use the Railways. Is it not remarkable that one finds on the main lines that every member of the public has to be satisfied with a small piece of material which at one time was a towel. Is there any reason for that? When one travels by train, ons gets a small piece of what used to be a towel. Then one comes to the big cities and notices that the Minister can buy all the towels which he requires for the travelling public, who have to pay to the uttermost. He is making profits; he is making profits out of the other departments. He is milking the whole country, but he is too stingy to give the travelling public those elementary comforts which they ought to have. The members of the public have to be satisfied with a small portion of what used to be a towel, while in Cape Town today the position is that one can buy all the towels one wants in almost every shop. At this stage I want to say that the Minister is basing his policy on the loyalty of his Railway workers. He is trading on it; he is making use of the loyalty of his Railway workers. The Minister is stretching the loyalty of these people very far. The public of South Africa is more than prepared to endure what has to be endured during the war, but the public is beginning to get annoyed because of the unnecessary burdens which the Minister is placing on them through this policy. It is our duty to speak on behalf of the members of the public who have been placed in this position. Take another example. Take the question of the reservation of seats on the trains—and it is not necessary to write to the Minister to draw his attention to it, because one can write in connection with the greatest irregularities, and the reply simply is that it is a misunderstanding, that it is not true. That is the reply one gets when one proves chapter and verse, that irregularities were committed. The reply which one gets amounts to this, that one is telling an untruth; and if the Minister’s department is not prepared to follow the traditional custom of bringing a complaint to the notice of his management and to have it settled in that way, then it is necessary to thrash out this question on the floor of the House. He does not accept the responsibility for all those conditions which create dissatisfaction in his department. He simply gets up and says: “I, Sturrock, am not responsible.” He allows the blame to be put on to members of Parliament, and then he remains completely silent and does not say a single word. He allows this propaganda to continue in the newspapers month after month, and he has not the courage to get up and say that it is his management which is responsible. And I think the time has now arrived for us to say; “Up to this point the Minister has strained the loyalty of the people, but there is an end to everything, and there must be an end to this too.” Only recently when it was said that the time had arrived when eight or ten people might have to be put into a compartment on long journeys, various articles appeared in the Press to this effect, that the members of Parliament are doing this, but that they themselves are taking care that they have comfortable long-distance journeys; and the Minister knows that not a single member of Parliament has any say in this matter. As far as Railway matters are concerned, members of Parliament are never informed in this House. One has to get one’s information from the newspapers. The members of the public also get their information from the newspapers, and then they complain to us, and if we say that we know nothing about it, they reply that we do these things. And the Minister is shielding behind those newspapers. I say that the Minister is leaving the Cabinet in the lurch. The Minister allows himself to be consoled by those flattering grandiloquent stories which appear about him in the Press from time to time. But I can tell the hon. Minister that there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in the country. The public is not as unreasonable as we are told. Today we see a statement by the Government in connection with a shortage of transport facilities, but in practice we find just the opposite, as I proved a moment ago in connection with the conveyance of vegetables and fruit. The Minister pursues this policy, and I say the time has arrived for this House to let the Minister understand clearly that there is tremendous room for improvement, and that he must not make use of the fact that the public must necessarily avail themselves of the Railways. On the contrary he ought to say that since the public is now compelled to travel by train, we are going to give them the best possible comforts. Now I come to the question of the reservation of seats. I have seen peoplestand in queues at the big stations from 8 o’clock in the morning in order to reserve seats, and when one passes the station late that same afternoon one finds that the queue is just as long. But when the people want to know why they should be compelled to stand in queues in order to reserve their seats, why they cannot simply write and say that they want to travel from Johannesburg to the Cape or from Bloemfontein to Durban, and that they want to travel as soon as possible, that request is refused. That procedure is rejected, and the people have to stand in queues whether or not they have the time to do so. Now I want to put the other ridiculous aspect of the Minister’s policy. All the seat reservations on the Rand have to go through Johannesburg. The people cannot reserve their seats at the neighbouring stations. They have to go to. Johannesburg. They have to go by train as far as Johannesburg, stand there in a queue until the afternoon, and then discover that there is no place for them, and then they may have to travel back 30 or 40 miles and again travel 30 or 40 miles the next day to Johannesburg, and once again discover in the afternoon that there is no place, and then again travel back. And then the Minister tells us that we should not use the trains so frequently. He tells us that his department is doing its very best. Assuming that a person wants to reserve his seat from Magaliesberg, he has to travel the whole of that distance instead of being allowed to reserve his seat by means of a letter. No, that is not permitted. The people must necessarily stand in a queue and then we are told that his department meets the public in such a wonderful way. We have this policy in the Railways today, that the one person says this, and the other does something else. The Railways say one thing but the Minister says just the opposite, and it is for that reason that I say that the present Minister of Railways is pursuing a policy which has brought the loyalty of the inhabitants of South Africa to such a point that their courage must break down if the Minister persists with his policy. Now we come back to the policy of the Railways. Nearly every employer in the country has admitted the fact that costs of living have risen. Nearly every employer in the country who has lowly paid workers has made it his business to give those workers an opportunity of making a better living. But the Railways consistently adhere to one fixed policy, and that is to make profits only. It is typical of the Minister to say: “Where must the money come from?” And if the Railways make such enormous profits out of other departments, out of the travelling public, out of the workers, out of the farmers—if they make these profits out of people—and hon. members must remember that the primary object of the Railways was not to make profit, but it was laid down that the Railways shall be used, in the first instance, for the development of agriculture in South Africa, and today the Railways are not answering that purpose—if they make all those profits, one would expect them to take care of the Railway workers. It does not answer that purpose either. If a good case has not yet been made out for the Railway workers, I do not know how big the Minister wants his profits to be before he admits the fact that these people can no longer live on such low wages. Every now and then we read of cases of theft in the Railways, and I think that we are justified in saying that those thefts which took place on the Railways can perhaps be ascribed to the fact that the wages of these people are so low that they are sometimes compelled to commit theft, because we know that hunger is a very strong motive, and I shall not be surprised to find that the majority of these thefts are committed by people who are in very needy circumstances. We want to make this plea to the Minister with all the power at our command. The Cabinet and the Government have already expressed the opinion that those lowly-paid people should be paid more. Here his Department is responsible for a large number of lowly-paid people. He has the money. He is in a wonderful position to do so; and we urge that it should be done. I now want to come back to a complaint which is frequently made in this House, and that is in connection with promotions. I have seen a few letters dealing with promotions. I must tell the Minister that it seems to me that the regulations and laws are invoked by them only when it suits them; that those regulations and those laws are ignored as often as it suits certain highly placed officials in the Railway Department. I do not like mentioning the names of people on the floor of this House, but I have seen correspondence from the Department of Railways in connection with promotions, and the excuse which is sometimes given does not hold water at all. When I read the letters of the previous year and compare them with what the Department says today in regard to the same matter, I think that I am fully entitled to say that those regulations and laws are only applied when it suits the Railway Department. If the Minister wants satisfaction in the Railway Service, he must faithfully observe the traditions and regulations which exist in connection with promotions; they must not overlook the claims of people who are entitled to promotion, while other men are brought up from below and promoted. When one draws their attention to the matter, an excuse is always found, and this eventually gives rise to a feeling of injustice in the Railway Service; and if there is one department which cannot afford to have dissatisfaction amongst the staff, it is the South African Railways. And is there satisfaction?

No.

Does the hon. Minister want to tell me that there is satisfaction in the Railway Service? On the contrary, never has the Service been so pregnant with a feeling of dissatisfaction as it is today, and I speak here as a man who in former years was the organiser of a trade union. And let every employer understand this—the majority of employers do realise it today—the majority of employers will tell you that a dissatisfied worker is a dangerous worker. Let the Minister tell us how many derailments have taken place recently. I know what his reply will be. He will again say that it is not in the public interest to disclose that information. But I want to tell the Minister that if he gives greater satisfaction to his workers on the Railways, he will have less derailments. I want to tell the Minister that if he sees that right and justice is done to the Railway workers, he will have less derailments. I now want to come back to the reply of the Minister of Railways in connection with Wanderers. I now have another opportunity of dealing with that question which the Minister evaded. I think this is one of the first rights of this House, the birthright of this House, namely, that when a department proposes to incur great potential expenditure, this House should know something about it, that this House should have the right to know what the Minister has in mind. Here the Minister gives the reply which I quoted this morning. I asked him—

The Minister says that he does not want to disclose this information. The Minister does not want to tell this House what the estimated cost which he has in mind will be. But the House is now expected to sit here until it adjourns, and next year we shall come here with a big, cooked proposition and expect the House to approve of it. For months and months the Minister set in motion an agitation on the Witwatersrand that, even though the world were to come to an end, he must have Wanderers. In spite of tremendous opposition the Minister decided that that must be so. I should have thought that since there was such an agitation in the country in regard to those grounds, and since there was so much propaganda against it, the hon. Minister would at least attempt to justify his case before this House. I would, in the first place have expected the Minister’s case to be justified by the Investigation Commission. But does one find it there? No, there are only two people who desire this, namely, the Minister and his manager. I link that with the fact that the Investigation Committee suggested that certain railway lines should be built in South Africa, in order to cope with the surprising increase in traffic from Pretoria through the Witwatersrand and Vereeniging and to other places. But the Minister personally told a deputation that he was not at all satisfied with this type of suggestion to reduce the bottleneck traffic in Johannesburg. On the contrary, he wants it there. Without being an engineer, I think that anyone with commonsense will say that where lines run parallel they should be separated as far as possible, so that if there is a derailment or excessive traffic on one line, one can use the other lines. But the Minister wants all the lines laid there, he does not even want to consider the other lines which were suggested. But he wants to build a new station at Johannesburg. I do not want to try to make the Minister appear ridiculous, but how can he suggest a new station for Johannesburg at this stage, while there is a great need throughout the Union for other important stations for which the people have waited for years and years, at centres which have totally inadequate buildings. The brand new station which we have at Johannesburg cost an enormous amount of money.

It was built wrongly.

