The introduction of social security for the whole of the public has for many years been advocated by us on this side of the House. In the form in which we advocated it, the object which we had in view was to provide all sections of the population with the fundamental essentials of a healthy and happy life. That involved in the first place employment for all the people—employment of such a nature and at such pay that it would ensure to the whole population the fundamental necessities of life. It involved as a basis, therefore, the supplying of food, housing, health services, recreation facilities and other matters appertaining thereto. We have a motion before the House today by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), a most comprehensive motion, put very briefly, but thoroughly explained by him in his speech —and in itself a most essential motion. Unfortunately at the end of the motion there is a tail which to my mind assumes the form of a boomerang, and it is this, that he intimates that the financing of all those schemes will be made possible by the institution of a State Bank—a State Bank which in itself is an essential establishment. Perhaps the hon. member did not quite mean it that way, but he gave the House to understand that the financial aspect of the matter could be taken care of by the institution of a State Bank. After that we had the comprehensive amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan). That hon. member went into greater detail regarding the great variety of pension schemes and security schemes which the State will have to establish. I must admit that he skimmed somewhat lightly over the difficulties of his project. He put the position as though it were something which by a turn of the hand could be established by the State, but none the less that does not detract from his genuine and frank desire to awaken the conscience of the House and the conscience of the people on these very essential matters. After the concise Labour motion with its far-fetched financial arrangements and the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) a further amendment was put forward by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) from this side of the House, an amendment which placed the problem before the House in its true light, an amendment putting forward certain claims for a security scheme which in my opinion are more reasonable, more practical, and of particular value in the establishment of the various schemes that are necessary. I want to deal more fully later on with the details of the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres. Subsequently an amendment was proposed from the Government side. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the amendment from the Government side is particularly unsatisfactory as I see it. I am convinced that it is not the kind of amendment which the House had expected; much less was it the kind of amendment which the country had expected from the Government, and which members on the Government side, who have made many promises, had expected. The country really did expect that we would be given some indication of definite action on the part of the Government. The amendment amounts to this, that a Select Committee is to be appointed to investigate the question, and the argument put forward was that complaints had already been heard that members of the House did not have the necessary opportunity to investigate such questions. No Select Committee of this House which can sit only one hour per day at the utmost on four days per week, for not more than three months in the year, can produce a really valuable report for the solution of the serious problems with which we are faced. We are faced with the evil of impoverishment, due, I admit, to the neglect and mistakes of past Governments of South Africa. We cannot just blame the country for the position beyond proclaiming the platitude that any country gets the Government it deserves. It is, however, not going to help us to use mere words or phrases or to attack each other, or blame this or that individual, or this or that government. Even before this session many new members and others displayed a spirit which roused great expectations throughout the country and I do not want the public to be disappointed in their expectations. Parliament still has certain powers. I believe there are members in this House who want to see definite action. It is significant that amendments have been put forward by all parties not pretending to be Government parties—they call themselves Government supporters on certain points—on the war issue—but they are parties which do not side with the Government. The Dominion Party seconded the amendment of the Independent Member, the hon. member for Durban (Berea). I do not know yet what the attitude of the Dominion Party is going to be, but I assume they are anxious for definite action to be taken, that they want something to be done, something that will be of great importance and significance to the future of this country. We, therefore, have this position, so far as the Opposition parties—not the official Opposition—are concerned, that all of them have already intimated that they want to see definite action taken. Now, I do believe that on the Government side a least half of the Government supporters also want to see definite action taken, and I believe half of those members are prepared to vote for such definite action. I believe they are willing to tell the House that they are not going to sit still unless the Government gives an undertaking that certain things will be done now. Now, let us further investigate and see what is needed. I do not mean that we must act blindly in this matter. I am quite convinced that if we act blindly the whole position will be entirely mismanaged. A Select Committee is certainly not going to save the situation, and will not lead us along the soundest course. At the same time, if it is decided to appoint a Select Committee and to have an enquiry made, we shall not be in a position to oppose a step which will mean that at the very least a start is to be made. But I do say emphatically that the appointment of a Select Committee is not the best course to follow. I go further: I say that no Select Committee, no Minister or Ministry, can tackle a subject in its broad outlines, or in detail, in such a way that it will really lead to something being achieved. What we may expect from a Government and from a Ministry is this: they will express their willingness, they will give an undertaking, they will promise that it is their policy to make an immediate start with the introduction of the necessary measures to put an end to the existing conditions in this country, social and economic malconditions, and that in respect of the first year they will provide, say, £10,000,000 — and that money will not be wasted but it will be used to act on the information and the advice given by us. Having been given that assurance, and we fully appreciate that no Select Committee, no Minister or Ministry either, can or has the time to go fully or even casually into all these matters, and thrash them out thoroughly—having that assurance we come to the point that there must be a representative, permanent, central, social and economic planning board which must be set up with definite functions to investigate all aspects of our social life and of our economic life, and give advice on these matters; at that stage the Ministry and the Ministers begin to function and they will have to say: “This matter is the most important one; we are now going to tackle it; we have already undertaken to supply money for the purpose, and shall now act.” I fully realise that the part-time Planning Council which has had to place these astronomical cost calculations before us has had to estimate those costs on the basis of a gigantic scheme which it had before it, but it really is quite impossible to do so. The whole thing must be undertaken gradually and step by step, but a start must now be made. A moment ago I put forward as the first essential that the Government must unequivocally voice its determination to supply the funds up to a certain limit. It is self-evident that a planning council, such as we propose must be composed of the best brains in the country, and that it must be a council which will carry on its investigations uninterruptedly, and that subcommittees of the council aided by technical advisers will investigate various matters in such a way as to make it possible for us to take action; it is also evident that we must not be expected to wait until such time as a department advises the Government and tells the Government what is to be done. That therefore is the kind of planning council we need. And if that council makes its recommendations, Parliament has to decide at once and a commencement must be made with the first steps that are to be taken. Let us now first of all enquire into the basis of social security. I want to point out that the basis of social security is not something idealistic; it is not something which is going to cost countless millions of pounds and is going to be a burden on the State, it is not going to mean a waste of money. I want to emphasise here that the security which we on this side of the House suggest is a security based on business principles. We do not want to be told again by business men and big concerns that the things that are proposed in this House are not based on business principles, and that they are idealistic. We do not want to lay ourselves open to the reproach, “You want to give things to the people which sound very fine, but which can be described as ‘floculent eloquence’.” That is not the position at all.What we are trying to do here is to introduce business principles into political economy. I say that no one would be satisfied if South Africa allowed matters to go on as they are doing, if South Africa continued to allow large sections of the population to be unemployed; if it allowed large sections of the population to be under-nourished; to get insufficient food to keep body and soul together. Those are not business principles. What is proposed here is that we should act on business lines. Let us get away from the idea that our proposals are merely philanthropic ideals. Philanthropy does enter into it and nobody is ashamed of those ideals. The basis of social security means providing employment for the whole community and to that is added the necessary compulsion to make the whole community work. The providing of work for the whole community is the most difficult part of social security. That immediately assumes that the whole economic life of the country must be worked out by the planning council, by the Government and by Parliament, and must be approved of, and that legislation must be introduced and passed for that purpose so that every physically fit person in the country can be given employment. I say again that that is a business principle. If our country is our business then it is our business to see to it that everyone is employed. At this stage it is impossible for us to go into any details. The whole thing means our spreading our net over the whole of South Africa—a net which has to be spread with the object of developing our economic life, of developing our industrial life, of developing our factories by means of private initiative, and by means of utility companies where private initiative cannot do the work, and of developing our agriculture so that it will accommodate the largest possible number of persons suitable for employment in that industry, so that agriculture shall not be run by big magnates and big farmers owning big capital, but by smaller farmers who will be able to do their farming on a sound basis. Then, again, it assumes the regulation of all the professions, it assumes that we shall scrutinise the course to be followed by the youth of the country. I assume that at the age of sixteen the State will take an interest in every child, whether that child is white, coloured or native, and that the State eventually will take an interest in every section of the community, and that every child throughout the country will be directed by a State organisation, and we must make sure that the direction given, insofar as we are able to know about it, is a direction where the individual will be able to make a living. In the past numerous people have been trained for work where eventually they have not been able to make a living. We have also found that big industries and business concerns in South Africa have developed—I am thinking for instance of the motor industry—without any thought being given to the training of the tens of thousands of young men who would have to find employment in those concerns. The result has been that people have had to come from overseas and others have had to go overseas to be trained, so that in the end the people of this country have had to accept subordinate positions in those business concerns and industries. They have had to accept a poorer living in those branches of employment than would otherwise have been the case. I have pointed out that the basis of social security is the finding of employment for the whole population and that that in itself is such a big and difficult question that it will keep a section of the planning council continuously occupied. In saying that, I mean that such a section will from year to year, for the next fifty years, be kept busy in finding out in detail what has to be done to give employment to the whole population. Have we ever had a position here in South Africa where National works with fully prepared plans had been ready and waiting ten years before a large proportion of the population had to go and look for work? When there is no employment people simply have to go and work on the roads, whether their labour there leads to anything or not, and whether they are beneficially employed there or not. We can remember that not so very long ago large numbers of our people had to go and work on the roads at starvation wages. If we have a planning council with a section to attend to this part of the job, all this can be attended to because I want to say again that it is too much for one Minister and for one department. One will then be able to plan ten years ahead and if emergency conditions, if conditions of distress do arise in this country, useful work will be available for those requiring it. I hope the development of private initiative, of utility companies, and even of State enterprises, will be of such a nature that South Africa will not have to undertake work which will not bring with it an increase in our national revenue in future. The work which will have to be done when eventually private initiative can no longer provide employment for all those people, can and must be of such a nature that it will be an asset to the people and to the country, and not a burden. The security of the State and of the people of the State will in that event never cost more than what the State will be able to collect by means of regular taxes. Every step in that direction may cost money but as a result of the economic conversion and as a result of the increase in the country’s revenue caused by the employment that will be provided, we shall eventually get the position where the providing of employment will be in the nature of an asset to the State, while the expenditure involved in the first instance will not be an unbearable burden on the State. Let us follow that course and not allow ourselves to be scared by the impossible astronomical figures that are being stated. Provision is also made for the rest of the population for whom private initiative cannot cater. I want to point out, however, that over the week-end an interesting phenomenon has come to light. The Government amendment, which was forecast to us, means that this whole question is being pushed into the background, and the Government Press has immediately started to react. We find that the Cape Argus has already started a campaign—I cannot call it anything else— to protect the interests of the exploiter capitalists, and the paper has done so in these words—

That is the first bomb dropped on the headquarters of the place where the plans for the new structure are being manufactured. That is the first bomb on that, structure. Even if the malconditions in this country are the result of the blunders of Parliament and the Governments of the past, is it logical or correct to say that we must not take steps to remove them? The paper goes on to say—

The hon. member must not in the same session quote from a newspaper commenting on a debate in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If that is going to be the attitude of the Government side of the House—if they are going to put off doing anything, if they are going to take refuge behind words and say that this and that is impossible, then I can only see a catastrophical state of chaos developing in this country. I can only see a depression ahead of us together with a condition of poor whiteism, a condition of poverty among the coloured people, suffering and privation and progressive deterioration of the native population—a condition of affairs which already proved itself so disastrous within the four borders of this country. The State will have to accept full responsibility for the provision of employment. It does not accept that responsibility for the purpose of placing impossible burdens on the State but it does so under our system of social security in such a manner that it will economically develop the country, with the result that our national income will go up, which eventually will mean that these schemes will pay for themselves. Now let us come to another point in our motion, which deals with the question of nutrition. This is linked up with the rehabilitation of the producer of food in our country. We must rehabilitate the producer of food so as to prevent underfeeding and to put an end to the underfeeding and malnutrition which we already have in this country. Is that going to make our country poorer? No, certainly not. Is the provision of employment going to make our country poorer?. No. When we combat underfeeding we are combating it on behalf of the whole population, and then the whole population which is given employment will set to work in such a manner that it will mean a better income and better social and economic conditions. And above all it is the soundest business principle one can ever conceive. It is a fundamental conception that if a country wants to be prosperous it must provide work for all its people, and it must see to it that they are properly fed, and that those people are compensated if possible by the work of their own fellow citizens in their own country. Then we shall not only get rich in the sense of having more money, but we shall become rich in spirit, rich in happiness, and rich in prosperity, and that will apply to all sections of the population. And rich in the realisation that there will be very few wealthy exploiters within the boundaries of our country. The organisation of the production of food, of its distribution and sale at prices within the reach of the working people, is a great problem, but it is also an urgent one. It such an enormous problem that we cannot leave it to a Select Committee to investigate even in its broad aspect, leave alone in detail. A Select Committee will only be able to do superficial work in that direction. We now come to the question of the institution of a National Health Service. That means that we have to organise our health services on a national basis. I am not going to say much about this, as the National Health Services Commission is now engaged in dealing with this question, and I do not want to anticipate what it may have to say on the subject. It is proposed in our amendment that these services are to be given to the whole population perhaps alongside of private services for those who want to pay double, who are willing to pay the health tax and also to pay for private services. But the point is that we must make services available for the whole of our people. That, again, is a sound business principle. Let us for a moment think of the large financial concerns and the large mutual concerns in this country. They supply their staffs with good medical services. Take the banks; take the insurance companies; take the gold mining industry, the utility companies and even the South African Railways and Harbours—which perhaps do not do the work as well as the others do it, but still they do it in a way— we find that they provide their people with good medical nursing and hospital services, because they realise that by doing so they are able to get the best possible work out of their people. It is a business principle with them, and the providing of these health services will also be a business principle so far as the country is concerned. We must not allow ourselves to be blinded by the astronomical figures which are mentioned. It will cost many millions of pounds. But as against that we know that at the moment already many millions of pounds are being expended, and they are being expended in an ineffective way by private individuals, not because they want to do so but because they are forced to do so. First of all we have the poor who cannot pay; then we get those who want to pay but who find it very hard to do so, and then we get those who can pay. Well, those who are able to and want to pay —let them pay. The poor who cannot pay can be treated today in our hospitals, but sometimes when they have to undergo some minor treatment, they have to stand and wait all day long at the hospital. Then we have the small class who find it very difficult to pay. They would prefer to contribute their share of the taxes rather than take the risks they are forced to take today. Today they sometimes have to pay large sums of money for one single service. They are too proud to say that they cannot pay, and the consequence is that one illness seriously affects them economically for many years. Not only does one illness affect them physically, but at the very time, when they need assistance they are compelled to incur heavy expenses and it means that for years they are crippled. In this connection I want to refer to the other side of the question. This House, and the country, should know that 500 out of our 2,000 doctors have to do all the work free of charge in our hospitals, for which they do not get a single penny piece. I do not know whether the House realises that night after night young men have to get out of their beds and go to the hospitals to perform big operations, for which they do not get a single penny. Such a young man may perhaps have incurred a £5,000 debt to get where he is—and now they are not permitted to earn more than £1,500 per year. But that of course, is a matter which we shall have to talk about with the Minister of Finance later on. In our amendment we also ask that there shall be security in regard to housing. It is unnecessary for me to say any more on that point. It is clear that with the methods which we are applying at the moment we shall never solve the housing problem in South Africa. It is a problem of capital expenditure, and not a problem of current expenditure. We dare not allow ourselves to be held up by the fact that millions of pounds will be needed, but when we provide employment to the whole of the population, where we provide the whole population with good health, my contention is that our housing will not remain sub-economic but that it will become economic housing, greatly to the joy of the Minister of Finance of days to come. Then, finally, we come to the general improvement and the general change in the existing system of pensions, ordinary pensions, old age pensions, motherhood pensions, miners’ phthisis pensions, invalidity grants, insurances, etc. I realise, however, that we can expand this particular matter to cost not £20,000,000 or £100,000,000 but £500,000,000, if we are only idealistic enough in our conceptions. But my attitude is that we must first of all give our attention to the most important social security measures and then the expenditure in connection with these pension services will in the long run be reduced. If we have a working population able to contribute to old age pensions and all these other things, many of our difficulties will vanish and we shall not be faced with astronomical figures. For these reasons I want to commend to hon. members opposite to give their careful consideration to this matter—I want to ask them if they do not want to vote for our motion, not to vote for something which is going to put this whole matter off to the far distant future. Let us have a clear statemen that a beginning shall now be made. I do not want those on the other side of the House who are not satisfied—I know they are not satisfied with the Government’s proposal—to take up the attitude that they dislike voting against their own people. This is a matter which should not be regarded as a political question. Do not let us rest until we have set the ball rolling. The people want something done.

I think it may be helpful to the course of the debate if I at this stage state the attitude of the Government on these important questions which have been raised in the debate. I have listened with some attention and interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), and I may say that the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) which he supports seems to me to negative entirely his contention for immediate action by the Government. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Ceres is almost in terms the same as the comprehensive economic programme which was laid before this House last session by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It embraces the whole field of economic reform in this country. Every subject is touched on by this amendment and it stands to reason that if we have to embark on a programme of that kind, so far from seeing immediate action, so far from seeing anything done at a very early stage, we shall be debating year after year all these reforms on which the Leader of the Opposition expressed his opinion last year, which his Party brought forward at the elections, as the programme of the Party, and which today on the whole is on the scrap heap.

Do you contemplate immediate action?

Yes; the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) selects a limited programme and that is the programme of social security. That he selects, not this vast programme which has been argued by the hon. member who has just spoken, but the more limited subject of social security and on that an amendment has been brought forward by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) saying that the matter is now ripe to refer to a Select Committee.

Is that the action you want?

And I say that we need not debate that for years; we need not debate the whole programme of reform, economic and industrial reform, but that we are in a position now to deal with this question of social security which is the point specifically raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp.

Then why a Select Committee?

My hon. friend for Germiston has asked that this subject matter should be referred to a Select Committee for further formulation. Now, to my mind that action is called for. We need no longer argue the question of social security in this country. If there is one matter on which I think all sides of the House and all parties, in this country, and the people as a whole, are agreed in principle, it is this matter of social security. The House will remember that a year or two ago the subject was raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp in a motion on which I spoke and on which I told the House that the Government accepted in principle this matter of social security, and was prepared to take action. The hon. member very appropriately has raised the subject again by his motion and I think the time has come now when we can move a step forward. We need not argue the principle any more. I listened with great interest, as I think the whole House did, to the moving address by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) and I agreed with most, of what he said, but I must say this: we have passed that stage when it is necessary for us to make appeals to the country on the principle of social security. I think we are all agreed that we must take practical action.

Well, what is the Government’s policy?

