(1)—(5) A conference of British and Dominion Prime Ministers, at which I hope to be present, will probably be held in London in the course of the next three or four months. I have no information at present as to the specific topics to be discussed but no doubt notice of them may be expected in due course. I have no reason to doubt that I shall be present in person to handle the votes in reference to my Departments, and an opportunity will thus be afforded to discuss any matters which may be raised at the conference.

I move—

This motion has been introduced in terms of the procedure laid down in the 1911 Finance Act. Under that Act the office of Controller and Auditor-General is created. The occupant of that office has a very important part to play in the administration of our finances. The law provides that the Controller and Auditor-General shall retire at the age of 60 unless both Houses of Parliament decide otherwise. A specific resolution by both Houses of Parliament to that effect is required. Mr. Smit, the official who has occupied the post for a number of years, reached the age of 60 last year. I, therefore, came to this House with a similar motion last year, and that motion was passed unanimously. Last year I mentioned two particular reasons for the adoption of such a resolution. I first referred to the excellent services rendered by Mr. Smit as a Government official over a period of nearly 42 years, and I particularly referred to his work in the exalted post of Controller and Auditor-General, where by his ability and impartiality, he gave complete satisfaction to all sections. I need not repeat today what I said last year about Mr. Smit personally. Secondly, I advocated the extension of Mr. Smit’s period of service on the ground of the war conditions prevailing today. By far the most important part of our financial control work today is in connection with defence, and the view was expressed last year on both sides of the House that it was not desirable to make a change in the post of Controller and Auditor-General in the middle of the war. Mr. Smit has rendered most valuable services also in connection with the control of our Defence finances, and the view has been expressed on both sides of the House that at this stage when several important matters are still pending in connection with war expenditure, we should not appoint a new Controller and Auditor-General. I, therefore, also mentioned the fact last year that after consultation it had been found that it was the wish of all sides of this House that Mr. Smit should continue to occupy this office for a further period of time. The extension which was given last year was for one year. In the ordinary course of events Mr. Smit would therefore have to surrender his post shortly after the session. The very same reasons for the extension of Mr. Smit’s period of office apply this year as last year, and for that reason, and also after consultation with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and others, I now again come to the House with a motion to the same effect as that which the House passed last year. I hope, therefore, that the House will be agreeable unanimously to decide that we may continue to use Mr. Smit’s valuable services. One looks upon him as a man who has to do important work in the interest of Parliament as a whole. He is a man whose services are not only of great value to the Treasury, as the department exercising control on behalf of the Government, but he is also a man whose services are of great value to Parliament, and as evidently it is the wish of both sides of the House that Mr. Smit should continue to act in that capacity, I hope this resolution will again be passed unanimously.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee and also on behalf of this side of the House I wish to associate myself with what has just been said by the Hon. the Minister of Finance. We who are members of that Committee can also testify to the fact that Mr. Smit is a competent watch dog to keep a check on the country’s expenditure. We can testify to his ability and we can testify to his impartiality. I also want to associate myself with what the Minister has said, namely, that it would be extremely undesirable at this stage, particularly in view of the heavy accounts for Defence for the war, now to make a change, as Mr. Smit is thoroughly familiar with and has shown that he keeps his eye on these matters. On behalf of this side of the House, therefore, we readily agree, and we are glad to agree to Mr. Smit continuing to occupy his post for a further period of time.

Motion put and agreed to.

brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to bring up a Bill to give effect to the resolution, submitting a Bill.

I move—

This Bill gives effect to a report which has already been adopted by this House. The Select Committee on Public Accounts having before it the report of the Controller and Auditor-General recommended to this House that provision should be made for certain items of expenditure, which for technical reasons had to be regarded as unauthorised expenditure in respect of the year 1942-’43. That report was laid before the House and was accepted by the House. It is now necessary in order to give effect to that report, for this Bill to be enacted and thereby for the expenditure incurred to be validated.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported the Bill without amendment.

Third reading on 10th February.

I move—

This is a Bill which is usually introduced at this stage of the session. The necessity for introducing a Bill of this kind is that it is normally impossible to pass the estimates for the forthcoming year before the end of the current year. That means that it is not possible to pass an Appropriation Act in respect of the year 1944-’45 before that year actually commences. Without an Appropriation Act we cannot spend any money at all, and therefore to cover the period between the commencement of the financial year and the enactment of the Appropriation Act, it is necessary to pass a Part Appropriation Act. Such an Act then tides us over that transition period. I said that it is impossible to pass the estimates and the Appropriation Bill for the forthcoming year before the end of March. I would remind hon. members that a great deal has to be done before the Appropriation Bill can be introduced. The budget speech has to be delivered; the budget debate has to take place; thereafter the House has to go into Committee on the Estimates; provision also has to be made where new taxation is levied, for the discussion of that taxation in Committee, and subsequently by way of Bills, and only finally at the end of all this can an Appropriation Bill be introduced. I have seen it suggested that it was contemplated that we might finish the financial work of this session by Easter this year, which would mean the 6th April, and then adjourn the House. Anybody who makes such a suggestion, or indeed entertains it must be completely ignorant of the way Parliament works. With the budget speech to be delivered on the 1st March, there is not the slightest possibility of the financial work being done before Easter this year. Certainly there is no chance of it being done before the end of March, and therefore it is necessary for this Bill to be introduced. Let me then go on to the question what the effect of the adoption of a Part Appropriation Bill is. Its purpose is merely to empower the Government during that transition period, to which I have referred, to carry on existing services. It does not empower Government to start any new services. A Part Appropriation Bill does not cover any new services—they have to be covered by the main Appropriation Bill. In other words the Part Appropriation Bill is not based on any estimate of the expenditure for the year 1944-’45. This Part Appropriation Bill is based on appropriations which have already been agreed to by this House in respect of 1943-’44, and the Government, if this Bill is accepted, will merely be empowered to carry on on the basis of the current year in respect of the transition period during the next financial year.

Does that include war expenditure?

Naturally, because war expenditure is included in the appropriations for the current year and we can therefore carry on with war services just as we can with agricultural or educational services, but we cannot under a Part Appropriation Act initiate any new services. In this Bill this year we have reverted to what used to be customary and we have based our request on the estimation that possibly Parliament will sit until June. It used to be customary to take three months’ supply; in the Part Appropriation Bills in the past few years we have only taken two months’ supply. One must take account of the fact that this is a new Parliament and we have not yet been able to assess the prolixity of the new members of this Parliament. We do not know how long the session will last and therefore to err on the side of safety we propose to take provision for three months. If the main Appropriation Bill is passed at an earlier stage, the Part Appropriation authority falls away and the Main Appropriation authority takes its place. I do not propose making a financial statement in introducing this Bill. It is not usual. We are not anticipating anything which would be contained in the Budget in relation to next year. I shall be introducing the Budget in the next few weeks and it would be inappropriate to anticipate what I shall say then; moreover, as far as the current year is concerned. I have already, in dealing with the Additional Estimates, intimated what the effect of these Estimates will be on the financial position. That being so it is not necessary to make any financial statement now and I therefore move that the Bill be read a second time.

This is a provisional measure to supply the Government with funds to enable it to carry on the government of the country, and has to be passed every year. It gives the Opposition and other members of the House the opportunity of discussing the Government’s policy in regard to one or other important matter which the Opposition and other members of the House consider urgent. The Opposition has in this session already introduced a number of motions on political matters, on matters regarding agriculture, on food control, on labour and on the subject of social security. Those questions therefore are already before the House and have either been discussed, or will be discussed on specific motions. We are also waiting for the Main Budget to put further financial proposals forward. We want to avail ourselves of this opportunity, however, to raise one matter which we look upon as being of considerable importance. It is a subject which is causing great uneasiness in the minds of a large section of the population, and which is creating ill-feeling in the country, giving rise to dissatisfaction; it is a matter on which the Government’s policy, in our opinion, is causing unnecessary suffering and sorrow to a section of the population. I refer to the question of internment. Before going any further, therefore, I wish to move the following amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance—

This is a subject which we particularly want to discuss today as well as some other matters. I sincerely hope the question will be discussed dispassionately, and that we shall consider it on its merits without rousing unnecessary feelings. We as a party want to state very clearly that ever since the beginning of the war we have been strongly opposed to any form of violence, sabotage, subversive activities and all the rest of it. We as a party have set our faces against that sort of thing, both publicly and privately. We have done so to such an extent that even within the ranks of the party itself our attitude has given rise to differences of opinion and difficulties, the particulars of which are known to the House. We have opposed these things. The Leader of the Party early in the war made an agreement with a certain organisation which the Government thought was con corned in acts of sabotage, and one of the main, if not the main point in that agreement, was that the party would not co-operate with that body unless it undertook, as it did undertake in writing, not to tolerate any subversive activities, or any acts of violence. Our party took up a very definite attitude. On the other hand, my party also took exception to the Government’s internment policy. We as a party took exception to it. I shall deal with the Government’s internment policy in more detail afterwards. May I just say while speaking of my party’s attitude, that it seemed strange to us that even prominent Government supporters and candidates in the elections, protected and played up to those self same people whom they had accused of subversive activities, simply to get their votes at the elections. It is a matter of great importance to the country that we should have peace and quiet in South Africa. It is bad for the country to allow feelings to be stirred up; it is bad for the country if there is any unnecessary feeling of resentment, or if a section of the population has to suffer unnecessary hardships or privations. It leads to excitement, unrest and dissatisfaction, and also to unnecessary suffering and sorrow. Whatever might have been said about the original internment policy of the Government, I think everybody will agree that that policy is not necessary today. We as a party have from the very start objected to the Government pursuing that policy. That policy, especially at the beginning, was an entirely arbitrary one. There was no question of sabotage or acts of violence, but the Government simply locked up people, not because they were alleged to have committed acts of sabotage, or acts of violence— they were interned solely because of statements they were alleged to have made. And we also know of the false charges made against those people. In some instances the Government has admitted that the allegations made were false. Well, those people were eventually released but the individuals who made the false allegations have not been punished; on the contrary, they have been allowed to continue doing the same kind of thing. Other members and myself have in the past given instances of the false and unfounded allegations made against those people, and also against myself. The Minister will recollect, the type of document that was put in against me about a so-called “Uniebond.” It was a false and forged document. The Minister himself admitted that it was totally false because it alleged that I had attended a secret meeting at Bloemfontein at the very time when I was a few hundred miles away from the place. We never opposed the Government’s internment policy where there was good reason for interning people. We said that if there was good reason for interning a man, if an individual had done anything wrong, and it was proved, we had no objection to his being interned. If a charge was brought against a man accusing him of having committed an act of sabotage or an act of violence, we advised the Government to have the man tried before a court of law. We said: “Give the man a trial, charge him, and give him an opportunity to defend himself.” But that was not done and people were simply interned without any trial at all. We also raised objections to the Government’s policy of interning young fellows who under the influence and guidance of others did certain things while the men who gave the lead and induced these fellows to do these things were allowed to go scot free about the country. There are many of these young fellows against whom nothing has been proved; yet they are kept in the internment camp simply because certain allegations have been made against them. But the people who have admitted that they were at the head of organisations which were out to commit acts of violence and sabotage, the people who have admitted having given orders to others to commit sobotage, those people are still going about the country and they have never been interned. That is what we object to. The Minister knows of these cases. Now, is it fair to do such a thing? Young fellows are locked up in the camp for three or four years merely because they belonged to a particular movement, but the leaders of those movements, the men who admitted in court that they had given orders for the commission of acts of violence — they are not interned. I say again that if a man commits acts of violence he should be tried and if he is found guilty he should be interned, but we feel that in these matters there has been a serious miscarriage of justice. Old men have been interned. Sick men, old men, were interned—and those men have been in camp for three or four years now. No charge of sabotage has been laid against them; the only charge against them is that they are pro-German. I am not speaking about foreigners—I am speaking only of Union citizens. I really feel that the Government’s policy is a policy of vindictiveness—vindictiveness on the part of the Government and also on the part of private individuals who by hook or crook wanted to get these people locked up. Professional men, doctors and others, old men, sick men, have been in the internment camp now for three years. On the other hand we have young men of 18 and 19 years who have also been interned for three or four years. They are spending the best years of their lives behind barbed wire. We have pointed these things out before. Let us assume for a moment that at the beginning of the war there was a certain amount of justification. I am not going to say to the Government today, “You did the wrong thing in interning certain people.” In certain cases the Government may have done the right thing. I have simply been pointing to the unfair actions committed by the Government, in those days. But whatever justification there may have been for that policy in the past I contend that there is no justification whatsoever for the Government detaining more than 200 Union citizens in the Koffiefontein camp today; there is no justification for the Government keeping those people behind barbed wire for three or four years. Look at what has happened in Great Britain itself. Mosley, the Leader of the Fascist movement in England, has been allowed out of the internment camp. England is right on the war front. We are 6,000 miles away from the front, in spite of which we find that our young men of 19 and 20 years and our old men of 65 to 70 years are kept in the camps— although there is no proof that they have tried to start a revolution, or that they have tried to commit acts of sabotage. Is it fair and just to do that sort of thing? We know that last year a number of these people were released; we are glad and grateful for it, but at the same time we say that no definite policy was followed where people were released. The previous Minister of the Interior promised us last year that the Government would review its policy. Well, a number of people have been released, but I still contend that the Government should have done what we asked it to do. It should have gone into all those questions again and on the merits of each case it should have decided which people should be released. Members on this side of the House occasionally approach the Chief Control Officer or the Minister and submit individual cases to them. We are grateful that they sometimes listen to our appeals, and that they have released some people. But what we ask now is this—if those people can be released, why does not the Government do it on its own initiative? Why must a member of Parliament first of all make representations and beg for the release of these people? If it is the right thing to release these people on the merits of the case, it should be done automatically. I say that large numbers of these people are detained on trivial charges; a number of men have been released of recent years—men against whom serious, very serious, charges had been made. I am not blaming the Government for releasing those men, I am glad they have been released. But why were these people released after influence had been brought to bear on their behalf, there were serious charges against them, while other people against whom trivial complaints had been lodged were not released? The Chief Control Officer has supplied us with a long list of those complaints. Let me give a few instances from this list. Here is one. A man is supposed to have got into a row in a bar and is alleged to have said to another man: “You should keep your mouth shut, Rommel will be here one of these days, and when he gets here he will catch you.” Now that man was released by the former Minister at my Request. Here is another case. The charge against this other man was that on one occasion while annoyed he said that England had murdered 27,000 women and children in the second war of independence, and that he was not going to forget it. Well, the Minister of Justice himself has said the same thing time and again. He has not been interned. Another charge made against a man was that he had said that people who were 86 years of age were being interned, and that that was evidence of the fact that England had lost the war. Those are the sort of things for which people have been interned. Another charge against a man was that he had written to someone asking him to correspond with him in German. Under the tutorship of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) I am learning Italian. He wrote me a letter in Italian this morning, and apparently the Minister can now intern us, too. It is stated in these official documents that these are the reasons why certain people were interned. And here is another charge against a certain man. It is said that this particular individual’s companions were principally Germans and that he had O.B. tendencies. Those are the type of charges made against people.

They should also have interned the Minister of Lands.

Yes. What about the negotiations which the Minister of Lands had about Beaufort West? Does the Minister of Justice know anything about the telegrams which were sent to Beaufort West? He is a dangerous man because his companions belonged to the O.B. and he negotiated with them. This is the type of complaint on which people are detained in the internment camp for three and four years. Surely it is inhuman. I say again that some of the men who have been let out had most serious charges made against them; and then we are told—that is a sort of excuse we are given— that these people can appeal. In this connection I just want to touch on one matter. When we complain about people being interned the reply given by the Minister and the Chief Control Officer is that they have a right to appeal. We are told that these people can lodge an appeal, but what is the actual position? These people are in camp for a year and eighteen months and they have to wait all that time before their appeal is even heard. I know of one instance where the appeal was heard after 18 months. Well, if in a case like that the man is released after his appeal has been heard, it means that he has been in the camp for 18 months, and I can mention any number of cases like that.

And then those people are told that their appeal has not succeeded. But in spite of that they are released.

Yes, that is so. People are told that their appeal has not been successful, but that the Government is going to be merciful to them and will release them. I have the case here of a man who was interned towards the end of October, 1942. He lodged his appeal in December, 1942. His wife wrote regularly every month to find out when his appeal was going to be heard, and now towards the end of last January, fourteen months after he had lodged his appeal, she got the following reply—that was the eighth time she got it—

She has had eight letters to the same effect. Is that right? Is it just? And that is only one case. I can mention any number of them. I say that this delay is nothing short of a scandal. The person who is interned has the right to appeal but he has to wait more than a year before his appeal is heard. I do not want to say anything about the treatment in the camps. Other hon. members who intend speaking after I have finished will deal with that aspect, but I want to say this to the Minister, that in these camps people are not only suffering physically but they are also suffering mentally. They are kept there and the only charge against them is that they have opened their mouths too wide. And they have not even said anything as serious as thousands of other people in this country have said. Much more serious things have been said on public platforms. Yet they are kept in these internment camps year after year; there is no way out for them. They are kept there day after day and we are inflicting mental suffering on those people which we have no right to inflict on any section of the population. If they have committed a crime, take them to court and punish them, but many of these people have no more committed acts of sabotage than I have done. They are suspected of something, that is why they are interned, while those who admit having given instructions for acts of sabotage have not been interned. I say it is unfair and unjust. These people are allowed to go freely about the country today, but if a man happens to carry on his correspondence in German, or happens to be O.B. minded, he is interned for years. I now want to refer to another matter which I have been asked to raise, so as to point to the kind of things that are taking place in these camps. I have a statement here from an interned man which I want to quote. I don’t know what the circumstances are, so I am only going to quote from this statement. I shall give the man’s name to the Minister afterwards. This is what is said in the letter—

And then he mentions the names of the sergeant and the staff sergeant.