Not only was the station built incorrectly, but throughout the whole country, throughout the length and breadth of the Union, one finds that type of policy carried out. A line is shifted a 100 yards to the right at great expense, and after it has been there for three or four years it is again shifted, slightly to the left of the original line. It may suit the Minister; it may suit a group of businessmen if so much business is concentrated in Johannesburg, but it certainly does not suit South Africa, which has to bear the taxes, nor does it suit all the other centres which are in great need of new stations, and which have not had a new station for the past twenty or thirty years. But the Minister wants a new station. Now I ask this House where the agitation for a new station originated? Can any hon. member get up and say that the public of Johannesburg has at any time asked for a new railway station? There is not a single member who can say that the public of Johannesburg, as such, insisted on a new station. I know that the Minister wants it. He wants it and his manager wants it. At the insistence of the Minister and his management, I suppose we are going to get a new station at Johannesburg. It passes my comprehension. Will the Minister tell the House who asked for a new station, and why a centre which got a new station only recently should again have a new station, while other centres lack proper facilities. It is time for the House and the Minister to understand that we have reached the point where Parliament is no longer prepared simply to sit here and to swallow everything which the Minister puts before us. The Minister may regard himself as a very capable dictator. I would also be in favour of a dictatorship, but then I must be the dictator, and there is not a single hon. member in this House who will agree with him. And the Minister and his manager are the last two people whom I should like to have as dictators, because their careers, their stingy policy, their defective traffic management, the preference which they give to one centre above the other, the manner in which they try to justify it—forces me to say that they are the most dangerous figures when it comes to giving them the powers which they want. The time has arrived for Parliament to raise its voice and no longer to tolerate the favouring of one centre above another. Johannesburg is a big business centre, but the whole population of South Africa cannot be sacrificed for the sake of a few big businessmen in Johannesburg. There are other parts in South Africa whose interests are as important as the interests of Johannesburg, and which keenly desire an expansion of railway facilities. I wonder if hon. members have made any effort to calculate the amount of expenditure which the Minister is going to incur in connection with this new station. Compare this with the construction of a railway line of 50 or 60 miles, which is so necessary in many parts of the country. It is not right that the Minister should go on in this way, and what I object to most strongly is the fact that the Minister has taken it upon himself to undertake these enormously big plans without seeking the approval or consultation of this House, and without taking the House into his confidence. He decides everything on his own initiative, not on the advice of this House, or of the Railway Board or of the Investigation Committee, but he decides on his own initiative, according to his own ideas. He may be a capable engineer, and he may try to get away with that, but there are other capable engineers whose views clash with the policy which the Minister of Railways has laid down. I think we must object to it. Before the Minister again does these things and saddles the people of South Africa with such colossal expenditure running into millions of pounds, the approval of this House must be asked, and he must take the House into his confidence and ascertain what the House has to say in regard to his proposals.