Now what is the position? The hon. member for Germiston has asked that this matter be referred to a Select Committee. The House has to be associated with this great reform, one of the greatest this country has ever embarked upon. The House must be associated with it, and it can only be associated by way of a Select Committee and the proper course will therefore be that after this debate which will go into the matter further, we shall be able to see the matter thrashed out further by the Select Committee with the time at their disposal—this session if possible. The matter itself has been very fully enquired into already. We are not beginning a discussion or a consideration in the Select Committee. After the undertaking which I gave the House last year a Committee on social security was appointed. It has gone very carefully into the whole subject and I think we are very much indebted to the Committee for the very solid work it did. Their report was referred to the Planning Council; the Planning Council enquired into the whole subject and approved of the work of the Social Security Committee, and it also examined the whole position in the light of wider considerations. We have all that material before us in the form of this White Paper. The House will soon have the full report.—as soon as it is ready to be laid on the Table it will be done. So the whole subject has already from the technical point of view been gone into.

And we are only waiting for the Government to act.

All that is required now is that the House shall associate itself with this by way of a Select Committee and that we should have a report from that Select Committee.

Why a Select Committee?

The principle is agreed to—the details now require to be thrashed out. Ways and means have to be found, ways of giving effect to this principle, means financial and other which are necessary in order to give effect to this.

And all we get are pious platitudes.

The Government takes up this position. They associate themselves with the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston, but the only amendment I would suggest to my hon. friend is this, that in his amendment the subject of provision for employment should also be referred to as a very important aspect of this whole matter of social security. The amendment reads as follows—

And I would add the provision of unemployment. I think that would improve the amendment, it would make more comprehensive the field which it is intended to cover, and I hope an amendment in that sense will be moved, and that will represent the attitude of the Government and the policy of the Government on this matter.

It will keep them talking for two years.

I should like to refer to some factors which have to be considered in connection with this whole subject. There is no doubt that the financial considerations are very important, but they should not deter us. I do not think that the financial considerations which are mentioned and which are discussed very fully by the Planning Council should deter us from action in this connection. The Planning Council mentions a very full and I must say a vast programme for implementation, say by 1955; but they also mentioned a more limited programme. They say that with the present conditions in this country, industrial, economic and financial conditions, they think that the full scheme, which will come into operation in 1955, may be more than this country can bear. They deal, too, with this subject of the increase of employment. But they also bring forward a more limited programme, which is to come into force a couple of years hence, in 1947, which I think ought to be within the capacity of this country to carry, and all that is wanted now is to shape the details of this measure correctly and carefully, so that we can start within a couple of years, as soon as all the machinery has been created, and put this more limited scheme into action, say in 1947. I do not think that that limited scheme is beyond the capacity of this country. Of course there are other considerations to bear in mind also in this connection. The immediate liability before us is not only social security, which will cost us a good deal, but we have in a sense an even more pressing obligation on us, and that is to look after the returned soldiers. Demobilisation will be before us in the very near future. It is already engaging the attention of the Government in many of its details; the machinery for the whole question of demobilisation is being explored by the country, and hon. members must bear in mind that it is not only a very large and very difficult question in itself, but is it going to be a costly business — a very costly business indeed. The provision for the returned soldiers, of whom there will be tens of thousands, will be a much heavier burden on this country than social security for a number of years to come, and we have to bear that in mind. But that should not deter us either. I may say that demobilisation, provision for our returning men from the front, should be the first priority, should be the first liability resting on this country. There is no doubt we are in honour bound, and in duty bound, to do everything that we can for the men who volunteered to support the honour of this country and the cause of freedom, for which we fought. Social security is important; its importance is of the highest character; but I have no doubt that most of us are agreed that our first duty, our highest duty, and the duty to which the highest priority has to be given in a matter of execution, is provision for our men when they return, to see that everything is done to meet their cause, and to see that justice is done to them. They have supported the decision, and the honour of this country, and we shall stand by the promises we have made to them, and we shall see that everything is done to do justice to them. I just want to say this, that we must be careful that all this discussion of social security and of measures for demobilisation, should not deflect the interest of this country and the attention of this country from the over-all liability of doing our duty in this war. There is no doubt we may be tempted, our public may be tempted by all this discussion of the future, of the world to come, of the better order which we intend to create, of the provision we intend to make for our returning men, that this discussion may deflect attention from this primary task before us — to see this war through. That should not happen. Already one notices in many direction people are developing a peace-time outlook. There is a tendency to look upon peace as already established and upon the war as having been won; but, we should all know, it is far from won, and the heaviest tasks lie ahead of us; the heaviest fighting may be before us this year before we see the end. And I should not like to see our discussions in this House or in the country, slacken our war effort, or do anything to distract our attention from the first and primary duty that lies before us. If that were so, then both social security and demobilisation will become a snare and a trap to this country. It should not be so. We should bear in mind there is a heavy duty before us. We should bear in mind that the attention of this country should be fixed first and foremost on this great problem of waging the war to a victorious conclusion; and that nothing that is said in this House and nothing that is said in the country, should detract from that concentration on the primary task before us. Mr. Speaker, the question of social security is only part of the problem before us. There is no doubt that it is only part of a wider problem—the whole social programme before this country. Social security, such as it was investigated and reported on by the Social Security Committee is a more limited subject; beyond that we have the wider social programme which includes housing, education, nutrition and all the other items which fall within our social programme. There is housing, education, nutrition and health, which is a most important item— all these are matters that fall within the general programme; but to some extent action is already being taken in regard to many of them. In regard to some of them action must await further enquiries. Take, for instance, the subject of public health, We have a commission, a very competent body, which has been enquiring very comprehensively into the whole subject of our health services, and it is not possible for us at this stage to take action. But in regard to housing, we can take action, and we have already taken a good deal of action. The question of education is most important, but it is not so urgent as this matter which is before us. This matter of nutrition is also being enquired into. There are many points of view. These matters are of the utmost importance. They may not be ripe in every respect for action, but they are of the utmost importance, and in fact I look upon these matters as in some senses even more important than social security in the narrower sense. It seems to me more important in this country that people should be educated, decently housed, decently fed, than they should have monetary benefits given to them. It seems to me that it is very important to raise the standard of this country, to raise the whole social level in which our whole population moves, and which will help everyone all over the country by creating a better atmosphere for thought and action. First things first. Let us deal with the subject which is now before us, which has been properly investigated by competent bodies, and this open report to the House, on which we can take action. The other things may follow and will follow; over the next five years we shall probably have to embark on this wider social programme, which, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) says in his amendment, constitutes a people’s charter. We deal with the first item of that charter, which is most ready for action. The other matter that I have referred to just now, that I think should be added to this amendment, is the matter of employment; and there is no doubt, Sir, that both as appears from the report of the Planning Council and from our knowledge of conditions in this country, that unless we have a very wide expansion of the industrial activities of this country, it may be impossible for us, in the long run, to carry all these burdens which we think are necessary for a fully developed and progressive state, such as South Africa. It is therefore necessary, as the Planning Council says, and as we know, to extend our activities, our industrial and economic activities, over as large a scale as possible; and I hope our policy will be so shaped that in all those matters during the coming five years we shall create the means of employment, avenues of employment on so large a scale that there will not be any undue demand made for social security. The more employment we give, the less unemployment there is in the country, the more people can look after themselves in all directions, the better it will be for this country and the better it will be for social security too. And I trust that this House and this country, instead of giving its attention to questions of the past, questions which have distracted our attention from the true progress and forward movement of this country, that we in this House, and the people generally, will concentrate on this economic and industrial advance to the utmost, and will forget, will by-pass, all those issues which hitherto have divided us, which have taken up much of our time, the time of Parliament and of the country, instead of enabling us to concentrate all our energy and attention on this development which is necessary for our attainment of our full economic status. I am sure that it is possible for us to call a halt to all the old cries which have divided us, to things which are no longer to the profit, to the benefit of South Africa, which are merely echoes of past history; in proportion as we do that we shall, in this country, with its human resources, with it great material resources, even reach a height which will make the next five years an epoch in its history. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), in the very thoughtful speech that he made to us, said something which struck me and to which I wish to refer just for a moment. He said he did not think that on our existing economic system it will be possible for us to make these reforms, to carry these social reforms, and to carry the burdens connected therewith. He did not say what reforms he intended, whether he meant socialism or communism — I can scarcely imagine, that is what he was thinking of — but I am sure it would be much wiser for us if we want to see speedy action, if we want to make a real move forward, more or less to accept the existing basis and to try to make these social reforms within the framework of that basis. It is done by other countries; it is done by Great Britain and the other Dominions; one and all are going in for this system of social security. It is not only the aim and objective here in South Africa. It is world wide. It is the aim and object and policy of every member of our great group. They are not departing from the existing financial and economic system. They are trying to fit this condition of things into the framework of our existing system. Let us do the same. I do not see why we should make a fundamental reform prior to instituting these social reforms. We do not want to delay it unduly. After all in a country like South Africa we are bound to remain more or less on a basis of private enterprise, private initiative, the use of private capital. We are bound, to a large extent to remain on that basis. Looking at South Africa, at its population structure, at its colour structure, I think it would be very dangerous for us, unless it was necessary in the last resort to depart from this basis. We admit naturally that the state must take a much more prominent part in the regulation of industry than has been done in the past. We have now before us a Bill which deals with a great industry in this country for which no private capital has been found hitherto. I am speaking of the fishing industry. We have had the same experience with regard to iron and steel, and industry which was necessary as a basic industry to the country, but which the requisite private capital could not be found. But the state will have to step in in regard to matters which are necessary for this country, and for which private capital cannot be found. The state will have to do much more than that. The state will have to protect the individual. The state must see that justice is done to every section of the community, and there too it may have to step in and take action which departs from the old principles of laissez-faire. But that does not mean any fundamental change. I do not envisage any fundamental change in the economic structure or practice of this country. On that practice and on the existing basis I think we can move pretty far, and let us move as far as we can and see what we can do within a system which I think has done much for this country and is capable of doing much more. Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that if we honestly grapple with this question, and I think the people of this country want us to do so, we can make a move forward within the next few years not only in a matter of social security in the narrower sense, but in respect of the whole social programme before this country. We can make a move which will in the next five years push this country forward to a very large extent. All I would like to see is that we make use of that opportunity. It has been brought to us largely by the war and as a result of our participation in the war. Our participation in the war and the great industrial and economic expansion which has arisen in consequence, has given this country a chance of a forward move such a it would not have had in a whole generation. We have that advantage now. We have that opportunity now. Do not let us be daunted; let us move forward. Let us not only develop industry in this country in all directions, but let us keep the human side very well before us all the time, and let us see our population of all races and colours have their share in this forward movement, and that they are protected in their fundamental human rights.

We have listened attentively to the various speeches that have been made here, and the proposals before the House really only amount to one point. From time to time we have made proposals in this House. I remember having striven for years to contribute something to make South Africa economically sound in order to give every man, woman and child a chance to live, a reasonable chance to make a livelihood. Today in this House I find that all the speakers aim at the same thing; even the Prime Minister says that this must be done, and he says we must forget the past, we must put aside these old things of the past and tackle these great problems. I am afraid, however, that it will remain at speeches in this House and we shall get no further. It is urgently necessary for us to face these problems. If a man has no food and no clothes and he sees others living in luxury all around him he is not going to be satisfied. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that we should look after the returned soldiers. That’s perfectly true, and we have nothing against it, but meanwhile there are thousands of our own fellow countrymen in South Africa, men who perhaps were unable to join up, men who are perhaps physically unfit, and I ask whether they are to be allowed to get poorer and poorer and to see their position deteriorate all the time? We hear of plans and schemes today; we have heard of the Beveridge Plan in England, and only recently I found a plan in my post box from a professor here. Everybody has a plan, everyone wants something done. Now the Government says that this matter is to be referred to a Select Committee. If that is done I am afraid it will lead to nothing. We should now take some action and do something definite. We must do something at once, I think we are all agreed that as this is a matter which concerns the future of our people we should leave politics out of it. Circumstances here are different perhaps from those of other nations, because we have a large native population here and the natives in this war have developed some wonderful ideas. They joined the army and I am now speaking from practical experience when I say that those natives who come back from the war are no longer going to work under the same conditions as they did in the past. But if the natives refuse to do any more work, it means that the farmers in South Africa will not be able to make a living, and it will lead to a complete dislocation of our whole economic system. Conditions have developed to such a stage that farmers living in the native areas cannot even get their cows milked. There is an hon. member on the other side of the House who has eighty cows, he lives in a native area, and he cannot get the natives to milk his cows. And that’s not an isolated case. We cannot allow this matter to be put off. We must realise that conditions are developing so fast that it is difficult to keep pace with them. I feel that the returned soldiers must be assisted, but many of them will not be satisfied with the work that will be given to them. The problem is so serious that the Prime Minister will perhaps take it from a simple farmer that here in South Africa the situation is going to be very complicated. In Canada and Australia and other parts they have no natives. We in this country have 2,000,000 whites, and nearly 10,000,000 natives, and in the whole of Africa there are about 3,000,000 whites and 140,000,000 natives. What hope have we to maintain our position if things are allowed to continue as they are doing now? What hope will we have in fifty years time of still being able to give a lead as a white race, if we fail to tackle these big problems now? In the long ago past the Agricultural Unions year after year devised plans and schemes but the Governments of the past did nothing. Up to today nothing has been done towards finding a solution of these great problems. The Prime Minister now wants to refer the matter to a Select Committee but he cannot give us an assurance that something will be done. We can no longer temporarily satisfy people with Select Committees. They demand that something be done. I got a reply from the Minister of Agriculture: “You again come along with your wearisome motion this year; we are getting tired of you”. He adopted the same attitude last year and the year before. Well, today I have not come forward with any motion, but the whole House wants something done, and there is a general demand for the position to be tackled and for the people to be rehabilitated. What are we going to do? The time for action has come. The people are no longer willing to wait. The people want food and clothes; they want a chance to live, and then they will be satisfied. Promises are going to be of no avail any longer. I hope the Prime Minister will act immediately and will not put off taking action. We on our side do not want to drag in politics. All we are striving for is to get these things tackled, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) aims at the same thing. He has been fortunate with his motion. The hon. member has always been a poor man. I don’t know what his position is now but he seems to be prosperous. He has had the good fortune of securing the ear of the Government Party which, if it wants to, can give effect to any plan. There are only 43 of us here and they need not take much notice of us. I therefore hope that something practicable will now be done.

In a maiden speech, upon the eloquence of which I should like to offer him a sincere compliment, the mover of the first amendment (Mr. Sullivan) told us that we can have social security, and that we must have social security. Sir, we agree. We have asserted this for many years, and especially during the past five years in this House, but the hon. gentleman’s speech in one important respect resembled, sir, the unfinished symphony. He did not tell us why at present we have social insecurity—the root cause of it; nor did he tell us what fundamental and far-reaching changes must be made in order that we may escape from this insecurity. The hon. member, the mover of the amendment, did not finish his story. I purpose to carry it on from the point at which he left it, and to offer, if I can, some worth-while suggestions to the end that we all desire. What is this social security that all the world is seeking? What is social security, what is it that mankind wants? Essentially, primarily, food, and clothing, and shelter. There are other less essential but very pleasant things, like books and music and pictures and tobacco and beer. But when we say that regular employment for everybody all the time at a wage that will maintain a man and his family on a civilised standard must be provided, when we ask for free medical services, when we ask for unemployment allowances, when we ask for adequate old age pensions— all this is really designed to secure those three principal items, food, clothing and shelter. These things come primarily from the land. They have their basis on the farm, and not in the roaring and clattering machines of any city. This problem of giving the necessaries of life to all is a nation-wide problem, including the coloured and native people no less than the Europeans. But it is not merely a national question, it is very much wider than that. If we could imagine our country abundantly provided with these essentials, whereas other countries were hungry, we should probably find ourselves the victims of force; “thieves would break through and steal.” The true problem is not whether South Africa can maintain all its people on a proper level; the problem is, can the earth produce enough for all the people, and the answer is “yes, it can.” First of all the number of inhabitants of this earth, compared with the area involved, is ridiculously small—2,126 million in all. If we were to take a map of the world and look carefully at the far Western end of that portion called Europe, we would there see a tiny peninsula called England, and on the South Coast of England there is a speck, no more than a pin-point, which is the microscopic island known as the Isle of Wight. From North to South that bit of land measures 13 miles, and from West to East it measures 23 miles, with a total area of 147 square miles; and the entire population of the earth can stand on that island without any one touching the next. I say that the number of people to be fed, compared with the opportunities of feeding them, is ridiculously small. The other aspect of the question concerns the fertility of the land. And I wonder whether hon. members have read Prof. O. W. Willcox’s book: “Nations can Live at Home.” In that book he brings the earth’s productibility up to date. By enriching the soil to the maximum extent, by adding a sufficient number of units of the necessary plant foods, and by growing appropriate crops, one square mile can be made to feed 32,640 people. I want to read what he says on the matter, because I am sure the House will not accept my unsupported word—that is the only reason. And this is what he says—