I am not in a position to comment on this matter because I do not know the circumstances. In days gone by we have also had our troubles here in South Africa. In 1914 we had the armed rebellion when people rebelled against the State, and when, out in the veld shot at each other. These people were caught, they were brought before court, and sent to gaol. Gen. Botha’s Government, with another Minister of Justice, after a short while said that for the sake of peace and quiet in this country they would release these people. Now, these people had rebelled, they had fired at others out in the veld, and they were sent to gaol, but after a year or so they were released although they had been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Gen. Botha did not let them serve the full term of their punishment. A big women’s demonstration marched to the Union Buildings to request the. Government to release these people. The whole country was in uproar on account of these people having been sent to gaol. Gen. Botha and his Government released them after a short while and peace and quiet again prevailed in South Africa. Did we have a further rebellion? No, we had peace and quiet in the country. People cooled down. Today young men and old men are interned simply for opening their mouths too wide and saying irresponsible things. They have now been in camp for three or four years, so that their families are suffering great hardships. The public of this country are dissatisfied about this; there is no quiet and peace among them. We are now appealing to the Government, particularly to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, and we ask them to release these people. If we allow things to continue and leave these men in the camps they will come out labouring under a sense of grievance, a sense of resentment, against the State and their fellow citizens. Many of these people will come out of gaol mentally affected and broken, and it will take years to get them right again. Their families are in need today, and are ruined. They have practically nothing to keep them alive. Some of them have to depend on charity, because the little the Government gives them is not enough for them to live on. Will not the Government at this stage give favourable consideration to the question whether the time has not come to show mercy and to release those people? We ask the Government to open the camps and to let these people out. If there are people who have broken our laws, let them be apprehended and punished by our courts. Why must those young men spend their best years in gaol, or in the camps, while their life’s work still lies ahead of them? Do not hon. members realise that when they leave those camps they will be goaded by a feeling of resentment against the community. I am not excusing what they have done, and I don’t say that what they have done was right, but I do say that it is no longer necessary for the Government to persist in its attitude of the past. In our motion we ask that cases still pending against some people should be brought before our courts. We ask that those who have been tried by the courts and who have been found not guilty should be let out. The rebels in the last war who were found not guilty were released and were not interned. Did they cause any trouble afterwards? No, they turned into perfectly quiet citizens of the country. We go on to ask in our motion that these people shall be allowed to return to their ordinary spheres of employment. Most extraordinary things happen today when a man is released. A man is released and is allowed to go and live in a certain town or on a certain farm. He has to stay there; he sits there and he cannot get work. His family cannot exist. Why can he be allowed to live in Dorp “A” and not in Dorp “B”? He is allowed to live in Dorp “A” and to try and get work there, but he is not allowed to go to an adjoining dorp or town or any other place where he can get work. Some of these people are let out and they are told that they can go anywhere in South Africa to find work, but they are not allowed to stay in the town they come from, where their families are and where they can make a living. Why? What does it all mean? If the man again contravenes the law, take him and punish him, but why this unnecessary torture? There are instances of men who have to stay put on a farm, they are not allowed to go to a neighbouring farm to look after their father’s cattle, they are not allowed to go to their father’s farm even to drink a cup of coffee? Why not? Surely it is too ridiculous to imagine that that man may do some harm if he is allowed to go to the other farm? If he wants to do anything wrong he is going to do it nevertheless. These restrictions on these people after they have been released from the camps are unnecessary. If necessary let reasonable restrictions be imposed upon them, but not these impossible and unnecessary restrictions. In a few instances the Minister or the Chief Control Officer have relaxed the restrictions or removed them altogether, but why are these unreasonable restrictions maintained in so many cases? They are definitely unnecessary. The Hon. the Minister of Justice is a Freestater, just as I am. Together we have played our part in the history of our people. He and I have at different times watched the sufferings of our people in the Free State. We have seen these things, we have experienced them ourselves, and I have seen with my own eyes the effect of cruel and unreasonable behaviour on the part of the authorities. I know the detrimental results such behaviour may have on the people? The hon. the Minister knows what effect these cruelties may have on the future peaceful co-operation of the two sections of the population. In 1914 when men were put in gaol because they had gone into rebellion, his father, our beloved and esteemed old President, was the first man to plead with the Government for mercy. He said to the Government: “Do not act in such a way that the peaceful relations of the various sections in South Africa, may be detrimentally affected in days to come.” His father did not say: “Put them in the internment camps.” He said: “Let them come out, and show mercy.” We are turning to the Minister today; he is the man who can give the word, the Chief Control Officer comes under him. We turn to him as a Freestater, and we ask him as a son of the man who has won the love of the Afrikaner people, as the son of a man who has always stood for justice and mercy, to let these people out, and we say to the Minister: “Show that mercy today which at least as a Free State Afrikaner you owe your own people.”

I second. I am very glad the Prime Minister is also present in the House. In moving this amendment we have not come here with the intention of quarrelling with those on the Government side, but we have come here to plead the cause of those people who, we are absolutely convinced, are being unjustly treated today. As hon. members have seen, there was a motion on the Order Paper in my name on this subject. But as our Party considered the matter to be so urgent, we have withdrawn that motion and we have come here today to bring this matter to the notice of the House by means of this amendment. I am glad of the opportunity I have been given to second the amendment, and I want to emphasise the reasons on which the plea put forward by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) is based. If ever there was a subject before the House deserving the most sympathetic consideration of a Minister it is this question of the internment of Union citizens. And what is more, never before has a Minister in this country had a better opportunity of being really great in spirit and heart, of doing a really great and noble action, than this Minister. He can do so by accepting our amendment. This amendment also gives the Minister of Justice a golden opportunity not only of putting an end to a condition of affairs which in the light of the conditions and facts at our disposal cannot possibly be defended, but it also gives him the opportunity of putting an end to a great deal of sorrow and misery, and thus contributing his share towards bringing about a better spirit in this country. What are the conditions today? England, the country which declared war, England, the country which is carrying on the war, which is primarily interested in the war, England, the country which is within the danger zone of war, England, which at this period, when the whole world is awaiting the success or the failure of the promised invasion of Western Europe — England at this stage, at this critical stage, as shown by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) comes to the fore and changes its internment policy. South Africa, on the other hand, which is only a participant and a helper, which is far away from the war zone, but which is largely a spectator, and outside of the actual danger of war, still keeps 376 Union citizens locked up in an internment camp! What scenes do we see enacted here? Are right and justice being maintained? The internment camps are the bitter fruit of the war itself — supported and built up by emergency regulations. But the war is speeding to an end and already is far away from our borders. What justification then is there at this stage for continued internment of Union citizens on a large scale? At the beginning, when feelings were running high there may from the point of view of the Government, still have been a degree of justification for this step, but today the Minister will have to admit that the time has arrived for the general release of these people. All that is necessary today is for the Minister of Justice to show the same courage as his colleague in Great Britain has done. Like his colleague in England he will also meet with opposition from his own ranks, but we want to express the hope that his moral courage and human feelings will conquer, and that he will stand his man and will do what is best in the interest of all. The release of Union citizens who are in the internment camps today is in the interest of the country itself. The release of these people will mean that more labour will be available. There are 376 Union citizens in the camps today—people hailing from the best families of our society, people who can render most useful services to the country. They are being guarded by hundreds of soldiers, at a time when the Government, is still in need of soldiers. Why cannot the Minister employ those people, who are now spending their time in useless occupations, elsewhere, where they can be of far more use; why cannot they be employed elsewhere rather than keep them here to guard their fellow Union citizens? The release of these people will also bring with it more revenue for the country. These people who today are unable to earn anything for themselves and their families will be in a position to make a living. Their release will bring about greater independence to families who today are practically living on charity. They will once more be able to become independent citizens of the State. The release of these people will also mean great financial savings to the country. In reply to a question which I put to the Minister a few days ago he said that South Africa in 1942 spent about £84,000 on the internment of Union citizens, and today, when there are fewer people in the camps, we are still spending about £65,000. Are we entitled to spend such an enormous amount of money, to keep our own citizens locked up in camps? Their release will furthermore be in the interest of the country, because it will create greater contentment. We do not know whether the Minister himself is familiar with the degree of dissatisfaction prevailing among the families of people who are interned today. Let me mention the case of one poor woman who can hardly make ends meet on the trifling amount at her disposal. This woman goes to Pretoria every month to plead for the release of her husband. When she gets there she is told: “Yes, we are seriously considering letting your husband out on parole.” I myself, half an hour after this woman was given that reply, called on the Minister and I pleaded for her husband, and the Minister replied: “It’s no use our even talking about that case”. That sort of attitude is bound to cause tremendous dissatisfaction. The release of Union citizens will also be in the interest of the country, because it will mean that right and justice will be done, as shown by the mover of the amendment. Now, I want to deal with the differentiation in cases in which parole has been granted. If they are all equally guilty, then I want to know why they are not all, on being released, put under the same conditions? I know of the case of one man who was interned. He is out of the camp today; we are glad he is out, and we want to thank the Minister for having let out people on his own initiative, and we also want to thank him where he has let out people as a result of representations made to him. But if a man is placed under such restrictions that he cannot make a living, surely then it is not in the interest of the country. I have in mind the case of one of our most highly qualified men in the Cape—he is employed today on road making. Is that in the interest of justice? That is why we are pleading with the Minister of Justice today and why we are asking him to be big and generous and open the gates. The release of the internees will not in any way endanger the safety of the country—it cannot do so. In the Cape Peninsula we notice that crime has increased by 60 per cent. according to a Departmental investigation. The position is really dangerous, yet the Minister releases gaolbirds wholesale. If he can open the prison doors at a time when there is this serious increase in crime, then surely he can release the Union citizens who are locked up behind barbed wire. The release of those people surely will not be a danger to the community. There is further evidence too in support of our contention that the release of these people will be no danger. Many of these people have already been released— some are quite free, others are out on parole, and the Minister will have to admit that these individuals have faithfully carried out the conditions of their release, and that they have not caused him or his department any worry. We hope the Minister is not going to mention some exception where there may have been trouble. We are speaking about the subject as a whole. He knows and he will have to admit, that those who have been let out are a sort of guarantee for those who are still in the camps. The third reason why the release of these people will not be a danger to the country is because today there no longer is any question of sabotage. When these internments took place, imprudent acts were committed under the leadership of the wrong people. In 99 out of 100 cases the people who landed in the camps were led by wrong people. In those days, from the point of view of the Minister, one could still understand his argument. But today acts of sabotage are no longer committed, and it is not in the country’s interest that our own citizens should be detained behind barbed wire. I assume the Minister is not going to say that it will be dangerous to release those people. In those circumstances I ask why we have to go to so much trouble to get these people free? Why is it that in some cases it takes months before parole is granted? The previous Minister in charge of internment, who is now Minister of Social Welfare, repeatedly stated that people were interned not with the object of punishing them, but solely to restrict them in their movements. Why then must we go to all this trouble to get these people out on parole? Their movements would still be restricted, and in that way the conditions laid down by the Government would be complied with. If we look at the facts which we have with the best will in the world, we cannot accept the statement that these people have been interned only to restrict their movements. There is something much more than that behind it. The Minister must not take it amiss if with all the facts before us, and in view of all the circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the conditions created by the war have been exploited in a most shameful manner. The release of the internees will be a benefit to the country— an asset to the country as a whole. Perhaps I say too much if I use the expression, “an asset to the country as a whole,” because it will not be in the interest of certain highly placed officials who are occupying fat war jobs connected with the internment policy. If we look at the camps and if we look at what is going on throughout the country, we can come to only one conclusion, and that is that these jobs are jobs kept for keymen. Rather let those keymen go to places where their services can be more usefully employed, where they can do something of value for the country. Perhaps it will not be in the interest either of those people who have big fat contracts. All the people concerned —from the soldiers standing guard to the man running a store—make something out of it. It is only costing the country a lot of money, and it is causing bitterness, loss of prestige—those are the results of the unworthy policy that is pursued here. We cannot allow this policy to go on. We also second this amendment because of the conditions inside as well as outside the camps. First of all we should draw the Minister’s attention to certain things that are happening outside the camps. We know, and he knows, that feelings are being unnecessarily stirred up outside the camps. He knows, as the hon. member for Winburg has stated, that the internees have been taken away from their domestic life, and from their spheres of employment, and have been sent to interment camps and that they have perhaps had to wait a year before getting a reply to this so-called appeal. And then they are suddenly told—and I know of such cases—that their appeal has been rejected. In know of the case of a man—I received a letter from him today—whose appeal was turned down, and he was told that his release could not be recommended at that stage— yet within a week he was suddenly released. These conditions are intolerable, they only stir up feelings and causes bitterness and resentment. As we are on the eve of important happenings in this world and as we have reached the stage when we as a people should start giving our attention to matters affecting our continued existence as an independent, self supporting nation, we must see to it that all the manpower at our disposal is used. Some of the best brains in this country are locked up in the camps, and instead of being able to use their services for the benefit of the country those people are being goaded into a feeling of resentment and hatred. Outside the camps we come across numerous cases where the domestic life of families has been totally destroyed. How many cases do we not know of, where the children are still small, and the father sits in a camp, and the mother is in dire straits with insufficient money at her disposal to give the children the education they are entitled to, and which they should have. We know of many instances where people have been totally ruined financially. The Minister himself knows of people who used to have excellent flourishing practices or businesses, and who in an inexplicable way for inexplicable reasons have landed in the interment camp, and who are today completely ruined financially. When eventually they leave the camp, world conditions may be worse than they are today, and with those conditions facing them, they will have to make a fresh start. Instead of being an asset to the State these people will be a burden. There are many things which have the effect of upsetting us. We think of mothers and daughters and the conditions under which they have to visit their husbands or their fathers. When they go to the camps they are taken along between guards with fixed bayonets, they are taken from one corner to the other—sometimes in the presence of guards who are under the influence of drink. I don’t even want to talk of the sneering and insulting remarks that are made to these noble mothers and daughters. These people are subjected to the deepest humiliation. It is for these reasons that we are pleading for to this condition of affairs to be ended. I also want to urge the Minister to change the intolerant regulations in respect of visits to the camps by members of a man’s family. The breadwinner of a family is in the camp. The wife has to do the best she can to make ends meet. Perhaps she has some employment which enables her to earn sufficient to clothe her children and give them an education. She makes application to be allowed to visit her husband in camp. Do hon. members know that they are only allowed once every three months to visit their relations? So they go to visit their husbands, or their fathers, at the end of the one period of three months, so that they can go again at the beginning of the next three months. In that way they are sometimes allowed to visit the man at an interval of fourteen days. For fourteen days the woman cannot attend to her work—she cannot earn any money during that time to keep her family going. For fourteen days she has to stay at Koffiefontein. Why? Does not it make one think it is pure and deliberate malice? Why must these people be treated in that way? Why are they not allowed to visit their relations on two successive days? Koffiefontein is a small platteland town full of soldiers’ families, with every available house and boarding establishment filled to the brim. These visitors are thrown on the streets. We want to appeal to the Minister’s human sentiments and ask him to put an end to these scandalous conditions. We plead for improvements. If these men have to be detained, why must their relations be made to visit them in such an unsympathetic atmosphere? The visitors have to go into a small room which looks like a gaol cell. There is a hard bench and a table in the room and a soldier is posted immediately opposite the door. In the presence of a stranger these people have to meet each other in these unsympathetic surroundings, and those are the conditions under which they can talk to each other. That kind of thing is cruel, to say the least of it. Now, I want to say a few words about conditions inside the camp. Inside the camp we get conditions so bad that I cannot describe them. Last week I visited an internee so that I might discuss his case. Before he could see me, however, he had to have medical treatment—he was so weak; he was exhausted and he could not come to me. After he had recovered a bit I asked him what was wrong with him, and he replied: “I don’t know.” I asked him what the doctor said and his reply was that the doctor did not treat him, and that the doctor never came to see him. If one meets cases of that kind and the type of case which the hon. member for Winburg has mentioned, where a man was assaulted in the office of a camp commandant, in a most disgraceful manner, one must feel that there is something wrong somewhere. One must feel that in this war which is supposed to be fought for freedom and civilisation, there is something wrong, if people are to be treated in this way, and are to be put into cells, as we have described. To put it mildly it is disgraceful. So far as the food is concerned I don’t want to say much. I have a return here showing the food dished out to those people over a period of eight days. One can say that they get enough food—perhaps they do not get enough but if one sees what they get and the condition it is in when they get it, one cannot say that they are well treated. Vegetables are an absolute necessity, especially for people who have to live under the conditions under which the internees have to live, and if we study this diet sheet we find that they get very little in the way of vegetables, and what is more, they only get one kind of vegetable at a time. They either get pumpkin by itself or beetroot by itself, and when they get it it is in a very bad state. The Minister has told us that there are 376 people in the camps; they get 71 pints of milk per day. They get 3½ lbs. to 4 lbs. of tea per day. But my chief complaint is about the quality of the meat supplied. I make bold to say that in no compound in South Africa is a poorer quality of meat supplied than is supplied to the internees in the Koffiefontein Camp. You cannot get a single old sheep on any auction sale. Every old ram is bought up by the man who supplies meat to the camp. One day a lot of sheep passed my farm, and when the native driving the sheep came back one of my boys asked him what had become of the sheep. His answer was: “They have already been slaughtered for the internment camps.” Well, all I can say is that I doubted whether those sheep would be able to walk the five miles to the camp. It is a crying shame to see the kind of meat those people are given. If I had the time I could have read out to the House on how many days the meat has arrived in such a bad condition that the people in the camp have refused to eat it. Furthermore, fresh fruit is never supplied by the authorities. The only fresh fruit they ever get is that which some of us on this side of the House send them. Will it surprise hon. members in the circumstances if I tell them that the internees last year spent more than £3,000 of their own money on food? This should prove that things are wrong—that conditions prevail there which should not be allowed to prevail. Now I want to say a few words about the medical treatment of the people in the camp. We should like to know from the Minister who and what the camp doctor is, where he has practised, and what kind of a practice he had—is he the type of man to whom the health of such a large number of people can be entrusted? I do not want to mention any names, but I am going to mention a number of instances. I have the case here of a man whose bowels as the result of an operation for appendicitis, became attached to the lining of his stomach; as a result of a high fever he suffered terrific pains and when the doctor was called in, that doctor knew so little that he would not diagnose. The doctor simply said that the man had better wait until the next day when he would see him again. Next day the man was in such a weak state that he had to be taken to hospital on a stretcher. His condition was critical. I have another case here of a man who hurt his ankle. That man had to lie in hospital for four days without any treatment and after that he was taken to Kimberley in the back of a bumping car for X-ray treatment. Imagine the pain that man might have suffered if he had any broken bones. And here we have another case of an aged person who has been in the camp for three years and who suffers from diabetis with the result that he is very fat. The sugar content goes up as high as 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. He was treated with insulin by the camp doctor with hopeless results, and yet that man is still kept in the camp and is refused his release. I just want to mention one more case. A man who is now in hospital was treated with oil and powder by this alleged camp doctor for eighteen months for a stabbing pain in his ear. After eighteen months he was sent to Pretoria and he is now to be operated on for a mastoid—and there is very little hope of his recovery. Well, I leave it at that, I am now going to mention something which makes one’s blood boil—it makes one furious to see the way one’s fellow Afrikaners are treated. When these people are taken to the hospital in Pretoria, they have to wear their camp clothes and not their own clothes, and do hon. members know what those camp clothes are? They wear ordinary blue drill trousers—trousers which a man would not wear in his own home, with veldschoens. Those clothes after six month’s wear, are sold in the towns, but not even a kaffir on the farm would wear them. And those are the clothes which these Afrikaners have to wear when going to Pretoria. And when the internees get on the train their clothes are taken off. The man has to travel practically naked—he only wears his underclothes, if he has any— and his other clothes are handed to the guard for custody. This is a punishment imposed on all because a patient some time ago succeeded in escaping. These things make a man hot. Now I want to leave that point and I want to say a few words about the dentist—who is just as offish and unpleasant a person. I don’t know whether that is the Department’s usual custom, but when he has to put in a permanent filling for an internee he requires the man to pay for it, although the internee has no income whatsoever. And then the man’s work is dirty. He works in one person’s mouth and uses the same instruments in the next one’s mouth without first cleaning them, with the result that any number of people have simply walked out of his chair. If an internee’s artificial teeth break the man has to pay for them himself, and it takes three months before he gets them back, if he does get them back at all. In regard to housing we know that they have these corrugated iron huts lined with wood, and cement floors. Old men have to live in those huts. I have details here of the case of a man of 66 years of age who has been there since December, 1939. There is another one who is 61 years of age, and yet another one who is 58. These people are the citizens of our country, they are our own people who have to live under those deplorable conditions. Now, when we come to the camp area we find that it occupies three morgen with a maximum length of 820 yards, and on that bit of land there are 34 houses, each 40 ft. x 18 ft. Then there are the dining room, the kitchen and the workshed. They occupy 1,200 square feet. The area that is left is 200 yards by 33 yards, and that is used for exercise and for parades. The drainage is left to chance, and if it rains the camp is just a quagmire. I wish I had the time to tell the House what happens in regard to the delivery of parcels. It is absolutely impossible for an internee’s wife or mother to send a parcel of foodstuffs direct. These people are not given any help at all; they have no civil rights. They are not allowed to vote, but in spite of that they are compelled to pay their personal and income taxes. Is it, fair? We know of cases where protests have been addressed to the Minister and we know of letters that have been written to the Minster. Those letters are held up by some official or other and never reach the Minister. I can mention the day and the dates of letters written to the Minister, and it has been six months before a reply has been received from the Secretary for the Interior. Now I come to the Court which holds sittings in the camp. Well, we say that in South Africa we have a civilised country and a civilised government; yet here we find a court of justice which has its sittings in the camp, but the internee is not given an opportunity of calling witnesses to assist him in the defence of his case. In spite of that if the man is found guilty, he is put in the “cooler” as it is called, for four weeks. Now, the cooler is a corrugated iron cell 7′ x 7′ x 3′6″. In winter a man is not allowed to have more than two blankets, and in summer—well, we have Dr. Mazzacuratti’s statement that after he had stood in the cell for four minutes and had bent down he could write his name on the floor with his sweat. We want to make an appeal to the Government not to treat our people in this way. Let the Government put an end to this sort of thing, once and for all. I don’t want to talk today about the reasons for the internment of these people. We have talked about that before. We want to make an appeal today to the Government and especially to the Prime Minister to give effect to the promises he made to the representatives of the churches, that he would release all those whose detention is no longer necessary. The Minister will agree with me that in the great majority of cases detention is no longer necessary. We ask the Government to give effect to that promise. We ask for the complete release of the internees, and if that cannot be done, at least those who have not committed acts of sabotage should be released. If that also is impossible we ask that they shall be released on parole. We want to appeal to the Minister to put an end to this suffering, this intolerable and impossible position in which these people are placed. It is an injustice which cries out to the heavens. It is a state of affairs so bad that even the outside world would be horrified if it knew of it.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