At the outset I would like to congratulate the Minister for the momentous step which he has taken in the formation of the appointment of this Ministry of Transport, a step to co-ordinate the transport undertakings in this country. It is a step which is a dynamic break from tradition, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we recognise transport as being the hallmark of civilisation we will realise the importance of that step, and it is in regard to that fact that I should like to say a few words this afternoon, firstly, on the need for administrative reform as the background against which the future transport undertakings of this country should be built; and secondly, the need for the closest co-operation possible between the administration on the one hand and the local authorities on the other. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the ramifications of the various spheres of transport. I do, however, feel that at the outset this question of transport in this country is really too big a subject to be dealt with by any one single individual, namely, the general manager. I believe that for the efficient and expeditious development of transport services there must, from the very outset, be complete unification of control, but at the same time a measure of decentralisation in regard to the specialist branches. This fundamental principle if given effect to in regard to the four branches of transport, that is rail, road, sea and air, through the medium of either secretaries or general managers or undersecretaries—whatever term you would like to use—should lay down that these posts should be directly responsible to the Minister, and their work could be co-ordinated through a central transportation council. I believe that through such a council we will see the co-ordination of the four services, and through it, this co-ordination would be seen at its best; it would possess elasticity, but at the same time there would still be unification of control. It is not my intention to deal with the scope or the jurisdiction of these future appointments, or of the departments, except to make these few observations. As I said just now, I am convinced that if we are, for example, to have a plan for the future development of our harbours, and if we are to inaugurate proper control of shipping services, including deep sea ships to import into the country for example sleepers from Australia, and not forgetting petrol tankers and coastal ships, if we are to develop a proper plan for shipping control and navigation and aids to navigation and give attention to the question of staff and the training of officials for these various branches of the maritime service—if, as I believe, the Department of Transport must shortly take over the question of hydrographical surveys and also the question of meteorological stations, because I for one cannot visualise any important transport undertaking being developed in this country without these meteorological stations and hydrographical survey ships being an integral part of the transport system of this country—I feel that if all these various services I have indicated are to develop to full maturity, a separate department under e secretary of maritime services is essential, and I think it can only develop to such maturity under such a secretary and at the same time remain an integral part of the Ministry of Transport. It will be appreciated too that there is need for a sound administrative background to air transport which will, I believe, become one of the most important features of our transport undertakings. If a corner stone is to be laid for future plans, it must be carefully laid now. I believe that in the laying of the foundation stone for such a service deep thought must be given, and in consideration of this problem, we must not lose sight of the fact that we must retain strict sovereignty over our own territory. Whilst I appreciate the necessity for an international link with various parts of the world, I do not wish to apologise for taking a very strict South African outlook. Naturally, I do not want to see any interference from outside with our transport undertakings in this country. I understand that even at the moment Imperial Airways are running a daily service between Durban and Vaaldam. I sincerely hope the Minister will not accept that as being a precedent on which Imperial Airways may develop their transport in this country. I regret as a matter of fact, that South Africa is unable to develop her services at the moment, owing obviously to lack of machines. But I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is interesting to note that of all the dominions South Africa is the only one which in the interests of the war effort has sacrificed its civil air service. I hope that when the time does arrive and when the Minister does have machines available he will lose no time in reintroducing this service. Furthermore, we know from what we have read in the Press of the developments that have taken place, particularly as the result of the war, that international agreements and regulations will have to be formulated from time to time; these agreements and regulations will have to be considered seriously by the department. There is no doubt that international policy and national rules will become so vast and complex that even such problems as those I have indicated—and there are others—would warrant the appointment of a Secretary for Air. I believe, too, that the Government will in due course have to take over all civil aerodromes, and in that respect I believe that the Secretary for Air will not only be responsible for policy but that he will be responsible for construction and maintenance of all those aerodromes, not forgetting the problem of the training of the staff and officials for this particular branch of the transport service. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this House will readily recognise that the functions of such a highly specialised branch as air transport, must be controlled and developed with meticulous care and foresight and the corner stones for such development should be laid carefully now. I think from these few observation it is clear that the magnitude of the transport task now and in the future is such that it cannot be adequately handled by any one single individual. It is in this respect that I believe profound thought must be given to the administrative background whereby a measure of autonomy can be introduced into each specialised branch of the service co-ordinated through a Central Transportation Council under the guidance of the Minister. Now I want to say a few words in connection with the development of future transport undertakings in this country in the post-war period, firstly, in regard to railways or other transport undertakings carried out by the administration, and secondly in relation to the local authorities throughout the Union. I have not the slighest doubt that there is nobody in this country who appreciates more, than the present Minister himself, the vast development that will take place in this country in the sphere of transport. That being so, I want not only to ask but to appeal to the Minister that in view of the tremendous problems which will be facing him shortly, if these problems are to be solved, then the Minister must now appoint a department of reconstruction. I believe that with the appointment of a department of reconstruction we would be sure that such department would be responsible for the policy associated with all major reconstruction works, and it would see that these major reconstruction works in transport undertakings would dovetail into the major reconstruction works that are being undertaken by provincial administration and local authorities. Apart from the national approach to this problem, I also want to mention my experiences in so far as Durban is concerned with an eye to the necessity for co-operation between the Government, through the reconstruction department on the one hand and the local authorities on the other. Before dealing with the necessity for such co-ordination I would like to remind the Minister of a few incontrovertible facts in regard to Durban and Natal. I ask the Minister not to forget Natal’s importance in the sphere of transport. This can be measured by the fact that about a third of the revenue accruing to the Railways and Harbours in this country is derived from earnings of the Natal system. That, of course, is mainly due to the heavy traffic to and from the Port of Durban and the hinterland. I would also like to remind the Minister, and it has been shown very clearly in the last few years, that the Port of Durban has undertaken more traffic than all the rest of the Union harbours put together. Because of these true facts alone I contend that Durban by virtue of its importance, must command deep and careful consideration in regard to transport undertakings of the Minister’s department especially from the point of view of co-operating with the municipality when it comes to embarking on major plans. The Minister himself, when he visited Durban last August, stated that unless the city quickly made up its mind on long range plans of development it would find that it would be too late, as the Railways and Harbours Administration was embarking on an ambitious programme of major undertakings, which would probably dictate the future of Durban for 50 years or more. That statement of the Minister of Transport was accented as a challenge by the people of Durban, and I would like to point out that the City Council, on the 12th April, 1943, had already appointed a committee to draw up a programme of post-war development. Now this committee on the 6th May, 1943, requested—and rightly so—the town clerk to communicate with the system manager in Durban and to intimate to him that it was the intention of the council to make a long term survey of post-war problems. This was done and the town clerk enquired whether the Railway Administration would be good enough to co-operate with the council, and advise on broad lines what schemes it contemplated, or were being planned as regards rail, harbour and aerodrome developments, so that there could be complete collaboration and co-ordination between the Government on the one hand and the City Council on the other. Now, despite the challenge of the Minister of Transport., coming as it did four months after the appointment of the committee I referred to, and despite the fact that the committee requested the Transport Departments to co-operate with them, I find that to this day—and, Mr. Speaker, seven or eight months have elapsed since then—the City Council has received no reply other than that the matter has been referred to headquarters at Pretoria. I cannot help but feel that if a department of reconstruction had been formed in the transport organisation, things would not have reached that stage, and I think it is a pity that there is this lack of co-operation by the Railway Administration, wittingly or unwittingly. By virtue of this fact Durban has been unable to draw up plans for the development of areas in close proximity to the bayhead. From my ringside seat I noticed that the council took up this challenge, but the only reaction, as I see it, on the part of the Minister, is that he has sent down two or three seconds to Durban to expropriate the property already referred to by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) without any regard to the corporation’s immense capital expenditure in regard to bayhead road development. I think one of the most important questions we will have to tackle is in regard to housing. In this respect the municipality have laid down a programme of post-war reconstruction involving £41,000,000, of which £22,769,700 has been earmarked for housing. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, while these various schemes have generally been agreed to in principle, it is obvious in order to carry them into effect important railway extensions will be required to serve these new suburbs. I think that the Minister will agree that without cheap, speedy and efficient rail services, it will be impossible to bring some of these schemes to fruition. I would remind the Minister that the Government’s national housing programme to eliminate slums is in a great measure dependent on the work undertaken by local authorities. I gathered from the Minister’s reply to a question in this House just a few days ago, that the Administration is not prepared to embark upon the construction of new lines unless they ate economic propositions. I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister feels as he does on this particular point., he does not include suburban lines. I hope that he does not hold the view that this is perhaps a responsibility that should fall on the local authorities. I think that surely it is recognised today in regard to bus services in local urban areas, that they have now reached saturation point, and that they cannot compare either from a safety factor point of view or from an economic point of view, or from the point of view of speed with fast electrical suburban trains marshalled as they are on lines which do not come into conflict with each other. In this respect I do put it to the Minister a tremendous responsibility devolves on his shoulders to see, in connection with this national housing problem, especially in view of the fact that quick suburban traffic is required, to assist the local authorities in implementing their housing schemes. The Minister will appreciate that in supplying this transport service he will be assisting in implementing housing schemes by providing this essential service. That, Mr. Speaker, is a primary consideration that will face the under-secretary who would be responsible for such undertakings. I would like to say a few words on the various departmental committees that have been appointed during the last twelve or fourteen years. Firstly, there has been a committee appointed on the shipping industry. Another has been appointed to consider the institution of training in establishments for personnel for maritime services; and thirdly a committee was appointed to consider the inter-changeability of staffs between these two services. If we are to achieve harmony with the trend which has become manifest by the appointment of a Minister of Transport, I consider that the time has arrived when a committee or a commission should be appointed firstly to ratify and co-ordinate the findings of those various committees which I have already referred to, and which I believe have already submitted their reports; and secondly, such a commission should also acquire and collate evidence in regard to (1) the development of nationally-owned maritime shipping for the Union of South Africa; (2) the development of South African harbours; (3) the co-ordination and development of such harbours in conjunction with the establishment of a marine air force or in conjunction with civil aerodromes; (4) improvements in aid to navigation, and (5) the establishment and maintenance of hydrographical and meteorological stations. As I said, originally, if the transport undertakings in this country are going to be developed in the air or at sea, it is imperative that hydrographical surveys and meteorological stations are given an integral part in the future development of our transport undertakings in this country. Now another point I wish to deal with is in regard to the appointment of a Nautical Adviser to the establishment of the South African Railways and Harbours. This appointment was made presumably in order that expert nautical advice could be readily available at headquarters. The necessity for this appointment appears to be justified by the fact that the previous incumbent was lately granted an improved grading in his position. Now, it is proposed to amalgamate the appointment of Nautical Adviser with that of the Port Captain of Durban. I consider that this is definitely a retrograde step coming as it does at a time of greatly increased shipping, the introduction of nautical training schemes, development of harbours, and increased general harbour working in conjunction with transport. It is a proposal which I think is difficult to justify—as a matter of fact the appointment has already been made. I believe that it would have been the natural corollary to assume that the vast duties of the Nautical Adviser would have been expanded in order that the Administration might receive expert advice for the proposed future developments rather than that the position should be merged into a position which is so important and which I think the House will agree demands the presence of the Port Captain in Durban at all times. In other words, if the position of Port Captain at Durban and Nautical Adviser are performed by the same official, then Durban, the biggest port in the Union, will be left without a Port Captain when his presence is required elsewhere. This will mean that the Senior Assistant Port Captain will be called upon to assume the position of Port Captain while he is away. But it must be borne in mind that the Senior Assistant Port Captain is also an examiner for the masters’ and mates’ certificates of competency which takes him away to Cape Town. It could therefore happen that three officials could act as Port Captain within as many days. I feel the Minister on reconsideration will find it hard to justify the recent change, and I feel that the position merits the appointment of a Nautical Adviser as an integral part of the General Manager’s office. One last point, and that is the question of Durban’s new railway station. I think the Minister has made it perfectly clear that as soon as all the obstacles are out of the way a new railway station will be built at Durban. Well, it may not be as simple as it appears. There are difficulties in regard to railway workshops, and other difficulties. But I want to ask how it is that the question of drawing up plans by an architect for the railway station has been given to one architect in Durban. That is my information. I understood that when this question of the building of a new station was first mooted the architects of Durban approached the Railway Administration with a view to the plans being put out to competition. This the Minister refused as he indicated it was a matter which was going to be handled by his own Department. Then it was suggested that perhaps in the interest of the building of that station an architect should be nominated by the Durban architects to hold a watching brief and consult with the Administration. This I believe the Minister accepted. But strange though it may seem, this one person at a later date was given the complete plans to draw up. If that is true. I regret that that action has been taken, because I believe that in times such as these, such a vast undertaking as the Durban railway station, the plans at least, should have been put out to competition among the various architects in Durban or perhaps throughout the Union. In conclusion I should like the Minister, if he is in a position to do so, firstly to give this House and the country some idea what administrative reforms he intends putting into operation in order that the future transport undertakings of this country can develop to full maturity, secondly in regard to the vast problem of reconstruction work, and the necessity for the Railway Administration co-operating with local authorities, and whether he is prepared to consider the question of setting up a Department of Reconstruction. Thirdly, I would like him to indicate to the House whether he can justify, in view of the modern trend of development, the position of Nautical Adviser being held toy one person who is at the same time Port Captain of Durban. Fourthly, I would like the Minister to tell the country whether this Government, in view of anticipated air developments of the future, is going to hold sovereignty over its own territory.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) is not in his place, as I should like to have directed a few words to him. I shall leave that over for a bit, and perhaps the hon. member will turn up in the meantime. I should like to congratulate the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, on the manner in which he expressed himself. He revealed a South African outlook on affairs, and I want to say that if the English-speaking Afrikaners cultivate a South African outlook there will be better co-operation and collaboration in South Africa. The hon. member submitted two points to the Minister. In the first place he asked whether the time has not arrived to give consideration to the appointment of a central co-ordinating council for air and sea transport and transport in general. I shall not go into that question at the moment. It is one of the policies on our side of the House that there should be co-ordination in respect of these things. We want co-ordination between air, sea and land transport. Consequently such a body may be necessary, but the question remains who will constitute such a board. We shall require some of our best men for that. That, however, is a question that can be given consideration in the future, and I shall not go into it at present. Then I should like to direct a few words to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock). He thought it fit on Friday, in the same debate, to try to protect his lord and master. I must say that he did so in a very feeble manner. He said, in the first place, that formerly, when I was Minister of Agriculture, I was responsible for certain things, that I had made certain appointments, and given certain promotions, and that the Minister of Railways may now merely continue along the same lines. His argument is apparently that as the Minister of Agriculture made a mistake in the old days, it is no longer a mistake for the Minister of Railways to do something of the sort again. The hon. member for Sunnyside has also sought to defame the name of an Afrikaner, Dr. Geldenhuys. If Dr. Geldenhuys was an imperialist and had an imperialistic outlook, then I feel convinced that the hon. member would never have launched an attack against him. Dr. Geldenhuys did not obtain his promotion by wirepulling. He was appointed Under-Secretary to the Department of Agriculture, and after that he became Director of Forestry. He fulfilled his duties so admirably than when his chief was Deputy Prime Minister he deemed it good to send Dr. Geldenhuys to Italy as our trade commissioner. If he was as inefficient as the hon. member for Sunnyside tries to make out, then his chief would not at that time have approved of his being despatched to Italy to represent South Africa. This indicates the weak sort of argument that the hon. member has seized on to defend his Minister. He does not care whether he blackens and slanders people who have served their country. I am most deeply grieved that he has advanced this argument here, that because I appointed Dr. Geldenhuys at that time, it affords justification for the Minister of Railways doing certain things today. He went further and said that he at that time proposed a motion such as we have before us at present, and that it was not accepted. It was not accepted because not a single proof was submitted in support of the motion that was introduced at that time. The Leader of the Opposition has now introduced this motion, and we shall indicate what grounds necessitated our bringing this motion before the House. I thought, however, that I should not be doing my duty towards Dr. Geldenhuys, who has rendered so much good service to the country, if I did not exonerate him from this blame that has been placed on him, and which he has not deserved. He is an Afrikaner who is capable and who has fitted for the work which he did, and he is a man whom the people of South Africa will still need in the future.

Did you not alter the law in order to be able to appoint him?

No special alteration was made in the law. What we did was to appoint him Director of Forestry. The Public Service Commission made certain recommendations, and we accepted them, but seeing that the hon. member feels so strongly on this matter, I will say this to him also: He ought to know that when Dr. Geldenhuys took over the Department of Forestry it was a unilingual department built up on imperialist lines. Dr. Geldenhuys helped to place the department on Afrikaans lines, but the hon. member for Sunnyside naturally does not look at this correctly because he stands with one foot in London and the other in South Africa.

You know that is not so.

Now I should like to say a few words to the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys). He is chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, and it surprised me that he should attempt to defend the Minister in the way he has done. In the first place he made the allegation that we on this side of the House had launched an attack on Mr. Marshall Clark. I thought that the hon. member understood Afrikaans, but apparently he does not. My leader attacked the Railway Administration because Mr. Clark obtained promotion over the heads of others, but he did not make any personal attack on Mr. Clark. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) admitted that Mr. Clark had gained rapid promotion. Were there not other people who were entitled to that promotion; was a test made so that the other men could have an equal opportunity? No; no test was made, and to come here now and say that that man was so extraordinarily capable is no answer, because no test was made to ascertain whether the other men over whose heads he was appointed, were not entitled to the promotion. That argument will not hold water. But the remarkable thing is that after 40 years of Union we have the position today on the Railways that 78 per cent. of the chief officials are English-speaking.