And then he goes on to say—

That means that Britain can feed more than one quarter of the world’s population. The number quoted of over 600,000,000 is much more than one-fourth of the number of all the people on our earth. Now, if this geographically insignificant peninsula, or rather this island of Scotland and England, can produce more food than is required to feed above a quarter of all the people on the earth, why should it be impossible for all the countries in the world to feed the population of the world? America, by itself, could perform this task with ease. Why is it that sufficient is not produced? The answer to that is very simple—there is not enough money made out of the business of producing food. That is the truth all the world over. We were recently asked, here in South Africa, to send money to Bengal to relieve a famine. How did that arise? There were no special climatic difficulties in Bengal. The rains came, the land was available, but there was little rice. There was not much rice for the reason that it was unprofitable to grow it. Why should even the poorest workman stand up to his knees in a flood, sowing the rice for 6s. per month when he could go to Calcutta and get £6 per month making munitions? It does not matter whether it is munition making or any other employment, the point is that work in the City “pays” and work on the farm does not. The same point is shown by the burning of crops and the destruction in their millions of sheep and cattle and pigs in the United States. Why was that done? It was done because farming did not pay. Much of the stock was destroyed to keep up the price of the remainder. And we have the position in the Union today that it does not pay a man to remain in the country and produce the most vital thing of all, which is the people’s food. It is because of that that you are going to have trouble with your farmers’ sons when they come back from the war. Would hon. members tell me that farmers’ sons are likely to stay at £2 per month on the farm, when by going into town they can get £20, £30 or £40 per month? Why should not the man who does a decent day’s work growing food in the country get as much as the man in the town manufacturing lipstick? There you find one of the primary difficulties, not only in our country but all over the world. We are told that if we want this better world, we must industrialise. Up to a point. I quite agree. Industries must be developed to the best possible extent, but there is a maximum to that development. If South Africa were the only country thinking of industrialisation the position would be very different and more simple, but that is not the fact. Australia, New Zealand, Canada —even India—are becoming, have already become, industrialised, and when everyone has manufactured goods, factories full, quays-full, ships-full to sell, where is the buyer to come from? Where is the purchaser to come from to buy from us when those other countries have more than sufficient goods of their own? There are most certainly many people in our country who want these commodities. They have had very little in the past. But they have no purchasing power. The only way for them to get these goods is for us to give them the money to buy them, or otherwise to distribute these goods free of charge. I hope the Prime Minister will think that over too. I am not sure that we can do very much without revising our ideas to a very great extent. In this industrialisation project there is another point which it would be very wise to bear in mind, and that is that there is a necessary ratio between the numbers of the people who live and work in the country, and those who are supported in the towns. It must be necessary for a certain number of men to work in the country if the townspeople are to be fed. We dare not fall below that ratio. If it takes two men in the country to feed three in the city, and the number in the country drops to one — one man in the country to grow food for four people in the town — what then will become the position in the thickly populated centres? There must be a very considerable shortage of food, and money will not help very much in that extremity — £100 would not buy a loaf of bread unless the wheat had been produced by some country labourer on our lands. That is to be borne in mind. I am afraid the time will come when we may all have heaps of money, but when nevertheless it will be very hard to obtain sufficient of these elementary things, such as food, clothing, and shelter. Now I venture to make a few suggestions towards social security, and I want to start with the soldiers whom I know very well, and whom the Prime Minister has sincerely and I believe generously in mind. Many of them are what we call “browned off”. When they come back from four or five years’ open-air service they won’t want to reincarcerate themselves in town offices. I make this suggestion for the returned soldiers. We should go in for a system of collective farms for groups of companies of 100, who should each be given 100 to 150 acres in one great block. Most of these men would need to be practical farmers, but there would be scope for a considerable number of specialists as well. They would want schoolmasters and doctors — probably they would not want dentists, because they would have good food to eat. They would want a veterinary surgeon, cobbler, carpenter and a painter, and maybe they would even find room for a parson. But the job of the collective farmers in general would be to farm. The job of the Government would be to provide these men with the seed to put into their soil, the fertiliser that is required, and they would have to have a loan to buy the necessary equipment and machinery, unless these were hired from the Government. For this assistance the collective farmers could pay in kind, I submit, out of the produce they reap. The State would take its dues, as it were, for rent for land and equipment, and the balance would be the property of the individual, available to be used towards purchase of the land or in any other way.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When I was so inconsiderably interrupted by the clock I had just proposed as one step towards social security the arranging of collective farms for ex-service men. I should like to quote three or four paragraphs from Mr. Wendell Willkie’s book, “One World”, published by Cassell in 1943. This may throw a completely new light on what I have suggested—

Mr. Willkie goes on to say that the Government tries to persuade the collectivists to sell to the Government, but they are entirely free to choose their own market. The trouble is that they have too much money—there is insufficient stuff in the stores to spend their money on. That is due to the exceptional conditions of the war. Goods ordinarily obtainable are scarce and steadily decreasing, as a result of the almost complete absorption of all factories by the war and the needs of the Red Army. Another solid step towards social security which I should like to put forward is the payment of farmers according to the work done. We hear a good deal about very wealthy farmers. No doubt there are such, but there are also very poor ones, and it is of those that I am thinking. The present position of most of the farming community is this. They purchase the seed, they pay for the fertilisers, and they, with most members of their families, put in a great deal of hard work with a view to producing this most necessary article—food. Then quite possibly comes the hail, and in a minute the whole prospect of any return is obliterated. Now it does not seem to me in the least fair that such a man should first of all lose his capital, and then fail to get even a penny return for all that important primary labour which he has expended. It seems to me that if crops or even herds are summarily destroyed by some act of nature, that that cannot fairly be considered the loss of the individual—it should be regarded as the loss of the community, and should be shared by all. It would not be felt by the nation as a whole, but it ruins the individual. If those farmers who are poor, and elected to come under such a scheme, were paid a proportionate salary for the work they did on such farms, the Government would naturally dispose of the products and obtain market prices, thus recouping the Treasury. Now, Sir, before I suggest a third step I would like to remind the House of the ancient city of Sybaris, founded in 700 B.C. by Greek colonists on the fertile plain in the south of Italy between the mountains and the sea. So rich did the inhabitants become from exporting the products of the soil and the valuable wool from the sheep pastured on the hillsides, that the word “sybarite” came to mean one who lives in ease and luxury. But the trees were cut down on the mountain slopes, and the grass was destroyed through over-grazing. When the rains came there was nothing to stop the soil from being swept into the plains. The very site on which Sybaris stood has been silted over for countless centuries since. Once-fertile lands became barren and full of pestilence and fever, and remained a waste until 1929, when reclamation was started under the Italian National Land Plan. There are other countries, North China, Persia, Mesopotamia and North Africa which present the same spectacle of lands which once supported a prosperous civilisation, and now through failing to regulate their own expansion, through allowing their soil to become parched and impoverished, have been turned into a desert. I could remind the House of Palestine itself, which in the days of Moses was reputed to be a land flowing with milk and honey. The cedars of Lebanon have been cut down long since, and the hill slopes are a mass of useless rock. My point is this, that what has happened there can also happen here. It is probably common knowledge that in South Africa 400 tons of good earth per square mile is carried every year into the sea from the districts immediately drained by our rivers. The problem is to prevent that flood-water carrying the soil away, to hold the rains on the fields and out of the streams; the problem is how that is to be done. My suggestion is that belts of trees, fifty to a hundred yards in width, trees suitable to the soil, the climate, and the rainfall, should be planted around every farm. Pressure should be brought to bear on the farmers, if necessary, to arrange for this to be done. The reason for that is that the rain water will thus be conserved. Leaf-mould would bring vegetation, and there would be resulting insect and animal life to fertilise that soil, and where there was once sand grass again would grow. It has happened already in Italy, and there is no reason why it should not happen here. Secondly, still more of our returned soldiers could be given open-air occupation in planting these trees, which would be supplied, of course, by the Government acting on the advice of the forestry experts. I say it would be a very suitable opportunity for men who have for four or five years lived in the desert. To some extent also it would remedy the present shortage of timber which the war has occasioned. And last of all, the timber would be where it was really wanted; there would not be heavy cost of haulage; it would be available on the spot for local developments. As to the ownership of the timber, I suggest that half the proceeds—when the timber is matured, say after ten or fifteen years—should go to the farmer, and half to the State. Now, sir, I come to the very important question: What is the reason for social insecurity? And I answer it quite plainly in two words: human greed. It is the mad chase after profits. Before the war the Western nations, the democratic nations, were supplying armaments “to beat the band” to Japan. Why did they supply to Japan? She had plenty of money, which she had got in our markets for her cheap tin trays, her fans, and her bits of silk. She was prepared to pay, and she got the armaments. Alongside of her was China, poor as a church mouse. The Chinese people were poor, they offered no dividends. So they got nothing, and we have had to stand by and see them fighting the Japanse for five or six years, practically with their bare fists. Why did we do that? We made money; and something better, something much better must henceforth animate us in spirit, or the same things will happen again. We are not altogether guiltless in this country. In the course of a speech in this House in 1939 I referred to the fact; I asked why it was that we were sending thirteen out of every fourteen tons of our manganese ore to Germany, to Krupps. No Minister deigned to give an answer to that question. I answered it myself, and gave the true reason; it was because we were getting a few more pennies that way. The pig iron came back to South Africa in the form of bullets that South African men and women have stopped. That is the cause of social insecurity—the mad and bad rush after profits, after big and quick profits. Since the war there have been instances which are a disgrace. A certain firm in Cape Town was supplying a necessary article to the engine rooms of our little ships of war. The price was very moderate, 12s. 6d., but the article was necessary. That was in the days when the contractor got his cost plus 10 per cent.; 10 per cent on the 12s. 6d. would be 1s. 3d., and the contractor was not interested. By and by the firm found that the sale of this article had faded away, and on making enquiries they discovered that the same article was now being manufactured for £5 17s. 6d. and being sold to the ships. The commission itself was now 11s. 9d., approximately equal to the old cost. So long as there is this disgraceful and frantic struggle for profits, this senseless greed for gain, so long will there be social insecurity. Is there a cure? There is no type of easy economic formula for the purpose. The Minister of Finance is right in this respect, when he says that what is required is a change of heart. He says what we need is to go from anti-social to social-mindedness. What are the means to the end? Two. The first is education. If the Government will follow the advice we have always given from these benches, and will see that every human being, whatever his colour, his race, or his creed, is given from the time he is born to the time he is come to maturity, sufficient food for the human body and mind and for the spirit, much of the competition and fear will die away, and some of the co-operation that is required will come in its place. By our system of education, with its pitiful prizes and limited bursaries, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance under another name, the children are turned into competitors; competition is built up, and I suggest we should not train the children of our country in a competitive spirit. That leads to opposition and strife. We should educate them to co-operate, and in a spirit of fellowship sow the seeds of partnership and peace. The other factor, apart from the school, if you will forgive my saying so, Mr. Speaker, is the church; the other thing the nation needs is religion. I have never taken advantage of the peculiar collar I wear to lecture the House in doctrine or morals, nor have I any wish to preach on this occasion; but this subject was introduced, not by me, at a very early period in this debate. I say that people need religion. I employ that term for want of a better word— they need religion and it cannot be done without. It is useless for any of us to speak about or evoke the brotherhood of man unless we are prepared, at the same time, to admit the common fatherhood of God. I think if we go over the history of this war we find very clear evidence of the existence of God; for example in the calm sea of Dunkirk, when 400,000 men chanced their lives on whether the waters would be still or there would be a tempest. I say that Karl Marx was wrong, and religion is not the dope of the people but the hope of the people; and I am going to suggest that this nation be told quite clearly to put first things first— and not merely told but led. It is time for us to go back to the Bible of the Voortrekkers, and forward to the practice of doing unto others as we are willing that others should do to us. What we sow we reap. With that I have about done, if you will allow me a word to reply to the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) with regard to his amendment to our motion, which is put forward in good faith after many years of study. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that we are entirely in agreement with the substance of his amendment. He has paid us the compliment of proposing exactly the same thing as we have been urging in this House for many years. He may have used a few more words in his definition; he may have said a little less in effect; but we are thankful that his intention was precisely the same. As regards the method he proposes to adopt, we fear that the hon. gentleman is not on quite such safe ground. We fear that here he wandered along alone, and to some extent lost his way. What is the new idea that he brings; what is the sublime alchemy with which he is going to transmute the baser metals into gold and turn stones into bread? By committees and by boards and by councils, and the like. It may be well if I remind the House that a speaker at a recent public meeting on the Rand, towards the end of his oration, asked the following rhetorical question—

Once more there was loud and raucous laughter, and I don’t wonder.

Where is your socialist principle?

I would refer the hon. gentleman to a book in which I have incorporated the socialist principle in so far as it is understood by me. I hope he will not be hurt by anything I have said. We appreciate the attitude he has taken up, and I hope that South Africa will appreciate that it is the attitude we of the Labour Party have consistently taken up ourselves. I thought we were going to be asked for an alternative. That would have been a reasonable interjection. I suggest that we should do the obvious straightforward thing, that we should set up a Ministry of Social Security, and that we should do it as some of the best (and some of the worst) hotels say, “Under entirely new management.” I have not entire confidence that the Government will appoint precisely the Minister we should prefer, but they couldn’t go much more wrong than they have already gone. As a safeguard this is my last suggestion. All of us, and the nation too, are animated by the desire that the greatest measure of social security that we can devise and maintain shall be stabilised in our country without any further delay, and in the doing of that I suggest that experts from New Zealand, who have been actually participating in the administration of a similar plan that is operating there, shall be invited to come to South Africa and assist us in doing this thing which it is the wish of the nation, and of the Parliament, shall be done.

The Prime Minister this morning brought the House back to the realities of the position, and in doing so he suggested a small amendment to the notice of amendment moved by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss), and I wish formally to move that amendment—

The amendment will then read—

The Prime Minister this morning dealt very fully with the amendments that have been proposed and moved in the House, and he has, as I say, brought back the House to the realities of the position and reminded us on this matter of social security there has been no difference at all on the question of principle to report but only to the methods which are to be adopted. This afternoon I would like to refer to one or two matters in the paper that has been presented to us, and to draw the attention of the House to one or two very vital factors in these proposals. Numerous criticisms have been made of the Government’s action during the last few years with regard to the subject of social security. I think I am not doing the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) an injustice when I say that he stated that the Government had taken no steps in the matter at all. I want to show presently how wholly incorrect that is. But what I would like to point out to the House is that during the very difficult time we have had during the last few years the Government have been engaged in creating and developing industries, of creating improvements — all in connection with the war, that has been absorbing their time. In the measures taken they have sought and obtained the full cooperation of labour, and I think it is not too much to say that in the improvement that has been effected during the last four years, the position of labour in this country has been very substantially improved. That, sir, was done by the collaboration of all sections, and of all parties forming the Government. But the Government went further, as the Prime Minister has stated. They formed the Economic and Planning Council in 1942, and as a result of that council this committee of social security was set up which is now reporting, and on which it is proposed to take action this session. The contention has been made that undue delay has occurred on the part of the Government. I would like, however, to remind the House that in 1941 the British Government set up the Beveridge Commission; that commission reported and made recommendations, and so far their recommendations have not been implemented. The Government proposed to do something this session, three years afterwards, but actually they have not done anything so far.

This Government has not done anything either.

I will show the House that in the recommendations contained in the Social Security report, on the first part as the Prime Minister mentioned this morning, not only are they acting on the recommendations in part, but in respect of the expenditure recommended in that report, the Government is already spending annually one-third of the total amount. There is one thing that I think the House should take particular notice of and I must express surprise that in the references to this measure that has been proposed, that we have not heard one word of criticism from the hon. members for Natal regarding those proposals which would vitally affect the relationship between the Provinces and the Union Government in regard to education and hospitals. In this report recommendations are made for an increased expenditure on education up to the year 1955 to a total of £45,000,000 per annum, and an increased expenditure in respect of national health service to a total of £20,000,000. Those increases represent a combined total of £65,000,000. The major portion of the control of education, and to a large extent also of health matters, for instance in connection with hospitals, is in the hands of the provinces; Provincial Councils are responsible. In regard to certain measures, local authorities are also responsible. I should like the House to consider what is going to be the position if the House eventually votes a total expenditure of some £65,000,000 per annum. Is this House going to shift all its responsibility for the spending of that money and for deciding in regard to control? Does not this affect the whole of the relations between the Central Government and the provinces? And I want to ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) who this morning rejected the idea of sending this notice of motion to Select Committee, is not that surely a matter of very vital importance and one which a Select Committee should consider? Not only the Select Committee but also the Provinces themselves will have to consider what this relationship will be, and I say, Sir, that no matter how much we welcome a scheme—and in principle the House has agreed to the necessity of the scheme being proceeded with—we ought to try to realise what it will entail under our peculiar form of government. The hon. member for Berea referred, as I have stated, to the fact that this country had done nothing. And may I say that I personally listened with a very great deal of interest to his speech. One has heard a very great deal of the campaign for which he has been responsible, and which I think has done a great deal to bring this country to a realisation of what the position is. And although I thought that at times perhaps the hon. member may have been a bit extravagant in the language he used, or in the comparisons that were made, these things could be overlooked in the atmosphere he created. But what I did feel was this, that this House has a right to expect from people who have made such a close and intensive study as the hon. member has, that in a speech in this House we should have had some constructive proposals as to how to deal with the problems that we are faced with. It is not sufficient to say that we want social security. I say quite frankly that the hon. member did himself less than justice, because I know he has got ideas, which have been put forward in other quarters. I want to refer particularly to one passage in his speech, where he stated that nothing had been done, and quoted from speeches that had been made and Bills that had been passed in other countries; and amongst others he quoted New Zealand. What is the position about New Zealand? I have a summary of New Zealand’s Social Security Acts. I referred to these last session.

What date?

March, 1942, and it is a reference to the last Act that has been passed. These are the measures which are contained in New Zealand’s Social Security Acts in respect of which it is alleged we have accomplished nothing here, but that much has been done to solve the position in New Zealand. The items indicated in the New Zealand Act cover superannuation benefits, benefits in respect of widowhood, orphanhood, family, invalidity, blind persons, medical tests for invalidity benefits, sickness benefit, accidents, and unemployment benefits. Then there are emergency benefits, hospital benefits and supplementary benefits. These are the main items of the social security code. I want to ask the hon. member whether South Africa has not in fact been playing its part in the operation of those benefits. Let me admit frankly at once that our measures here are not on so generous a scale as those in New Zealand. Furthermore, there is another very important difference in this respect, namely, that the whole New Zealand scheme has so far been on a contributory basis, and I am informed that even the lowest wage earner has to contribute under this social security measure. Under the schemes A and B which have been outlined in this White Paper that has been laid on the Table, practically all those matters have been specifically referred to and recommended for adoption by the Government. It may be said that some of those measures are not in force. I agree, but of the measures that are in force, the White Paper informs us that today we are spending £10,000,00 per anuum and with administrative costs the figure is £11,000,000, which is a third of the total sum recommended to be eventually expended yearly on these schemes. Now sir, in view of that, is it correct to say that the Government has done nothing; or to create the impression outside that no steps have been taken? Surely, sir, that is less than justice, and I think it does not do very much good to create that impression abroad, because if the public do not get immediately all the expected benefits, there is going to be a definite reaction. I want to point out this, that under this alternative scheme, as the Prime Minister indicated, there will be no need to wait for a period of sixteen or seventeen years. The total expenditure that is anticipated in the period 1947 to 1955 is £30,000,000, and of that sum the report states that it is hoped to collect nearly £12,000,000 in contributions from those who are insured and will benefit. That leaves a balance of some £21,000,000. As I have stated, the State is already contributing the sum of £11,000,000. I want to put it to the Government that undoubtedly throughout the country today there is a very definite wish and desire for an improvement in the benefits in the matters more specifically referred to in schemes A and B; and although it may be necessary for the Select Committee to determine to what extent the State can at present go, I think it is going to meet the general approval of the House and of the country if the Minister of Finance would make an immediate provision in the budget this year for a further £5,000,000 to be spent on the services indicated in these schemes. That will bring the expenditure up to something like practically half of what is eventually proposed, but it would definitely enable the Minister to go ahead and to give relief where it is most needed, where the hardship is most felt today, under those items specified in schemes A and B. I would also like to suggest with regard to the national health services—and I think the House is disappointed that the report is not being presented this session—one can understand the great interest in that commission. There again there has been a general demand. I see in the report that they anticipate an expenditure of £20,000,000. Obviously that is a matter that will require very serious consideration. I would suggest to the Minister that he should put a token sum on the estimates which would enable the Government to go ahead with the consideration of the report when it is published, and to take such necessary steps as are immediately advisable to deal with the position before the next session of Parliament. I believe that in doing that the Government would also meet the very general approval of the House. Another section that I want to deal with is this question of the proposals that have been put forward in the Report, to finance these schemes. You will notice that the other day reports were published that in order to finance the whole scheme on the present basis of the National income, it would require very severe taxation and that approximately £70,000,000 must be raised through Income Tax. And it was indicated in this Report— I want to read it—

I have already had representations made to me that on this matter the Government proposes to tax an income of £300 per annum by £60. The report then goes on to say—

The report then goes on to say that the proposed rate of taxation would be impossible of application in the Union. That is a very important thing because the Prime Minister stated this morning that he would be able to finance that section of the report to which I have previously referred but the much wider scheme is surely a matter which will require the very closest examination, and I would submit that there is nobody more competent to do that than a Select Committee of this House which will be able to get all the data before it, and which will be able to advise what the full implications of the scheme will be. I would like to point out to the House that when we are pressing for a social security scheme in South Africa, we are in an entirely different position to other countries of the world. The main burden of financing a social security scheme will fall on the European section of the population. The benefits will be extended to the whole population. The main burden must fall on the European section of the population and not only, as this report points out, on the European section of the population, but the main burden of financing this direct taxation must fall on income tax payers. The income tax payers represent only about 6 per cent. of that population. Last year’s estimate of Income Tax receipts is £31 million. The report advises that the national income must be increased very materially by 50 per cent. With the best will in the world you will not be able to introduce a scheme like this and to impose the burden of taxation which will be necessary in order to give effect to it unless the national income is raised.