This side of the House feels constrained very definitely to make a most urgent and most courteous request to the Hon. the Government for the release of Union citizens who are today detained in the camps. We want to draw attention to a few points. There are some Union citizens who have been in those camps for four years. It means that although ordinary criminals who, since the time those people were interned, have been sentenced and since released, those Union citizens after four years are still detained in the internment camp. What does it mean to all intents and purposes? It means imprisonment for life. We feel this is most iniquitous. We definitely feel that even if they did commit an offence they have been punished quite sufficiently by now. The Government in power today should not lose sight of the fact that although it is in power it is still the father of this country, and surely it should show mercy to those who have committed an offence? These young men in the camps are mostly young fellows, men of 21 years of age and over, young men who committed certain acts out of a spirit of adventure. They do these things, as young men will. Many young fellows, members of the Nationalist Party, have joined the army, and if we ask them why they joined up their reply shows that it was a spirit of adventure, the spirit of romance, which caused them to do so. They wanted to do something. They have no background as yet and they really do not know what they want. Inspired by the spirit of adventure many of these young fellows have done and said things which have got them into trouble, but does that justify their being locked up and detained for such a long time? There is another matter which I very urgently want to impress upon the Minister, and that is this; that the Italians, enemies of the British Empire, who definitely did fight against Great Britain and the Allies, although they are not quite free today, are free to a very large extent. They are employed on farms, and in a way, from the point of view of freedom, they are better off than our Union citizens. Now let us compare the offences committed by our Union citizens with those committed by the Italians. I say it is unthinkable that an enemy subject should have greater freedom in our own country than a son of the country. I say it makes us feel ashamed. I would have agreed with the Government if South Africa’s safety were still in danger, but we are no longer in danger. When the Abyssinian campaign was on, and when the country was threatened by the Japanese, it was dangerous to let hotheads go about freely, but where is the danger now? There is no fighting in this country, and surely the Government does not want us to believe that it is afraid of 300 or 400 people who have opened their mouths too wide? Where is our law, where is our police, and where is the Government which has to maintain law and order? If the enemy had invaded this country I would have said that it was perfectly correct to lock up these people, but now that the enemy is 6,000 miles away from our borders, and now that the country is no longer threatened I want to know why these Union citizens are stilled detained? I consider the Minister and the Government should realise that the punishment has been amply severe. Last year I succeeded in getting a young man released from the camp, and I was grateful to the Minister when he agreed to let this young fellow out. The man is a young teacher. He was a graduate with excellent prospects in life. He has the M.A. and other degrees behind his name and the Minister was kind enough to release him, for which I am very grateful. The Minister, however, told me—it was the former Minister of the Interior—that this young fellow had not done much harm, but that his wife was a hothead and an O.B.! None the less that young fellow had to spend a year or two in camp! Anyhow, the Minister realised the justice of my request and released the man. That young fellow today is living on a farm near Johannesburg where he and his wife are working and living from hand to mouth. He has never been restored to the position he previously held, and which enabled him to make a decent living. We feel it is most unfair to deprive such a young man of his livelihood, and then to put the blame on his wife. Now I want to refer to another point. A few years ago a certain parson was sentenced here for high treason. It was the Rev. Mr. Vorster, and rightly or wrongly he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He served his full time and he is now free again and back at his work It seems to me that it is very much better to commit an act of high treason than to make a few remarks of the kind for which people are being interned. I want the Minister to bear that in mind. If I had the choice, before opening my mouth too wide, I would rather commit high treason, because I would get out of gaol sooner then. The Rev. Mr. Vorster is free. Very much more free than the young fellow I mentioned— this young fellow got into trouble simply because his wife was either right or wrong in what she said. We want to draw attention to these few points. The Nationalist Party did its best to stop trouble from the very start. Let me mention what I did. In 1914 I assisted in organising a rebellion. I was young and inexperienced but in 1939 I took up a totally different attitude and when I got back to my constituency I addressed no fewer than two committees. They spoke about going into rebellion at once, and what did I do? I calmed them down; I stopped them. And whenever I found that people were taking the wrong course I personally went to them and explained that they were committing suicide, and that they must not, and could not do these things. Wherever we could we stopped them and I think it is due exclusively to the Opposition that the country in the past few years has been so quiet and undisturbed. I have in mind what happened with the police in Johannesburg. I recently asked the) Minister to be merciful towards a young fellow from Nam aqualand who was arrested in Johannesburg. He is a young policeman, he is not yet 25 years of age. He has already been in camp for two years. I can assure the House that this boy comes from very simple people who are perfectly peaceful, also illiterate—he himself has not had much, education. Possibly he followed the lead of others. Why he did so we do not know. What danger does such a young man, constitute now to the State? In spite of everything the Minister has refused to release him. I made an offer to the Minister to stand security for this young fellow, even if he had to come and work on my farm. His father is old and he is on his farm; he has to attend to his cattle himself because he cannot get any coloured labour. Cannot this son be allowed to go to Namaqualand to herd sheep? Is he really a dangerous man? If the enemy were on our borders and if he were dangerous, one could understand the Government taking some action, but the time has now come for the Minister to reconsider the whole question. We on this side are prepared to go to this extent—at least I am—that as regards our young fellows we are prepared to guarantee that when they are released, they will do nothing wrong. I want to ask the Minister with all the earnestness that is within me to release those 375 Union citizens. The fact that we are putting up this plea means that to a certain extent we bind ourselves as guarantors for those 375 people. We know that they cannot do anything and will not do anything. They are not criminals, and they do not deserve to be imprisoned for life. Assuming the war lasts another ten years, does the Government intend detaining them for another ten years. No, let the Government be merciful; that is all we are asking. I know it does not only rest with the Minister of Justice to decide, but that it is the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet who have to decide in regard to such a matter, but let them make a friendly gesture; it will certainly make a good impression on this side of the House. If the Government does not do so I do not say that there will be trouble, but I say that a grievance and a feeling of resentment will be created, which could easily be avoided. If the Government has sound reasons for wanting to punish these 375 men, and for detaining them, let the Government tell us what those reasons are, but the fact is that those people are detained in camp without ever having been sentenced. They have never been tried by a court. A great many of them were interned without a trial. The criminal and the murderer had a better opportunity of being tried, of being sentenced and of serving his sentence than this small crowd of Union citizens who are in the Koffiefontein Camp and who ask: “What real harm have we done”? They are quite prepared to bear the consequences of anything they have done. Why does not the Government show a sense of fairness towards them? The Government can, no longer be justified in keeping these people there without trying them.

I have listened attentively to the speeches from the other side of this House and to the reasons for the introduction of their amendment. I listened attentively to the speeches and I merely want to put this question: Do hon. members over there differ today from their Leader, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) or not? The people who are interned are the people he stigmatised as saboteurs and betrayers of the country.

That is not so.

Let the Leader of the Opposition himself deny it. Today hon. members come here and hold up those people to the country as noble citizens, as men who should enjoy full civil rights in South Africa. Let hon. members put the question to themselves, did not those people get into trouble and land in the camps and gaols as a result of the deception practised by that side of the House? They are responsible, and now they ask for mercy. They should have been merciful when they misled those poor young fellows. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) is willing to guarantee the character of those people. Is he not the man who in the dining room of this House of Parliament put up his hand and called out “Heil?” What does his guarantee amount to? He reached out his hand to Hitler. Let him now reach out his hand to Hitler and ask for mercy for the people who are in the concentration camps. Hitler is the man to whom he called, and he and his friends encouraged the young men in this country to commit these acts. They should blame themselves. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) himself stated that he knows there are people who are guilty, who have committed offences, and who are now in the camps.

On a point of explanation: I never said such a thing, I never said that I knew that those people were guilty.

Then the hon. member for North East Rand should not say that.

Then I withdraw it, but I thought the hon. member drew the attention of the House to the fact that there were people who had to undergo punishment because they had committed offences.

The hon. member persists in asserting that I said something which I did not say.

The hon. member must accept the word of the hon. member for Winburg that he did not say anything of the kind.

I accept it. Does the hon. member say that all those people who are interned today and who are being detained are innocent? What right has he to say so? Is he the man to deliver judgment as to what these people have done? Is he the man who is entitled to get up in this House and declare that those people are being illegally detained, as his seconder said? Did not their followers, when De Klerck and Visser were sentenced to death for the murder of a man at Benoni, prepare with violins and concertinas to give them a great reception if they should be found not guilty —did not 400 of them prepare to give them an ovation? Were not those people their supporters? Is it not their supporters who give parties and “braaivleisaande” when internees are released? That is the way in which people are being encouraged. Has any hon. member over there ever spoken of the murders that might have been committed? Do they remember that 60 miles of electric line between Witbank and Potchefstroom were blown to bits, do not they realise that 20,000 or 30,000 white people might have been murdered when that happened? Have they ever said anything about that? Have they ever said anything about the trains that were blown up, the buildings, the bioscopes, the 500 or 600 people in them —do they realise that thousands of women and children might have been innocently murdered? Have they ever said a word about that? No, these people are the ideal citizens whom Hans van Rensburg referred to as the ideal citizens of the Union after the war. Why do not they disapprove of that kind of thing? Why do they make it appear that the Government is acting in an illegal and dishonest manner by detaining innocent people? Did they hold meetings to say that it was a disgrace when certain people were sentenced to death? The hon. member for Namaqualand talks of Italians who are today enjoying their freedom in this country. Let me tell the hon. member that the Italians who are enjoying their freedom today had the courage of their convictions and took up arms and fought. They did not crawl and creep about at night in the dark to slay women and children treacherously. Let hon. members remember these things. Do hon. members over there realise that the young men who are today fighting for our freedom and for their freedom and their protection are also fighting for the protection of the traitors who are being detained today? Have they ever put up a plea on behalf of the dependants of these people who are fighting for our freedom today? No, the more people that are caught the better they like it because it gives them and their allies a better chance of victory. But we hear nothing about that. This is the first time hon. members have got up and approved of the treason and crimes which have been committed. I want to say very briefly that while I am in favour of traitors being detained I do not think nearly enough of them have been detained. If the hon. member for Winburg had made the speech which he made here today in Germany I wonder what would have happened to him? He talks about people being detained because they are pro-German. I say openly and frankly—and I have never concealed my feelings—that if I had any say the hon. member for Winburg would never have been allowed to make the speech which he made here today. After the remarks he has made he himself would have been detained. And let me say further, that they are not going to achieve anything by their speeches. When they put up a plea on behalf of those people they make us suspicious, and the result will be that these people will be detained for a still longer period. The hon. member who seconded the amendment talked of the feelings which were roused in the country because of the detention of a crowd of traitors. I want to tell the Minister that if he complies with the request of the other side to release a crowd of traitors and saboteurs, he may get the approval of the other side of the House, but he will cause a lot of bad feeling on this side of the House which is entrusted with the government of the country. We are not going to tolerate it. I am one of those who has been in danger, and many of us have been threatened directly or indirectly with our lives because of the active part we have taken in these matters in the past. Let hon. members opposite give better advice to their followers, let them do something for the protection of Afrikanerdom, and if they do that they may expect more mercy. We are still living in a time of war and I am of opinion that the authorities in this country have shown greater mercy than in any other country in the world. There are numbers of people in this country who, if they had done the things in Germany which they did here, would have been put up against a wall and shot, and not one of those hon. members over there would have the right in Germany today to say what they have been saying here.