I have explained that point.

It is high time that a change was made.

I explained that.

The hon. member said further that on this side of the House we expressed not a single word of appreciation to the Railway employees for the work they had done. Is that true? The hon. member knows it is not true.

I did not hear it.

I cannot help it if the hon. member was in the tea room all the time and not in his place. For eleven years we have felt on this side of the House that the Railway employees are a section of our officials who are one of the hardest worked. Some of them work for sixteen hours at a stretch in one day, and then they get a meagre remuneration. We have high placed officials who sit in their offices and watch the clock to know the time they can close down, but the personnel of the Railways are hardworking people, and we appreciate what they are doing, and they will always have our support. I should like to clear up a couple of points before I come to the amendment proposed by my Leader. The first is a question of the low paid employees. We have no fewer than 11,000 officials in the Railway Department who receive the meagre wage of less than 10s. a day. Now I ask the Minister of Railways, how in heaven’s name can an official with a wage of less than 10s. a day feed and clothe wife and children?

Did they not during the gold standard period also receive 10s.?

Today the coffers are full. They are so full that the Minister has to transfer funds to other quarters, and is this the time to say that at the time of the gold standard these people did not get more? That is a very weak argument. That shows the measure of respect that hon. member has for, and what he thinks of, his fellow Afrikaners who are working on the Railways. Does he wish to believe that this small wage is to be attributed to the gold standard? We have no longer to do with the difficulties of the gold standard. I say that it is high time that these things were rectified, and that those 11,000 officials must be treated better. It is rapidly becoming a scandal that those officials must work up to sixteen hours a day without having rest and sleep, and that they should then receive this pitiable wage? The stewards on the trains work very hard. Many of them are married men with families. They cannot clothe and feed their families properly. They must simply live under the bread line. Let me mention another point before I come to the motion. I would like to remind the Minister that I recently wrote to him in connection with the platform at Ottosdal. The country districts are treated in a very off-hand manner. At Ottosdal recently a woman broke her leg owing to there not being a proper platform to step on to from the train. A platform does not cost many thousands of pounds. It is made up of soil, and only on the front portion is there cement. Up to the present we have not been able to get this platform. What the reason is I do not know. I do not know whether is is obstinacy or whether the intention is to punish us in the country districts. There is also another case that I have previously mentioned and which I shall mention again. On a previous occasion I labelled it as the South African Black Hole of Calcutta. I mean the station at Piet Retief. It is not so much the station as the goods shed. That is built of galvanised iron, and has not even a verandah. In the summer the people are knocked out by the heat, and in the winter they shiver with cold. They have to load and unload in the rain, and the goods are packed outside. A tarpaulin is thrown over them, but in the corners the rain makes the stuff wet. The farmers are suffering great damage on account of there being no adequate goods sheds, and I think that the Minister should give his attention to this place. He should put the goods shed in order. I should like to inform him that about 5,000 soldiers have been in that locality during the last five years. The use of the station has increased to a tremendous extent, with the result that the public suffer very bad conditions. Now I come to the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in connection with this Bill. Allow me to say here. I should also like to name a case of rapid promotion. The name of Mr. Marshall Clark has already been mentioned. If other people are overlooked, then the Minister should be in a position to prove that the official in question is more capable than the others, and if he can do this then we on this side of the House will hold our peace. But that proof has not yet been afforded us. The proof has not been forthcoming that the officials who have been overlooked had the opportunity to vindicate themselves. Let me say something here in connection with the rapid promotion of Mr. Marshall Clark. The present head of the Railways knows that in October next year he must retire. He has a two-fold purpose in this promotion. By October he will not be able to grade up and grade down those officials in order to have the post of General Manager filled by his nominee. He can then easily go to the Minister and say that he will have to remain there at his post for another couple of years, and when his period of service is over then he will have a chance to regrade some men and to fix on his successor. That is what is behind all this. I should like to mention another case, namely that of Purvis who has become Secretary of the Railway Board. His salary was a maximum of £573 on the. 1st September, 1939. On the 1st October, 1941, he was graded with a maximum salary of £735. Six months later—the post was in the meantime regraded—namely on the 1st April, 1942, he was advanced to a maximum of £840. Fifteen months later, in June, 1943, he was advanced to a post with a maximum of £1,000. Over the heads of how many people did that man jump, while they had no chance to prove that they were just as good as he was? That is one of the unfairest things that we can get in such a service, that people are graded up and down in order to keep back certain individuals, and to promote and benefit others. That is the reason why we are pressing for an impartial commission of enquiry. Then I come to the secret memorandum that was drawn up by Mr. Hoffe, the General Manager of Railways. In that secret memorandum it appears that certain associations in the Railways that are disloyal must be destroyed. If there are disloyal organisations in the Railways then it is a matter of honour for the department to look into it. But what is a disloyal organisation? I will refer specially to the Spoorbond. No one can say that the Spoorbond is a disloyal organisation, because the Spoorbond has never been disloyal towards the administration. It is an organisation of workers that is recognised by the Department of Labour. The Spoorbond is recognised as a trade union organisation. But what has the Minister done to this organisation? Because a large number of the Afrikaans-speaking officials are members of Spoorbond, they are being victimised. In the first place the Minister refused to allow Spoorbond stop orders to be accepted any longer. The object of the Minister was to try in this way to break up the Spoorbond. But they did not sit down quietly under that. The Spoorbond was not prepared to admit that their being deprived of the stop order system should mean the breaking up of their organisation. What was then the second step that the department took? The second step taken by the department was to win over certain heads, and to apply a policy of divide and rule. Even then the Spoorbond declined to surrender. Pressure was exercised on them with the object of destroying the organisation, and I will show how that was done. There was reorganisation in the Spoorbond, a new committee was elected, and Mr. Auret was appointed chairman. Let me say here that it is desirable that the chairman of such an organisation should live near one of the big railway centres, namely, at Pretoria or Johannesburg. But what did the Department do then? In order to break up the Spoorbond they went and transferred Mr. Auret, the chairman, to Uitenhage. Although he had his home and a school for his children—an Afrikaans medium school—he was transferred in an arbitrary manner to Uitenhage, so that the Spoorbond might be destroyed. That sort of penalisation is exercised by the Department of Railways. I will just say this, that that line of conduct by the Department is becoming now nothing less than a disgrace. Eighteen months ago I wrote to the Minister about the transfer of officials from Breyton, and I said that this was done for political reasons. The Minister then replied to me that that was not the case, and that so long as an official did not figure in public they had nothing to do with his politics. He added that he respected a man’s feelings, and he did not want to know whether the men were Nationalists or Saps; but nevertheless we have to deal with hard facts, and I have mentioned the case of a person in Breyton who had his own house there—for he is a married man with children—but he has been simply transferred to a remote place in the Zoutpansberg, away from a good school and away from his own house. That sort of penalisation by the Department of Railways must now cease. I trust that the Minister will also cease from persecuting the Spoorbond. It is now two years since the game was started of trying to destroy the Spoorbond. I will tell the Minister this, that the Spoorbond will resist all his efforts. The Spoorbond is an Afrikaner institution, and the Afrikaners feel that they cannot kneel to him. The Minister will not succeed in crushing the spirit of the Afrikaners. We have listened to the argument here that we must observe how contented the Railway employees are, and then it is stated that hon. members opposite represent the railway seats. Is that a test? What about divisions such as Colesberg, Bethlehem, Harrismith, Gordonia, Wonderboom, Westdene, etc.? In all those electoral divisions there are numbers of railwaymen, and they are all Nationalist constituencies. That is no test. If you want a test you will have to alter the constitution and put all the railwaymen in eight or ten electoral districts, and then let them vote. I can give you the assurance that not a single Sap will be returned by them. The Minister does not know what the actual position is, because he and his chief officials do not come into contact with the men. They do not meet the ordinary railwaymen, and are not aware of the amount of discontent that exists. But I should like to come back to the secret memorandum that was issued. It is a secret memorandum that was drawn up by the General Manager, Mr. Hoffe. What do we read in this memorandum? I shall tell you briefly what appears in it. Inter alia, I read the following—

Well, who must be the judge as to whether a man is disloyal? In this connection I should like to read something that appeal’s on page 7 of the report of the General Manager of Railways; it has reference to our complaint that Afrikaans-speaking officials are not accorded their rights so far as regards promotion. He says this—

It is a difficult problem, because the key posts are not to be given to Afrikaners. And many posts are ranked as key posts. We see in this memorandum that the key posts must be preserved. I find here—

That appears in the secret memorandum. From that it appears that some officials must be relegated, and then they are replaced. And what are the terrible accusations that have been made? Officials in the Railway Service from various quarters of the country, from Durban to South West Africa, from Cape Town to Pretoria, from Johannesburg to Delagoa Bay, all the heads in the railway centres, were all assembled in order to discuss the memorandum, and in 99 per cent of the cases where charges of disloyalty had been made, or where there had been allegations that an official had done this, that or the next thing, the officials were able to refute them and to say that there was not a word of truth in them. In spite of this, the Department went ahead and officials were transferred in this way to other centres without even the system manager who must fully understand the position and who is in contact with these people, knowing a word about it. They simply had to loyally carry out the instruction they had received from headquarters. I understand that a committee was appointed, apparently the smelling-out committee, and that committee will naturally advise the general manager, and they will say that Tom, Dick or Harry must be transferred because a suspicion exists that the man is a Nationalist. He must be transferred to another district, and the circumstances that the man has a family, that he has a wife and children and that the children have to be educated, are not taken into account at all. These things are overlooked. I think that it is time that the Minister of Railways gave his attention to this matter, and therefore it is necessary to have an impartial committee who will also enquire into this matter in connection with the secret memorandum. Hundreds of our people are transferred unnecessarily by way of being penalised, and it has become an absolute disgrace. It is often said that the Minister of Railways is very just and honourable, but when you see these things going on in his department then you begin to doubt whether that is really the case. Accordingly, I am expressing the hope that the Minister will accept our motion. If he does not do that it will be clear to us and to the Railway officials that the Minister cannot face the test of an impartial investigation. It will be clear to the general public that he is afraid, after what has happened, of an honourable and appropriate enquiry. It does not help matters to say that certain things were done by previous Ministers, and then to take up the attitude that the present Minister can do likewise. The matter must be dealt with on its merits. I do not raise this in an unfriendly spirit, but because these are facts we are in possession of, and they cannot easily be controverted. We bring these facts to the notice of the Minister in the fullest confidence that he will have a committee appointed so that the matter can be dealt with. If we are wrong, then the committee can say so, but otherwise we shall continue to lay emphasis on this. We have done this now for several years, and we have alluded to the circumstances, but nothing has been done. Consequently it has been necessary for us to raise the point again. I can give the Minister the assurance that we, as the Opposition, shall be vigilant to see that the machinery of the State functions properly, and that we shall utilise all information we can obtain with a view to ensuring that there shall be clean administration in the Department of Railways, and that it will not be a matter of according patronage to officials, or that officials will be shelved simply because they are Nationalists. On those grounds I trust that the motion will be accepted