You say you cannot do it because you have not got the money?

The hon. member has apparently just woken up. I have already referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning, and I pointed out that on the present basis of the national income it would be impossible to finance this scheme and this report indicates the measures to be taken with regard to that. The main measure on which, I think, the success of the whole scheme must depend, is going to be an improvement in employment in this country. The Prime Minister has very rightly included that in the amendment which has been moved. It is to my mind the most vital factor governing the whole of this case, and on its success will depend the measure of success of the whole scheme. We talk glibly of extending secondary industries, creating new industries, that we are going to turn our industries from war industries to peace industries. I wonder how many realise what it means? Today the greatest difficulty is experienced in getting new plant and equipment; we are faced with the greatest difficulty in getting new plant for our factories, in the face of the fiercest competition from the devastated countries in Europe. The whole of their factories have gone; there is widespread ruin in those countries, and they will have first claim. What opportunity are we going to have? We can make certain plant and equipment out here. What I have always looked for is constructive suggestions as to how we can expand our industries in such a way that we shall be able to offer employment to all in this country. Countries like Great Britain and America have been trained to the highest peak of efficiency in their war effort. Their output has been created under a high state of efficiency. Some of our factories in this country have turned out magnificent work, but only recently we heard severe criticism of the efficiency of some of our factories. I do not want to go into that, but one thing is perfectly clear. If we want to hold our own in the markets of the world we shall have to increase our efficiency. We can meet our own requirements in this country but we have also to remember the terms of the Atlantic Charter whereby we have agreed to treat other nations fairly and to give them facilities. Are we also to erect a high tariff wall round our own country and expect other nations of the world to import our products? These are all questions which require consideration, and I am glad to see that the Social and Economic Planning Council is considering these problems. There are suggestions of setting up more boards of economic experts. Personally I think we have had far too much of the theoretical experts in this country. What we want are the practical experts, the men who have been engaged in the industries of this country. I have seen the success that has been attained in building up industries when we have had the closest co-operation of the men who know their jobs. I have seen our factories increase by leaps and bounds because they have not had to meet world competition. They are turning out first class articles today, but it is to the efficiency of those factories, the increased labour they require, the determination of everyone to see that the output is increased, and to get constructive ideas for converting war industries to peace industries and in the creation of new industries that we can hope to look for the success of these schemes. The long range plan will require further consideration and it is in that sense that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and this side support this amendment, because we know that the proposals that have been put forward do require the further consideration that they will get from a Select Committee of this House.

In supporting the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) I would like to avail myself of the opportunity of expressing what I believe to be not only my appreciation but the appreciation of the majority of the members in this House of the manner in which the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) moved his amendment. I do so, not only as a colleague of the hon. member for Durban (Berea), but also as an intimate friend. It my be said that the hon. member’s speech was at times somewhat impassioned perhaps, but I can assure you that it was the speech of a man with very deep seated convictions for a cause which, as the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) has correctly said, has awakened the conscience of the people of this country. The sincerity of purpose of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) in that cause cannot be more aptly illustrated than by the fact, that in accepting nomination, in the last general election, as the result of public pressure, the hon. member forsook his own social security for the social security of others. I would now like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire). At the outset I would say that I have never refused to second the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea).

Why did you not do it?

If I had, I would not have abused it in the manner in which the hon. member for Durban (Central) did. My action, and rightly so, has been dependent upon the attitude of the Government in regard to the whole policy of social security. In associating myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) I firmly believe that the Government is facing the problem in all its aspects with the determination that something shall, and must, happen about social security during this session. I am convinced that in doing so the Government is most anxious to go into the views of all sides of the House, and thereby, through the medium of this Select Committee, endeavour to refuse to have its actions hampered by any party considerations. In furtherance of and in reply to the hon. member for Durban (Central)—what are the facts, as I see them? Firstly, the White Paper that has been laid on the Table of the House goes much further than we in the social security movement expected, and secondly, the appointment of a Select Committee with the wide terms of reference, and with the even wider terms now in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) is not only a genuine attempt to remove this question from the political arena, but is the only logical and sane way in which the Government can proceed in the matter. Thirdly, the Government in appointing a Select Committee and by moving the amendment at this stage, has shown its willingness not only to deal with this problem of social security but to deal with it in a practical way. Fourthly, I believe that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) himself at this juncture is in full accord with the procedure in regard to this White Paper being sent to a Select Committee. Those are the facts, and in the light of those facts how can the hon. member for Durban (Central) accuse either my self or even the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), who was also a member of the South African Social Security Council, of lacking the courage of our convictions. I do not propose to retort in kind to the insinuations, personal as they were, of the hon. member for Durban (Central). Mr. Speaker, they introduced a discordant and unworthy element into a debate which otherwise reflected Parliament’s determination to deal with a vital matter soberly and seriously, and I feel the House would do best to ignore the remarks of the hon. member. Now I should like to make one or two observations about the White Paper. I am not going to deal with my views on social security, I have already dealt with them during the last session of this House. I would say that in some respects I am a little disappointed with the White Paper; as a long range term I accept with both hands the policy as adumbrated in that White Paper, but I cannot help thinking that what the country is demanding today is something immediate and urgent in regard to social security, not only as a war aim but as a basic underlying principle for our peace time proposals, and I feel it is in that respect perhaps the Select Committee will take it as its first duty in regard to this long range plan to submit to this House an interim report to provide for a transition period from now until the long range plan comes into effect. That, as I see it, is my first objection. My second objection, on the basis of a short range plan, is that the White Paper goes perhaps just a little too far. I would just like to say in that connection that when I dealt with social security at the last sitting of this House I said that we always had to bear in mind, in dealing with this problem, that we should at all times try to temper our idealism with realism, and it is in that respect that I think the provisions, as laid down in the White Paper, while I accept them as a long range plan, for a short range plan are a little bit too liberal in regard to the financial grants to non-European and secondly, they are too liberal in regard to the extent of European benefits. For example, the White Paper provides for recovery benefits, removal benefits and funeral grants. Mr. Speaker there are more important and more immediate benefits which in my opinion should be given effect to, such as old age pensions, orphanhood pensions, disability pensions and invalidity pensions. I am informed that they are all included, this I know, but I have yet to realise whether this country, in its present frame of mind, is prepared to accept as an example an old age pension of £5 per month. I think the time has arrived for a Select Committee to examine this matter a little more closely, and I believe a Select Committee will be able to come forward with a much better recommendation than one of £5 per month. With regard to children’s allowances for the non-Europeans I am satisfied that the Natives will learn to realise that their best investment will be to have children. In regard to social security, as I have said before, I accept the long range plan, but I do want to issue a warning that in regard to the non-European people of this country we should not lose sight of the fact that the social security benefit should be directed towards the non-European community in kind, rather than in finance. I think that we will do well to see that the food of this country is brought within their purchasing power by subsidy or otherwise. I was rather surprised at some of the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) in regard to the national income. I personally am one of those people who takes a very happy view about the future prospects of industrial development in this country. Members have mentioned to me that they are rather alarmed at the amount of £160,000,000 involved in 1955 as compared with the present income. I am satisfied that with the industrial development behind it and with a Government possessing the will to see that that development does take place £160,000,000 will not be too great a burden for this country to bear.

Then you will have to change your Government.

I would just further say that the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) is a little perturbed about the Atlantic Charter. It is my own impression that the question of free trade refers more particularly to raw materials, I would conclude on these lines, and that is, I believe that if the Select Committee were to come forward with an interim report, envisaging in that report slightly more restrictive benefits, they will be able to submit a report to Parliament on these benefits which would not cost £33,000,000 but something like £24,000,000, and if to that there was added an amount of say £2,000,000, I am satisfied that with the increased financial benefit in regard to the more urgent provisions we would have a plan for the transition period which would be acceptable throughout the length and breadth of this country. But I do want to issue this little warning, and that is that it would appear in regard to the framing of this White Paper that the Social Security Committee has not only accepted the recommendations of the Social Security Council of South Africa but it has gone to perhaps follow blindly the underlying principles of the Beveridge Report in England. Hon. members will remember that Sir Wm. Beveridge indicated that he was deeply concerned over the question of the population in England, and there was a definite tendency for the population to decrease, to the extent that he believed that the population of 48,000,000 today, would be only 24,000,000 in 1960. That principle hardly applies to this country, and while I for one am all out to see that the principles of guardianship are not only implemented but are given effect to in this country, I feel that we must treat them, if we are to make this programme of social security a success, in accordance with the economic status of the Non-European population in this country, and as time goes on we can build up that section of the community. In the meantime while we can prepare for them a certain measure of social security in the provisions of our social security programme, I feel that the select committee, with an interim report, can lay before us a programme which can be acceptable throughout the length and breadth of this country.

A moment ago we had a speech from the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock). His speech is important, because he is one of the front benchers on the Government side. But it is also important from this point of view— the hon. member undoubtedly represents a definite section on that side of the House. He represents more specifically the capitalist wing of the Government party. And from that point of view, because the capitalistic wing dominates that party, it was of interest to listen to what the hon. member said. His speech came down to these few points. In the first place, he laid the greatest emphasis on what the Government had already done in order to improve conditions in this country. He laid greater emphasis on what the Government had done in the past than what has to be done in the future. He explained to the House that the Government, through the measures it has taken, has put New Zealand, the home of social security measures, in the shade. I can only tell the hon. member that a good deal of what he mentioned here as having been done by the present Government, was not done by this Government but by the previous Government. I also want to tell him that this Government is richer in promises than any other Government has been. We think of the promises on the part of the Government that there are 100,000 sub-economic houses in prospect, and we remember too, that not a single brick has been laid and not a single house built. Promises are made of irrigation schemes which will give running water on their farms to a great section of the farming community. There would be irrigation in the country on a scale hitherto unknown. And this in spite of the fact that no start has yet been made with any canal, and in spite of the fact that the Government refuses water-drills to certain sections of the country. We have promises in abundance, and nevertheless the hon. member boasts about the Government’s achievements. In the second place he points out that the British Government in this respect too, as in nearly all cases, as he sees the matter, sets an example to us. The Beveridge plan was drawn up a few years ago already; it was published in England, but the British Government has done practically nothing as yet. It is held out as an excuse and as an example. The third thing he did was to devote a large portion of his speech to an effort to make the country, and particularly the taxpayers, afraid of social security. He speaks of £65,000,000 which has to be voted, merely in order to make a start. And then he asks: if that is so, can the country afford it? And now a select committee must be appointed, and this select committee must now assist in making the taxpayers of the country afraid of social security. And then he concludes by adding this, that the Government can do something, and he makes a suggestion, which will involve an expenditure of £5,000,000, and he does it only—as one can expect of the capitalist section in the country—in order to satisfy the people to some extent. Something must be done, and he comes here with a crumb which he wants to give the starving people. That is the actual substance of what has come from the Government front benches. I want to confine myself now to the speech which the Prime Minister made this morning. I want to say that I listened to his speech with interest and expectation. I do not want to say that I was altogether disappointed in his speech, because we got the very speech from the Prime Minister which we expected of him. But although I did not listen with disappointment, I listened with a certain degree of amusement. We have been waiting for a number of years for a policy from that side of the House and more specifically from the Prime Minister’s side and his Government, in connection with this great question of social security, and if anything is evident from the speech of the Prime Minister this morning, it is that there is still this lack of policy with which he started and which he has revealed throughout the past few years, and that in this respect he has remained true to form. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister started a few years ago, as I put it last year, by going hat in hand to various parties in the House, and also to the platteland, with this request: “You must now be good enough to suggest a plan, a policy, to us.” Two years ago a motion was introduced, also, I think, by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) in connection with the same matter. It was the right thing on his part to introduce it. The various belligerent countries in the world are paying attention to post war problems, and if they want to satisfy the fighting forces, they must convince them today that they are not fighting for a worse world but for a better world. It was a good thing that hon. member raised this matter. But what was the Prime Minister’s reply? He said: “I shall consider what you have said here today; I shall consider what has been said by other members, but I shall make no decision in the matter. I ask all of you, and I ask everyone in the country, to come forward with plans, to suggest means of improving the position.” That was how he started two years ago. Thereafter this reply was given to him. The Labour Party went to him during the recess with a plan which had been worked out and asked him whether or not the Government accepted it. There is also the social security movement, of which the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) is one of the leaders. They have a scheme which has been worked out, and they asked for support and assistance in, carrying out that scheme. What was the Prime Minister’s reply? He said: “All very well; I have nothing against it in principle, and I shall consider it.” Last year when the House assembled, I again raised this matter, and I acted on behalf of my party, and we came forward with our plan, and we proposed what is substantially today the contents of our amendment, which we moved on the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. What was the Prime Minister’s reply? “No plan.” He suggested nothing; he said only two things. The first point was that a planning council would go into the matter. The planning council would from time to time come forward with schemes. In the second place, he said that they intended appointing commissions for this, that or the other purpose, a whole series of commissions. Of course, the reports of those commissions are then shelved, but the Prime Minister shields behind the work of such commissions. This year, for the sake of appearance, he has taken further steps, and that is that he has appointed a special commission in connection with social economic questions, and he has even submitted to this House a summary of its report. He submitted this report of the Social-Economic Commission to the Planning Council, not to report on it generally (a commission reporting on another commission), but to tell us and the country what it would cost to give effect to these schemes. The Prime Minister has such a volume of information today that he was able to say in his speech this morning: “We now have all the information we require.” He went on to say this morning: “What we need now is action.” He is anxious to have action. One would then have expected some lead from the Government, that the Government would come forward with its policy in connection with these matters. What is the Government’s attitude to this question? That the whole question should be referred to a Select Committee without any lead from the Government. And the Select Committee must now tell the Government what should be done in order to improve conditions in the country. A bigger, a more serious confession of lack of policy, of impotence, one cannot get. But the Prime Minister did throw out a hint. He suggested that the Select Committee should also deal with the other matter, namely, that it should also tell the Government how to solve the question of unemployment. But that matter has already been dealt with by the Planning Council, and the Planning Council has already reported on it last year. The Planning Council said: “Two hundred and fifteen thousand will be demobilised; they must be placed in employment; they must be protected against unemployment, and you (the Government) have done nothing except to make provision for 15 per cent. of the unemployed.” The Prime Minister is apparently at his wits’ end. He is beginning to experience difficulties. He is without a plan. The responsibility for this matter must now be thrown on the Select Committee. What I want to ask in the first place is this: As far as the question of unemployment is concerned, what has become of the Department of Labour? It is a big department, which cost the country a great deal, a department with a capable and active Minister at the head of it. The capitalists, he says, are the people who are active. He is hand in glove with the capitalists, but he says that they are active. I assume that he is also active. But that department is today simply pushed aside. It is no good. It cannot give the Government, the Cabinet, a plan. Now a Select Committee of this Parliament, consisting of members of all parties, must suggest a policy and a plan. I not only want to ask what has become of the Minister of Labour and what has become of the Department of Labour, but I also want to ask what has become of the Cabinet. I have all the more right to put that question, because, as I understand, a Cabinet Committee was appointed a few years ago by the Cabinet, to draw up plans for a social-economic policy. What has become of that committee, what has become of the Cabinet? Today we have a country without a Cabinet and without a Government as far as this matter is concerned. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister advanced the reason this morning that the Government, of which he is the head, is very cautious. They do not want to have the honour of being the people who laid down the policy for the improvement of the social-economic conditions of the country. No, “the House must be associated in this thing.” The entire Parliament must now share with the Government the honour of formulating a policy. But now I want to put this to you again: Where is this course which he now proposes to follow, going to lead us? When one refers a matter to a Select Committee before the second reading, as frequently happens, one at any rate has before one, in the Bill which is introduced, a lead from the Government, the policy of the Government— there is Government responsibility. You know that. But what has one in this case? In this case there is no Bill, nor is there any lead at all in connection with the matter, no policy on the part of the Government, and now the House is asked to save the Government in this way from its lack of policy and its lack of plan. That is why this matter must now be referred to a Select Committee.

Why did you at that time refer the gold standard question to a Select Committee?

But the Government did have a policy.

How will the Select Committee, which has to be appointed, cope with this matter? We commence our sittings every morning at 11 o’clock and we finish at quarter to seven. Practically the whole day is taken up by this House, and that means that the Select Committees can only have short sittings, even if they sit every day, and this Select Committee will not be able to sit every day. It would be quite impossible to deal with every one of the sub-divisions of this great subject, if a Select. Committee is appointed. How would they be able to report properly even in regard to any one of the sub-divisions of this question? Take the last sub-division which the Prime Minister wants to refer to the Select Committee also, the question of the solution of unemployment? How can they deal with and satisfactorily solve and report on the sub-division in these short sittings, because apparently there will still be great difference of opinion in the Select Committee. Evidence will have to be taken, and since it covers such a wide field, we can well imagine that an army of witnesses will have to be interrogated. And if I correctly read the signs which have been given by the Minister of Finance, we need not even expect a long sitting. He will bring the Part Appropriation Bill before the House the day after tomorrow, and he wants to deliver his Budget speech as early as the 1st March, earlier than in the past few years.