We have this morning been listening to a debate here, which to my mind has been conducted on a level which deserves of the attention of all sides of the House, and I only want to express the hope that when the Minister gives his official reply to the debate he will not allow himself to be dragged down to the level to which the hon. member who has just sat down has brought the debate. I do not want to say a word about him, except this, that at one stage he also was a rebel. There was a time when he adopted the same attitude as we are adopting today; there was a time when he also pleaded the cause of his own people. A prominent individual, a Hollander, once said: “Laag acht ik hem die zijn eigen verleden laag acht”—I have a low opinion of the man who has a low opinion of his own past. The hon. member reminds me of that saying. For the rest I do not want to say anything about the hon. member. I should like to contribute my share towards bringing the debate back to the level on which it was conducted this morning. We have been listening to what can be called a frank and earnest plea for a section of the people which is in trouble today. There is such a thing in life that a man loves that which is his own. There is not a single member in this House who in his soul has not a burning feeling of love for that which is his own, and I am glad to be able to say that I noticed that when a plea was put up from this side of the House our plea also awakened that feeling in the minds of hon. members opposite. They feel that the people whom we are pleading for are their own Afrikaner people, people of their own God given nation. Now, I just want to draw attention to a matter which affects one painfully, and that is the sharp and strong contrast which we have in South Africa today, particularly in regard to the matter which we are now discussing. I would ask any hon. member to leave this House and move about Cape Town or in any other big city in this country and see the large number of foreigners who have inundated this country as never before in our history. Those foreigners have come here and nobody has asked them where they come from. Nobody has asked them what they are doing here—South Africa and our Government have opened the door wide. It constitutes a strong contrast with the way we treat our own citizens and our own people. There is a sharp contrast between the hospitality extended to foreigners from outside, to the people blowing in here from outside, and our own citizens who are locked up in internment camps. Now, what are the grounds on which this side of the House pleads for the release of the internees. I just want to emphasise that point. At a time of war things may happen which should not happen. We do not deny that. Things may perhaps have happened which should not happen. But I also want to draw attention to what the Minister of Justice himself said when he admitted in this House, and also privately, that the Nationalist Party had made its contribution to the maintenance of law and order. Since the outbreak of war we have gone from platform to platform issuing warnings, and we have stopped people from indulging in subversive activities. The Minister of Justice was big enough to admit this fact, and I hope he will do so again today. But in spite of all the efforts that were made a certain amount of unrest prevailed in this country. What was the cause of that unrest? One of the causes was the way in which people were interned and sent to those camps. The Minister knows that we have repeatedly instanced cases in this House of people who have not been properly tried, and we have repeatedly insisted on their being brought before the courts for trial, that we have repeatedly told the Minister that if they were tried they would be found not guilty. We have mentioned numbers of these cases. A band of people secretly set about lodging complaints with the authorities. The Minister knows that it is so; he knows that false charges have been made; he knows that there have been cases where the charges were entirely without foundation. In some of those cases the people have been released, but the people who made those false charges are still walking about freely today. What we complain of is the way in which people have been arrested and treated. That is the thing which has caused unrest and trouble in this country. This morning again an earnest request was made that the people who are still interned should at least be granted the same right that even a criminal in this country has. We hope there will be a general amnesty but, at least the right should be given to these people to have a proper trial by a court of justice. When the constitution was framed special provisions were made in respect of the place our judiciary was to occupy in our national life. There is no need under the conditions we are living in to cut out the function of our courts of law. We still have a dual problem in connection with these matters in this country. People do not know whether they are going to be dealt with according to our ordinary judical procedure, or whether they are going to be placed in the hands of the Chief Control Officer and sent to an internment camp. People have not the slightest opportunity of knowing into what category they are going to be placed. The feeling of uneasiness in this country, as I have said, has been stirred up by the way people have been arrested and apprehended. This matter has been discussed repeatedly in this House, so I do not think I need go into it any further, but the unrest is largely attributable to the way those people have been tried or have not been tried. Certain cases have been tried by the courts of law; certain cases have been specially investigated departmentally. In other cases people have been told that they can appeal. Different measures have been applied, and in numbers of cases no charges have been made. There is another thing which is causing this feeling of unrest to continue; it is the way in which people are released, and I should like to mention the various ways in which people are being released today. I want to ask the Minister now to take the step which the country expects him to take. The onus rests upon him. He must show whether he is prepared to do something or not. I do not want to refer to the part which has been played by the Minister who used to be in charge of these matters. I shall leave that point. One had to go on bended knees to get anything done at all. There was no method. But now I want to ask the present Minister at least to lay down some basis of policy and to say that if people are now to be released they will be really and effectively released. Now, into what categories are these people being placed? There are people in the camps who have been there for two or three years, and who have never been tried at all. Where does the Minister get the power to refuse ordinary citizens of this country the right of being tried? The Minister knows that that has happened. There are other cases of people who have been tried under the Department of Justice—they have been brought before the courts. The Crown has led evidence, and the defence has come forward with its evidence. The court of law has found them not guilty, but immediately afterwards they were apprehended and sent to an internment camp. I want to remind the House of one case, a case which was even brought to the High Court, the case of Dr. Neethling and others. There was a great deal of comment in the Press on this case. Dr. Neethling was found not guilty by the High Court, yet he was put in an internment camp. Certain people have been interned, and only tried afterwards. Or at least they were given a kind of trial. They were found not guilty, and were released and restored to their positions. There are civil servants who have been restored in that way after their case had been raised either here in this House or privately. After a long period in the internment camp they have been released and restored in their positions, and the money due to them has been paid. Other people again have been accused of similar offences but they have been treated in a totally different way. My information is that some people apprehended on the same day, on the same charge, have been subjected to different treatment. Some have been restored in their positions, others are still in the internment camp. Some of them are still awaiting for their appeal to be heard, others are out on parole. Why all this discrimination? I feel that this type of discrimination is not to the credit of any Government nor can this Government be proud of it. I feel there should be a specific policy in regard to the release of people. It is essential that we should restore peace and quiet and justice in this country and in order to do so I want to ask the Minister to grant an amnesty. A great many of these people have been in the camp for years. I do not know of a single case where a person has been released and has committed an offence and has been sent back to the internment camp. On the contrary, numbers of people have been released, and not a single complaint has been made against them either, and not a single complaint has been made against them either to the Minister, the Department or the Chief Control Officer. Now I just want to mention the case of a young Afrikaner who used to be employed as a teacher. In his own sphere he was a prominent man, he was married, with a wife and six children. He was interned. His case was discussed in this House. He was interned because in the place where he was employed a local agitation had been started against him. After lengthy representations to the authorities he was released. He is not allowed to take up a position in any town, except the town in which he used to teach. Another case was mentioned here this morning. Now, why is this done? This particular man is a cultured man and occupied his particular place in the community. Today that man is working with pick and shovel in our quarries. We on this side of the House are pleading with the Government to pursue a specific policy. We tell the Government that the time has arrived to grant a general amnesty to these people. I am not going to discuss the conditions prevailing inside and outside the camps. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) has already done so, but in making a comparison I just want to say this. Years ago we also had trouble in this country. A raid, engineered by people outside but who were domiciled in this country, was carried out. We know the history of the Jameson Raid at the end of the last century, and it was a Paul Kruger who showed mercy to those people. They were not interned. They were not condemned to sit in a camp year after year. He was merciful and we have been correctly informed in this House that some of them were knighted for what they had done in connection with the Jameson Raid. Now let me say this to the Minister. He as Minister of Justice has this whole question of internments in his hands. It is his task to bring influence to bear on the members on his side of the House and to bring about peace and order in this country. The only way to get peace and order in the country is, notwithstanding the injustice already done to those people, now to give them the freedom to which they are entitled. We recently had a general election; it was a war election. We know that at the time of a war election there is always unrest; there are always stormy scenes in connection with an election, but the Minister has the testimony of everybody in this House that during these elections there were very few stormy scenes, fewer than in any peace time election. We had evidence there of the quiet and rest in the minds of the people. Now, that quiet and rest can be improved and can be perpetuated if a request is also made from the other side of the House, and if the Government proceeds to grant amnesty to those people. Recently, we had a debate in this House about the release of criminals by the Minister of Justice. 20,000 of them were released. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Kuruman has said. The Koffiefontein camp is in my constituency. I live along the railway line between Springfontein and Koffiefontein. Every day the train is full of people coming and going to Koffiefontein, people who are employed to guard the internees. It means that an enormous expenditure is being imposed on the State. The Minister of Justice told us the other day that he had released 20,000 criminals with the object of saving expense. 20,000 criminals are released every year in order to save expense. Surely that is an argument in favour of putting a stop to this tremendous expenditure, this unjust expenditure in connection with internment camps? I again want to turn to the Minister and again want to plead with him, as other members have done, and I want to say this to him: Here is an opportunity, bearing the name he does, to make his mark for good or for bad. I do not want to draw any comparisons between what he has done in regard to internments and what was done in the days of his predecessor. I only want to say this; we are pleading with him in this spirit; we are pleading on behalf of the children of our own people; we ask for what is the legitimate right of every citizen in his own mother country, and that is his freedom. We ask him to give the Union citizens in the internment camps their freedom. There is no reason why these people should be detained any longer. I also want to draw attention to the slow process going on there. I can call hon. members on this side of the House to testify, and they will get up in their tens and more and confirm what I say here, that every time we ask for the release of this or that internee, we are always given the impression that there is a prospect of the man being released. The prospect is always held out, yet these people in the camps sit there from day to day living in the expectation that tomorrow or the day after they may be let out. There is nothing more soul killing than to have to sit and wait for something to happen. There is no definite policy, and the release of internees has taken place on an arbitrary basis. I say again that there is nothing more soul killing for those people than to have to sit in that condition of expectation, to have to wait for the decision as to whether or not mercy is going to be shown them. The Minister has already said that it is not merely a question of mercy. We say to him today that it is not merely a question of mercy, it is also a question of specific policy, a question of the rights of those people. We say to the Minister that he is responsible for the peace and quiet of the country, and we expect him to take a decision; we expect him to announce his policy, to take up a definite attitude and to stand up for himself. He must see to it that justice is done to those men and that all of of them are released. If he does not want to do that then the very least he can do is to see to it that they are given the right to appeal to the country’s courts of law. That is all I want to say about the internees. Now I want to say a few words on another subject which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance. I have a motion on the Order Paper regarding pensions for Oudstryders. I have withdrawn that motion because there are large numbers of motions on the Order Paper, and because I do not know whether I shall have the opportunity of getting the matter discussed under my motion. But I now want to give the Minister of Finance the opportunity of telling the country, in the event of him having something us his sleeve in connection with the Oudstryders—what he intends doing for them. I feel it is necessary for me briefly to give a history of the representations made by this side of the House to get a pension for the Oudstryders. In pleading for the Oudstryders I am pleading exclusively for those for fought on the side of the Boer forces in the war of 1899/1902. I clearly remember that when I raised this matter in this House for the first time the Minister of Finance get up and remarked that from a humanitarian point of view he also thought it would be a good thing if something could be done for those people. That was how he put it. He said that the way I had represented the matter—and I always introduced my motion not in a party spirit but in the spirit that a grateful posterity felt that we must do justice to those people — the Minister said that I had introduced my motion in a moderate way, and not in a party spirit. I have always tried to introduce these question in the spirit of the people who feel very strongly that these Oudstryders have certain rights which for years and years have been withheld from them. Now just let me quote the spirit in which I put my motion. I said that I was asking for a pension for the Oudstryders who loyally fought on the side of the Boer forces in the war of 1899/1902, and I said that I was not asking this as a matter of charity but as a right, and what was more, as a right which by a grateful posterity would be looked upon as the payment of a debt of honour to that heroic generation of our people in the evening of their lives before they would enter upon their final rest. I introduced this motion on the 20th February, 1940. We are now in the year 1944, and year after year we have repeatedly pleaded for that motion in this House of Parliament. I have been struck by the fact that the number of members on both sides of the House who strongly advocate the rights of the Oudstryders has gradually increased. In May 1941I again raised this question; after that, again on the 10th February, 1942, and subsequently on the 9th March, 1943. This year I have again come along with my request, and I want to give the Minister a final opportunity of saying whether he intends doing more for the Oudstryders than is being done today. The Minister of Finance prides himself particularly on his uprightness. We have had an agitation in connection with the Oudstryders throughout this country, and I feel I must bring this to the Minister’s notice. The matter has been raised in the Press, and it was discussed during the election, and during the elections and before that time the public was told through the medium of the Press—that section of the Press which belongs to the Minister’s own side, and also by people on his side of the House—that if this Government was given the power, the public would see what would be done in regard to the Oudstryders. The charge has been made against us over and over again: “What can you do—you are in the Opposition, you are powerless?” We were told: “Just give the Government a chance, and it will show the people what it can do in regard to Oudstryder pensions.” I want to remind the House that during the election campaign in Boshof the United Party, through the United Party Press, that is through the “Die Vrystater”, made a reference to the Oudstryder pensions. The photograph of the candidate was published by the paper and at the bottom there was a caption to the effect that the member for Boshof had also said that he wanted to promote the cause of the Oudstryders but that he had done more harm than good. And then we had this contention: “If you want a man who can carry the thing through, vote for the candidate of the United Party.” I don’t want to go into any details in regard to the campaign that was started on this point. I only want to draw attention to the fact that right throughout the country the public was told that if this Government was again put into power it was going to do something special in respect of the Oudstryders’ pension. The whole country is still crying for something to be done, and I just want to mention a few instances to the Minister. After this motion of mine had appeared on the Order Paper I received many letters in connection with it. I received two types of correspondence. I received letters from people who told me that they were glad I had raised the matter again; others again wrote in a different spirit, and told me that it was unnecessary to raise the subject again in Parliament. They said: “We have discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance and we have absolute and complete confidence in him, he will give Oudstryders what they are legitimately entitled to.” The Bond of Oudstryders at its Congress passed a resoldtion and in that resolution they claimed a minimum pension of £1 10s. per month. Well, I had letters from people telling me that there was no need for me to go any further into the matter. They said they had discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance and they had confidence in him. I also received other letters from people who had full confidence in the Minister, and they told me that they had been given to understand that they were going to get what they wanted. In one letter I found that this resolution had been taken—

I don’t know whether their facts are quite correct—

They practically took over the words of my motion. I have other letters from Oudstryders too in which I am asked, in view of the negotiations between the Oudstryders and the Minister of Finance, not to pursue this matter any further as they are prepared to leave the matter in his hands because they have confidence in him and trust him to do something. I am referring to these matters because I want to show that even the organisation of Oudstryders is under the impression that not later than this Seventh Session will special steps be taken to do something for them in the evening of their lives, before they enter upon their eternal rest. I did not plead the cause in this House of the war veterans of the 1914-’18 war, nor did I plead the cause of the veterans of this war. I leave that there. I have always said that so far as this war is concerned it is a war in which we do not take any part, and I have deliberately confined myself to the injustice done to the heroes of the Boer War. But I want to quote something to the Minister, which I think he should know, in regard to this matter. He should know that it is not only from the Oudstryders Bond that we learn that the impression has been created that the Minister is going to do something. I have another organisation here which calls itself the Memorable Order of Tin Hats, and I find that in a letter addressed to me they say that the amount of relief given in Act No. 45 of 1941 is by no means adequate. And they go on to say this:

There was a lot of fuss when I spoke about £10 per month. And the letter goes on to urge for a minimum pension of £10 per month plus a cost of living allowance, and it brought evidence to show that no white man can come out on less. They go on to say that when the deputation met the Minister he was not prepared to make any definite promises, and the letter goes on—

They expected more than is being done. When we talk about this question of the Oudstryders we feel that something very sacred to us is being dealt with, because we are talking about that heroic generation which fought in the war of 1899-1902—a generation which is fast disappearing from the scene. Let me repeat what I have said on many previous occasions. There are members on both sides of the House who shared in that struggle for freedom, and although they may differ from me today politically I always speak of them respectfully because of what they did in those days. At the same time I want to say that it makes us feel sad when we talk of those people, and when session after session we return to our constituencies and we find that some of them have passed away—sometimes dozens of that heroic generation of our nation have passed away in the meantime, and they ended their days in a state of poverty. If anything is to be done for those people it must be done quickly. We owe it to them. What is painful to me is that when under the arrangement made last year some of these Oudstryders convert their old age pensions into Oudstryder pensions, they have to comply with all the requirements of the old age pensions. I had an instance of an Oudstryder who used to get an old age pension. He was a man who fought bravely in the Boer War and he felt that his own honour would not allow him to take an old age pension, so he converted it into an Oudstryder pension. I had great trouble in getting things put in order for him, but these restrictions in regard to old age pensions were applied to him. If, as an Oudstryder, he succeeds in earning something extra, his Oudstryder pension is taken away from him by a stroke of the pen. These restrictions applying to the old age pensions are now being applied to the Oudstryders. I want to urge on the Minister that provision should be made for these drastic provisions not be applied to the Oudstryder pensions, and I want to ask him to see to it that these people get what they were promised. I want to ask him to give them what they are entitled to, and to give it to them in such a manner that it will give them a sense of satisfaction; so that they may feel that the present generation is grateful to them and wants to show its gratitude for what they have done. I hope the Minister of Finance will tell us during this debate what the Government intends doing for those people. We are anxious to know whether the Government is going to accede to the requests of the Oudstryders. I want to say here that so long as a single one of them is alive I shall do my best to see that justice is done to them.

I shall stand by you.

We want those people to be given what they are entitled to, and it should be made restrospective because year after year some of this heroic generation are dropping out. I also want provision to be made for the widows of the Oudstryders. If an Oudstryder receives an Oudstryder pension the day he lays down his head and passes away, his widow stands on the street. She can get nothing. It is an injustice to that section of the people, and if we want to do something, to do justice to them, we have very little time left in which to do it. It must be done quickly, and it must be done thoroughly, and it must be done in such a manner that those people will feel that there is a grateful generation which wants to do justice to them for what they have done for our nation.

I hope you will allow me, Sir, to express my gratitude to the various Ministers and the various members on both sides of the House for the welcome extended to us and the good spirit in which they have received us as newcomers. This morning I listened attentively to the pleas which were made on the other side on behalf of fellow Afrikaners who have been plunged into trouble. I should like to say that those people are my kith and kin, and I have a great deal of sympathy for them, because I came into touch with them, and I think that in my constituency I probably gained more experience in connection with these people than any hon. member on the other side of the House. I just want to say this to them, that since they are today making a plea for the women and children who have to remain at home while those people are locked up in the camp, they must also think of the women and children of the people who had to endure a great deal at the hands of those persons. They must not* forget the women and children of persons who stood by the Government and had to endure a great deal at that time. I just want to quote a few passages in support of what I am saying. When this man, to whom reference has been made, was at large with his followers in Zoutpansberg, he went to various houses and beat up people in such a way that today they are still bearing the marks on their bodies. What is worse is this, that when the father was not at home and they could not find him there, they gave his twelve year old son such a beating that he could not walk.

What has that to do with us?

Let me say that those people are still walking about today with the marks which were inflicted on them. One man’s jawbone was broken. They brought this man to me, and his condition was so serious that the doctor said that it was not a case of assault, but a case of attempted murder. They did not leave it at that. What did they do to the families of those who participated in the Government’s effort to prosecute this war?

Who are “they”?

The hon. member knows very well who they are, and he need not ask me that. My wife was telephoned and notified that she must prepare herself to be a witness to the shooting of her husband upon his return home that evening. We arrived home at three o’clock in the morning, and we find our wives with small children still awake and keeping watch for the moment when those people will come to murder their families. I had to endure those things together with many other people in my constituency. But we were magnanimous. I want to say this to hon. members on the other side. When the call came from these women and children, it was we who took care of them; it was we who took care of the families of the people in the internment camps, and not they. I shall produce numerous letters to show my hon. friends what those people say. We find this passage in one of the letters: “We have only just discovered who our friends are.” [Laughter.] It is a matter which is very serious, too serious for hon. members to laugh about. When those people were in prison, they went along with a violin to sing at the gaols, but when the families of those people were hungry, they did not take care of their families, and it was left to us to do so. Hon. members may laugh today, but I want to tell them that to me this is a very serious matter, because it is a matter which affects my nation. I also want to point this out to them. There are some of these young men whom the Minister was good enough to release from the camp, and a number of them told me that they were afraid to leave the camp and that if we did not protect them, their own people would not do so. They fear for their lives. The other day I was approached by a boy on the train and he told me this: “I have just come to greet you, Uncle Jim, and I also want to thank you for my release.” I asked him who he was, and he told me that I had helped him to get out of the camp. He added that he wanted to give me the assurance that they were incited to steal money because it had been represented to them that it would not be wrong, because they would be doing it for a national cause. Our young Afrikaners are misled by efforts of that nature which will be a lasting disgrace to our country. It is a lasting disgrace that young Afrikaners were misled to do those things. I have come into personal contact with those men. The wife of one of them told me the other evening at my home that if her husband again transgressed, she would be the first to say that he should be placed in the camp. She added that she and her family suffered very severely while he was absent, but she added that he had got no more than his deserts because he would not listen. I could mention many specific cases. I just want to mention this one further case. Another young man was misled to do certain things which resulted in his internment. Today he realises that he was misled, and after what he has gone through, he is doing everything in his power to join the Army. He wants to do anything, but this side says: “No, we shall not use you for military service. You take care of your own family and we shall be satisfied.” If ever mercy has been shown in South Africa, this Government was merciful towards those people in the dark days which we experienced. It is this Government which showed mercy towards those people for whom hon. members on the other side are today pleading, people who were interned for what they did in the country. But what hurts me more than anything else, is the fact that attempts are made against our children. When my son goes to school, the children spit in his face, and he is told that he is a “damn Englishman”. I have as much Afrikaner blood in my veins as anyone of my friends on the other side, and as much right to Afrikaner traditions as they have. But they must not think that they can drag our young generation into the depths of humiliation. It is degrading to mislead our people to such an extent that they commit wrongs against their own fatherland.

The accusation by the other side that we are responsible to a large extent for the internment of these people, because we misled them, is one which we dismiss with contempt. The hon. member who has just sat down repeatedly referred to “they”. We should like to know who “they” are. I just want to give him the assurance that we do not at all approve of certain acts which took place. What we do find fault with is the fact that many of these poor people landed in the camps, and the manner in which they got there. We should like to know who accused them and who told tales against them, and what the accusations were which were brought in against them. Why are they in the internment camps? That is the charge which we make. Why are the people not punished through the medium of the Courts? Why are they interned without knowing who accused them and without knowing what the charge is? Young Afrikaners who had a brilliant future before them, were interned in the camps. Today they are ruined as a result of the life which they have to lead in the camps. I would, however, just like to bring one specific case to the notice of the Minister. If we have to fight, let us fight as man to man, and not against women. I want to mention this case in connection with which I wrote to the Minister, and also to the Minister who previously had the internment camps under his control. I refer to the case of a certain woman in the Bedford district, who had a small farming business and who was arrested on her farm, together with her daughter aged three. Not only was she interned, but she was deported for internment. We hope that when the Minister replies to this debate, he will at least have the courage to say what the charge against this woman was. We want to know it. She bought a small farm in Bedford district and lived there quietly. Her husband had already been interned, and I strongly doubt whether he was interned on honest grounds.

He was innocent; I know him well.

In order to get away from city life, she left East London and bought a small farm in Bedford and lived there quietly. The Department, however, was not satisfied with that. They did not want to leave her in peace. Eventually a certain document was placed before her which she had to sign, and which was to deprive her of all her rights. She was not even to speak to her neighbours; she was not to have any association with them; she was not to visit anyone. As a woman of honour she refused to sign this document. What was the result? They sent out the police and arrested her on her farm together with her daughter aged three, and deported her. On the day on which she was arrested she made a sworn declaration before a Commissioner of Oaths. She stated in that declaration that she was a Union citizeness, of German descent, and that her husband was interned and that she had bought and lived on a small farm in the Bedford district, that she had done nothing during that time to undermine the Government, that she had done nothing subversive. She did not have the right to defend herself, but had to leave her possessions, and was given 24 hours’ notice, while the police were there the whole time. She handed over her possessions to the attorney. On the day of her arrest I sent a telegram to the Chief Control Officer—

To this I did not even receive a reply. When I saw that I was not getting an answer, I sent a telegram to the present Minister of Social Welfare, in English, because I thought that he might understand it better—

In reply to this I received a short acknowledgement from the Chief Control Officer. But this women was sent to Salisbury, I think, and was interned there in a camp, together with her daughter of three years. I have her sworn declaration that she definitely did not do anything to undermine the Government, and I can confirm that. I do not live very far away, and I know all the circumstances. I do not want to go into this matter any further. This is one of the most scandalous cases. I make an appeal to the Minister to tell us who the person was who levelled the charge against her, and what the charge was. Was there any reason to deport this woman, who lived on her farm defenceless together with her daughter, three years of age? She was sent to a concentration camp outside the Union. I want to repeat that if we must fight let us at least fight men and not so degrade ourselves as to fight against defenceless women and children.