I rise at this stage of the debate to endeavour to reply in the first instance in some measure to the speech made by my hon. friend the member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). One does not expect the hon. member for Wolmaransstad to know much about railways, nor may one assume from his speech that he has fully acquainted himself with the greatly improved position of the unskilled labourer. I repeat that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is, in my opinion, not fully acquainted with the very great improvement which has been made in the status of unskilled labourers on the Railways. In that connection I do not consider that their position at present, is all that it should be, and members on this side of the House have already represented to the Minister that steps should be taken further to improve the position of unskilled labourers on the Railways. The hon. Minister has shown a very keen and lively interest in the affairs of that section of the staff which I must say was neglected at the time the Opposition were in office. He has referred to the position of the Spoorbond, and the action taken by the Minister. If the position of the Spoorbond is not what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad would wish it to be, then I can tell him what the hon. members on his side of the House should know, and that is that the Spoorbond killed itself. I want to say a few words about the amendment, and I take as my justification the fact that I spent many years in the administrative offices of the Cape Government Railway Administration in Cape Town, and of the South African Railways in Johannesburg, and although I am speaking at a late stage in this debate I think it only my duty to state my attitude towards the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). In the first place I desire to treat this matter from an entirely non-party point of view. I know very well that the Minister himself will be able to deal with the criticism that has been offered in respect of specific appointments on the Railways, but I do wish to say that in matters affecting servants of the State, whether they be on the Railways, or in other Government departments, the House would be well advised to cultivate a sense of proportion. The fact that names are bandied across the floor of the House does not reflect any credit on this assembly, and it is calculated to lower the tone of the State service of South Africa. When these statements are printed in newspapers in South Africa which have a party bias, it is more than likely that incorrect impressions will be caused of officers who hold high and honourable positions in the State service. I feel that it is a matter for serious consideration. I do not wish to lecture this House—far be it from me to do that—but as an ex-railway administrative officer of long standing I can say this, that debates of this nature involving men who hold high positions in the service, will not be fruitful of good, both in regard to this House itself and in regard to the servants concerned. I look upon this amendment as one which is aimed at the present Government and as having particular reference to the Afrikaans-speaking officials. Further, it names two senior officials in particular and it asks that a Select Committee of this House should be appointed to enquire into the whole of the arrangements made in connection with these appointments, and it limits the period to be covered as from 1939 to the present date.

We are prepared to extend the period as long as you like.

What I feel is this, that an enquiry such as asked for by the Leader of the Opposition should go back to at least 1924 to be fair to all concerned; but if the committee were to ask for the details of all promotions which have been made during the course of nineteen years on the Railways it would probably be sitting for about four or five years, because you have the position on the Railways that the seniority of officers is changed from year to year and there will be no finality.

Give them a chance.

I do not want to give the Opposition a chance; if the thing is justified and right let them have a Select Committee, but we have the interests of South Africa to consider. We have far greater interests at stake in this country than the appointment of one or two senior officers in the Railway Administration. We have at stake, what my friend the hon. member for Wolmaransstad indicated, the lives and homes of the needy Afrikaner. This debate, unfortunately, is inclined to have a racial tendency, and in my political experience I have endeavoured to show that it does not matter to me whether a man is Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking provided he is a South African. If this motion had dealt with the question of efficiency one would have seen that there was an indication at any rate of that question or otherwise of the officials promoted. I should like to say from my experience under the Cape Government and under the Union Government that you will never have a perfect system of promotion, and that the question of seniority will always arise. I see the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) is sitting in his place, or at any rate he is sitting in a place which he may shortly occupy judging by some of the speeches he has delivered in this House. He is well acquainted with the fact that under the Nationalist Government rapid promotions were not by any means few or far between. There was a time in the Railway Administration when it was actually considered that I was deserving of doing the “leap-frog” process, and I was promoted two grades at one time. Let me ask the hon. member for Vredefort whether he did not have a similar experience. I happen to know my hon. friend; he was an efficient man and enjoyed rapid promotion in the service. But what will this committee do? It will only perpetuate something that is detrimental to the best interests of the staff, for which all members of this House desire to work. That is my second proposition, that the amendment should cover the period back to 1924. I should say the committee might be limited to two members, the hon. member for Vredefort and myself, because when you consider the composition of such a committee I do wonder, with all due respect, whether this House is duly qualified to deal with the question of efficiency. I just visualise how a schedule will be drawn up showing when a man entered the service, what promotion he had in every case, and so on, and it would be an interminable job; and I would suggest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or to my hon. friend the member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) that they should withdraw this motion in the interests of all concerned. When I heard the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) speak I thought there was a forced expression, and that he was not altogether satisfied in regard to the advisability of going into the matter. Mr. Speaker, in the Railway Administration occasions arise when a special job has to be created to meet emergencies, and if the Administration is well advised, it will naturally see to the selection for such an emergency of the best man for the job. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) will confirm that during the 1924-’33 period a similar appointment was made—I shall not mention any names. An official was promoted over the heads of other officials in the service, because of his brilliance as an engineer—they used the elevator.

Give the name.

No, I shall not mention any names. Those who are acquainted with the Railways, and have had Railway experience, know to whom I refer. This man was promoted over the heads of others because he had exceptional ability, and he was actually given charge of two departments of the Railways on account of that. When the Railway Administration, in common with other Government Departments, is faced with the question of post-war reconstruction and the necessity for having a man—who is fully qualified and with sufficient years to go in the service—to take command of that work and see it through, it is criticised by hon. members of this House, who are not fully acquainted with the responsibilities which are attached to this position and will attach to the position in the years that are to come. The Railway Administration is going to make a tremendous contribution to the economic development of South Africa. In its post-war reconstruction, its new works schemes and in other directions it will have to take into account not only the expenditure involved, which will be tremendous, but what is best suited for the future expansion of our railways and our harbours; and it is necessary to appoint the best man obtainable and seniority must go by the board if we are to do our job in this great transportation industry in South Africa. The Administration has taken that point of view as far as I can see. It has selected a man who has proved himself in the front rank of the profession to which he belongs. He was responsible for very important work on the Reef. My hon. friend will remember that as he passed over the Reef there is evidence of the transformation that has taken place on the railways, without which we would not be able to deal with the passenger and goods traffic on the Witwatersrand; and it is necessary at this stage to pay a tribute to the officer mentioned in the amendment for the excellent services rendered to South Africa in connection with that work on the Witwatersrand. I say this, that the appointment of a select committee is only a labouring of the point. It will not be in the best interests of this House. It certainly will not be in the best interests of the Railway Administration, nor of the men whose interests my hon. friends opposite think they have an opportunity of serving. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad certainly knows it; he is a man of great experience. I have indicated that it is necessary at times when positions of special significance are under consideration, and it has been the practice, not only in South Africa but wherever you go, for experts to be imported from overseas. Would my hon. friend have preferred that the Government should have sent overseas for an officer to come to South Africa when we have a South African on the spot to undertake this work. No; the Administration has selected a South African to do a South African job. I hope we shall hear no more across the floor of this House in regard to the names of the gentleman concerned. Furthermore, as regards the remainder of the staff, methods of promotions are continually being discussed between representatives of the railway staff and the Administration. I should like that those officials who are most capable of understanding the intricacies of the question of promotion, should be afforded an opportunity of giving their assistance in this matter. No select committee of this House will be able to frame a scheme which would satisfy all the men concerned, much less members of Parliament. In this connection I want to congratulate the Minister upon the excellent relationship that has been arrived at between the Railway staff unions representing men of all grades, and the Administration, and I hope that the co-operation of the staff unions in the difficult problems engaging the attention of the Administration will continue in the best interests of the men concerned and of the country in general. We have arrived at a position of particular significance when these matters can be looked at from a national point of view, and when sometimes sacrifices are accepted for national progress. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) got up in this House and expressed himself rather heatedly on a matter of the composition of the Railway Board. He expressed his regret that political appointments had been made to the Railway Board.

Do you deny it?

I am not responsible for appointments to the Railway Board, but I want to say this—would my hon. friend have made the same speech when the Nationalist Government came into power and when the gentleman who was greatly instrumental in achieving a political victory for them at Wakkerstroom was placed on the Railway Board? I am not dealing with the principle at the moment, but what I do say is this: If you consider the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg you get the impression that this Government is responsible for something new.

Will you tell us whether your Government has not given that gentleman an important appointment recently?