No, later than during the past few years. Last year the budget speech was delivered in February.

That was a particularly short sitting, which preceded the election, and there was precious little legislation before the House. In any event, if this sitting is going to last approximately as long as that of last year, how could such a select committee do its work? In such difficult circumstances, it will be impossible for the Select Committee to reach unanimity after hearing all the evidence, and to suggest a policy to the Government in connection with this matter, since the Government itself has no policy. No, I am afraid I must say that the nation is being tricked here. The nation is being tricked by the Prime Minister, because he intimated in the first place that he was in a hurry. He cannot even accept the amendment which is being moved on this side, and which is perfectly clear. No, that would require too much investigation. He is in too great a hurry. The time for words is now past. The time has come to take action. The second point is the wonderful phenomenon that in principle he simply accepts everything which is suggested, except that which is suggested by the Opposition, and which really goes to the root of the whole matter. But for the rest, with regard to the aim, he accepts everything, and to the great alarm of the hon. member of Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock), he goes so far as to say that financial considerations should not deter us. Heavy taxation will be necessary; you will have to take £60 from individuals with an income of £200, and you will have to take one-quarter from anyone with an income of £400, but even financial considerations should not deter us. The Prime Minister is even prepared to go to that length, but in the meantime the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) is being used to scare the taxpayers, and that suits the Prime Minister perfectly. They must be frightened, and once the taxpayers have been frightened, it is easy to go to the country with the whole body of taxpayers behind you and to say that you cannot do anything, because the taxpayers will not tolerate it. In the meantime the Government does nothing, and what we got from the Prime Minister this morning was nothing but words and more words. He does not get much further. He is favourably disposed towards the report of his own Social Security Committee, an extract of which is laid on the Table. There is one recommendation in that report which he undoubtedly welcomes wholeheartedly, and that is that he need not do anything before 1947, that is to say, the financial year 1947-’48. In that year he must make a start. That suits him very well, perfectly well. The Prime Minister has already announced that the last election was his last, in other words, that he was not going to fight another election. In 1947-’48 the next general election will be close at hand, and then he will retire from the scene. Today he can make solemn promises; he will not be held responsible for giving effect to those promises; he will not be there.

We shall take care that he is there.

Then there will be a general election and it will be said that the Government has not yet had an opportunity to do anything radical, anything big, and again beautiful promises will be made to the electorate. It was not the Government’s fault; it has not yet had an opportunity, but the electors must return the Government just for another five years. This is the trick which is being played on the nation in connection with this matter. I want to go further and say that the Prime Minister cannot do anything. I have two reasons for saying that. The first is that he has already spent millions of pounds of the country’s money on the war, not much less than £300,000,000, and the country is saddled with a burden of debt which it cannot bear, and this morning the Prime Minister again made an urgent appeal to the House and to the country to carry on until the bitter end, no matter how long the war lasts and no matter what it may cost. He makes all sorts of solemn promises, and at the same time he destroys the means which are necessary to create improved conditions in the country. And a second point is this: As he clearly said this morning, he refuses to accept any far-reaching reform in our social-economic system. In other words the capitalistic system which obtains today must continue to exist. We must not discuss it now, because it will require years and years of argument, of discussion, before we can come to any conclusion. That is how the Prime Minister argues. He wants to maintain the existing capitalistic system. I should like to know what the hon. Minister of Labour says to this. He spoke of the radical conversion of the existing capitalistic system. He spoke of the socialistic system which must be introduced. Where does he stand now? The Prime Minister does not want to touch the capitalistic system. It must be maintained. The Prime Minister wants to maintain the existing capitalistic system. He acted here this morning, as they called it in the middle ages, as advocate of the diabolic, as the advocate of capitalism, which is the foundation of and support for and power of his party. He cannot do anything else. Now I want to say a few words in regard to the various motions before the House. The first one came from the Labour Party. I dealt with that last year already. I just want to say that the scheme which they submitted to the House, is to put it in its mildest form, a poor one. Apparently the Labour Party is still chopping and changing. Last year they came forward with a poor motion, abandoned it and then introduced an amendment in favour of the socialistic form of government. They have apparently now thrown that overboard, and today they have come back to the plan which they put before the Prime Minister in connection with social security, and if they cannot get that — so they say — they want a state bank. Just imagine! They offer no solution except a state bank. But a state bank only touches the fringe of the whole problem, and that coming from a party which pretends to represent the labouring classes, that class in the country which possesses nothing. So much with regard to the Labour Party. Then we come to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea). His motion was criticised outside our own party, and also on these benches, and I can only say that the pamphlet which the hon. member issued in connection with social security, was at least 80 per cent. better than the motion with which he came before the House. What is his proposal? To create machinery; nothing more than that. What is the use of creating machinery if you have not got the material for the working of it? It is now suggested that a whole series of boards for various purposes should be created. However well it may have been intended, I am afraid that in that way we shall not make much progress. We shall not get much further than the Government, with all its boards, did in the past, and the progress is precious little. There is one point in his amendment which we heartily accept. He is apparently in favour of a central economic board. That board must—to put it like that—have sub-committees. We are in agreement with that. All the schemes which have been moved here, that of the Government, that of the Labour Party and that of the hon. member for Durban (Berea), all suffer from one great defect, and that is that they all tell us what we should aim at. That is very easy. There you have a rich country, but the country’s population is poor. On the European side alone there are 300,000 who live below the bread line. It is very easy to say that these are things which must be done in order to give these people a decent livelihood, but they all fail to tell us how it must be done. There is this gap, and it is being filled by the amendment which we move on this side of the House. We adopt the attitude that before you can successfully assist, by means of state funds or in the different ways suggested in the social security measures, those people who cannot help themselves, you must first take steps to put a stop to the process of impoverishment in the country. It is of no avail, if your room is flooded with water, to attempt to pump out the water forcibly, while the tap which is open and which is causing the flood, remains open. It is of no avail to suggest all sorts of measures in order to bring about those improved conditions, and in order to help the people who cannot help themselves, if the process of impoverishment in the country continues. It is of no avail to assist in creating better conditions in the country by means of the dole system. You are only going to make conditions worse. England tried it and it was a failure. It is no use saying, when people agitate for higher wages, that you will grant increased wages and when the depression comes, to take away those increased wages with one stroke of the pen, as the Prime Minister did on a previous occasion. What must be done is that you must increase your production, and more especially, you must bring about better distribution of the riches produced by the country, and furthermore you must effectively protect every section of the people from exploitation by any other section of the nation. That is what is required, and along that road a change must come about, a fairly radical change in our social-economic system. In the first place, in our amendment we suggest the remedy to eliminate that which is the cause of poverty in the country, namely, the conflict, the deadening conflict of interests, and to replace with another foundation the principle of conflict of interests, where the strong receive all the benefits, and the weak are ruined, that is by the co-operation of all economic sections with one purpose, and that is the welfare of the nation as a whole. Well, that is achieved by means of a Central Economic Board such as we have suggested where all sections of the population will be assured of a decent livelihood, and where all sections will be protected against exploitation by any other section. We want to provide work through industrial development. The Prime Minister talks a good deal of industrial development, but he and his party are not able to bring about that development simply because their whole foundation is wrong. He has associated himself with the Atlantic Charter; he has interests outside South Africa, but superficially he has South Africa’s interests at heart. On previous occasions, after the previous war, he also made pretty speeches about industrial development. He had visions; he had great dreams, and when the war was over those industrial undertakings fled from him and came to us. Today he is doing the same as he did then and with the same result ultimately. We want to encourage and assist key industries, some of which can be undertaken by the Government direct, key industries where the Government partially provides the capital in order to assist them but at the same gets the control representation on their directorate and a measure of control. We want to revise the credit of the country and the credit institutions of the country in a radical way, and we want to reform our banking, so that it will not be in the hands of the private money-lender, but so that it will be an institution which does not operate for private profit, but an institution which will serve the nation. [Time extended.] We want to revise the credit of the country. That is necessary. If we want to stop the process of impoverishment we must pay every attention to the position of the unskilled labourer in this country. Those circles of unskilled labourers are hot-beds of poverty and retrogression in South Africa. Advantages in organisation are reaped by a comparatively small section of labourers, the skilled labourers who are able to protect themselves and to obtain high wages. But the masses of unskilled labourers are unprotected and in the labour market they are a prey to the competition which exists, in so far as it concerns the European, the deadening competition which the European has to face from the working class which lives and will live for many years to come on a lower level of civilisation. In that respect the Government does nothing, and the process of impoverishment will continue. It is we who come and say that you must introduce a quota system whereby you guarantee the European employment, and you can give him an assured wage according to the level of civilisation on which he lives, and in the same way you must guarantee employment and a means of livelihood to your non-European, and in this way you can see that justice is done to everyone, but at the same time protect the one against exploitation by the other, and the European population especially will be protected against being dragged into the market through this deadening competition. That is what goes to the root of the whole matter. You must protect all the sections of the nation against exploitation. What is that exploitation? It is not necessary to say much in this connection, but I want to say this. There are activities in this country which brings riches to the few and to people who do not earn it, and it is withheld from the nation in whose hands it ought to be. Take, for example, the operations and the methods of the Stock Exchange. How many people are there in this country and how many millions have they put into their pockets by doing nothing except to sit at their telephones and to hear what today’s price is on the Stock Exchange, to sell tomorrow when the market has risen, and again to buy the day after tomorrow when the market has fallen, and then to sell again in the higher market By manipulation the market is depressed when it suits them. The nation is being impoverished more and more. This, and other such activities which I could mention, impoverish the nation more and more. If the country and the Government does not adopt measures to protect the people against such parasitical activities, we shall never achieve our object. We need not expect anything of this Government. We shall not oppose the motion to let this matter go to a Select. Committee. We do not expect anything to come of it. Although we know with what object it is being done, we shall not oppose it in the circumstances. The country knows our policy and the lack of policy and the lack of plan on the part of the Government which has again come into power. We shall co-operate as far as we can on the Select Committee and attempt to make the best of it, but at the same time we want to tell the country how devoid of plans, how devoid of policy and how powerless this Government is, especially in respect of the parasites and in respect of the capitalists who dominate its Party.

I am very sorry indeed at the tone which the Leader of the Opposition has adopted in this debate. In the first place, this is a matter that concerns all thinking people in South Africa. This is a matter of the utmost moment to the nation of South Africa, and it is the time when every thinking man and woman should pool the brains of the nation with the object of attaining full social security for the people of South Africa. What I did catch from the hon. member was this: He started off by accusing the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of not having a plan. Naturally, if the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition starts off like that, you prick up your ears and you begin to expect a plan from him. If the Prime Minister has not got a plan for social security then we expect one from the Leader of the Opposition. If he is correct in accusing the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of having no plan it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

But the Prime Minister accused him of his plan being too large.

It is much too large with nothing in it, and it is very significant that in this matter of national interests, vital national interests, the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the first to launch a party attack in connection with the matter.

You are defending the Prime Minister.

I am defending nobody; I am going to put before the House my own views on the question, as indeed my party has done.

What about your Cabinet?

Allow me; I did not interrupt the Leader of the Opposition. I listened to what he had to say. I was very anxious to hear what he had to say. It may be that my receptivity was at fault, but I could not get anything from what he said. We looked in vain and listened in vain for a plan from the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) who introduced the amendment did not adopt that attitude. He came along and he threw before the House his plan in the hope that we would logically accept it, as indeed my Party threw its plan before the House and the hon. member for Durban (Berea) did likewise.

You said just now that we have no plan.

You have no plan. I am referring now to the hon. member who has just interjected. It is a very funny thing that hon. members on the other side go oh interrupting. Are they afraid to listen to what I have to say? The hon. gentleman then went on to accuse certain members on this side of being in the capitalistic section of the United Party. I want to ask him a question. Is he prepared to abandon capitalism?

Certainly.

Of course he is.

Who said “yes”? It is an interesting question and I want a straight answer. Have you ever heard of the seven ages of Malan? Because at one stage, one age of Malan was the socialist age.

At one time he was also in the church.

Before he went into the church; we won’t go into that. But there was a period in his interesting career when he was a socialist. I want to know whether he has reverted to that time, and whether he is prepared to state now that he will down capitalism? And ask his party to support him in the downing of capitalism? It is a fair question; otherwise what is the point of accusing certain members on this side of the House of being in the capitalistic section of the United Party? There is one advantage to the Leader of the Opposition in this matter being sent to a select committee, though I do not favour it myself, but I am now speaking on behalf of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

You are speaking on behalf of the Cabinet.

No, I am not speaking on behalf of the Cabinet. There is an advantage to him in sending it to a select committee. The first is that he will have representation on that select committee. His party will be able to examine this and see how far this wealth of verbiage set out in the Votes and Proceedings can be implemented in a practical fashion, and what they mean by it; because I feel perfectly certain that no select committee will sit and examine this sort of thing without asking what it means, and I must confess—I must admit that my mental capacity is very small indeed and possibly I am not a fair judge,—but there are other members in this House with a greater mental capacity and they will perhaps bring a great deal of logic to bear on the examination of this question, and demand what all this means. Again I ask: are you abandoning capitalism? My hon. friend went on to accuse the Labour Party of having forgotten its socialism. Nothing of the sort. He said that Labour has abandoned socialism. That is not his language, but that is the effect of it. He says that Labour has abandoned socialism and has now watered it down to the institution of a State bank. Has the hon. gentleman not got a memory? Or is he so confused that he has forgotten what the Labour Party has stood for all along? One of the key planks of our platform has always been the establishment of a State bank and the monopolistic ownership—not the extraordinary expression my hon. friend has here, “of control of credit”, which leaves credit where it is—but the monopolistic ownership and issue of credit being a function of a State bank; and we adhere to that today. I am certain of this, that once you have established that you have abolished capitalism. You have made it impossible for private financiers to manipulate the finances of the country in such a fashion as to bring about the state of affairs which we are deploring today. Will my hon. friend read the motion that has been moved by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) ? What does he put in the forefront of his motion? The complete elimination of unemployment. And the Prime Minister is perfectly correct in saying that once you have eliminated unemployment, and may I add to that once you have instituted a State Bank—there is no need for us to be worrying about old age pensions, invalidity pensions and these varying items to which the hon. gentleman over there refers in broad terms but never gives us anything tangible. I am sorry to come back to the hon. gentleman. My memory may be bad, but I remember being associated with him in the Cabinet, and I did not get much assistance from him in the direction of the upliftment of the unskilled to whom he makes reference in his speech.

Yes, I did, but not with the I.C.U.

But my hon. friend acquiesced to my being kicked out in consequence thereof. Yes, I see you, I saw you, and I understood you. And the country understands you today which is very evident.

They will never understand you.

My hon. friend reproaches me today for sitting in this Cabinet. The same reason for my entry into the Cabinet still stands for my remaining in it.

Ha, ha!

†The MINISTER OF LABOUR. Yes, you can “ha, ha” as much as you want to. South Africa is in this war and I am going to see it through.

The country needs you.

£2,500 a year!

But that does not prevent me, as I am doing now, from advocating complete social security, and who has a better right than the Labour Party to advocate social security today when it has become fashionable? Everybody is mouthing this expression “Social Security.” Some may mean it; some may not mean it. Some may mean it and not know how to accomplish it. They may be perfectly genuine. Some may mean it, and do not understand what they mean by social security. All they have is a sort of stirring of their mental pulses, feeling that something is required somewhere because misery has been brought very closely confronting them; but the Labour Party was born out of the need for social security: It came into existence to combat the evils of capitalism. It arose from a resentment of the fact that the mass of the people in all countries of the world were confronted with misery, starvation or semi-starvation as the case may be, living in squalid surroundings and subject to diseases, and having no opportunities of lifting themselves out of their social quagmire. That is why the Labour Party came into existence, and that is why we have a right to demand today from the people of South Africa that the people of South Africa shall be elevated far above the conditions under which they are living today. What is the first plank of the hon. gentleman’s motion? It is the elimination of unemployment, because we believe that is the greatest step in the direction of social security you can possibly conceive of.

It is the basis of social security.

It is fundamental; but to enunciate the abolition of unemployment is not sufficient. You have got to have complete employment of all employable citizens. By that I mean those who are capable of working, in any capacity whatsoever on rates of wages, salaries or what not, adequate to a full, complete and happy life. That is a necessary corollary of employment. It is no good talking about partial employment, namely, employment at a rate of pay which only keeps the wolf from the door. We lay this down as a dictum that this country can produce all the requirements of all the people including luxuries, which today are enjoyed only by a few. We lay that down and deny it who dare. It is a question of bringing it to the people. We agreed right from the jump, we have never denied it—on the contrary, we have always advocated it—that side by side with the elimination of unemployment and in consequence of that elimination, you will have and must have increased production of all commodities that may be desirable for the maintenance of decent lives, and the elimination of unemployment in itself makes for a greater aggregate production of goods. Whilst we advocate that, we deprecate in the strongest possible fashion the destruction of any of that production and the maldistribution of it, in the sense that a few have all they want and more than they want, and the masses have less than they want. That is a matter for organisation, but not for organisation under a capitalistic system. You cannot do it; you have got to remove once and for all the profit motive, despite all the strictures that are poured out by people who ought to know better. Under private enterprise you cannot bring about complete social security. Private enterprise is private profit, and private profit is public plunder. Loud cheers of approbation from all sides of the House! This is where we find out where you stand. And in the light of that very loud silence on the part of the other side of the House, we have a right to examine this very lengthy document, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ceres, against the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. It is necessary that I should retrogress somewhat. I want to take you to the beginning of this war; and that is why, before you go any further, the Labour Party demands that this House shall record itself as against any unemployment at all, its determination that it will eliminate unemployment. Having decided on that, it will then decide on the ways and means of causing the elimination of unemployment. But let us see what the profit system did for this country during the three or four years of war. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance the other day gave an answer to a question, which I read with the utmost interest. In the last three years of war he received from excess profits tax no less a sum than £12,000,000. Am I correct in taking the proportion as 75 per cent., not over the whole period, because it varies— anyway I will take it at 75 per cent. That means that profiteers within the knowledge of the Finance Department dragged out of the pockets of the people of this country during the war no less a sum than £16,000,000.

No.