This is the first time, Sir, that you hear my voice in this House, and I want to raise a matter which touches me deeply. It touches me very deeply because it concerns a matter which has caused the breaking up of families; it concerns a matter where fathers were sent away from their wives and children. These families have my deep sympathy, and I can assure you that as far as I personally am concerned, this is not mere talk, because I had the privilege of coming into contact with cases which resulted in internment, internment in some cases of our peace-loving people. It took place after the declaration of war. I want to say here that I respect any person who at that time favoured neutrality. We must do so. But, after the acceptance of the motion for the declaration of war, it was not left at that. We know that the Opposition travelled all over the country to hold protest meetings, and with due respect I want to say to the Opposition that these protest meetings caused more trouble and more mischief than the majority of them realise. I saw what took place in my constituency. The result was that the people who were regarded as innocent found themselves in internment camps, and are still there today possibly. At these meetings they were assured of a German victory. The people who at the time were pro-German, then thought they could do as they pleased, that it did not matter, that the end of the war was close at hand and that Germany would win. At the outside it was going to be a matter of a few weeks or months, and then they would again be home, if they were interned. It is those people who found themselves in the internment camps. I personally saw one person who was interned and who said: “When I get my release in the near future, I shall have a better job than ever before”. When I think of it, I still feel that my heart wants to bleed. There was incitement, and families were rent asunder. At the meeting I saw the wife of this man get up, take a man by his chest and drag him to the platform, and the speaker did not make the slighest comment, nor did he say: “We do not agree with this type of thing.” What happened? There were cheers. The people were influenced by that kind of talk. Germany was to be victorious. The same man told me that it would only be three or four weeks, and there would no longer be an England, and only one country which could govern, that is Germany. The people came to believe that, and they thought that nothing in the world could stop it. They could do as they pleased; it was just a matter of a few weeks or a few months. Now I want to make an appeal to hon. members. I must say that I am disappointed, as a young member of this House, with the relationship which exists and the personal attacks made by one member on the other.

Convert your own side.

Our Parliament is the highest authority in the country, and that being the case we must have a little more respect for each other, and leave personalities alone. If we do that, we shall be able to bring about more right and justice for our country and people. Hon. members know that we have got to the point where the Opposition shares the conviction that we are going to win the war and that Germany is going to lose the war. If that is so, why do they not come along and help us? It is not yet too late. Let them give us their support to prosecute the war success fully. Assist us in our war effort. [Laughter.] You may laugh about it, but if you were to support us today, there would be nothing to prevent the release of the internees. If we are united today and if you say that as far as the war is concerned you will help us to prosecute it to a successful conclusion, I do not think the Minister of Justice would have any objection to releasing the majority of these people, because then we should be united and no adverse influence would be exercised on these people when they return. But I found the amendment which is before the House today very interesting. It contains a certain degree of reproach. It is said that the Minister released a number of people, but that those who have not been released, have never had an opportunity of being tried. Let me say this. The other day for the first time I had the privilege of voting here. It was in connection with an amount of £250 in regard to secret services. There we found the same thing. I do not believe that the Minister is going to blurt out the secrets of all these people on the floor of the House. If we were to know everything that happened, there would probably be less talk. What I feel is this, that the members on the Opposition side and we on this side are, after all, fellow-countrymen; they are flesh of our flesh and blood of our blood. Why should we continually quarrel about these matters? It is in the interests of our country and our people to present a united front in prosecuting this war and winning the peace and building up the country after the war. It is not only in our interests, but in the interests of every living soul in our country. Hon. members on the other side are laughing, but if they assist us in prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion, they will be helping themselves and in that way they will be helping those people on whose behalf they are now pleading. I want to say once again that I have the greatest sympathy for internees and especially their families. Let the Opposition help us to win the war, together with the other free nations, in the interests of the future freedom of free nations.

We hear a lot, and rightly, about social security. We hear about it in and out of the House. What is the first requirement of social security? It is surely the freedom of the individual, his freedom of thought and conviction, and surely every man is entitled to exercise his own discretion and mind in connection with any matter which concerns his country and his people, and if we differ in our opinion, then the other side of the House must not blame us, as if it were a crime. We are entitled, within reasonable limits, to exercise that right. It will be remembered that even the Hon. the Prime Minister 44 years ago disagreed with many of the people he is sitting with today—he disagreed very radically. I remember the days when he crossed the borders of the Cape Colony to urge people to rebel. I say this with due deference. And history tells us that a number of rebels were shot. If at that time they had been harsh towards the Prime Minister and had put him in an internment camp and punished him for his convictions, would he have felt differently today? Today he holds an altogether different view. The point is this, that circumstances alter, but human beings remain human beings, and one has the right to use one’s common sense and the light given to one. We are reproached by the other side that we are the cause of all the trouble, that we encouraged and approved of all the misdemeanours, blunders and offences. As a matter of fact, we went out of our way to advise our countrymen to remain calm. We conducted the last election in such an exemplary manner of which any country and any nation could be proud. We have proved that we are desirous of bringing back our country to a state of calm and peace, and I honestly believe that it is also the desire of the Prime Minister that the country should return, as soon as possible, to a normal state. This morning we came in all humility with a courteous request to the Government to set free the internees and to give its attention to a matter which is still disturbing the peace and quiet of our national life. Every speaker on this side used the most moderate language possible to put before the Government, and to bring to its notice, that fact that it is still a disturbing factor, and in the most courteous words—almost too courteous for an Opposition—we appealed to the Government for their release, and if the people were guilty of misdemeanour, to take the circumstances into consideration and to reconsider the matter. There is not one of us who does not at some time or another in his life get excited and say something which is better left unsaid. That is all we are pleading for. We have kept the debate free from party politics. Like you, we desire peace and quiet in the country. We disagree with you on the other side over certain matters, but it is unnecessary to disturb the peace and calm of the nation by the internment of certain Afrikaners or to give the nation cause for a deep grievance, which it will be difficult, to erase or to compensate for. Just as long as the men are kept in internment camps, just so long the grievance will continue to exist. We feel sore and sympathise with the people who are there. We quite agree with you that if someone has committed an offence, he must be punished. We know, however, that the laws of our country stipulate that the onus is on the State to prove a man guilty, and the State has all the machinery and means at its disposal to prosecute any man who has committed an offence and to prove his guilt. We agree with that, and in that regard we have offered our co-operation. Prosecute the people who have committed offences and punish them. But we also make an appeal on behalf of those who have been interned without a trial. The biggest problem of man is his cruelty to his fellow beings. I think that from the contributions which came from this side of the House this morning it will be clear to the Government that cruelties were committed against the citizens of our country, even if they disagree with our view. I am sure that the Government is grateful for the contributions which the Opposition made today to reveal certain facts, and I believe that the Government will take steps to undo and put right the injustices which have been committed against these people. The country cannot survive such an internment policy without giving rise to bitterness and reproaches. We can never’ have peace in the country by continually reproaching each other. There was a time when the hon. the Prime Minister himself voiced a plea for the people of whom he made rebels. He wrote a book from the depths of his soul which caused a great stir and commotion. Those were his convictions at the time. In the life of every man— particularly young men—comes an urge for which he looks for an outlet. And if that urge is smothered, it looks for an outlet elsewhere and you force his activities underground. We live in a democratic country. We have a democratic system of government, but many of our people no longer believe in a democratic government because too many wrongs have been done under the flag of that system of government, and the number of people who no longer believe in a democratic system of government are on the increase, and they are going to create a big problem. Our Parliament provides for a Government and an Opposition. In other words, there is one group which favours one policy and another group which thinks in another direction, and if we think in another direction, must we be put in internment camps in an arbitrary manner? If a man commits an offence, punish him, but not arbitrarily; do not put him in a camp for an unlimited period, where conditions are worse than in a gaol. During the course of the debate, and I regret that it was done, the name was mentioned of a promient member of the community, who in the eyes of the Government committed an offence and who served his sentence and is now free. There is a growing number of people who are beginning to think that it is better to commit an offence and be sent to gaol and then to be free, than to be sent to the cursed internment camps. Camps, and particularly internment camps, are altogether foreign to our national character, and if ever South Africans have been subjected to a punishment they cannot tolerate, it is to place them in internment camps. It is a bitter humiliation to them. I also want to say that all the sins and difficulties did not come from our side. There was a lot of provocation from the other side, which grieved us deeply. Officials in the Government Service have gone much further than the Government, I am sure, desired them to go, and there are many people who tried to win the battle for Britain or Europe here in South Africa on the home front. They thought that if you put the screw on civil servants, or if you put people in their places, or prosecute them, then you would win the war. The war will not be won here, and these incidents have caused untold bitterness. The bitterness bites deeper and deeper into our national life. If it is your aim to build up a united nation, help us to use our discretion and to discuss matters and to act in a calm and intelligent manner. No, all the trouble did not come from one side, but from both sides. One of these days we may have another government, and if you are not careful, such government may have trouble to restrain its people and not to let the pendulum swing as much to the other side as it has swung to this side. I would like, for instance, to read the questionnaire—questions put to people by police officers. These questions were put to people by two or three policemen in uniform and the replies had to be given under oath. The first question was—

What was a poor civil servant to do when such a question was directed to him? Is it reasonable? Does the Government approve of its police officers putting such questions to citizens of a democratic country. The second question—

Those are the questions put to people, to unprotected and defenceless people. Their very existence, and the existence of their families may be dependent on their replies. In that manner people were intimidated. The next question—

What is your opinion?

If you wish to know, I will tell you, but I do not consider this the proper time or occasion. The next question—

Why should the police put a question like that to a free citizen?—

That question was asked by policemen in uniform!—

We are sitting in this Assembly and can laugh about it. We enjoy a certain measure of freedom, but do you think that the poor man whose existence, together with that of his wife and children, are in the balance, the man who is dependent on the Government, who is in the civil service, can laugh about it when a police officer puts these questions to him and he has to make a reply, under oath? We are reaching the Inquisition stage—

What is your opinion of the Minister of Justice?

He lends it to Mr. Barlow.

Where do you invest your money? Why do you invest your money there? Are you a member of the Reddingsdaadbond?

You may laugh, but remember, he has to reply to these questions under oath—

I agree with the House that it is ridiculous, but it is actually a tragedy when that young man has to fence in this way, under oath before a police officer, for the daily bread of his wife and children. And if Mr. X comes along and makes a sworn statement which contradicts any of these statements, then that person is sent to the internment camp without a hearing. According to our constitution a citizen of the country has the right to a hearing, and the onus is on the State to prove the guilt of any one who is suspect, because if the State cannot produce such proof, the citizen is held to be innocent and must go free. That is all we ask for. We will admit that the Minister of Justice has been very reasonable when we have approached him in individual cases, but we ask the Government to accept that as a policy, particularly in view of the fact that they released 20,000 people who had been rounded up by the State at State expense, and who have been convicted by a court of law and sentenced to imprisonment; as the Government approved of releasing those people, on principle the Government must release those citizens who have never been brought to trial. It is a matter of principle. We appeal to the Government to carry out the spirit of our constitution. We appeal to the Government to carry out the law of the land. The necessity to rule by way of emergency regulations in that regard is past, and if those people have gone too far by saying too much, then I have the temerity to say that I do not believe there is one member in the House who did not at some time or another as a result of intimidation or vexation such as this, forget himself and let a word pass his lips which it would have been better not to utter. I wish to bring to your attention the fact that this small nation, of whose members numbers are in the internment camp, has been fighting for more than a hundred years for their freedom. They have gone through worse things than internment camps, and their love of freedom is today no less strong than before. That is not a method which will kill our love of freedom. It will have no effect on us. All effect it will have will be to embitter the people further and to strengthen the urge; it will undermine confidence in the existing system more and more and will bring the people to a realisation that the sooner we have a change the better. Although we are a conquered people, we have a record of which we can be proud. The Afrikaner nation has a clean sheet in that we have never committed a political murder, and the small incidents which have taken place here must be expected when the Government’s policy is continually in conflict with the will of the people. That is to be expected; that is natural. All of us have not the same power of control, and we appeal to the Government to take into consideration the position of the women and children who suffer through it. When they suffer justly, it is bad enough, but when they are placed in that position without trial and without a means of reasonable defence, it is insupportable. If there is one matter which will help us to return to a normal state of affairs, it is to allow the nation its normal freedom. The thunder of war is dying in the North, it is not heard here, and the sooner we can return to normality in our national life, the sooner we will find our feet and each other, and be able to take measures for the welfare of our country. With due respect, and with all the seriousness at our command, we appeal to the Government to make felt its feeling of humanity, its sense of justice and its sense of fairness, and to give to these people, without trial, their unconditional freedom.

I am in a position where I can be fairly impartial. I have listened to the speeches from both sides of the House, and I am here to judge impartially. Just now an appeal was made by the other side for a spirit of co-operation. Another appeal came from this side, which the other side of the House received in silence. I would like my hon. friends on my right to take notice. When someone rises and with due respect and in all seriousness makes an appeal to the other side for a better spirit, then we expect that it will be accepted in that spirit by both sides of the House.

Don’t pretend you are a high priest; go on with your speech.

High priest or not, it is the truth. I say that I am in a position to judge impartially, and it is remarkable that the two appeals were received in such a manner. I think the time has now come for something to be said about the men fighting against Germany. I think the time has come for a good word to be said for the men who have fought in this war against Germany, and I am sorry that the Minister of Lands is not present at the moment, as there are a few matters I wished to bring to his notice. Some time ago he made a few very hopeful statements which echoed throughout South Africa and which inspired us with hope for the future. It was viz. when he spoke about the irrigation schemes from the Orange River to the Zak River. I contend that is one of the parts in the country where no disease is prevalent, where the ground is fertile and eminently suitable for growing wheat and other things, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could tell us if he has made any progress in that connection. The hon. the Minister has made another statement some time ago which inspired us with hope, and that is namely his statement in connection with a settlement irrigation scheme near Caledon. There he gave a ray of hope which everyone in South Africa was pleased to receive. The third scheme to which I wish to refer is the proposed scheme in the Central Free State. I wish to mention to the hon. the Minister that this third scheme, of which I am now talking, is a scheme of which I heard when I still went to school on the farm. I have the document in my pocket to prove that my father paid for the survey of the Modder River Scheme. As long ago as that we were told that the scheme would be put into operation in the near future. I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us how far they have progressed with that scheme at the Modder River. I just wish to repeat the schemes to which I refer. The first one is that from the Great River to the Zak River, the second is in connection with the Caledon scheme, and the third is the scheme in the central Free State. Then there are settlements of a smaller nature, and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what consideration has been given to that matter and whether it is his intention to do anything in that direction in the near future. Yesterday we again had a motion which insists that the Government should supply more drills. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the country already looks as if it has been attacked by a porcupine as far as boreholes are concerned. We read at the present time in the newspapers of the unprecedented washaways in the Transvaal and in the Free State, and we know that our climate is inclined to go from the one extreme to the other. One year we have abundant rains and the next year we suffer from drought. We must expect, therefore, that in the near future we will probably have a severe drought. The time is now ripe to put the ideas expressed by the hon. the Minister into operation, and that is to undertake those irrigation schemes. Eventually we must also develop our subterranean springs, and we must improve the climatic conditions of the country, as indicated by experts. I shall be very glad if the Minister of Lands will make a statement in this connection. We would also like to know from him what progress he has made. That is all I wish to say as regards the Department of Lands. The next department which I would like to bring under discussion is War Supplies and the consequences of their irresponsible actions. I agree with the Hon. the Prime Minister that the most important matter today is still to bring the war to a successful conclusion, but at the same time I also realise that the most important problem of the war today is to maintain your position in the field, in other words, to supply them with new recruits. But unfortunately the conduct of War Supplies is of such a nature that it is sufficient to discourage any young man. What happens is this. War Supplies go to a factory where war material is manufactured, and right and left they issue instructions that this and that must be stopped, with the result that the contractors for that work have no option but to dismiss a number of men immediately, and the responsibility to find new posts for these men are from time to time pushed on to the shoulders of the Department of Labour, which then again seek employment for these people. The Department of Labour then succeeds in finding suitable positions and as soon as these people have been placed in employment. War supplies again breaks down what the Department of Labour has built up. I am now talking of something of which I know about. It is not a myth. That type of thing happens far too often, and I make bold to say that if there is one department today which retards the Government’s war effort, it is the irresponsible conduct of War Supplies, and I wish to add that if it is not stopped, then the Government has no hope of obtaining the number of men they require to maintain their divisions. The time bias come for the Government to interfere. The Government must point out to War Supplies that they must realise their responsibility in that regard. So much for War Supplies. Now we come to our friends, the controllers, and I am sorry to see that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not in the House at the moment, but here, too, we get a department which is irresponsible and does not care a whit what effect his policy has on the country. I have conducted correspondence with the Hon. the Minister in his capacity of Controller of Building Material. I pointed out to him the big faux pas he made in recommending to the public of Johannesburg an inferior little dwelling for £1,500. He expects the public to buy that, and he gives the Government’s blessing to that poor structure. Well, if I must judge according to that action, then I must say that if that is a product which you and your controllers have evolved, then the sooner the country gets rid of you the better. If there is one controller which has left the Government in the lurch, then it is the Controller of Building Material. The hon. the Minister goes further—I take it that he did so on the advice of his Chief Controller, Mr. Holdgate —and he tells the country that timber is unobtainable. And now I am not talking about information obtained from officers; I am talking of what have seen. There is more timber in the country than ever before in the history of South Africa. I have been told that there are some thousands of tons of timber which people wish to sell, but they are prohibited from selling it. I contend that the South African producer should have first consideration. The Controller of Building Material is responsible for an unnecessary blow to these people who are endeavouring to obtain timber in this country. They have delivered a tremendous blow to the prestige of this country. The general impression everywhere in the country today is that the Controller of Building Material, Mr. Holdgate—I am speaking from personal experience—did not always act fairly. If A comes to him with a case, he is told that this or that is not obtainable, but it happened that when a certain influential political man went to him, he got what he wanted within twenty-four hours. The Controller is there to maintain the law. I regret to say it, but that is not so in the case of the Controller of Building Material, Mr. Holdgate. There is a specific case which I have already brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister. There are certain influential men who get whatever they require, while the same privilege is not extended to others. It is not to the credit of that department. Now we come to a very important department, viz., the Department of Agriculture, which has so often been criticised in this House. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister is never in a position to make statements in this House in regard to the Control Boards. The Control Boards are attacked here, and the next day a ministerial statement appears in the Press. But the facts which are mentioned in this House, like the remarks about the Deciduous Fruit Board, are not contradicted in the Press. The country is desirous of helping the Minister; we would like to assist him as far we can. But if from time to time he appoints Boards which do not perform their functions then we cannot assist him. Many of them probably do not even know what their functions are. If that is the case, the Minister has no right to appoint Boards. I now return to the Deciduous Fruit Board. A short while ago we were told that the matter would be put in order, but up to now nothing has been done. The position today is just as bad as it was before. You still hear that in certain parts of the country deciduous fruit is not obtainable at a reasonable price; the prices are still outrageous. You still hear of fruit which is thrown away. I said last year, when these attacks were made in the House, that we should give the Board a chance and that we should give the Minister a chance. But now we find that the position has become worse. Now it is not the soap box orator who agitates for revolution in the country; it is mostly the Government’s Controller who is against the Government and who works up the feeling against the Government. Those control boards result in the producer selling his produce without control. If my things were deteriorating, I, too, even if it is in conflict with the law, would send my produce to markets where I can sell it. We cannot blamed those people. If we get to the point where the producer and the consumer say: “Now we are going to do as we like,” it is clear that the position is serious. According to the Press statements of the control boards the position will improve, but instead of improvement we find that the position is getting worse and worse. Has the position with regard to meat in this country been discussed yet this year? Do you know that there are more slaughter cattle in the country this year than there has been for the past twenty years? The cattle in the Transvaal and in the Free State have for the last twenty years not been in such condition as they are today. But not the slightest warning or advice is given to the farmers by the control boards. One would expect that the control boards would advise the farmers, but they are not advised to sell their produce at the present time at a reasonable price; they are not advised not to keep the produce back. Is it not the duty of the control boards to advise farmers in matters of this nature? I repeat that there are more slaughter cattle in this country today than there has been for the last twenty years. The position is going from bad to worse. Today they take advantage of the unstable prices. Prices are pushed up to a ridiculous extent. I can prove to the Government and the country today that it would have been profitable at the outbreak of the war to stabilise the prices of all produce at a reasonable level. I can mention no better example than the sugar industry. The sugar industry will tell you that they are jealous of their position. They are assured of their prices. They are properly established where they are, and they progress. They are probably one the richest industries in the country, but the price of sugar has never increased since the outbreak of war. If that is the case, why must the price of meat increase? In the sugar industry proper provision has been made for the producer and for the consumer. The sugar industry knows today exactly where it stands and what it has. But with all the boards we have in the other industries, we find that the position is getting worse by the day, and I contend that we have an example to prove that it was unnecessary for prices to advance so tremendously. If the prices of agricultural produce had been controlled in like manner, we would not have had the position which exists today. It would have paid the Government better to have paid out to the farmers the difference between the pre-war price and the ruling price in the form of a subsidy, so that the farmer would have been able to make a living without increasing the prices. But that is not the method of the control boards. The prices as regards agricultural produce, are getting from bad to worse. One hears daily—and this is not a made-up story— that things are going bad. Now I come to another department, and that is the Department of the Ministry of Demobilisation. I endeavoured yesterday to discuss that matter, but without success, and that is the reason why I want to do it today. I would like the Minister to tell us—not only those nice things which we hear from him from time to time in regard to the plans of his Department—but I would like him to tell us whether he has ever since the inception of the portfolio, created a post for one person. He must not tell me that so many men have been returned to their posts. Those are people who had pre-war positions to which they could return. But with all the nice promises we hear there are several thousand returned soldiers walking about in the country today without a piece of bread to eat. I can supply the Minister with the names of people in my own constituency who have been looking for work for the past month and fortnight and they cannot find employment. Their families have to live on the charity of other people. Yet we have this Portfolio of Demobilisation with its nice promises and pretty stories. On the other hand we find that people who are out of the army are walking about without work. If that is not going to have a detrimental effect on the Government’s war effort, what is going to have a detrimental effect? If our friends on the other side of the House try to frustrate the plans of the Government we can understand it, because they are against the Government’s policy, but when a state department itself, by its irresponsible action, undermines Govern-plans, it is a problem to me. Then I would like to say a word or two to the Minister of Commerce and Industries. Let me say this, that it is high time that he should make a statement to the country on behalf of the Government as to how far the Government is prepared to carry the existing industries which have developed since the outbreak of war, in order to see the country through and to protect it against the tremendous danger of unemployment. Industries have been established which pay good wages and provide decent conditions of employment to their workers, and who deserve to be assisted by the State, even by way of a subsidy, if necessary, to continue to exist for a number of years, because those are the industries which will contribute to the welfare of the country in the future, and which will offer a solution to the Government for the tremendous problem of unemployment which will exist after the war. It is not the first time that such an appeal has been made to the Government. In this connection I would like to enquire what South Africa’s war effort would have amounted to if it had not been for these industries which we have had in our country. They threw everything they had, goods and chattels and every penny, in the balance to see South Africa through at the critical time when we did not even have guns. At that time these industries came to the fore and saw the country through in its time of crisis, in an astounding manner. At the present time there is a controversy between those industries and the policy advocated by the Chamber of Mines, which is also indicated in the Atlantic Charter. The Chamber of Mines wants to kill all industries. The Chamber of Mines would like the mining industry to be the only industry in the country so that they alone can influence the Government. They realise that when the other industries in the country expand, when they pay out a considerable amount in wages and employ a considerable number of people, they will constitute a considerable proportion of the economic structure of our country with the result that the Chamber of Mines will naturally lose its strangle hold on the Government and on the industries in our country. Up to the present time the Chamber of Commerce has even succeeded in convincing the farmers that South Africa is not an agricultural country, and that our country cannot exist without the Chamber of Mines. With false propaganda they endeavour to convince the country that the other industries are not in the interests and welfare of South Africa and that we must import everything from overseas. I trust that I will succeed to bring home to this House that that policy is detrimental to the interests of South Africa, and I only hope that the Government will not yield to the Chamber of Commerce, but that the Government will decide to carry those industries which came into existence during the war and to give them the assistance they merit, until such time as they are strong enough to stand on their own legs. The country expects a statement from the Government as to how far it is prepared to go to assist those industries, and whether the Government is prepared to follow the policy of the Chamber of Mines to leave those industries to their own devices in peace time. I had to put some of these questions in the absence of the Minister concerned, but I trust that these questions will receive the Government’s attention, because they are burning questions which occupy the minds of every person. I again say to the Minister that if he does not give a clear and positive answer to those questions which I put to him in the House, then the war effort will be adversely affected in the near future. The time has come for a new policy from the Government, for a policy with new energy, if the Government wishes to maintain its war effort.