That shows that this Government is not concerned with what the gentleman did in the past. It recognises his worth and it has given him the appointment. I wonder whether if the Opposition had been in power they would have done the same thing. We have arrived at that stage in the development of public affairs in South Africa when an official may expect promotion according to his ability. But, Sir, in regard to the composition of the Railway Board, hon. members will know that after Union the Railway Board was composed of ex-railwaymen. I think I am correct in saying that the first Board was composed of Mr. T. S. McEwan, General Manager of the Cape Government Railways, Sir Thomas Price of the Central South African Railways, and I believe eventually Sir David Hunter of the Natal Government Railways, was on the Board. These were all gentlemen who during their lifetime had contributed greatly to railway enterprise and development of South Africa. That position was changed. I personally hold the view as an ex-railwayman that it would be far better not to have a Railway Board if such a Board is not composed of men who are fully acquainted with railway science and development. I would like to go further and recommend the Government to take into consideration the question of whether we should not have an expert economist attached to the Railway Board. Furthermore, the position of the Railway staff unions is such today, that, in view of their expert knowledge and experience and also their practical outlook on national requirements, it is a matter for serious consideration whether the vast, army of railwaymen—numbering about 80,000 Europeans and about 56,000 non-Europeans—should not be represented on the Railway Board, and I offer the suggestion to the Minister for his consideration.

Tell us more about the present members.

He says they are no good.

I think the attitude and efficiency of a staff organisation particularly during the war period rather emphasises the necessity for the recognition of the principle, at any rate, that as far as possible, representation of the employees of the railways on various Boards should be extended. Now, Sir, I want to refer to something which I think should be mentioned. In the course of this debate, it has been stated that, with an Administration having tremendous surpluses, this and that should be done. Requests have been put forward for the construction of branch lines, and many other applications will be made to the Administration if the impression gets abroad that it is continuing to make huge surpluses, whereas a study of the bulletins issued by the General Manager indicates that the position is changing and changing rapidly. If one takes the financial position for the period April to November 1942, as compared with the same period in 1943, one finds that whereas in the first period the Railways showed a net surplus of £1,676,000 during 1943 for the same period, that is, from April to November—the net surplus is only £477,000. I make that allusion because I think it is necessary to check the demands that are made upon the Administration which during the time of large surpluses was able to give rebates and concessions here and there. It is necessary for us to call a halt lest we overstep the mark. The Railways should be the model employer of South Africa, and in its endeavours to improve the wage and living conditions of its employees it has reached a position which I think has never before obtained in South Africa, and those of us who are anxious to see that position maintained and improved as far as possible have to be very critical of any change in the financial policy of the Administration which would result in a diminution of its revenue or any weakening of its financial position. So I do hope that the Minister will set his face firmly against the construction of branch lines, wherever they may be asked for, if the proposals are not economically sound. Then, as I endeavoured to indicate, the Railway Administration will play a very important part in the economic reconstruction of South Africa. Its requirements in rolling stock and the necessary stores are considerable, as are the requirements of every public department, and it is a matter for consideration as to whether a survey should not be taken of all the requirements of our government departments, including the Railways, with a view to ascertaining to what extent those requirements can be met by local industries: and where it is not an economic proposition, whether the central Government should not assist in such a way that the bulk of the Railway Administration’s requirements can be met in South Africa. I am encouraged to find from the General Manager’s report that during the year ended March, 1943—the Administration, in order to improve the truck position, considered a proposal for the construction of trucks by a local firm, and after examination it was felt that advantage should be taken of the opportunity thus presented, and arrangements were made for the firm in question to build 1,000 bogie waggons, certain components being supplied by the Administration itself. This indicates a principle that might well be followed during the post-war period when the Administration, in certain cases at any rate, would be able by co-operation with local industries to produce more and more of its requirements. I spoke in the House the other day on social security and asked the Government to make a statement in regard to its post-war reconstruction programme. I feel, Sir, that if a statement were made to the country, vagueness in regard to the proposals would be dispelled, and the country would see in what directions the Government would proceed. And I want to ask the Hon. Minister of Railways in view of the importance of this matter from a Railways and Harbours point of view, whether he will not be prepared to make a statement in his budget speech in regard to the works that will be undertaken in order to provide for the existing staff plus 2,500 returning soldiers for whom he proposes to provide. I feel that the country would welcome such a statement from the Hon. Minister. In conclusion, I have read with gratification the statement on page 85 of the General Manager’s report dealing with social welfare work on the Railways. If the Minister were to prepare a pamphlet giving in detail the steps that have been taken in the past, and particularly during the war period, to improve the conditions, especially of the unskilled labourers on the Railways—particulars which would include housing, and all those matters affecting the livelihood of the man concerned—we should then know that, to a certain extent at any rate, the principle of social security has been taken into serious consideration and implemented in a measure for the railwaymen of South Africa. I wish to express my appreciation to the Hon. Minister and to the Administration itself for these steps and for the work of the Railway staff unions in encouraging and co-operating with the Minister in this respect. I hope that an appreciable advance will be made along these lines. And may I conclude with this, that I trust that the interests of the non-European employees will be taken into serious consideration from a social welfare point of view, and that we shall endeavour as a model employer, not only to meet other sections of the staff, but that we shall take as our first duty the upliftment and amelioration of the conditions of those who are most in need.

A serious complaint has been lodged against the Minister of Railways and his Administration. I have listened to the speeches of hon. members on the other side. They tried to justify the action of the Administration and of the Minister, but not one of them has succeeded in disproving or rebutting one of the cases mentioned here by the Leader of the Opposition. On the contrary, those hon. members tried to justify the present system, under which a person can be taken right from the bottom and taken by lift to a post where he will fit. There he is pushed in. We ask for proof that he has the merit, and as long as hon. members on the other side cannot furnish us with the proof that there was merit in these cases, we cannot withdraw the amendment, (as was asked by the hon. member who has just sat down. We know how that system works. It is not operative only in the higher paid section of the Administration, but it operates in another direction, and that is that the lowly-paid officials are held back in the same way. Posts are kept open; posts are not filled, and one finds that people are used for many years to fill these posts, but they do not receive the promotion to which they are entitled. We get those cases daily. We could mention them specifically; these are not cases which we are inventing. That is the experience of the worker. Hon. members on the other side say that the Railway Administration is held in such high esteem by the workers that they, on the other side, got all the railway votes. I can tell hon. members on the other side that in the Free State they did not take a single railway centre. The representatives of the Free State railway centres are on this side of the House. What is really taking place? I want to show what happens in the case of the higher paid officials. If they happen to be the chosen people of the general manager, their path is easy and they prosper. What happens in the case of the lower paid officials? I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the position in which the lower paid railway official finds himself. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Germiston the previous day in the course of this debate, that the greater portion of the workers on the Railways, the lower paid officials, have to work for a meagre wage. The Railways are making a great deal of money. They speak of great surpluses. They speak of great services which they are rendering to the war effort in different directions, but as yet they have done nothing for the lower paid Railway workers. What have they got? Has the Minister ever considered this? To a man who earns £1,000 or £1,500 or £2,000 per annum, a war allowance of 5 per cent or 7½ per cent. or 10 per cent. means an enormous addition, but it does not mean much to the poor man, the man who works on the railway line, who lives in a pondokkie, who has no proper house and who may have a large family. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he is satisfied that his Administration is treating those people fairly. I say “no”; justice has not been done to those people. Commissions are appointed today to go into the increase in the costs of living. But the Minister forgets that the price of most of the commodities had already increased considerably before the control system was introduced. Since the beginning of the war there has been proper price control, but I maintain that the prices had already gone up tremendously before they were fixed; that today those people have to spend double or more than double their cost of living allowance on the same salaries. Those people cannot clothe themselves properly, and they cannot even feed their children properly. I now want to come to a few matters which more specifically affect my constituency. I mentioned the case of people who are held back, who cannot get their promotions. Last year a similar plea was made in this House. The Minister agreed to the payment of certain arrear moneys to casual artisans. I find, however, that in my constituency there are still a number of artisans who up to the present have received no compensation. I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister once again. I brought another matter to the notice of the Minister which I regard as an absolute injustice to a certain driver. Through no fault of his own, but through the action of other people, he was suspended for ten months. He had to seek employment 30 miles from his house. He received the permission of the Administration to do so. When the court found him not guilty, the Administration came along and appropriated that money which he had earned 30 miles from his home at extra expense to himself, in order to keep his family alive. I discussed this matter with the Minister, but he said that he personally could unfortunately do nothing about it. I want to ask the Minister and his Administration to see to it that justice is done to everyone of these people who were wronged through no fault of their own. It was put here, and it is denied by the Railway Administration, that differential treatment is meted out to English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners. Our experience on the platteland is that that is a daily occurrence. The Afrikaans-speaking official is always held back. Certain hon. members have suggested that the English-speaking section of the people has greater aptitude; that they are better enginemen than the Afrikaners. I want to tell the Minister that those days are past. Thirty years ago one had of necessity to get a Scotchman from Scotland to drive an engine, but today the Afrikaner is just as capable. We make this plea, that the man who has qualified himself for the post should not be overlooked.

I do not wish to indulge in the vituperations which have fallen across the floor of the House regarding the question of promotions in the Railway service. I think that those have been adequately dealt with by members on this side of the House, but I will ask the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) who has just sat down and who suggests that no reply can be given to these allegations, to wait until the hon. Minister replies, and I think he will then find that none of those allegations which have been made by members opposite hold water. The Leader of the Opposition has also objected to the annual report of the General Manager of Railways, in which he deprecates the dragging of the name of high Railway officials across the floor of the House. I personally agree with the General Manager of Railways. I feel that it is a matter to be deprecated that the names of high Railway officials should be dragged across the floor of the House and accusations made against them without the slightest substance or correct knowledge of the facts. I submit that while criticism is not resented, hon. members on the other side of the House must remember that there are two types of criticism, criticism that hits above the belt and criticism that hits below the belt.

Why not hit him on the belt?

My hon. friend has not got a belt to hit.

You won’t hit the second time.

No, you would not be there to be hit. Mr. Speaker, I will leave the matter at that, but I think that the Railway Administration, although they do not claim to have 100 per cent. efficiency, has done remarkably well in a period of stress, in the way in which it has run the Railway service, and that does not apply to only the higher officials but also to the lower paid officials who have put their backs into it, in order to run this service efficiently. I have quite a number of railwaymen in my constituency, and I am glad to have the opportunity of paying a tribute to them for the part which they have played in the efficient running of the Railway service. I wish now to deal with one or two other matters, and I want to suggest to the hon. Minister that the time has arrived when he should reinstitute the civil air service. I submit that that is a matter that he should consider now. It was a great boon to many people in the country and I think the time has arrived when those services can be reinstated.