They did. Well I never! Is it not remarkable how they spring to attention. He got £12,000,000 in taxation, and that was only three-quarters of the excess profits; so that with the remainder of the profit the total must have been £16,000,000. It is true that the State took that sum, but the people of the country lost it, and remember, sir, that is after my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, had tempered the wind to the shorn lamb, because he had made lots of concessions before he estimated what was excess profit. What is the profit system going to do to us in perpetuity if we allow it to exist any longer? Will our total national debt not be in the region of £400,000,000? That means in addition to the necessity for repaying it—which we never do, it is a perpetual debt—we shall be engaged in the blissful occupation of paying another £12,000,000 per annum in interest alone to our good, kind financial friends who lent us our own credit. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, dares to ridicule my friend over there for demanding the institution of a State bank, which will issue our national credit, interest free, recoverable from the productivity of the country as the years go by. It is not sound finance?

No, it is not.

My hon. friend’s economics rest in the prehistoric ages. I can visualise him in consultation with a conclave of pterodactyls in the prehistoric days of finance. These are facts which I am addressing to the House, and I am recommending to the House a course of financial study. And let me tell you, Sir, that Russia could not have done one-tenth part of what she has done today had she not first abolished the profit system. Again, I challenge my friends on the other side, including their financial expert, the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). Are you prepared to abandon the capitalist system? Are you prepared to advocate what we are advocating—the institution of a state bank, with all its shortcomings as referred to with ridicule by the hon. member’s leader? Silence, absolute silence! It is useless going on. I want to pay tribute to this commission. It has done a wonderful work. But, Sir, it was handicapped from the start. Its usefulness was limited by the knowledge that cost was the overriding factor, and that was inevitable under a capitalistic profitmaking system; it was inevitable that cost should be the overriding factor, because it means individual taxation, it means all sorts and forms of taxation; and I do want to remind this House of this outstanding fact, that the country is saddled with a repayment of dead money, money that has never been of any use, or borrowed money that we have mainly employed in carrying on the war. Before I sit down I want to say to those who hurl their reproaches and sneer at us about turning the handle of the printing press, that that is an invention of those who fear the taking over of finance by the State itself. It does not mean turning the handle of the printing press at all. You have that today.

Germany.

Never mind capitalist Germany, you have it here. You issue your notes not on a 100 per cent. gold backing but on 40 per cent. gold and 60 per cent. paper. In fact, it is turning the handle. How do your big financial houses deal with the State? The State, in addition to its national debt, is almost always in a state of overdraft to the bank. It happens occasionally that taxes have not come in—I do not know the various reasons —but there are occasions when we have to do it. I will instance a classic example to show how insane is the method of finance we allow to impose itself on us. During the slump subsequent to the last war, the Reserve Bank—Mr. Havenga was then Minister of Finance—the Reserve Bank had lost all its capital or rather all its reserve and half its capital, and it had not got a single silver sixpence in its coffers; yet it lent the Union Government no less a sum than £4,500,000.

From the gold mines.

They did not tax the gold mines.

Where did they get it?

They wrote it in a book, and it only became tangible, it only became money when my hon. friend’s predecessors signed cheques drawn on that account. It was entered in the book. When the then Minister of Finance borrowed that money, he drew cheques, paid the cheques to those to whom the Government was financially committed, and they in turn deposited it in their accounts, and they paid out by cheque.

How many cheques were paid out?

Matters of detail of that character do not affect the argument. The point is they used Our credit; they made a book entry; they did not have to have any liability at all. We had to pay back in hard cash, and pay interest for the accommodation; and I ask hon. members, is it wise for a state—especially when we see the parlous condition that thousands of our fellow-subjects are getting into as a result of this system—is it wise to continue a system like that? It makes it impossible for us to implement our promises to the people, namely, that we shall have full social security, that nobody shall want, that everyone shall live in a decent house, that everyone will be decently clad, and that no man will have to worry about his children. Surely these considerations transcend all other considerations. Surely if we do not do it under a capitalist system—and we cannot—let us do the wise thing and abolish the capitalist system. No country in the world is better equipped for abandoning the capitalist system than South Africa, because we have in our hands the accepted medium of exchange, the valuation of exchange, the basis of all currency throughout the world—gold. We can establish it; pay our commitments to other nations in gold and use our own paper for our own internal economy. I support the motion moved by my hon. friend.

I had an uneasy feeling that I had been betrayed into the wrong camp when I heard the hon. Minister accusing us of insincerity in this matter of social security as his interpretation of the silence with which the House greeted his contention that social security is unattainable under the capitalist system.

I did not mean you. I know you are sincere.

I am glad to hear the Minister say that. As a matter of fact, I agree entirely with the hon. Minister in that regard. I agree that we shall never attain full social security for the whole of our population so long as profit-making is the main basis; but the reason I was not vocal in my support of his contention on that point was that I was preoccupied, as I have been all the afternoon, with what I consider is the essential point of this debate, that is, what is going to happen to this White Paper and the proposals which it sets forth. That seems to me the central issue and the main purpose of this debate. I think it should be the centre of interest of all of us here, and of every citizen of the country who is seriously concerned for the future progress towards social security in this country, and not merely with the propagandising of rival schemes of social security. In saying this, I do not intend any reflection on those who have other schemes to put forward and feel they should publicise them. I merely state it as my opinion that the majority of the people, whatever other panaceas we have for the problems of social insecurity with which we are faced, will expect from us that, having regard to our local position we must give our full and immediate concern to the propositions contained in this White Paper, for the simple reason that they present the only programme that has been put before us in terms of the society in which we live, a society which I personally see no immediate possibility of changing to any material extent. Now according to the amendment that has been moved from the Government side, it is clear that the Government intends to throw the weight of this discussion back on to the select committee. That I think has much to be said for it, in spite of the attitude of the leader of the Opposition. Of course that attitude is understandable. There is a matter of political prestige at stake and the opportunity of accusing the Government of having no policy and of giving no lead in thus placing the responsibility on the select committee was obviously too good to be lost. But from the long range point of view, the leader of the Opposition is clearly on safer political ground when, having made this accusation, he declares the intention of himself and his Party to support the proposal to remit the White Paper to select committee and to take their due share of the work that will be done by that committee. The leader of the Opposition knows that the one chance any Party outside the Government has to help to shape the policy to be pursued on this matter of social security lies in the remission of the White Paper to select committee. There the lines of the policy will be discussed and can possibly be modified before they take final shape. We on these benches know only too well how extremely difficult it is to modify any line of policy after the Government has decided what they are going to do. Hence I welcome the proposal to send this matter to select committee, as I have no doubt the leader of the Opposition really does too. But I feel a little uneasy about its remission to select committee just at this stage, when so little has been said by the Government itself as to its attitude to the terms of the White Paper. That feeling of uneasiness is aggravated to some extent by the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss). That amendment begins with the general proposition that the House should request the Government to consider the advisability of introducing a comprehensive programme of legislative and administrative measures embracing a number of social subjects. The proposition is practically the same as that contained in the amendment by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) with the rather surprising exclusion of the matter of employment, which the Government at the instance of the Prime Minister has now rectified. But the matter explicitly referred to the Select Committee is the report of the Social Security Committee to be considered “in the light of the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council,” but that is prefaced by the statement that this is being done in order to meet the circumstance that the full programme of social security will take time and call for careful examination of the country’s present resources and national income. The danger, to my mind, lies in the balance of those propositions. There is a possibility, to my mind, of an interpretation which may limit the discussion in Select Committee in a way I would personally regard as singularly unfortunate and very dangerous. It might be assumed that the proposition of the progressive application of a full programme of social security as visualised by the Social and Economic Planning Council shall lie outside the scope of a Select Committee. That is not necessarily the interpretation. But I have sat on Select Committee before, committees with terms of reference that I have been uneasy about and have not challenged in this House, only to find myself in an extremely awkward position in committee, and refused the right to discuss in committee matters I thought important. Now this whole subject of social security is so important that I think we should be perfectly clear as to the steps the Government is taking to prepare its plan in this regard. I submit in terms of this proposition it is possible for the Select Committee to confine itself to the consideration of the report of the Social. Security Committee; that is the section of this White Paper that deals particularly with the series of proposed monetary grants to meet the needs of persons who are either unable to work for themselves, or who are faced by some contingency in life which may entail an expenditure beyond what they are able to earn by their work. I am quite aware that the discussion of that scheme itself could be the subject of very lengthy debate, and here I wish to say that in making that statement I am not casting any reflections on this White Paper. In fact, I should like to take the opportunity of endorsing what the hon. Minister of Labour has said; I think this White Paper represents a very good piece of work. I think it represents a sober and serious attempt to deal with an extremely complicated issue in terms of the conditions of our social, economic and political life. I would like to pay that tribute to the work of the committee that is responsible for this White Paper; and I must add that I think whoever produced this summary showed an extraordinary capacity for lucid expression, for the compression of a large piece of work in understandable terms. I think we owe it to those who have done this job to make this acknowledgement for the service they have rendered. But having said that, I still contend that the subject of the social security schemes here proposed could be the subject of considerable discussion and difference of opinion. For instance, I am doubtful myself of the wisdom of building up a scheme of monetary assistance entirely on a contributory basis, a scheme which involves contributions by peoples whose incomes have not yet reached a living standard, which is the position of a large bulk of our population in South Africa. I am also not happy about a system which differentiates in respect of the level of benefits to be received on racial grounds rather than on a standard of living basis. I am inclined to feel a certain amount of criticism of the limitations of the rights of non-Europeans who are in a position to aspire to a higher standard of living to contribute to schemes which are designed to provide higher benefits in certain contingencies than the normal flat rate benefits provided in the general scheme. I expect that a great many other people will be only too anxious to criticise the level of benefits which are proposed under this scheme and there may be a good many criticisms on the lines which have been followed by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer). That is a criticism I anticipated but as a matter of fact I did not quite expect it to be initiated by him; although I do not know why it should not have been so initiated. I have never had any reason to believe that the hon. member was familiar with the economic factors underlying our political situation or with the social conditions of the vast bulk of our population. I refer to the hon. member’s suggestion that the rates for Europeans are too low, and that the rates for non-Europeans are too high, and that a happy political balance might be struck by reducing the one and adding to the other. That, as I say, is a proposition I anticipated, but not quite from the hon. member for Durban (Point), the quarter from which it has come. But these are only instances of the sort of issues which will undoubtedly come up for discussion when the scheme comes under consideration. I for my part will be happy to support the general terms of the whole scheme, which I welcome, as no doubt the House will understand, in its comprehensive range, in the fact that it does cover the needs of the non-Europeans as well as Europeans, in that it does show a growing appreciation of the changed social character and social and economic needs of our non-European population as a whole. I would remind the House if it is inclined to pay any attention to what the hon. member for Point has said, that the committee responsible for this White Paper has been careful to enumerate as the beneficiaries under scheme A all sections of the community who are permanently urbanised, and who therefore are today equally dependent on their capacity to earn to be able to keep themselves alive. Scheme B, is the scheme which deals with the section of the population that has not yet reached that stage. My point, however, is this — that these social security proposals, these so-called social security proposals — a term which I shall attempt to show later is an unfortunate one to apply to the series of assistances here visualised — is the one likely to catch and hold the attention of members of Parliament. It is a scheme which is designed to give something tangible, and to give it immediately. That is always a very satisfactory sort of thing for members of Parliament to deal with. The possibility of being able to go to their constituents with something in their hands is always attractive to Parliamentarians. But the issue is not what is going to be convenient or attractive for members of Parliament, but what is going to be for the good of the country; and in that connection I wish to remind the House and the Government, whose interests and efforts in this matter will, I hope, follow the same direction as mine, that this White Paper contains something more than a scheme for these monetary assistances in the case of want. It contains very serious consideration of the need for increased social services, and ultimately of the capacity of our national income—again let me repeat under the conditions of our present economic life to meet what is being asked for. In that connection, the Social and Economic Planning Council, which is responsible for sponsoring this report on social security, has made certain emphatic comments, has directed the attention of the public emphatically to certain important aspects of this whole question of trying to establish social security in this country. First of all, it insists that a system of monetary grants will not give us social security; not even if the monetary grants were a great deal better than the ones proposed here, which, the committee itself emphasises, must be regarded as the bare minimum, limited not by what they regard as necessary, but by what they believe the country can approximate in a reasonable time. It states that in addition to the so-called social security measures here proposed, that is monetary payments to guard against want in certain contingencies, a social programme is required to embrace satisfactory provision for education and training, a health service for all, proper housing, and other amenities for healthy living and recreation. In other words, it emphasises the absolute necessity of linking with this programme of monetary benefits in the crises of individual lives, a general social policy of building up the community, physically, mentally and morally. It emphasises the complete lack of virtue in a system of monetary benefits unless that system is built on the encouragement and development of the productive energies of the population. In fact, it does its best to impress on the country that monetary benefits in any system which does not embrace rehabilitation is going to be merely a system of doles which, in their operation are going to be a capital expenditure without return, and an ultimate loss to the State. Secondly, having made this point, they emphasise this further point, in the, to my mind, one somewhat obscure passage in this summary, that even saving individuals from want by monetary assistance and building up the physical and intellectual capacity of the community will not achieve what we want; that there must be linked with both of these a determined effort to increase the capacity of the community to produce, and by their productive effort to earn what is necessary to establish social security. Now that must inevitably be the emphasis in any responsible and sane effort of this kind, that in the last resort social security is not a thing to be achieved by monetary grants from the central treasury to the extent to which the generosity of the community is willing to pay. It is a thing to be achieved by the individual through his own ability to work, and by his work to earn enough to meet the needs of life and the contingencies of life as well. Now having endeavoured to focus attention on these considerations, the committee go on to face our immediate situation which is that we cannot embark at once on the whole scheme necessary to lay the foundations of social security, and that the assistances and services planned in these reports will have to be initiated selectively since the country in its present condition could not finance even this programme. Here it emphasises most strongly its own conviction that in making the selection the Government must apply itself to relieve first the needs of the weakest. Where it is a matter of monetary grants, those monetary grants must go first and foremost to the people who need them most; and all services and all assistances should be put in where the return on them is going to be most rapid, and will go most effectively to promote the well-being and productivity of the nation as a whole. No, the hon. member for Point (Dr. V. L. Shearer) said he was disappointed in this White Paper because it did not give any short range programme. I venture to suggest that those who drew up this report were not in a position to do more in the way of a short range programme than they have suggested here, that is, to lay down the general lines of what the short range programme should be, which is, as I have said, that assistances should go first to those who need them most, and that in the matter of services we should begin to build where the return is going to be greatest; but the selection, the actual practical selection is going to be a matter of political choice, and this is where I would like to see the Government give an emphatic lead that in its interpretation, “political” is going to stand for social and economic as well, that the approach of the Select Committee to the job which is being committed to it, should be on the basis of what is best for the country in the long run, not what is going to pay in a general election in the course of the next four or five years. I say that advisedly; I say it rather sadly, out of my experience of what happened last year on a Select Committee on which I served; but I say it with all the conviction of a citizen of this country who has watched the progress of social problems in this country, and their accumulation to the point where their magnitude might well appal us. It is a fact as the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) stressed, that we have an enormous proportion of poverty in this country. Unfortunately, he limited his estimate to about one third of a million, because he was speaking in terms of Europeans. That is nothing like the burden, the full burden, of poverty in this country. The burden is much nearer 7,000,0000 out of 10,000,000. The problem is reflected in the immediately insecure condition of some 7,000,000 people out of the 10,000,000 of our population. That fact makes it imperative that we should think as clearly as possible on this issue and that we should not be ridden merely by political considerations, nor should we be ridden by emotional influences. There has been a tremendous amount of emotionalism stirred up on this question of social security—there has been lamentably little clear thinking. There was a wild assumption when the Beveridge Report came out that this was the sort of thing we should have and should demand for South Africa. The Beveridge Report will not meet the case of South Africa, nor, with all due deference to the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) is the experience of New Zealand going to teach us our business. Our problem here in South Africa is entirely different from that which has faced Great Britain, America, New Zealand, Australia or any other country with our European standard of living. Here we have an entirely different problem to face, and the differences lie in the balance between well-being and poverty. The mistake of those who interpret social security in the narrow terms of monetary assistance is that they overlook the proportion of our population continually in need of assistances—a proportion who continually will be in need of assistance if we go on as we are going now. Our first and foremost need in this country is, as this Report has stated, to make a frontal attack on the massive poverty which exists in the Union, poverty “which has its roos in the inadequate output and earnings of the bulk of the people who are gainfully occupied.” That is the real challenge to our desire for social security in South Africa. It is not a question of our willingness to find money for particular assistances. The real challenge to South Africa is its willingness to loosen the shackles of its industrial life, to release and build up the productive capacity of the masses of people, and to enable this country to produce the wealth on which alone we can get social security. Those were the lines laid down by the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission. But it is the fate of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission Report which has made me really anxious about the future of this White Paper. The truth of the matter is that the adoption of the findings of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission which to me are the simplest and the most conservative estimates of what is necessary to increase the productive capacity of this country, would involve a revolution in the practice of South Africa. We shall have to take a very strong hold of our own emotions and prejudices if we are in fact going to take our stand on recommendations made by the Commission to us. There will, however, be a very strong drive against our doing this; but not, I believe, outside this House. I believe the Industrial and Commercial communities are strongly behind the findings of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission, as I think they are behind the general lines of this Report, but they are not exercising the weight, the influence on Government policy which they should, and as I have said, their attitude has not so far been much reflected in this House. It is true, we are getting a good deal of lip-service to our need to increase production and national income if we are to achieve social security; even the Leader of the Opposition now talks in these terms; but in the next breath, he reverts to the old familiar demand for “protection” for white unskilled workers. We have protected white standards in our industries as long as we could behind commercial tariffs which have raised our costs and made it impossible for us to compete in any market for which we might have been able to produce. We have reached the limit of that sort of protection. We must now begin to think in new terms and begin to seek the protection of the standards of this country where alone that protection can be found, namely in the increasing wealth of the country, and to this end we must provide education and decent living standards for all our people. Within a policy of this kind, the European population of this country should be able to maintain its position on the basis of its special advantages of tradition and education. I must admit I should like to see our educational system considerably raised to enable the children who go through our schools to adjust themselves more effectively to their conditions of life, to give them a greater return out of their years at school than they now get—but that is by the way. The fact is that the European children have had and will continue to have a great advantage over all other sections of the community in the services which they have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy. Where those advantages have not given them social security the fault has lain mainly in the lack of balance in our economy and the consequent extremely low productivity of the country as a whole. Only on the alteration of this situation can we hope permanently to improve their lot. Only by releasing the productive energies of the whole community can we hope to build up the wealth that is essential if anything approximating to social security on our standard of living is to be established in this country. I trust the Government will give a lead in this direction to the Select Committee, that it will make it clear to the Committee that the issue at stake is not the politically attractive concession of this or that benefit to the European section of the community but the building up of the whole community in the interests of all. If it does this, then we may hope at last to embark on a plan which will help to release population and thus lay the foundations of real social security in this land.