I feel that again the opposite side of the House have been very ill-advised to introduce into this debate this afternoon the position of the internees. I was wondering whether they were really serious in the plea they were making on behalf of the internees. I was wondering, in fact, whether they were not talking with their tongues in their cheeks.

Order.

The hon. member must not use that phrase.

I feel, sir, that possibly this plea that, has been made this afternoon was their consciences at work, because we heard from the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) that they wished to plead for young fellows who were wasting so many years of their lives in internment camps. It amuses me, Mr. Speaker, because we have never yet heard from the hon. members opposite—and I have been a member of this House for six years—we have never heard anything from them on behalf of the men who are in uniform. These poor fellows who are wasting their time in internment camps are doing it in this country, very near to their homes. They were traitors to their own country, yet they have been kept and well looked after. Have we ever heard a plea from the hon. members opposite for our men up North, who are separated from their wives and families and losing the best years of their lives, and apart from that fighting for the honour of South Africa. It was on that ground, Mr. Speaker, that I felt that a qualification should be made in respect of the sincerity of their speeches and that was why I mentioned about the position of their tongues. That was a qualification that I felt possibly explained why they were speaking in that way. They pleaded for those individuals last year, and they pleaded for them the year before. But are these hon. members not to a large extent responsible for the position in which the internees find themselves? Three years ago there was a very different story in this House when the question of internees came up, when the matter of individuals who I could mention, was brought up in this House. They were lionised. What has happened even just lately when internees who have been charged with cutting wires and committing other acts of sabotage such as has been experienced in this country—what has happened when they were released. Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite were responsible on the release of these men for organising demonstrations, to show what fine fellows they were. Fine traitors they were, Mr. Speaker. They have been traitors to their own country, and it was then they preyed on the feelings of the young fellows and today they are responsible for these internees. I blame hon. members on the opposite side of the House to a very great extent, because of their urging these young fellows to do unlawful things. Now, I feel that as no hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House have risen to their feet to appeal on behalf of our soldiers serving up North, and on behalf of the soldiers who have been returned from up North, and the soldiers who have been serving in this country, and for the prisoners of war, but prefer to plead for internees, that it is right that I should make an appeal on their behalf. Figures have been given to us of the number of soldiers that have been discharged since September, 1939. That figure has been given as 40,215 Europeans. When we realise that the figure is as large as that, I feel that possibly schemes that we are inaugurating at the present time pending the return of our soldiers, should be put into operation forthwith. Some of the schemes could be started right away. I should particularly like to make this appeal to the Minister of Lands, as I see him in his seat. I understand there are about 1,500 plots under irrigation at Pongola, and at Vaal-Hartz, and I believe there is also some irrigated land available at the Cape. I understand that these plots are about 30 acres each in extent. In this connection I am not going to attack the Minister, because I know he has the interests of the South African soldiers very much at heart, more at heart possibly than most people in this country, and it has been evinced through his own active participation, and also his family. But, Mr. Speaker, I feel we should go a little further. Questions have been asked of the Minister about these 1,500 plots, and he said that he could not possibly reserve them exclusively for the returned soldiers. They should get them. Why not? I feel that this is one of the schemes that we should possibly start with right away. Why leave those plots idle at the present moment? We have a large number of men who have been discharged from the army, and I am sure that these men would grab at any opportunity like this to be able to start farming with the assistance of the Government. Apart from starting the schemes immediately, I feel very strongly that the Minister should make a statement that the 1,500 plots he has got will be exclusively reserved for returned soldiers. Also, I make a plea on behalf of the discharged soldiers in respect of housing. There is a terrific shortage of houses, particularly on the Rand. Exorbitant rentals are being asked for accommodation. Also, we have the unfortunate position of soldiers who have gone away and returned and are not able to gain occupation of their houses, but have to wait for a period of three months, and there are other similar problems. I think the Government should start immediately on their building scheme. The next point I wish to touch on, is the point that the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has brought up in connection with the police. There is not much that I have in common with the hon. member for Vredefort. I did not know whether he was arranging a crossword puzzle. But notwithstanding, I am pleased the Minister of Justice is in his seat at the present time, as I wish to raise the question of the police. In my opinion I feel that the right type of man is not being encouraged into the police force today, and not only today, but the right type of man has not been in uniform for a very long time. There is only one cause and it is very self-evident what the trouble is, and that is that the pay is far too low. I remember when I was on a visit to England in 1926 I enquired from policemen there what the police pay was in those days, and I was told it was £3 10s. per week. I enquired from a mechanic what their standard rate of pay was en he said it was 35s. per week. The policeman was getting double the salary of the artisan. In this country the proportion is reversed. The mechanic in this country is getting an average of about £7 per week, and the policeman, after serving for a period of 15 or 20 years will only earn between £20 and £25 a month. It stands to reason that under present conditions the right type of man will not come and offer himself for service in the police force, and I feel that the Minister should possibly take a leaf out of the book of Lord Trenchard. He started a scheme many years ago, to recruit the right type of man for the Metropolitan Police Force. He went to the universities to recruit his men, and by paying them a high wage, which he inaugurated, he managed to get these men from the universities, and I feel that the Minister would be very well advised if he would make his nursery the high schools of South Africa. He should get hold of the matriculated youth of the country and make it worth their while to join the police force. He would be assured of securing the right type of recruit if he took the boys from school after they had matriculated, and put them into a training college, in the same way as the Minister of Railways, has introduced a training college for his railwaymen. Why cannot the Minister of Justice introduce the same kind of training college for his police force? Make it worth while to the matriculated youth, and I am confident that South Africa will soon have reason to be proud of its police force. We are proud of them for what they have done, but unfortunately we have not the high standard of intelligence amongst the police force that we should expect. I do not say this in any derogatory sense at all as far as our police force is concerned, because if anybody has admired them and appreciated the difficulties they have laboured under, I have; but, Mr. Speaker, how can you expect a matriculated youth or a boy who has done one or two years in the university to join the police force under present conditions—when you tell him that after 15 or 20 years he may be earning between £20 and £25 a month? The position is quite impossible. I would also suggest to the Minister that he may be able to send such recruits for training overseas after they have spent a period in this college; they could be exchanged with police from overseas, and that innovation would be of benefit to our police force generally in South Africa. I am confident that in a very short space of time South Africa would be very proud of its policemen in the same way as they are in England today. The last point I want to touch upon, and I am sorry the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not here, is the price of pigs, four-legged animals I am referring to. I have had sent down to me a cartoon by a well-known cartoonist, Bob Connolly, which appeared recently in a Johannesburg newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail. It is headed, “Who is afraid.…” The cartoon depicts through a window in the background, a food controller. He is half hidden behind the door, and outside the door are three pigs knocking, and the caption underneath: “Pig breeders want conference to discuss plight of their industry.” The pig breeder is to one side in the cartoon, and the little pigs are saying “Who is afraid … Square deal for our breeders … Or we’ll huff and we’ll puff and we’ll blow your house down.” I think it is very appropriate indeed, particularly when I find that there appeared in the Rand Daily Mail on the 12th January a report saying, “Pig breeders facing ruin, want conference.” The introductory paragraph to the article states: “So serious is the plight of pig breeders that a conference is to be called to discuss prices.” Then it goes on to say: “Mr. J. W. Callaghan, a prominent Transvaal breeder, told a Rand Daily Mail reporter “that pig farmers were headed for ruin.” He goes on to say—

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that on the market there is a ring operating because you have certain breeders who are also making bacon. These breeders are operating in a very big way, and when it suits them they force the price down against the small breeder. When they are supplied and wish to sell they can manipulate the market to force it up in their favour. They control the cold storages too, and therefore can benefit by any export of the bacon. I am told that it is cheaper today for a housewife, or it would appear cheaper for her if she could get a square deal, to just buy pork which is much cheaper than beef and much cheaper than mutton. If it is being sold on the hoof at 6d. a lb. it is self-evident it would be very much cheaper. But what is going on in the butcher shop today? You will find you will have to pay 2s. 6d. a lb. for pork, and you buy mutton at practically half the price. Pork is supposed to be a luxury, but the other side of the story is that we find that our controller has fixed the price of bacon at from 2s. 2d. to 2s. 6d. a lb. I should like to know from the Minister, why control the bacon, and not control on the hoof side also? The Government came forward when the convoys were coming round our coast and they begged the breeders to increase production. The breeders did that. Is the Government now going to stand by and allow the breeders to go to the wall? If, as this gentleman, Mr. Callaghan, says, they should be receiving at least 8½d. per lb. for baconers and it should go as far as 10 per lb.—why should not the Government step in and help these people and not let them sell their stuff at ruinous prices? The pig that produces bacon has to be between 190 lbs. and 200 lbs. in weight, so that means that that pig has to be sent into market on a particular date. It is different to what happens in the case of the cattle, farmer. If the price is against him on the market, the cattle farmer may possibly be able to hold his cattle back for a month or two, but not so the man who is breeding baconers. He has got to send his pigs in on a definite date, and even a day may make all the difference in the world to him; so he has to send them to market according to schedule, and take a chance about the price. It is an urgent matter, and I know that the Government is tackling it. I sincerely hope that the Government will expedite the fixing of the price so as to enable the pig breeders to continue their breeding and not be put out of business.

I hope that the hon. the Minister of Justice will take the police under his protection. This afternoon a slur was cast on them by the hon. member who has just sat down and I do hope that the Minister of Justice will protect them against mud-slinging of that nature. The hon. member said that the police of today compare very unfavourably with the police force of the past and that the best type of man does not feel attracted to the police force. I know that the Minister of Justice will support me when I maintain that the police force of today does not only compare favourably with any force we may have had in South Africa in the past, but that the present police force stands head and shoulders above any police force we have ever had in South Africa. And when that hon. member comes along and throws dirt at this police force, I hope that the Minister of Justice will get up in this House and will tell the country what the position is in regard to our police force. The South African police force consists of 90 per cent. of Afrikaans-speaking persons. Is this merely a coincidence or is that the actual reason why that hon. member said that the police force was so inferior.

I did not say so.

Of course the hon. member will not admit it straightforwardly. He has not the courage to do so. But that is the reason behind his assertion. I only want to say this. I also knew the police force of the past. I know that the hon. member is worried about the fact that the police force is no longer constituted of persons talking the same kind of English as he does. The hon. member stated inter alia that this side of the House is always talking about the internees but never about the soldiers up North. This side of the House consists of the Nationalist Party and we plead for every section of the population which receives unfair treatment, also for the soldiers if they should be treated unfairly. Has the hon. member forgotten that shortly before the election.…

Yes, that was just before the election.

Just wait a moment; that hon. Minister will also get his turn. When not so long ago large numbers of soldiers submitted their grievances to this side of the House, this side being the only one having the courage to transmit those grievances to the Government, what did a certain front bencher on the other side call them? Is it not a fact that that front bencher here in the House labelled those soldiers as “skunks in uniform”? Did he forget that?

Is that the reason why so many soldiers voted for us?