I cannot get the planes.

I know that the Railways were very generous to the Defence Department in handing over to the Defence Department all the planes they had at the outbreak of the war, but I think the Minister could now with justification approach the Defence Department, and even if he does not get the same number of planes, he should at any rate get from the Defence Department a certain number which could start this service again. I think that in doing so he would have the approval of all sections in the House. Then, as the hon. Minister will recollect £30,000 was placed on the estimates four years ago for the improvement of the Fort Beaufort railway station, and whilst I am aware that that work has been held up as a result of the war, I feel that it is desirable and indeed necessary that a commencement should be made at that station at once, and if I might suggest it, that a commencement should be made in the goods sheds and buildings in which the goods clerks serve. I do not think that the appalling conditions under which those men are working can be realised. I know it is the intention of the Administration to serve its servants well, and here is an instance where by the expenditure of a small portion of the above amount, you can give those people conditions under which they can work happily and efficiently. I strongly urge that the work be started without delay, and the whole scheme completed. Finally, I raised the question last year of the meagre contribution by the Administration to the Road Motor Service. I still say the Railway Department is not giving sufficient to that particular purpose. Today we have road motor buses using the roads right throughout the country, and whilst they are doing a good service they are getting the use of roads on which a considerable amount of money must be spent annually, and which expenditure is far beyond the resources of many of the smaller Divisional Councils in the Cape Province. I say that the Railway Department should be more generous with its contributions, which will then enable more generous contributions to be made to those districts where the Road Motor Buses are used especially the smaller Divisional Councils, and I hope the Minister will consider this. I think it would be a good gesture on the part of the Administration, and one which will be very much appreciated. The Administration cannot expect Divisional Councils to maintain their roads properly, and which the Railway buses cut up, on the negligible contributions now made, and whereof some Divisional Councils get nothing. The public are not satisfied with having to foot the bill for the roads for practically the free use of these Railway buses.

I notice with great satisfaction that the Railway Administration undertakes to provide for their 14,000 employees when they return from Active Service, and that they also undertake to provide employment for another 2,500 returned soldiers. In reply to questions put by me and by other hon. members, I also notice that they have taken back certain internees. I do certainly hope that none of these returned soldiers will be put under those internees. After all, they have been interned for activities subversive to the State, and to my mind there is no worse person than an enemy of the State. I would like the Hon. Minister to give this House and the country the assurance that no returned soldier will be placed under an internee. I heard the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to senior officials in the Railway service, and, Sir, the first thing that appealed to me was this, that under the Act of Union the Railways have to be run on businesslike lines and efficiency is therefore of paramount importance. In what way is the Leader of the Opposition able to judge whether these men are efficient or not? What qualifications have hon. members on the other side got to judge the efficiency of these officials? What do they know about it?

Why not let the Committee decide?

You know nothing about the subject.

You need not be impertinent.

They had no right to criticise the abilities of a man like Mr. Chittenden who has forgotten more about the subject than they will ever know. I happen to be in intimate touch with the commercial community of Johannesburg and I can assure the House that the opinions I have heard about Mr. Chittenden are of the highest and are the very opposite to these expressed in this House by hon. members on the other side of the House. Neither as Chief Stores Superintendent, nor in any other position he has held have I heard any adverse criticism about him, and the opinion of the commercial community of Johannesburg on this matter is worth a great deal more than the opinion of the hon. member for Waterberg or the hon. member for Piquetberg. Why do they not repeat outside the House what they have said here? They have made statements here without giving the person concerned the opportunity of defending himself. Would hon. members repeat outside what they have said here? This campaign is nothing but racialism, and is caused by chagrin at the Opposition losing the Railway vote in the last election.

I am quite prepared to make any statement I have made here outside the House.

The S.A. Railway service is one of high efficiency and morale, and campaigns of this sort tend to lower the efficiency and morale through officials not being able to answer these vile allegations. That this sort of campaign can take place militates against State undertakings. There are people who want hotels to be run by the Railways—I personally am in favour of that. But what sort of manager and other employees will you get if one or more of these officials is to be subjected to this type of racial criticism? You have it from the General Manager himself that efficiency is the primary consideration and seniority is the secondary consideration. Racial discriminations should not, and do not take part in the selection of individuals for appointment to, and within, the service. What sort of morale can one expect when the names of senior officials are bandied about and allegations are made without any justification, and what is more, when these persons have no means of justifying themselves? It is a cowardly attack on these gentlemen and I hope we shall hear no more about it in the future.

Hon. members on the other side of the House tried to make out that we on this side were engaged in making a racial attack. The truth is that we are opposing racialism. The Government started it. The Government made appointments ton a racial basis, and it is therefore the Government’s fault that we had to raise this matter. We want that type of thing to cease, and it was for that reason that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced his amendment. The Government side is altogether wrong in saying that we raised this matter. On the contrary, we are opposing it. The matter which I should like to raise refers to a question which I put in this House in regard to the drying of grain by the grain elevators. This question was put to the Minister of Railways, and the reply was that I should direct the question to the Minister of Lands. I then put the question to the Minister of Lands, and he replied: “It is true.” But I had a further interest, namely, the building of the grain elevator at Wesselsibron. I interview the Minister of Agriculture in that connection. But it seems to me that there is a quarrel as to which Department the grain elevator system falls under, whether it falls under Agriculture or under the Railways. Agriculture says that it falls under the Railways, and the Railways say that Agriculture must furnish the reply because it falls under Agriculture. I want to point out that there is confusion as far as this matter is concerned, and I shall be glad if the Minister will decide once and for all under whom the grain elevator system really falls, and where we have to apply for assistance as far as the grain elevators are concerned. Another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, is that the opinion is generally held in the country that the time is past to build railway lines, and consequently not many applications are made for the building of railway lines or for an extension of railway lines. There is an impression outside, and even in this Parliament, that it is impossible to get a further expansion of railways, because it is not a payable means of transport. I have before me the report of the Railway Line Revision Commission, and on page 34 of the report I find the following—

Here we have the report which was brought out by the Railway Line Revision Commission and in that report it is stated explicitly that railways still remain the most important means of transport. For that reason I make bold to make a plea today for a certain line in my constituency. It concerns a railway line which runs to a dead end, namely, from Bothaville to Bultfontein. There we have a line which was built years ago, and which brought a large section of that fertile land under cultivation. It is estimated that during recent years 500,000 to 750,000 bags of mealies were conveyed annually over that short line of 70 miles. This year large quantities of mealies will again be transported over that line, because last week one of the members of the Irrigation Board told me that in those parts he saw better mealies this year than he had seen in any other part of South Africa. Those parts are served by this branch line which comes to a dead end, and since the conditions there are so favourable, and since the branch line runs to a dead end, it is a privilege to me to bring to the notice of the Minister of Railways the fact that that line ought to be extended so that it can link up with another place and form a through line. It is not for me to say where it should link up. The inhabitants concerned and the Railway Board can determine that. It is only my duty to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is essential to extend that line. This line is already a payable proposition, and it will become an even more payable proposition if it is extended to link up with another line, because as soon as it becomes a through line, more goods can be conveyed at a higher tariff. Because it is a branch line, as is the case now, only heavy products like mealies, etc., are conveyed. But if it were a through line, passengers would also be able to use that line. At the moment that is impossible, because it means that where it ought to take the passengers a few hours to get on to the main line, it now takes them two days with the branch line to get on to the main line with the detour. It would hot only increase the conveyance of payable products, but it would also conserve rolling material. The rolling material must now traverse the same line twice. In the same report on page 105 we see that the Railway Line Revision Commission also submitted a report in regard to the lengthening of this line, and I should like to read to the House what the Commission had to say in that connection. I want to point out that there are three possible directions in which the line can be lengthened. The report reads as follows—

I am convinced that those things to which this report refers have now taken place. As all hon. members know, in recent times there was extensive boring for gold in the Free State. It is in that very neighbourhood that the branch line is situated and where an extension is being sought. The report says that when the gold development reaches a more definite stage, the matter should be further investigated, and then the extension of the line can be recommended. It is known that boring for gold in those parts of the Free State has made such strides that there is no longer any question as to whether the gold fields will be a payable proposition. It is now a certainty. We read recently that the chairman of one of the big gold mining companies stated in his presidential address that it was clear that the Free State would become one of the biggest gold fields in the world. I think it was the chairman of the New Goldfields who said this in his presidential address. There is a great possibility that if that area is fully developed, according to the chairman of this company, it will be possible to provide employment for a million Europeans. Since we have now reached that stage which is mentioned in the report, and since the Government is looking for fields of employment in order to solve its big post-war problems, I feel justified in making a plea that the Government should give special attention to this line which at the moment runs to a dead end. I hope that the Government will be prepared to extend this line, so that it will be linked to one or other of the existing railway lines. But there is still a further argument. We always hear complaints that the existing railways are overloaded with traffic. We know that two lines runs from Johannesburg, one via Kimberley and one via Bloemfontein. Here we have a line which can easily be converted into a third line from Johannesburg. Fortunately the third line runs between the other two lines, so that this line could easily become the third line, running parallel with the existing two, and it could therefore to a great extent relieve the traffic on the two existing main lines. If the Government deems fit, it could use the middle line for the conveyance of heavy traffic, and the main lines for fast traffic. I feel convinced, therefore, that the Government owes it to the country, to future development and especially to those parts to take this matter into careful consideration, and to grant this extension of the line to the Hoopstad constituency.