It has been very amusing for me to listen to successive speakers this afternoon, each claiming for his own party the credit of having originated the idea of social security. I think every party has claimed the credit for it. As a matter of fact the only party which can truthfully claim to be responsible for social security is the Dominion Party. I have here the principles of the Dominion Party. I do not propose reading them all out, but in section 6 we have eleven clauses dealing with social security. I shall only deal with the eleventh, because I do not want to weary the House. No. 11 reads as a principle, “that the welfare of the returned soldier shall be a charge on the State.”

Is that an original idea?

To proceed with the question of social security I want to say that I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the Prime Minister this morning. He has certainly given a lead to the country and to this House in the remarks he made. I gathered from what he said that the Government did not envisage paying out money in the form of a dole to all those in South Africa who would be glad to receive it, but rather to elevate the population by improved educational facilities, and in various other ways. By finding employment for everyone, and by increasing the wealth of the country. I think that is a very laudable idea on the part of the Prime Minister. I was also very pleased to hear him say that the interest of the returned soldier must take first place above everything else. I think he will have the support of the whole country in that. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his seat, but I would like to remind members of the Government that the soldiers do not consider that the Government is doing anything for them in the way of postwar development, and in preparing the way for the rehabilitation of the soldiers when they come back. I received a letter a few days ago—I am sorry I have not got it with me—it was written by a young soldier who had been called up at the beginning of the war. He has been right through Abyssinia, and North Africa with the 1st Division. He is at present back in North Africa with the 6th Armoured Division and he wrote saying that in view of the fact that the Government did not appear to do anything to prepare for the returned soldier after the war, the soldiers themselves were having meetings and forming themselves into groups. This particular soldier belongs to the farmers’ group who have had more than one meeting, and in view of the inactivity on the part of the Government, they were preparing plans for submission to the Government, which they hoped would be considered when it made up its mind to do something. I hope the Government will take steps to find employment and to create careers for these young fellows when they come back. I put a question to the Minister of Commerce and Industries a few days ago concerning the establishment of a ship-building industry, and I am afraid he gave me a very poor reply—in fact it was no reply at all. This was an opportunity where the Minister could have made it known whether the Government intended to do anything at all, and what steps had been taken, but it was purely a nebulous reply. I am sorry the Minister saw fit to reply in that way. In regard to the question of increases in old age pensions, invalidity and burnt-outs’ grants, these are matters which I consider the Government should take in hand at once. It should not wait until the finding of the Select Committee. I consider provision should be made in the Budget for an increase in these old age pensions and so on. That is a practical way by which the Government can show its good intentions. Now, in regard to the question of education. I do not intend dealing with that except in one respect. And if, what I am going to say, is accepted by the Government, then my contribution towards security will be something worth while. What I want is that the Government should see to it that in the education of our children there should be a course in “resourcefulness” and “efficiency.” What do our children get in school today? They are taught grammar, arithmetic, history, with the object of passing examinations. That is the main object of our educational system. When they have passed their examinations they take up occupations and they are neither resourceful nor efficient. They have to make their own way in life, without a proper start, and I do ask the Government to see to it in their social security plan, that our children, during their school period, are given a course in resourcefulness and efficiency. What do the schools do about cricket? They desire to have an efficient cricket team. They engage a coach at considerable expense — they go to the length of getting a coach from England. If they can do that for cricket why cannot they do it for the future welfare of our children, in order to fit them to take their place in the world. Take our army. Our soldiers have demonstrated that South Africa can be efficient, and can be resourceful. The army started from zero; we had no army at all, and we have developed a very fine, resourceful force that has done great credit to this country. Take our factories. We had no idea that our factories could turn out munitions of war, but through the resourcefulness on the part of someone, South African factories have done wonders in the munitions they have turned out. If we can do these things in wartime, let us in peace time, train our children during their school days to become resourceful. I want to give an illustration of how a young Freestater by resourcefulness became a successful farmer and even a member of Parliament. This is a true story. A young fellow was at a farm school in the days following the South African war. The inspector of the district was an Englishman, and he went round inspecting the farm schools, where the education was very indifferent indeed. He went to one of these schools and said: “Is there any boy here who can say anything in English”? and one boy jumped up and recited a few lines from Shakespeare which he had taught himself. The inspector went to the boy’s father and said: “This boy of your’s shows promise and resourcefulness; he has learnt these lines from Shakespeare on his own initiative; he should have a chance of a better education than he is getting on the farm.” The father said: “I have no money, I cannot send him to a better school”. The inspector thereupon said: “I shall pay for his education” and he did. The boy went to Bloemfontein and subsequently became a successful farmer, and rose to the dizzy heights of a member of Parliament. My contribution to this debate is that we should train our children in the schools in self-reliance, resourcefulness and efficiency, and if that is done I am sure it will be very useful to them in their lives.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that to a certain extent we agree with her in giving her blessing to the Planning Council’s White Paper. There are certain things in it which we regard as improvements. For instance the increase in the grants for old age pensions and so on, but we also want to tell the Prime Minister that none the less it remains patch work. We only accept this as a small part of the social security scheme — it does not go right to the root. I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour is here. He has asked us whether we are opposed to capitalism. I should like to tell him that so far as our Party is concerned what we stand for is that capital shall be used in the service of the country, and not that capital shall rule the country, and we are particularly opposed to foreign capital dominating this country. We are in favour of our own capital under proper control. Take Iscor for an instance. There we have an instance of cooperation between capital and the people who have taken shares, and we see how that has led to beneficial development. A magnificent industry has been started and although it was at first opposed by the Prime Minister and his Party, I am sure they are now very grateful that they have that industry. Then there is the fishing industry with which we have been occupied during the past few days — another instance of capital being subordinated to the services of the people. That is our reply to the Minister of Labour. I also listened attentively to the Prime Minister’s speech, but there are a few points I should like to bring to his notice. He says that our policy, our scheme, wat too comprehensive, but the Minister of Labour on the other hand said that we had no scheme. Now, which of these two members of the Cabinet are we to believe? I propose to show later on how comprehensive our scheme is, but the Prime Minister among other things also said that so far as the Cabinet was concerned it would adopt the Planning Council’s scheme and that money would be no object. Well, these are only small things—it is only patch work that is going to be undertaken, and in that way the great issue, the great cause, will be put off to the far distant future. I think the Prime Minister noticed that things were getting out of hand a bit so he started beating the big drum again, and he said that we must do everything possible to see the war through first. During the elections he also beat the big drum, and one could notice the way hon. members opposite sat up, kept quiet and listened. They had to fall into line and march along. It is a pity though that the Prime Minister did not go into the merits of the case instead of beating the big drum and raising the old election cries again. I can only stigmatise it as kind of intimidation, and I do not think it is becoming to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to indulge in that sort of thing. I want to remind him of what happened after the last war. On that occasion he also followed a kind of laissez-faire policy—a policy of wait and see, and let me remind the House of what happened in 1921. We are not anxious to see a repetition of that, and I want to warn the Government that if they take up that kind of attitude again, an attitude of wait and see, they can again expect the same kind of revolution as they had in those days. In Russia, too, there was a revolution. There, too, capital became the dominating factor, and the poor revolted; there was a great revolution and eventually Communism came in. We are not anxious to see that kind of thing here—notwithstanding the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). But those are the conditions which arise if one takes up a waiting attitude and fails to do anything. It did appear as though the Prime Minister felt nervous about the capitalistic element in his Party, and we can quite understand that, because the capitalistic element is the corner stone of his Party. It is not necessary for me to go into that any further. So far as this side of the House is concerned I only want to say this, that we do not want to have the extreme, either on the one side or the other—we do not want to have Communism, nor do we want to have extreme capitalism. We want to follow the middle course, as we have shown in regard to Iscor, and now again in regard to the fishing industry. South Africa has now also got into the general mêlée. Everywhere one hears of social security. The past century has been described as the century of political freedom, and it seems to me that the century in which we are now living is going to be the century of social and economic feeling. In America we have seen Roosevelt coming forward with his new deal; in Germany it was national socialism; in Italy it was Fascism. And thus we have economic developments being led along new courses, and that is why I say we must also wake up. The Nationalist Party has put forward a comprehensive policy, as moved by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and that policy must be tackled with a will to put it through. If we do that we shall be able to obtain what we are striving for, namely, social economic independence. Now I wish to raise a few points in regard to the various schemes which we on this side of the House have suggested in our amendment. The hon. the Minister of Labour spoke about capital and asked whether we were opposed to capital. I want to put this question to him in return—and I shall be glad if he will answer it. Is he in favour of the profits of the mines and the profits made by big capitalists being shared with the workers who have helped to produce those profits? I wonder what the Minister’s reply is going to be. As a Labour man he should say “yes,” but I do not believe he is allowed to do so, being a member of the Government which he now belongs to. I want it to be clearly understood that we on this side of the House are in favour of profits in the large companies and industries being shared with the workers. They are the people who have really earned those profits, and they are the people to whom these profits of the big companies are primarily due. We also want capital to get its share, but we certainly want the worker who has given his sweat in order to make those profits to also get his share. If the Minister of Labour were to advocate such a policy on the Witwatersrand I am sure that he would get considerable support from the workers for such a policy, but if he opposes such a suggestion then I fear the Witwatersrand newspapers will cause him a disillusionment such as he does not want to be faced with. In connection with education and our suggestions in that regard, I only want to say that we stand for free education. Here I have to express myself as being in agreement with the hon. member for Germiston South (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) who has included free education as one of the objects he has in view. We are in favour of free education, at least as far as matriculation, even including free board and lodging for children who come to school from the districts. That is the policy of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal and throughout the whole of South Africa. We are in favour of free education from the time the child starts school until it reaches matriculation. My personal feeling is that education must be free to whatever stage the child can go. My reason for saying that is that the country will get that expenditure back over and over again. There are many potential Prime Minister, Speakers and members of Parliament who have to stop after having passed their matriculation examination because they are unable to continue their studies; if only they had had the money to continue their studies they might have become great men in South Africa, but having passed their matriculation they had to turn back owing to lack of money. I therefore say that I am in favour of free education for the child to whatever stage the child can go, and I say that this will be a great asset to South Africa. So far as farming is concerned our policy is that land shall be made available to the farmer. There I agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger)—give our people the opportunity to earn money, give us the land and the chance to work, and social security will follow automatically. Give the worker the opportunity to go and earn money and everything will right itself. We do not want to see a system of charity in South Africa. We say, rather let every individual have the opportunity of earning money, and if that is done their children will have enough food to eat, and the people will be prosperous and well-to-do. This charitable system has demoralising effects on the people. I have had experience of that with the Oudstryder pensions. People can only get those pensions if they are poor, and in that connection I should like to see the Minister introduce a change. I should like the Minister to abolish the means test. The means test usually results in people who are not really poor pretending to be poor. We have had instances of people applying for a pension; they are told that their wife is earning enough money and then they pretend that they are separated, merely in order to get the money, although they are still living together. This creates a sort of professional hypocrisy and the result is detrimental to the country. Abolish the means test. When it is a question of a family means test, when it is a question whether the children do not have enough money to look after the old people, there it is even more demoralising. A great many of the children are not prepared to help their parents. Some of them have big families of their own, but in spite of that the old people are turned down simply because their children earn a certain amount of money. We want to have both the family means test and the ordinary means test abolished. Give the old people a pension but let them get it according to a system of contributions. The individual contributes a certain percentage—that percentage can be worked out—let him pay that contribution while he is still young, and in that way make sure of an old age pension when he is old. Then he will feel that he has obtained that pension as a result of his own earnings. He will have saved a little bit during those years in order to get something in his old age. That system can be carefully worked out, and I should like to see it introduced in place of this system of alms and charity. In conclusion I want to put a few points before the Minister of Labour which I want him to take into account when he says that we on this side have no policy. I want to bring a few points in connection with this particular subject from our own programme to his notice. First of all we stand for a central economic council. I need not say any more about that, because the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has adequately explained our attitude there. Secondly, we are in favour of the nationalisation of the gold ming industry. We want to nationalise the gold mines which are today the property of private capital, in the same way as the oil companies of Mexico have been nationalised. After that was done in Mexico the oil industry there flourished. We have a languishing gold mining industry today. If it is nationalised we feel it will flourish again. Thirdly, we are in favour of mortgage redemption. That is a subject on which a great deal more will be said later on. Fourthly, we stand for the rehabilitation of the farming population. Fifthly, we stand for the provision of agricultural lands. In the sixth place, we are in favour of our own coinage system. This is a very important question on which we shall have more to say later on. Why cannot South Africa establish its own coinage system, based on the decimal system? In the seventh place, we have a definite policy in regard to immigration. We are in favour of the quota system. All these things are in our programme, a programme which is comprehensive and many sided. In the eighth place we are in favour of cheap housing. We want to say to the Minister of Social Welfare that we do not only want houses for coloured people at Salt River, but we want to help our poor people to get away from the slums and to get into decent houses, and we do not only want houses for coloured people at election time. No. 9 deals with the whole question of pensions. And then, finally, we have the problem of unemployment. I do not think I need mention any more subjects. I only want to say this, that if the Government were to study our motion closely, it would fully realise that what we are proposing here will bring about a radical change in the country, and it will have the effect of our no longer having this sort of thing—we shall no longer have 300,000 poor whites in this country. We shall not be faced with the position of 250,000 soldiers being on our hands one of these days without work; we shall not have to countenance a state of affairs where thousands of farms and holdings are locked up and not allotted while the country is crying out for increased production. If our proposals are carried out, we shall be able to have a country in which all of us will be happy.

The ground covered in the course of the debate clearly indicates the wide scope of the term and the purpose of social security. The subject itself is on the lips of millions. The main job is to fix it firmly in the minds as well as the hearts of the people, and to make it clear to the people of this country that no appreciable measure of success will be obtained unless at a price. When the people of South Africa, as we all hope will happen, have become convinced of the purpose as well as the benefit of such a measure, and will contribute towards the attainment of the ideal which every member of this House has in mind, then it will be within the range of achievement. It is quite apparent that there is no shortcut to any real and complete security code for South Africa. We may say, and we may continue to repeat, that the need is well known, that as an ideal for the Government of our country it is unquestioned. When we come down to the measures to be adopted and the sacrifices to be made and the contribution that every wage-earner of the community will be expected to make, then, Sir, we will see how difficult is the problem. But its difficulties do not in any way reduce its importance, and its essentiality, in the healthy growth of the South African people as a nation. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss), because I think it is a natural line of sequence to the measures that have been adopted by this Government during the recent history of the question of social security. The basis of the consideration of the Select Committee will be the report of the Social Security Committee in the light of the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council; and, Sir, as we look back over the work of the Council and of the Government in this connection, we find that this subject was initiated in the third report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission; that the movement was accelerated by the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister at Bloemfontein in October, 1941; and in this House in connection with the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) in 1942. Then we saw the Social and Economic Council brought into being, and out of its first report the appointment of the Social Security Committee, and then from the report of the Social Security Committee we have the comments of the Council which recommended its appointment. Now, sir, it seems to me that the work of the Social Security Select Committee as proposed is largely limited by the Security Committee’s report and the comments of the Social and Economic Planning Council. And our object, the object of that committee and members of Parliament will be to secure the maximum practicable result at the earliest possible moment. I would not exclude from the movement in South Africa one very important feature, and that is the work of the Social Security Association of which the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) is the Chairman; and I want to add my tribute not only to the work he is doing in this House, but that he has done throughout South Africa with his colleagues on that committee. For, after all, we cannot proceed too far in advance of public opinion and public opinion needs to be educated not only in regard to the benefits of social security, but also in relation to the responsibility attached to every citizen in connection therewith, and it would be a useful thing if the Government were to have an information department in order to set about educating more fully the people of South Africa in regard to this essential requirement. We need not necessarily go to Sir William Beveridge’s report, a report of worldwide interest, and an inspiration to all reformers in every part of the world, nor need we go to New Zealand. We have to grapple with a problem which is purely South African, and which will require the unity and sacrifice of all sections of the community if it is to be successful. Surely, sir, the time has arrived when we should get to work, and the challenge has come to this House from the Social Security Committee and the Social and Economic Planning Council. It is nothing more or less than a challenge to this House to unite its members in a common purpose for the uplift and healing of the people. Social security covers so many things, but, as Sir William Beveridge points out, these evils are giants in their measure and capacity. They are want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. In South Africa we need perhaps to add the evil of intemperance, which is definitely associated in some measure or other with every one of the giant evils mentioned by Sir William Beveridge. Mr. Speaker, anything that stimulates any of these evils in their effect on the well-being of the community, must be the concern of this hon. House. While I am heartily in support of the principle of the amendment of the hon. member for Berea, I think that the cause he desires to promote would be advanced by the practical step proposed by the Government amendment. The Government is faced with a serious problem, but it is essential that the matter should be dealt with nationally in the light of the interests of all sections of the community, and our treatment of this matter of social security will show democracy either at its best or at its worst; either whether a matter of this kind is to be made a party matter, or whether we shall rise above party and deal with it in the broad interests of those whose cause we have at heart. I wish to stress the vital importance of the Social and Economic Council appointed by the Government. It has begun its work. It has issued two reports, reports that we cannot go back upon. It has done its work with no blinkers on. It has faced some of the most unpleasant facts in our economic and industrial life. Those are not reports which should be shelved, nor is this a council whose recommendations should be ignored or shelved. I want to emphasise to the best of my ability the necessity for some permanence to this Social and Economic Planning Council. As recommended in Report No. 1, at least two members of that council should be full-time appointments. This is not a matter for a part-time organisation. There are many people in South Africa who would like to see established here a council of this kind on a permanent basis, recognised in the statutes of our country. Even if it be for a period of ten years, we must ensure that its work is continuous in order that the interests of the country may be satisfactorily dealt with. As Sir William Beveridge has pointed out in his book “Pillars of Society,” the question of the maintenance of employment is an essential companion to that of social security. He refers to these two subjects as coat and trousers. They must go together. But I would add that with employment and social security there must be a further companion, and that is a living wage for those engaged in employment, in order that the man so dressed and the fact that he is so equipped shall have a good understanding. Mr. Speaker, I wish to impress upon the Government, in connection with the matter of employment, the necessity for an early declaration of the measures to be adopted by the Government in its reconstruction and works programme, which we understand has been under consideration by a Cabinet sub-committee. The time has arrived when not only should there be introduced through the country an instalment of social security, but also some programme of works construction, and of measures to which the Government is committing itself definitely in order to provide for the employment of those men, returned soldiers and others, who are referred to in Report No. 1 of the Social and Economic Planning Council. I ask for that, I think the country is looking forward to it, and it is a thing that I think the Government would be prepared to do during the course of this session. There are one or two points arising from the White Paper which I wish briefly to comment upon. I may be mistaken; we have not the full report, but in the estimates of the cost of the social security scheme put forward, nothing is mentioned of the indirect savings which will arise from the better conditions created by social security. I think hon. members will agree with me that if you have a better state of society, a more healthy condition economically and physically, much of the expenditure now incurred by the Government will fall away, and in the framing of estimates some consideration should be given to the benefits that will accrue to those who derive benefit from social security. That is not an amount that can be calculated, but it is certainly a factor we should bear in mind. Another reference in the report is to the question of rent. We are told that in South Africa rents represent a proportion of a man’s wages double that of the proportion which applies in Great Britain. This is a matter which I think should receive very serious consideration. A case was brought to my notice the other day where a block of flats had been sold. The rent of the flat occupied by a lady and three children was increased by 100 per cent. as a result of the purchase of that block of flats. When I heard this I was astounded. If by the purchase of a block of flats an increase in the rent of those flats is brought about, if the rent can be arbitrarily put up on the basis of the cost to the purchaser, then it seems to me that the time has arrived when there should be some steps taken in regard to that.