I just want to tell the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Stettler) something if he will remain quiet for a moment. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to refer to him as “Oom Louw.” In future he should rather remain silent when we speak about Afrikaners. It is much better in view of what he did in the past. There is nothing so evil-smelling as a renegade. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) is a relatively young man and he is the last one who should speak about the evasion by people of their duty to go up North. Nothing prevented him, and nothing is preventing him now, from going up North. If there was one person for whom we had respect, then it was the former member of Parliament, Mr. Egeland, who relinquished his seat to go up North and do his duty there. We take off our hats for that type of man. I do not want to say anything about the speech of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. A. C. du Toit). I just want to congratulate him on one thing and that is that he expressed his disappointment here about the personal attacks which continually take place in this House. I assume he was thinking of the speech of the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) who spoke just before him. He said that we should assist each other. We on this side of the House just want to point out that in future we are not going to take notice any more of the type of man who makes a speech here of the kind which the hon. member for North East Rand made. We want to deal with matters on their merits. We on this side did so today. Every speaker here treated the matter on its merits. But apart from the hon. member for Prieska and perhaps one or two others, can the same be said of the hon. members on the other side? The hon. members for North East Rand and Rosettenville got rid of a series of disgusting personalities and aspersions. I do hope that in future hon. members on the other side will also deal with matters on their merits and that similar personal and unpleasant remarks will no longer be tolerated. Now I should also like to deal with the question of internment and address my remarks in particular to the English-speaking members on the other side of the House. I do not so much want to address the Afrikaans-speaking members over there, for if there is one thing that aggrieves us, then it is that this debate is left mainly, as far as the other side is concerned, to Afrikaans-speaking members who make use of this opportunity to attack us, whilst we are fighting here for people of our own flesh and blood. Most of the English-speaking members have so far had the decency not to follow their colleagues in that respect. I specially want to speak to them and to tell them that Afrikaans-speaking persons have been interned in large numbers in this country. Every time there is a war on, the same thing happens and the Afrikaans-speaking people of our country are trodden in the dust. I can for instance go back to the war of 1899 to 1902 when we saw the same thing happen in the Cape. At that time also hundreds of Afrikaners were sent to places such as Port Alfred and even on their farms and in the villages they were treated in a manner which virtually stamped them as criminals. Those who were not prepared to approve of the policy of the English Government in attacking the Transvaal and the Free State had to be humiliated to the ground. There is so much talk here about racial co-operation and peace within the country and that we must not have any racial hatred. I ask the English-speaking section in South Africa and even the Afrikaans-speaking members who are sitting over there with them, what right they have to mention racial peace and co-operation, if every time England is at war, the Afrikaans-speaking section is being downtrodden and humiliated. It happened in 1914 and it has again happened in this war. If you want racial peace, a stop will have to be put against this treading under foot and suppression and throwing into gaols and internment camps of one section of the population. One can understand that when a country is at, war and the country finds itself in actual danger, some people will be interned. I do not agree with it but that happens right through the world. If in time of war the Government thinks that the State is in danger, then one can understand that people are being interned without a trial. I do not approve of it, but it is being done in other countries and it is the same thing that this Government has also done. We object to it but it is the general policy today. Of course the Government advances the reason that it is also being done in other countries. I want, however, to put the question whether in their opinion South Africa is still in danger and if not, on what grounds they can justify their action of keeping people in the internment camps and even interning further persons, whereas the courts of this country are wide open and they can bring those persons before the court? If persons violate the law of the land and are brought to court and found guilty, we have no right to object, but we ask you to at least bring them before the court. Now, however, people are simply thrown into internment camps, guilty or innocent. On whose authority do you do that? On whose authority do you declare them guilty? Is it done on the authority of the Minister of Justice because he says that they will be interned since they are guilty? For what purpose do we have our law courts in this country? Why do we have a Department of Justice and judges and magistrates with high salaries, if the Minister of Justice, under war conditions, because there is a war being waged somewhere in the world, can simply throw people into internment without a trial? In that case he might as well decide in all other instances of crimes, whether a man is guilty or not. There is not the slightest justification for keeping those people any longer in the internment camps and I hope that the Minister of Justice will realise the fairness of our plea and will act accordingly. It is being said: Yes, but, we do not have the evidence to find some of these people guilty. It is a very serious charge against the Government if it has to admit that it dare not bring those people before a court of law because it does not possess the necessary evidence to find them guilty. Another explanation put forward time and again by the Minister of Justice was that he did not want to bring these young men into court because it would be a slur on their names if they were to be found guilty. I want to ask him a question: When the internees concerned themselves ask, all of them, to be brought before a court of law, will he still refuse it? If they are prepared to be convicted before a lawful court of the land, how dare you refuse them to be brought before such a court, unless you release them? Why are people being interned. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) rendered a service to the country by reading out a list of questions which are put to persons from whom the authorities want to wring certain information. Listening to the speeches from the other side, one would come to the conclusion that people are interned solely by reason of the fact that they belong to this or that organisation, and the name of the Ossewabrandwag was mentioned. But if one looks at the questions, it appears as if a person can be interned because he plays jukskei, for one of the questions reads: “Do you play jukskei?” Or because he belongs to the Nationalist Party, for another question reads: “Do you belong to the Nationalist Party? Or because he is a member of the Reddingsdaadbond, for that is also one of the questions which are put to those people. I again ask whether the Government approves of such questions being put to our people. There are many of those persons employed in the Public Service and they are being frightened with internment by asking such questions. They are afraid they may be interned if they say that they play jukskei. The time has come that the conscience of this country be roused. I still hope that the Minister of Justice will realise the fairness of our plea. In the questionnaire read out by the hon. member for Vredefort there are many questions to which one has to reply, and from it one has to conclude that membership of the institutions or participation in the things I have mentioned may lead to internment and are reasons for internment. The Reddingsdaadbond is mentioned and the Ossewabrandwag is mentioned and the Nationalist Party, but there is one organisation of which the name does not appear in the questionnaire and that is the Stormjaers. It is a well-known fact that there are scores of people at present in the internment camps or detained there only because they were members of the Stormjaer movement. I hope the Minister of Justice will not shake his head, for he will remember that last year when a number of policemen were detained they applied for an order to appear before a court of law. Application was made for a warrant against the Minister of Defence and the Police to bring them before a court of law, and the Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Defence, and the head of the police both submitted sworn declarations to the court to oppose the application. What reasons were put forward in the sworn declaration? They opposed the application because the persons concerned were members of the Stormjaer movement! That was given as the reason. If some of these people had been guilty of any act contrary to the laws of the country, the Government could bring them before a court, but to intern a man only because he belong to an organisation, is inexplicable to me, the more so when the Government apparently is of opinion that the heads of the organisation have done nothing which would warrant their internment. I take it that the reason why they have not yet been interned is that the Government is satisfied that they have done nothing to justify their being interned. If that is the case, why in heaven’s name must ordinary members of the Stormjaer movement be interned? Solely because they are members of the Stormjaers? I go further: Those policemen and many others have been interned solely because they were members of the Stormjaer organisation. Do you know what happened? Some of the people who had been interned because they allegedly were members of the Stormjaer organisation were released on the strength of certificates from the head of the Stormjaers that they were not members of the Stormjaer movement. This is an unbelievable state of affairs. The head of the Stormjaers gives a certificate that a certain person does not belong to the organisation and on the strength of that he is released. This is a position which the Minister of Justice should thoroughly go into. We plead for all those people, especially for those who are innocent. We are convinced that the large majority of them are innocent and if the Minister can prove the contrary, let him tell us so. In the name of fairplay and justice and peace in South Africa, bring those persons before a court and prove their guilt. I reiterate that all this talk about racial co-operation will not help one iota if that kind of injustice is being meted out to us. Do you think that you can have racial peace and co-operation if a section of the population is being trodden down and trampled upon in such a manner? I want to come back to the treatment of internees. I have here a letter and I am prepared to hand it to the Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) this afternoon brought to light certain facts in regard to the treatment of internees, also as far as the medical aspect of the question is concerned and I want to confess in all honesty that I was shocked.I only want to give one further instance and I do hope that the Minister will find this so shocking that he will interfere. This letter has been written by a physician whose patient had been interned. The doctor who, inter alia, is the head of a hospital, writes [Translation]—

I agree with him. When a man is taken away whilst under treatment of a doctor and is interned and treated in that manner and when he is thereafter, subsequent to his release, again arrested and in spite of a certificate of the head of the hospital and the doctor who attended him, treated in that manner in the Johannesburg gaol, it is a scandal. That is something which ought not to happen in South Africa. I do not blame the Minister of Justice personally. I know that he himself bears no blame in this matter but I ask him to have it investigated. If the facts are correct and I take it, on the authority of the physician, that they are correct, then the people responsible for such treatment in the Johannesburg gaol or in the internment camp should receive the punishment which they deserve and it should be a most severe punishment.

In the reply to this debate I want to confine myself strictly to the merits of the question. It will not be necessary for me to go into the internment policy as such. That has been done before, and as the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) admitted, it is the present policy in every country. In a country like South Africa where we experienced extensive sabotage it is obvious that one does not need any further proof that a policy of internment was not only justified, but also absolutely necessary. Before going into details I just want to reply to one point raised by the hon. member for Waterberg. He said here that he was going to confine himself to the English-speaking section and in his subsequent remarks he wanted to suggest that the English-speaking members on this side are solely responsible for the policy of internment.

Oh no, I asked for their assistance to see to it that Afrikaans-speaking people are no longer treated in this manner.

I am glad that explanation was given; for I just want to point out that as far as the internment policy is concerned all of us on this side, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, share the responsibility. In order to avoid any misunderstanding I furthermore want to say that the English-speaking members on this side have given proof of a remarkable forbearance, and that some of them up to the present are still doing everything in their power to have internees released. The misunderstanding perhaps arose when the hon. member said that we cannot expect to achieve racial co-operation if things like that happen and the natural corollary was that the blame had to be laid mainly at the door of the English-speaking members. Well, today we find a larger measure of racial co-operation in South Africa than every before, as has been proved by the general election. If hon. members differ from me on this point let them look at the benches on this side. You find practically as many Afrikaans-speaking as English-speaking members on the Government side, and we have the largest majority ever experienced in South Africa. I now want to come back at once to the policy in regard to internments. The policy already adopted by my colleague, Mr. Lawrence, before I took over was to release persons whenever possible, and that the only criterion had to be the safety of the State and the public interest. There is no question of vengeance, no question of envy. The whole position is: release when justified in view of the safety of the State. That policy was followed by my colleague and I follow the same. I mention this because the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) represented the facts as if the previous Minister in charge of this matter went to work in a reckless manner. I just want to say that he had a difficult task under very difficult circumstances during a most difficult time, when even members on the other side warned us in regard to the position in our country and the subversive activities. I again want to admit, as I did before, that they contributed much to combat these subversive activities and sabotage. But under those difficult circumstances my colleague gave proof of remarkable tolerance. The assertion was made that people had been interned in an irresponsible manner, where internment was not justified. During the last four months I have personally investigated many of these cases and not one case has come to my notice where a man had been interned unjustly or without sound reasons. I know that it is often difficult for hon. members on the other side to understand this. I just want to quote one example. At the time when the cutting of wires took place large scale arrests of people took place in the Eastern Transvaal, the Western Transvaal and the Free State, where hundreds and hundreds were arrested. Then it was also said that the Government was arresting because they did not know who was guilty and who was innocent, and that they arrested people left and right. You will remember that day after day that accusation was levelled against us at the time. What happened? Sabotage took place to a large extent. If that had happened in any other country, an Allied country or one of the Axis countries the Government there would have taken very drastic steps. I ask the hon. member what would have happened to those people in one of the Axis countries. It was difficult to follow a policy of tolerance. We brought those people before the court and more than 96 per cent. pleaded guilty. Is that not absolute proof that the Government not only did not proceed in a reckless manner but that its actions were quite correct and necessary? At the beginning there were a few cases where people landed in the internment camps, a case or two, who should not have been there. One case was investigated and the person who was responsible was brought before the court and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment.

Who was that?

That was the case of Louw and Strobes.

What about the Arndt brothers?

That was not a matter which has been reported. Arndt was involved in matters which quite obviously could have been interpreted wrongly. No, people are not being interned on the strength of gossip. All the cases are thoroughly enquired into. We realise that some people for some reason or the other, perhaps to take vengeance, want to have a man interned, but every case is investigated thoroughly. A few mistakes were made, but those persons were released immediately, and those responsible were brought to court if they had given false evidence.

Who?

I do not want to mention special cases here.

But you started with it.

It is now being said that the Government cannot show proofs. That is entirely wrong. What I said was that very frequently it was not possible to bring all the proofs before the court. Do hon. members on the other side want to maintain that the Government is unjust or that it is not justified in protecting as far as possible the people who gave information to it. Did they already forget the cases of Lotter and Nel, or the people who have been shot or have been murdered because they supplied information to the Government?

What happened to the murderers of Nel; you said that you had their names.

I will tell you.

That is a difficult question.

No, it is very easy. That case is still pending. We have the persons whom we think are the guilty ones but until such time as they have been found guilty, they are innocent. Many of the people whom we have, however, do not want to give us that information. If my hon. friend will come to see me I shall give him the names and tell him who can supply us with the information. We know that they can give us the information, and I hope that he will assist me in persuading those people to give us the information.

That is rather late now.

No, it is not too late to bring a murderer to book. Will the hon. member be willing to assist me?

Yes, I shall assist you.

I shall supply him with names. Most likely he will have influence with those people. If he can persuade them then there is no doubt in my mind as far as one of those people are concerned. The case against him is cast iron.

But then you have the proofs.

I do not want to go into the merits of the case now. I mention it only as an instance that we are justified in our actions and do not bring those people to court in a reckless manner. First of all we must protect them. In the second place it is being done in the general interest. Why? The hon. member for Wolmaransstad as a military officer knows that we obtain information and that by making that information public in court it becomes known where we obtained the information It would be foolish to do so.

But in that case of the persons being brought before the court for sabotage, weren’t you afraid that they might also be shot?

We have to consider every case separately. For that reason I clearly stated that we deal with every case on its merits. This case I also dealt with on its merits now and I do it as dispassionately as possible. I want to reproach as little as possible. It is self-evident that the information we sometimes receive is given on condition that we give the informants an undertaking that we shall not expose them to any danger. That information is being put to the test to see whether it is reliable. What happened to Kroukamp who supplied us with information about the Stormjaers? He disappeared. That case was before the court. We had the evidence of Leibbrandt and Kroukamp to show to what considerable extent subversive activities took place in the country. No, the persons who were interned, were interned in a fair manner. I am, however, not trying to make things more difficult for them. They have been sitting there for a long time already. The merits of every case are now being gone into and we hope to release as many of them as possible in the near future. I do admit that what has been said here and the attitude of those who have already been released and the attitude of the country in general, make it possible for us to release people to a large extent. There are two categories which cannot be considered for release at the moment. The first are those persons among the police who took part in subversive activities and the second those who took part in sabotage acts. You will understand that the saboteurs put this country in an extremely difficult position. When we had to fight for our lives, they stabbed us in the back. It demanded a tremendous effort on the part of the police to get hold of them. I want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) at once that I do not think that he intended to cast an aspersion on the police. It appears that he wanted the police force to be made attractive for university graduates too. The only mistake he made was to speak of their intelligence. I do admit he made that mistake. I know also that he broached the subject with the best of intentions, for he always defends the police. I may tell him and the country that South Africa’s debt to the police is enormous. They first of all cleaned up in their own ranks and after they had done that they did wonderful work in our country to put a stop to sabotage and subversive activities. I want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that they not only did that but that they also performed work of exceptional value for the military and in other directions. When the records of these times will be compiled one day, the performance of the S.A. Police in this struggle will equal the record of any other police force right through the world. I agree with him that we should endeavour to obtain a police force of the very highest standard. Seeing that he also said that they should receive higher payment, well, my colleague sits there and it is not my duty to say any more about that: I only want to say that everything they get they fully deserve and if this House wants to give them something more, nobody will be more grateful than I. I do not think my hon. friend will want me to say more about this matter. I do not think that I need go into all the details of it. The general policy is there and we hope to put it into effect. It is our policy to release as many persons as is possible always keeping in mind the public interest and the safety of the State. Certain particular cases were mentioned here by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). When that statement was made the matter was immediately submitted to judicial enquiry. I appointed a magistrate and a report was brought out. The report entirely contradicted the statement. If the hon. member will come and see me at my office he can have a look at the report. As far as the doctor’s letter is concerned, the hon. member did not give me notice of that. The policy is to feed the people properly and to give them only sound medical advice and assistance. If that is not done and if our policy fails in certain respects, I shall be the first to have enquiries made and to see to matters being put right. I do not think I need go further into this now.

What about the treatment in the camps?

I did not receive notice in advance of these points, but I can just say that I have received no complaints. My information is that the treatment is excellent, that the food is excellent and this was also stated last year by one of the members who visited the camp.

Appoint one of your officials to go into it.

It is not our intention that the people in the camps should not receive fair treatment. If the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) will give me his information, I shall undertake to have a thorough enquiry made into it. If something is found to be wrong, it will have to be put right.

What about the visits?

That request seems to me to be a reasonable one. I do not think those people ought to be kept waiting so long. If there are any specific complaints based on good grounds, I shall appreciate it if the hon. members will bring them to my attention, so that it may be enquired into. When the hon. member for Winburg brought his case to my notice I at once directed a magistrate to enquire into the matter. Wherever we hear the least complaint that something was done not conforming to the regulations, an enquiry is held to put things right.

What undertaking do you give in regard to the motion?

It is difficult for me to tie myself down. Allow me to say something in general. The absolute discretion must remain in the hands of the Government. During the last few months large numbers of these people have been released. It is our intention to continue that policy and to release practically everyone who was not guilty of sabotage or was not one of the police who were guilty of subversive activities. I must say that the discussion of this matter from the other side has contributed much towards making the putting into effect of this policy easier and possible.

Will you also grant relief to those who are out on parole?

That relief has already been given. For personal reasons there will be a few exceptions but the policy is to get the people back into their daily work. Much has been done and we hope to do still more, for one does not want a grievance to remain when people have already suffered for what they have done. That is all I want to say. We must look after the public interest and the safety of the State. I am pleased that the problem was discussed in this spirit and I do hope that the course followed by the Government will result in hon. members on the other side not again having reason for complaint.

The Prime Minister recently said: After this war there must be no forgotten men. Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that that sentence was impressed on the minds of members of the House as well as on a large number of the people of South Africa, and I expect that many brains and many minds have concentrated on the means of attaining this end. During my visit to England in 1921 I was staggered by the sight of university men, as well as those drawn from the lower grades of society, in the streets of London selling toys and doing suchlike things simply because there was no other way of obtaining their living from day to day. In this case living as I did in a country district as well as in a large town, I saw practically the same thing happening here in South Africa where the number of so-called hoboes in the country districts was something beyond one’s imagination. All this, Mr. Speaker, has led many of us to reflect on means of insuring that there shall be no forgotten men, and it was only a chance observation by the visitor from Rhodesia the other day that gave me the germ of an idea, and that idea I want to put before the Government. When our men are demobilised, many will go to employment which is practically ephemeral; it cannot last for very long. If you take the case of building operations, we find they may go to a job and after a period of from ten to twenty weeks the contractor who is employing them, will not be able to get further contracts for the time being, and his operatives will consequently be unemployed. In those circumstances, how are they going to tide over that period of unemployment? I believe there are various expedients which will be placed before Ministers, and many expedients which they will evolve themselves; but it is a fact that these soldiers have rendered wonderful service to us and to the Empire and though they may have done it in different ways, the service is there and has been there and will always be remembered. And to attain this end that there shall be no forgotten men after this war, I would submit to the Government a scheme which may sound Utopian to start with, but which I believe will bear the light of inspection and consideration. What I propose, Mr. Speaker, is this: That to men who were engaged in fighting the enemy in Kenya, and Somaliland, and Abyssinia and in the desert, and up to Tunisia, and the clearing of the enemy out of Africa, also those men doing work in the Middle East, serving in the ships of the Royal Navy and the ships of the South African Navy, and the personnel of the air force who have been engaged in operational and patrol work everywhere, even off the coast of South Africa—to those men I propose that the country pays a life allowance of £5 per month; to those of the forces who volunteered for service anywhere in Africa, but did not move out of the Union, I propose that the Government shall pay them £4 a month for life; to those who signed up for full time military service in the Union and became trained soldiers, I propose that the country shall pay £3 a month; the coloureds and Indians in the same categories I propose that they should have £3, £2 and £1 a month for life. To natives of the same categories I propose that they shall receive £1 10s., £1 and 10s. per month for life— and that these grants shall be known as “Awards for personal service.” These awards shall not in any way affect any grants or pensions given under our existing pension laws. They shall be regarded as something entirely separate, and if a pension is granted for disability this award for personal service shall not be considered as forfeited or regarded as a double pension. I suggest, moreover, that these awards shall be granted to everyone, whatever the rank, from major-general and field-marshals down to the private in any infantry regiment, and that it also shall apply to the women who have joined up for service both outside and inside the Union. And let me add, Mr. Speaker, that if some of those who have fought and through indiscretion have received dishonourable discharge—at least they fought, they served and they should not be forgotten. I submit that those men who have received a dishonourable discharge but who nevertheless have rendered service to their country, shall receive rewards at half of the rates I have mentioned. This may seem a rather novel idea and it may cost a lot of money, but on the other hand it will mean a considerable saving. At the present time even those who are derelicts of the last war have to be maintained, and if they have these awards for personal service they will not be so great charge on the State and on private charity and benevolence, as they are today. So although the total may stagger one, at the same time I believe there are ways and means of attaining it. But I should add that these men have deserved consideration. They are receiving consideration from the Government, but this is an idea which I hope that the Government will accord their grave and utmost consideration. At any rate, it is an idea, and I hope that the Government will consider it and entertain the idea so that we may attain to that ambition that after this war there shall be no forgotten men.