I am sure that the House generally recognises the internal economic efficiency of the Railway Administration. I should like, however, to discuss briefly some of the unsatisfactory relationships between the Railways and the general economy of the Union. Ours is a dual economy; that is to say, it is a hybrid between a socialised system and a capitalistic economy; and whether those of us here have an ideology which is socialistic or individualistic, I think we are all agreed, in view of the tremendous needs of our country, to co-operate, in order to make this dual system work to a maximum. Now, as could be expected of any dual system, there is always the fear that socialisation will more and more invade the field of private enterprise. Though in South Africa we have demarcated the field as between private enterprise and the State, there is nevertheless a good deal of confusion in regard to the position and in the way it is working out. This is due, I think, in a large measure, to the fact that the State is constantly setting up big enterprises which are really capitalistic, both in their form and their operation. The South African Railways is one such organisation. It is an independent economic unit working to its own policy, to its own plans, and not aligning itself adequately with other big economic units in the country. Most members here hold the view that we must work towards an integrated national economy in order to ensure the maximum use of our human and material resources. Our tendency, however—and it has been very evident during this debate—is quite clearly in the direction of the disintegration of our economy. It is certain that a struggle is pending; and if we consider the remarks of the Minister of Finance a few days ago, and the Press reactions to the struggle, as far as it has gone, we shall realise that the time is ripe for the State to take some definite action in rationalising the whole economy of the Union. I take the Railways as an illustration of what I have in mind. It is a powerful State-guaranteed monopoly affecting every aspect of the economic life of our people. It is true that it provides essential services to all industry. It is true that it has set up an excellent system of social security for its employees. But it is also a competitor as a producer and distributor, using vast social capital and assets on which a very large section of our population are dependent. It has its own fiscal and budgetary policy. Every industry in the country depends on it; every municipal and local authority fashions its programme, is obliged to, according to its policy. It has its own housing arrangements, its health services, its training schools, some of which come into competition with State schools; it will soon have its own hotels; and it is, I believe, contemplating a shipbuilding industry. It is also a wage-fixing body working outside the provisions applicable to other industries. Though it is one of the biggest employers in the Union, its wages, to certain members of the Administration, can only be described as appalling. For example, there are 550 non-Europeans, a particular type of non-European, employed in Durban at an average wage of £4 15s. per month. A visit to the Railway barracks there, where some 400 Indians are housed, is sufficient proof of the squalor, the inadequacy of clothing and feeding and the low standard of health and efficiency of these employees. Its wages for many categories of Europeans are not even subsistence wages. I hope the Minister in his Budget will abolish these slave conditions in South Africa, and will prescribe a non-European basic minimum wage of £10 per month, and £25 per month as a European minimum wage. The South African Railways are a state within a state. I am not merely criticising Railway policy when I say that. I am just trying to visualise South. Africa as an economic unit with the Railways continuing to work efficiently as today, but more rationally co-ordinated with other big economic units, both corporate and private, and not undertaking activities which private enterprise can carry on as well. Because economic co-ordination in South Africa is not being fully organised, we are subjecting non-State enterprise to stresses which are seriously restricting capital investment for further production, and when it is remembered that we need in this country, in order to ensure full employment after the war, an additional £30,000,000 per year from private capital, for further investment, and when it is also remembered that we are still very far from a socialist state—I do not consider the South African Railways or Iscor as socialist institutions—then to maintain the integrity of our dual system, whether we like that system or not, we must consider measures to induce the maximum investment effort from all non-State enterprises. It is hoped the Minister of Finance will give us a lead in this matter in his budget. But administrative adjustment is also necessary. I think this is the tenor of the debate, this, that the time has come for the South African State to restore some semblance of equilibrium to our economy by itself assuming directive control over the South African field through one competent body—call it a National Planning Council if you like—to co-ordinate and reconcile all the economic activities in the country. I just want to illustrate this point, by referring to reconstruction planning. I take the case of the Durban City Council. It has drawn up a provisional programme for expansionist action after the war. But municipal enterprise is linked up with Railway enterprise. The South African Railways control areas of the City, and also the Harbour; no real progress therefore is possible without simultaneous interlocking and timing of the plans of the Administration and those of the City Council. In a report submitted recently to members of Parliament for the Durban area, the Council stated: “It is not possible for the Reconstruction Committee to report on any aspect of the schemes contemplated or being planned as regards Railways, Harbours, Aerodrome development, and Naval and Military requirements, so far as they may affect the scheme of the City Council.” I would appeal to the Minister to speed up co-ordination between his Administration and the Council. The initiative lies with him. The same need for coordination exists throughout the country. Now, there are no doubt good reasons for this exclusive Railway policy; but it should not in this way be the arbiter of the requirements and developments of local bodies. We need a body, shall I call it a supra-departmental body, to rationalise our development, and make our national planning effective. Today we appear to have no national plan. The agricultural and industrial requirements commission had this planned co-ordination in mind when it referred to Railway rating policy in these words: “Unless tariff policy is framed in close conformity with a coordinated national economic and social policy, there is grave danger that decisions may be made without due regard to all the national issues involved.” Railway economic policy together with the control of motor transport in this country, are both matters which are vital to our total economic national effort. They require the attention of the Minister with a view to the necessity for industrial development for the reconstruction of European farming, and in particular, for the re-organisation and rehabilitation of the native reserves. I mention these matters to emphasise the need for national co-ordination. And what applies to the independence of the South African Railways applies to all other forms of State capitalistic enterprise in South Africa. They work in the main as segregated units without adequate Parliamentary control, without co-ordination, without being subject to one master plan for the Union. The result is, that though all of us know from bitter experience the dangers of an uplanned peace, we seem to be heading for disintegration of our economic life, as happened in 1920. It is a sine qua non of successful planning that the Government set up without delay an effective economic planning council, not a part-time body like the one we now have which meets for only a few hours per month. It is hoped that the Prime Minister will take early action to bring this National Planning Council into being so that our economic programmes will be co-ordinated, pre-planned and properly timed. We require a council to be representative of the producing, the technical and the consuming interests of the country, representative both of the State and of private enterprise; to be answerable to Parliament; to be under a chairman who should have the same tenure and the same power as a judge of the Supreme Court; its duty would be to create a national social and economic pattern and to marshal our economic forces, to co-ordinate the activities of all Departments of the Provinces, and of the local authorities, so that all interests, both public and private, will each be strengthened in its own field; will subserve the common good; and will ensure the maximum economic effort in South Africa with the objective of complete social security for the people of our country.

I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) pay tribute to the workers of the South African Railways and Harbours, not only those who are serving with the fighting and construction services up North, but also those who have done and are still doing such a wonderful job of work in the railway workshops in the Union. It is on behalf of this latter class that I wish to make some appeal. The constituency I represent has within its midst a fairly comprehensive railway workshop, and it has been my privilege from time to time during the past years to have a look round these shops and I must say that I have been very impressed indeed with what I have seen—particularly during the war period. But I should also like to say that I have been very distressed at the conditions under which these men have to work. I say, and say emphatically, that they have to work under conditions that the Legislature of this country would not permit in connection with private enterprise. In other words, this Government compels private enterprise to do what the Railway Administration has not yet accomplished in respect of its own employees. Let me try to give you some slight picture, as I see it, of these workshops. On the last occasion I visited them I found, that even making allowance for additional over-crowding due to war emergencies and contingencies, there was such over-crowding as made it almost impossible for the men to produce their maximum output. If they have produced under existing conditions the enormous output they have been given credit for, and which I am sure they have done, how much more could they have produced if the conditions had been more healthy and congenial. Some of those shops are so constructed that during working hours they are deprived of the light of day. In another portion of the works, that allotted to the reconstruction of the locos and coaches the men have to work out in the open in all kinds of weather. In some shops the workers are so congested that they have hardly sufficient room to carry on the job they have to do. In the smithy shops the same conditions exist; as a matter of fact it is almost comparable with the Black Hole of Calcutta. To say the least, it is a very unfair state of affairs to ask any man to endure these conditions day in and day out, week in and week out, and I do hope that the Minister will take cognisance of those facts and speed up the reconstruction that has been promised. I am in a position to know that negotiations are taking place in this connection; of that I am satisfied. But there seems to be such terrific delays between the planning and the accomplishment. I wish to assure the Minister that the City Council of East London are willing to meet the Administration whenever and wherever possible. They are anxious to see better conditions prevail among the considerable number of men who have to earn their livelihood within the municipal area of East London, and I am perfectly satisfied that if the Minister will endeavour to expedite these negotiations something could soon be accomplished. I am not exaggerating, because what I have said I have seen, and it will be in the best interests of the state when the conditions in regard to the accommodation in which these men have to work are improved.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to that hardy annual, the Rates Equalisation Fund. For the benefit of those who may be new to the House, it may be as well to remind the Minister of the original purpose of that fund. The Rates Equalisation Fund as it is termed was founded to act as a railway wages stabilisation fund, and it was introduced after the great depression of 1929. The then Minister of Railways, in announcing the institution of the fund, said that its purpose was to provide that in the event of any depression occurring again, railway wages should not be cut again. Now, sir, that fund which originally aimed at £2,000,000 today, according to the Auditor-General’s report, stands somewhere in the neighbourhood of £7,500,000, and the question has arisen from time to time whether that fund could, in fact, be used to stabilise wages, as was the original purpose of the fund. The Minister has said—he told the House last year—that it was immaterial whether the fund was used to stabilise wages, or to stabilise rates, because if rates were kept stable then the general revenue of the Railways would not drop, and therefore there would be no need to cut wages. That was his contention. Since then, apparently, the advice of the Law Advisers has been sought on this vexed question, and in the Auditor-General’s report he refers to this advice of the Law Advisers, who say that under no circumstances could this Rates Equalisation Fund be used to stabilise wages; and he goes on to say that if it were so used, it would be open to any member of the general public to complain about that and to take that matter to the courts. I would like the Minister to consider this contingency, assuming that his contention is right that by stabilising rates there would be no need to cut railway wages, that nevertheless this situation might arise, there might be another post-war depression, and as a result of that depression it might be necessary, as unfortunately happened in the past, to cut the wages of all the rest of the civil service. The Minister contends that even in such a contingency he will be able, by keeping rates stable, to prevent any cut of railway wages. But in such an event it might very well be open to any member of the general public, according to this Law Advisers’ report to take the point that if in effect the only servants of the state whose salaries were not cut were the railway servants, then in effect the Rates Equalisation Fund was being used to stabilise wages and that would create a very difficult position.

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 adjourned; to be resumed on 22nd February.