The law does not allow that.

The Minister says that the law does not allow it. Well, I bring the matter to the attention of the Government. If I am incorrect, well and good. In South Africa we are in a position where rents claim too high a proportion of a man’s wage, and it is a matter affecting the question of social security. There is one other point in connection with this report, and that is the emphasis laid upon the necessity for the subsidisation of the consumer in regard to maize; I think it will be found just towards the end of the report. The council there stresses its recommendation that a maize subsidy to an approximate amount of £1,000,000 be applied to the benefit of the consumers next season. This recommendation is distinct from the food subsidy scheme proposed as a long term measure over the war period. And I am pleased to note that the Social and Economic Planning Council does emphasise the need for subsidising the food of the people affected: if we cannot immediately increase their wages, let us by all means improve the purchasing power of the small wage that so many of them are earning at the present time. I have said that there are difficulties to be met. We are told that social security can be achieved either by the distribution of the existing national income, or a combination of both. I think it would be possible to adopt a combination, to take them both. The gap between the extremely rich and the extremely poor must be lessened; that has been declared by the right hon. the Prime Minister. Some mode of re-distribution of national income will have to be achieved. It may be that income ceiling will have to be created and other measures considered, but it is a vital point in connection with the financing of social security. In regard to the question of the increase in national income I am very glad to note an indication by this Government of the principle that it will work on, which I interpret as supporting the view that capital should not be the master of industry or of our economy, but that it should be the servant of our economy. Capital has its place, but if all our industry, potentially and otherwise, is to be dominated by private interests, then, in my opinion there is no hope for advancement of full social security. We see the principle in the Fisheries Bill, which was put before the House a few days ago. We want that wedge to be driven further into our national life. There may be basic industries, or mineral propositions in South Africa, which would provide employment for thousands of our fellow-citizens, and for which a market could be obtained, but which are not being worked because the propositions are not sufficiently attractive to private enterprise. I want to put to this House that if such a proposition were worked at cost price, with the employees receiving a living wage, or even at a slight loss of, say, 5 per cent.—if thereby our national income were increased, it would be to the benefit of South Africa. I hope that the Social and Economic Planning Council will take this matter into consideration. In this connection I want to quote from a speech made by Sir Stafford Cripps, Minister of War Production in Britain. He said at Bristol the other day—

There is very little I wish to add to what I have said; I hope I have not wearied the House. I want to make one further point. I take it that in connection with Select Committee, there will be no objection to an interim report being submitted during the session, a report which will envisage the implementation of a practical step which will be to the public an earnest of the larger programme which is to come. I want to support the proposal of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) that the Minister of Finance should take into serious consideration the provision of an amount—he said £5,000,000—I would urge that it should be £10,000,000. We should have money available for any urgent proposals put forward by the Social Security Select Committee which commend themselves to the Government for its early approval.

In view of the serious problems which are being created on account of the war, and the further problems which may be created in the near future, problems which may perhaps assume serious dimensions, if energetic and practical steps are not taken, it must be clear to all of us today that something has to be done. All of us are in agreement on that. When we speak of those conditions we must all admit that our social economic system of today must be changed drastically so that it can be fitted in to the altered circumstances which will come about after the war. It is undoubtedly true that the people and especially the masses of the workers in the country are feeling uneasy today. The workers especially want to know what the post-war policy is going to be to give us a new South Africa; a South Africa in which the workers can have a happy life, a new South Africa in which there will be happiness and peace. In passing I just want to say that on a previous occasion a motion was introduced in this House by my Leader, a motion about social security. That motion in the main dealt with the provision of a full degree of social security, not merely for the people as a whole in this country but for every individual. The Prime Minister replied to that motion and what did he say? He said it was an election manifesto and it could not be taken seriously. Now, at this juncture I only want to say this. The elections are over, and that manifesto still stands. But the Prime Minister when speaking on that particular motion told us what his Party was doing, and what he was trying to do in the country, and the Prime Minister said that he was doing his best and that the Government was doing its best to bring about social security. He also said that the Government was giving its serious attention to the conditions prevailing among the people in this country. He went further and said: “We are doing a great deal now; the first thing we are doing is this—we have now appointed an Industries and Agricultural Requirements Commission to go into the work.” What has happened? Another commission has been appointed on the recommendation of that commission and the Planning Council has been established. That Planning Council has produced its report and states that after this war we shall only be able to absorb 15,000 people provided we start certain other industries in this country. The Prime Minister said that he doubts that part of the report. But there is another thing which he agreed to and that was the appointment of a further commission to tackle social security, a commission which would have to work under the Planning Council. The Prime Minister spoke again this morning. The Planning Council has produced its report, and where are we now? Now we are going to have a Select Committee again, and I charge the Government today with having no policy on the subject of social security and I predict that the Government is playing with fire. The worker is no longer satisfied; he wants something done. The conditions prevailing in the country today have to be solved, and we want to co-operate, but I want to warn the Prime Minister, and I want to tell him that after all the promises he has made here he will no longer be able to convince or pacify the public. I want to remind him of the promises he made at the time of the last war.

What was the result of the last general election?

I am not taking notice of remarks of that kind. I only want to say this—leaving out the Prime Minister’s political aims and objects—the Prime Minister in those days promised the workers a sort of paradise but when difficult times came and the workers started objecting to the Government’s policy, the Prime Minister stepped in and shot them down in the streets of Johannesburg. If these difficulties, these things we are faced with at present, are not solved in the near future, the Prime Minister may perhaps again get an opportunity of shooting down workers in the streets of Johannesburg. We have had a motion introduced here by the Labour Party. I want to say frankly that as far as I am concerned—and I think I have the support of my Party in saying this—that I cannot associate myself with that motion, and this is my reason for saying so: The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) introduced his motion very eloquently, but at the end he put this question: “Can one achieve these things under the present system?” And his reply to that question was “yes.” The hon. the Minister of Labour got up afterwards and said the very opposite. But we cannot blame them. Now I want to utter a word of warning at the address of the Minister of Labour. He should not talk like that in this House, he should not praise up the Government and then go to Johannesburg tomorrow and say: “I am dissatisfied with these people, I don’t trust them. While the soldiers up North are giving their lives, these people here are making money.” We heard what the hon. the Minister said only recently. He strongly attacked the United Party. I say that the Labour Party, as it is constituted today, and where it is sitting today, is so compromised by the capitalistic system that it cannot do anything for the worker. For the moment I want to confine my remarks to the worker, and having said that we do not believe in those promises I just want to add this. The Prime Minister, when replying to my Leader’s motion last year, kept the door open for himself, so that he would be able to get out, and today we see that open door here. He said: “The extent of the security measures we can provide will depend on what the country can do. The security measures we shall apply will depend on the productive capacity of the country.” The Government has for a considerable time been engaged spending the country’s wealth in a most reckless manner, and that process is still going on. We have heard during this debate that hon. members opposite have said that the war may go on as long as it likes, they are going to find the money for it. When the war is over and the time arrives to carry out those promises they will say the country cannot afford it. Under the present system one finds the greatest poverty and misery on the one side today, and on the other hand one finds wealth and luxury. We on this side of the House say that we want to distribute the riches of the country more evenly among the population, and that, I think, is also what the Labour Party has in mind. We aim at a proper division of the riches of the country and we now suggest that the Government must take the initiative at this stage and in the key industries under its control, it must let the workers share in the profits. If necessary, this may have to be extended to all the key industries, and now I want to draw attention to one of the biggest industries in this country — the gold mining industry? What is the position there today? I find that the Afrikaner who is working underground in the gold mining industry is not only giving his services and his strength but he is sacrificing his health and in the end he is giving his life, and what reward does he get for that? Now, my Party has come forward today and wants the worker to get a share. We propose that the mineworker shall share in the profits produced by that industry. It is no more than right. Surely it is not the capitalists or the people who have invested the money who produce the profits; we take up the attitude that the worker must be given an opportunity of sharing in the profits of that industry, but we go further. What is the position of the mineworker today? We have found dissatisfaction everywhere. We find that it has now been stated that a mineworker may contract miners’ phthisis after 19 years. My party takes up the attitude that we should stop the mineworker before he gets to that stage. We have not got the right to stand by while strong healthy Afrikaners are being mown down in their hundreds. Provision must be made to enable the mineworker to give up working underground after he has been working underground for fifteen years. The State must be held responsible for that. We want to suggest that if the mineworker contracts miners’ phthisis during the fifteen years he is working underground, he must be paid an adequate pension. These are a few of the big things we have in mind. We want the workers to share in the profits; we want to prevent their being mown down by miners’ phthisis, and we want to give them the right to resign after 15 years’ service. The Government has taken the responsibility of recklessly dragging us into a war, but when it is called upon to save the people it runs away from its responsibility. We go a little further. We do not only want the miners to have a share in the profits but we want those people to be protected against contracting phthisis. Now hon. members may tell me that an improvement has been introduced into the pension scheme. Let me give this House the assurance that the mineworker is not by any means satisfied with the pension scheme. We want the miner to be compensated for the industrial diseases which he contracts while working in the mine—and there are many industrial diseases which he can contract. When we speak of workers we on this side of the House understand that term to mean that in South Africa we are concerned with three classes of workers. First of all we have to deal with the white worker; we have to deal with the coloured worker, and we have to deal with the native worker, and we are now asking the Government to tackle these questions. Hon. members opposite agree with me on these points when I discuss them outside this House, but as soon as they come into this House they dare not associate themselves with my remarks. What we want is the delimitation of working areas. We want certain working areas for the Europeans, others for the coloured people, and others again for the natives. We on this side of the House feel the status of the white man in South Africa must be maintained. Now, as we have three classes of workers here, we do not want to be understood as saying that we want to do an injustice to the coloured man or to the native, but we have to admit that the white man in South Africa has reached a higher standard of civilisation, a higher level of civilisation, than the coloured man, and that the coloured man in turn has reached a higher level than the native, and for that reason we propose that there must be three levels of wages. We want to see to it that those three classes of workers — the whites, the coloureds and the natives — shall draw wages in accordance with their level of civilisation, that is to say the highest wage to go to the white man, the second highest to the coloured man and the lowest to the native. When we have got to the stage of having achieved that, I shall be told that things are again going to get difficult because employers are now going to use cheap labour instead of white labour. In order to prevent that my Party says that we must bring into being a quota system, and once we have such a quota system justice will be done to the white man, the coloured man and the native. A Central Wage Board has been mentioned here. I am very glad to notice that people not belonging to my Party have the same thing in view. What we have in mind is that the Central Wage Board will be responsible to the Government for what it does. It will be held responsible for the determination of wages. It will be held responsible for the regulation of labour conditions. It will have to determine where whites, coloureds and natives respectively will have to work, and we shall therefore have to place the onus on the Government. When we come to wages and labour questions the responsibility for the determination of wages rests on the Government. The Government must be held responsible for that. When I say that, my friends of the Labour Party and the English Press are usually ready for me and misinterpret what I say. For that reason I want to emphasise very definitely today what my Party’s policy is in this respect. We often have it thrown at us that this Party wants to destroy Trade Unionism in South Africa. That is absolutely wrong; my Party does not take up that attitude. That by no means is what we are aiming at. The Trade Unions will continue to exist under our system. I am prepared to admit that the Trade Unions under this liberalistic, capitalistic system are doing a tremendous amount for the workers. All that will fall away; we are now placing the responsibility on the Government for the regulation of wages as between employer and employee. That is all we say and hon. members will agree with me on that. We want the Trade Unions to carry on. The worker must be organised, but all we say is that the Trade Unions must be reformed. Most of those Trade Unions have got into the hands of people who today no longer have the interest of the workers at heart but who are engaged in preaching a foreign ideology in South Africa. I want to express the hope that this distortion which is continually indulged in in the Press in regard to my Party’s policy will now be discontinued. We are now proposing so far as our workers are concerned, that a big national pension scheme shall be brought into being, a scheme to which every worker will be entitled to contribute, so that he will have the right to a decent pension when he reaches the age of say 55 years. If that is done it will not be necessary in years to come to pay old age pensions. We recommend this and in doing so we are recommending something which has never yet been given to the worker. I want to conclude with these words: “We want for the last time to warn the Government that there is no time left to play with these matters. The Prime Minister said that demobilisation will take place one of these days. One of the Johannesburg newspapers recently stated that unemployment was increasing in South Africa, and that in consequence of demobilisation things were already becoming difficult. We therefore demand that the Government shall now take definite action without further delay, and that it shall not be allowed again to put off dealing with the problem.

I want to speak as a man who for some years already has been attempting to bring about the economic rehabilitation of a large section of our people; and here I naturally must take exception to what has come from the other side of the House, namely that they want to take all the credit for everything—so far as I know, I do not see among members opposite any of the faces which in the past, to which I am referring, had anything to do with the rehabilitation of part of our people— but as a man who has this matter very much at heart I was very glad on the first day of this session to listen to the motion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg); I was very pleased to listen to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), and to the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). What particularly struck me was the thorough manner in which those hon. members had prepared their case and laid it before the House. Particularly striking also was the seriousness with which this matter was tackled. I am, of course, not referring here to the arrogant, butcher’s methods of the hon. member for Durban Central (Mr. Derbyshire). It is quite understandable that there must and will be differences of opinion. Thus I feel for instance that the principal idea of the hon. member for Krugersdorp is nationalisation, that the main idea of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and of other members of the Opposition is isolation, and the White Paper lays most emphasis on high costs. But to my mind the golden thread of social security runs through everything. I must say, however, that my ideas today are in a state of confusion, after having listened to a number of the leaders in this House, and one feels that it is practically useless to say anything further at this late hour of the day. I am sorry that the debate at the end of the second day again degenerated into a party political quarrel. We have had that from all sides today. The leaders spoke on behalf of their political parties outside. I feel that this House has lost a golden opportunity of considering this matter from a national point of view, has lost a golden opportunity of treating it from that point of view and of solving it. One thing is certain and that has been made clear by the speeches of hon. members in this House, that this House to a very great degree is ready for social security. But it is outside that the great difficulty lies. The public outside are absolutely ready for social security. The articles in the papers, the establishment or foundation of social security codes, the expressions of opinion of the Prime Minister, the appointment of the Economic and Planning Council, and the establishment of the Social Security League—all these things go to prove that the country is ripe for social security. If we go beyond the borders of South Africa we find the same thing. New Zealand, Canada, Australia, all have to a great extent introduced social security—New Zealand has introduced it completely. We have heard of the Beveridge Plan here, the all comprehensive plan for social security which he has placed before the British Parliament. We have heard of the public expressions of the Prime Minister of Great Britain who has declared himself in favour of it. We know that countries like Chili, the Argentine and others, are all engaged in introducing social security legislation. It looks therefore as though the whole world is ready for social security. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as a result of certain happenings, the world became ready for the renaissance—the renaissance movement in turn led to the world becoming ripe for the reform movement. Then, after the happenings at the end of the eighteenth century, after the American War of Freedom, after the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars we find that the world gradually became ripe for Nationalism, and after that for Socialism. The happenings of the years 1914 to 1918 and the present war have made people ripe for social security. In other words, we have come to the stage of no longer regarding social security as a sectional affair, but as a philosophy of the nations. It is a movement in regard to which we have to be very careful. We have to prevent its becoming a political issue, because if it becomes that we are in danger of our choking to death in a turmoil of political strife. It is often said that war is the rich man’s business and the poor man’s fight, that the rich man always gets richer and the poor man has to do the dirty work. It is said that the poor man is the man who has to fight and suffer—the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We do not believe in this—and we saw evidence of that in the Press this morning when we read of a certain man in England who had handed all his possessions over to the State. We believe in this, that we have reached the stage where we shall change for the good under this social security movement or philosophy, and we are engaged in losing our prejudices, we are engaged in changing for something better our traditional conceptions arid the life we have led in past centuries—we believe that our thoughts are being turned in the right direction. In other words, we have learned to strive not merely for ourselves to the detriment of our fellow men, we have learned to strive not merely to achieve the best for ourselves in competition with others, but we have learned to strive for victory, for the good of our fellow men as well. In order, however, to lead this new philosophy to some practical conclusion, to convert it into some practical mathematical calculation, as somebody put it, several things are necessary, and several directions can be indicated. We find for instance that in Germany and Italy and certain other countries national socialism and the Fascist system has been introduced, in which the individual, education, culture, religion and human life are all subject to the behests of a Fuehrer or a Duce, or as we know them, dictators. Then, again, we find in Russia for instance, Communism, where everything is subordinate to the State. However beneficial or good those systems may be for those countries where they are in vogue, or however much they may be regarded as disastrous and destructive, we in any case believe that those systems are un-Afrikaans. We believe that we must maintain the democratic structure of our national life. We believe for instance that we must maintain the present position, we must uphold the needs of the individual, of family life and of the home as such. We must preserve these as the treasures of our national life and as the corner stones of our national existence. But it is all very well to talk of the preservation of democracy, and of maintaining the democratic structure in our national life. If democracy does not satisfy us it is time to convert it, to change it or do away with it. We need more than democracy to satisfy the rightful demands of the community created by conditions, created by the war, by education, by evolution and by culture.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 8th February.