I esteem it a great privilege and also an honour to make a few remarks here in this House. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister of Justice for the concessions he has promised. We have been pleading here for a section of the population and he has given the undertaking that he is going to release those men. On the other hand I am very disappointed with the attitude taken up by Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side. Let us consider the fact that our English-speaking friends forty years ago fought against us. We are now pleading for our fellow-Afrikaners and we find that those English-speaking friends who conquered us forty years ago, are not desirous of trampling us down when we plead for our fellow Afrikaners. It is, however, a great pity that we have to notice here that the Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side do not share that attitude, and that it was an Afrikaans-speaking member who said that he is going to vote against it and that these people should not be released. I am sorry that this phenomenon is to be found among our own people. We have had the same thing during the Anglo-Boer War, viz. that we had to suffer more from our own Afrikaans-speaking people than from the English side. I do not know why the Afrikaans-speaking people who do not stand with their own nation should be so full of hate against us. Perhaps they are disappointed with their own actions and now they vent their bitterness against their own people. We feel that we shall have to forgive them, for we believe that one day they will come back to the fold. We plead for the internees. Who are those persons in our internment camps today? If one looks at their ages, one finds that they are the sons of our concentration camps. They bear a grievance in their heart and they felt that the Government with a majority of votes in the House went and plunged the people of South Africa into this war, and that the children of the concentration camps were expected to fight for the freedom of Great Britain. Seeing that this is the case, can we blame them for going as far as committing sabotage? Can we blame them that they did what they did? I did not want to speak on this matter but I felt that as an Afrikaner I would fail in my duty if I did not make these few remarks and if I did not thank the Minister of Justice for the promise that he will release many of these men in the near future. I want him to go thoroughly into the matter and to release these people as soon as possible. As far as our prisoners-of-war in overseas countries are concerned, it is not our duty on this side of the House to make proposals dictating to Germany and the other Axis powers to release those prisoners. We on this side of the House have no say on that matter, but we are concerned about our people who have been interned in our own country. They are persons under our control and we should like to see them free again. It does not help them when others tell us that there are many supporters of the Opposition who are at present prisoners-of-war. We can reply to that that they did not become soldiers out of their own free will, but that they were forced into it by fate. They joined up as a last resort. We are being told that the Opposition now forms only a small minority. What is the reason for that? We shall remain a small minority as long as the war is on. But as soon as the war is over those people will come back and we shall welcome them. We have much sympathy with those prisoners-of-war. We feel sorry for the parents on the other side whose children have died in the war. In reply to a question in this House we heard that 21,000 of our troops became casualties, and they were both Afrikaans and English speaking. We believe that the English-speaking South Africans who fell on the battlefield volunteered to go and that they thought it a privilege to go and fight. As far as the Afrikaans-speaking soldiers are concerned we believe that many of them went there because the circumstances forced them to. When we look back on the struggle of our people and the war we lost in the past we feel that every nation yearns to be free again. I would like to put the following question to my English-speaking friends on the other side. Supposing it had been England’s fate to have been conquered by Germany, and supposing further that at some future date Germany would be involved in another war, would those English sons and daughters who had been struck down by the bombs that fell on London, be keen to fight on German’s side? No, they would prefer to be loyal to their own nation, and they would not like to assist Germany. The same applies to the Afrikaans-speaking South African. We want, to live here in harmony with our English-speaking friends. Together with my former leader I tried to apply the 50-50 principle. What was, however, the result? The other side applied the policy in such a manner that it was no longer in the interest of South Africa but to the advantage of England, and to help the latter out of its difficulties. We heard so much about the British Navy protecting South Africa, but this time South Africa had to help to protect the British Navy. Our sons had to do this, and this side of the House is proud of many of the Afrikaners who fell there, for they were our sons. I do not want to go further into this matter. We only hope that in the near future our Afrikaans-speaking friends will be out of the internment camps and that the Afrikaans-speaking members on the Government side will then feel ashamed of the accusations they made here and of the speeches they held, advocating that these men should not be released. We hope that they will be bitterly disappointed with the speeches they made here. I want to confine myself to my own constituency, and to the farming difficulties we experience there. I did not intend to speak about the internment question, but I could not help myself. We, the farmers in my constituency, feel that things are not so wonderful as we have been told and as we are still being told in the country every day. Our farmers are facing very difficult conditions. We are told that we have to produce but on the other side we know that we cannot obtain the necessary fertilisers. A farmer who used to apply 40 or 100 tons in the past now only receives 3 tons. The result is that our land does not yield the same crops as in the past. We have been told here that after the war we shall again have a great wheat surplus. I do not believe that. At the moment our soil is being exhausted because we cannot obtain sufficient fertilisers. The production of our farms goes back, and the value of the land decreases in consequence. We reap only half the crops we used to get in the past, for our soil is being depleted. We now get kraal manure from the Karoo, but we do not know what that kraal manure contains. As we cannot get anything else we have to use it. We order the manure from the Karoo and when it arrives at our farms we do not know how much of it is manure and how much of it is sand. We simply buy it because we have to use it. I am a young member and I do not really want to criticise the Government, but if I may suggest something, I would like to hear from the Minister of Agriculture whether it is not possible for him to establish depots at the places where the manure is being loaded so that it may be tested there and the wheat farmer may be assured of buying good manure. Speculators went round the farms and recommended the manure. They said that it was of good quality. I sent a sample of it to Glen. The reply I received from them was that it was half manure and half sand, and they wrote to me why I did not rather use the manure of my own farm. We feel that the Government should do something to help the farmers to produce and we shall be glad if the Minister will give his attention to this matter. Our soil is our national asset. At the moment we have to produce under difficult circumstances and we feel that we cannot allow our soil being exhausted and neglected unnecessarily. We have to build up that soil. In regard to the farming industry we feel that there are many branches of farming which ought to be subsidised. In the past the Government to a certain extent followed that policy. We in this House recently listened to the discussion in connection with the Deciduous Fruit Board. At the moment I do not want to go further into that matter. There is however another matter which I want to discuss. As the farmers in the greater part of the country farm with improved cattle and since fodder and everything is so expensive today, we want to ask the Government to assist the farmers by subsidising approved bulls. Furthermore we just want to point out that today it is very expensive to keep cattle. Land rents have gone up considerably and everything is more expensive and we shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister can accede to this request. We often hear that the farmers today are very well off. I want to assure the House that the farmers in my constituency are badly off. This year they expect only 20 per cent. of the normal harvest and the position in the country as a whole is by no means as favourable as it is represented to us. We just want to draw the Minister’s attention to this so that the Government may know that the position of the farmers is very bad, especially in my constituency. Then there is a further matter which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is in connection with the Glen Agricultural School in the Free State. That Agricultural School has now been closed. Of course we cannot all enter the professions. Some people must remain on the farms, and must be able to work the soil and provide the country with food. The boy who has no aptitude for anything else and who has to go and farm would like to have an opportunity to attend an agricultural college, but this college has now been closed down. There is also something else I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister, viz. in regard to housing. The village I represent lies very low. It has been flooded already several times, and the position is very serious. Perhaps you will tell me that this is a matter concerning the Provincial Administration or the Municipalities. But we feel today that the Provincial Council of the Free State has very little money at its disposal, and that the Government ought to enquire into that matter and should give a certain amount of assistance. There is still a further question affecting my constituency. We cannot expect the Minister of Justice’s Department to do the actual building, but surely he can be of assistance. The Minister knows the magistrate’s office in my constituency. We shall be very glad if the Minister of Justice will provide for a certain amount being placed on the the Estimates for the construction of a magistrate’s office in my constituency. Our magistrate’s office is far too small, and a new building is more than overdue. I now wish to say something about another matter. Much has been said here about farming. We heard that 40,000 soldiers will have to be placed on the land after their return. The position simply is that we cannot settle more people on the land for the following reason. There are many persons today who went farming during the war, simply because of the large profits they could make out of it. Today the price of farm produce are high, and these people take everything they can from the soil. As soon as the war is over, and the prices come down again, those people will give up farming. The experience of the last war taught us that not every person can make a success, of farming. We feel that the man who wants to become a farmer must have a natural aptitude for it. After the last war the Government brought a large number of returned soldiers to the Glen Agricultural College to teach them farming. They afterwards were sent out and farmed, but very few of them are still farmers today. Then finally there is still something I want to discuss. I do not know how the position is to be corrected, but I want very strongly to bring it to the notice of the Minister concerned. It is something in regard to our rural constituencies. Our rural constituencies are so large and extensive that it is very difficult to travel from the one side to the other. We feel that in the rural areas we not only represent the European, but also the native and the coloured. I now want to ask whether it cannot be arranged that the quota of the towns is slightly increased whilst the quota for the rural areas is decreased. And finally I want to break a lance for our country people. Our farmers have to struggle against all the vagaries of nature and I want to ask the Government to do everything in its power to assist our rural population. In the rural districts one finds very few wealthy people. We are all poor people. In the past it was deemed necessary to institute a farm bond redemption scheme and that is the clearest proof that the rural areas need assistance, and we ask that the Government give that assistance whenever it is able to do so.

I just want to touch on two matters, both affecting the consumer and the producer in this country. I am one of those—and I am sure the majority of the members agree with me—who believe that it is essential for the future well-being of South Africa that there should be no misunderstanding between the producer and the consumer.

Who causes those misunderstandings?

The townspeople are often accused of being hostile to the farming population. I think it is right to say that that is an accusation which is not justified.

It often is.

The point I want to touch on is this question of the price of bread.

We have had that here before.

There is a considerable amount of misunderstanding in connection with this matter, and there is a feeling that unless that misunderstanding is removed by more information being given, by the Agricultural Department, that misunderstanding is apt to be intensified.

Some people will never understand it.

There is a feeling that money which is being spent at present and which, in accordance with the admission of the Minister of Agriculture, goes to the farmers through the Wheat Control Board—the money spent for the stabilisation of the price of bread—although it is intended to stabilise the price of bread does not actually benefit the consumer to the extent it should and there is a feeling that we should get specific information as to how that money is distributed by the Wheat Control Board, and that we should be satisfied that a proportion of that amount does not go in additional profits to the farmers.

You know it does not.

The other day we had a report from the Cost Accountant of the Marketing Council. Now that report deals with the cost of baking as far as the bakers are concerned, and the cost of processing as far as the millers are concerned. If the figures given in that report are correct I have no objection to the suggestion made there, that is to limit the profit to the baker to the figure given by the cost accountant. But what the consumers feel is that it is not enough to limit the price as far as the baker is concerned, but that it is essential to make sure that of the money voted for stabilisation—not a fraction of that money goes to increase the profit to the producer, the miller or the baker. I think the Government should place before this House cost accounting figures to show that that amount of money is actually absorbed by the increased costs of production, both as regards the farmer, the baker and the miller. And I think some statement of that kind should be made by the Minister of Finance, or by the Minister of Agriculture, especially showing the increased costs of production to the farmer—and unless such a statement is made I am afraid that the feeling which exists in the towns will become intensified; and that feeling is to this effect, that this money is being spent not so much for the protection of the consumer as for the protection of the farmer. Well, we want to prevent that feeling becoming intensified. I am one of those who realise that it is essential to keep as many of our people on the land as possible. I am also one of those who realise that we have to grow wheat in this country for the well-being of the people of this country—and that at any rate at the present moment we are not able to import wheat. But it is because one feels that that is the position, one is entitled to ask that we should have the most reliable figures to show that the cost of production to the farmer is such that the amount which he gets under this Vote is only calculated to cover his increased costs of production. And then there is another point I wish to touch upon. And that is this tendency of increasing hostility to the control boards. Now, sir, I am one of those who believe in control boards. I supported the establishment of the Marketing Council and I still believe that after the war it will be necessary as far as agriculture is concerned, and as far as industries generally are concerned, to have a certain measure of control over private enterprise, so as to ensure that private enterprise does not exploit the needs of the people for its private benefit. Therefore, I do not want to see an agitation spring up or develop for the abolition of these control boards, and from that angle I feel that these control boards should be revised. They should be improved so as to make the people of this country realise that these control boards are really meant to control industry, and that they are not intended merely to protect the interests of one section of the community. When the policy of control, as far as milk was concerned, was started in Great Britain, a large number of enquiries were held, and it was felt in certain quarters that the Milk Control Board was being utilised purely for the protection of dairymen, and was dominated by the Dairy Industry, and ultimately one of the commissions appointed in Great Britain put in a report in favour of so altering the constitution of the Milk Control Board in Great Britain not only so as to give the consumers more representation, but to ensure that the Milk Control Board was there to control that industry in the interests of the community as a whole, and that it was not there to look after the interests of one section of the population or of another section of the population only. In this country it is daily becoming more necessary to reconsider the constitution of these control boards—it is necessary to constitute them so as to control and not further sectional interest and so make the public have more confidence in them than is the case today.

It is not only a matter of confidence—it is a matter of competence.

Arising out of that, I want to touch on another point, and I hope the Minister of Finance when he replies to this debate will be able to give some information. References have been made in the past outside and in the House to the fact that there is a growing state of speculation in land in this country. People not only in the towns but in the country—not only townspeople but farmers as well, have been expending large sums of money on land at prohibitive prices. That in itself is bound to react detrimentally both on the farmer and the consumer because if land is bought at prohibitive prices, and has to return interest on those prices, it means that the production on that land will be so expensive that it will hurt the producer and the consumer. But apart from that a great deal of that speculation in land takes place for the purpose of evading the Excess Profits Tax. I want to mention to the Minister what a farmer told me about the price of meat and the difficulty of getting meat—it has a bearing on this subject. I was told—and I think it is a matter which might interest the Minister, that in many cases farmers will not send their cattle to the market because if they do so for slaughter purposes, they, the farmers, have to pay excess profits on the returns.

Speculative farmers.

That may be, but in the meantime it affects the position of the quantity of cattle coming in for the requirements of the consumer. Then I have been told that while excess profit is paid on cattle sent in for slaughter purposes those who stock their farms with cattle escape paying excess profits on the money they spend on that, and therefore it becomes a payable proposition, especially to speculators, to buy land even at exorbitant prices and so escape paying excess profits and at the same time stock these farms with cattle, and of course that withdraws large numbers of cattle from use to the consumers and in addition it enables them to avoid paying excess profits. Now, I put this to the Minister, and I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to devise some method by which this can be dealt with, and show the people doing these things that it does not pay to evade the excess profits in the way it is done now. And in that regard it is not enough putting on the property tax which the Minister has done on land which is sold within a certain period. I think the time has come—and I am sure I shall get the support of the other side of the House which has raised the question of the expropriation of land which the land companies hold— the time has come to consider the question of expropriating land which is being withheld from development and I think the time has come for the Minister to consider, apart from the tax which he is imposing, the imposition of a tax on land in order to compel land being developed usefully, and I say that a tax of that kind will not hurt the farmers, the land owner who is prepared to use his land, but it will force the land owner who is holding up his land for speculative purposes to utilise it to the advantage of the community as a whole.

I have much pleasure in identifying myself with the remarks already made on this side of the House this afternoon, especially in regard to the matter of internment. It was with pleasure that I could listen to the opinions of some moderate members on the other side of the House. I was also glad to hear that the hon. the Minister has promised a certain degree of assistance. However that may be, we on this side of the House feel that this is a matter which so pertinently disturbs the whole problem of democracy that we cannot leave it at that. We feel and the hon. the Minister will agree with us, that especially at the beginning of this war internments took place and charges were laid against people by the thousands, and all of them based on trival grounds. There were scores of charges laid against people. Fortunately many of these complaints could not stand the test to which they were submitted by the Government, but there are still cases where the accused and the internee is sitting there innocently owing to the fact that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself before a court of law and owing to the fact that he did not have the opportunity to call the necessary evidence to support his statements. Even during the recent elections I found in my own constituency that persons who assisted me in the election, fully within the law—I saw to that—one day after the election were arrested and put in gaol for three months and stayed there for three month without any charge being laid against them. Up till today the man does not know why he went to gaol and I do not know whether the authorities know why. We feel that matters like this affect the whole Afrikanerdom and for that reason we did not want to and actually did not make a political issue of it. I have had to meet prominent people, parents, with tears in their eyes because their children had been landed in difficulties through others who had enticed them, and the persons who incited them and are the cause that young, innocent boys are in gaol perhaps for their lifetime, are still walking the streets in freedom. There was a case which came to my notice of a lady official in Pretoria who was charged on the grounds of being pro-German. The lady was arrested and she had to appear before the police. When the charge was laid against her, the only complaint against her was that she was learning German. Well, I tried to learn Italian, but when I saw how fast the Italians ran, I threw my book away. This is a serious matter and in spite of that, so many of these accusations are of such a ludicrous nature that one cannot help viewing the whole question in a humoristic light. One of my friends and I had the honour to have a talk with Mr. Vere Stent shortly before his death. I told him: “You always were a true Imperialist friend; what did you do for the Empire during the war?” His reply was: “I have done a great deal. I succeeded in getting two Germans out of the internment camp”. He then continued: “On the Springbok Vlakte they had two shopkeepers and owing to the competition the German was interned, and he had scarcely left, when the prices there began to go up. I thereupon went to the authorities and obtained the man’s release, and immediately afterwards the prices came down again”. He told us that in the second instance a German landed in the internment camp and his wife then walked around and made a nuisance of herself. He then went to see the authorities, the German was released and his wife is now no longer a nuisance. We therefore feel that many persons are sitting in the internment camps because charges were laid against them based on futile reasons. We plead for those people. We do not plead for people who have committed serious crimes. Hon. members on the other side spoke of murderers and thieves. We on this side have never yet put forward one plea for murderers and thieves, but without any plea the hon. Minister has released 20.000 criminals. We ask that at least those internees against whom no important and serious charges have been made, should be released. I know of a young man in Pretoria who lost his job because somebody who had been spying on him had seen the magazine Die Brandwag in his room and he was accused of being a member of the Ossewabrandwag and therefore thrown out of his job. At the beginning of this war I was a civil servant myself and I can assure you that I know what the position of civil servants was. I know something about the position of those officials who were not in favour of the war and who kept silent. I did not even risk playing jukskei. In spite of that I was being spied upon personally and was accused several times with the object of having me interned. That makes me think of the miner who was asked by the magistrate whether he had ever been guilty of undermining activities, to which he replied: “Yes, for the last eight years I have been working down in the mines.” I was accused for instance of harbouring an undesirable person at my home in Pretoria, a man who made my home his headquarters and from there proceeded to organise rebellions. This matter came to my knowledge purely by coincidence. I took steps immediately and demanded from the police that the accusation levelled against me should be substantiated. After enquiry it appeared that the person who was staying in my house was the then head of the Transvaal C.I.D. If by chance it had happened to be somebody else, I expect that since the beginning of the war I would also have been put away in the Koffiefontein ice chest. What we feel about this whole question is that the people do not enjoy the rights which one would have expected in a democratic, free country. We are in the war, and even we on this side of the House, yes, even the 350,000 Afrikaners who voted against the war, every one of them is also subject to the heavy taxation with which we are being burdened. We must help to carry the burdens and it is not fair, as has often been done, to make the allegation that we do not contribute to the burden of the war. We pay our contribution. That contribution is larger than that of the supporters of the war policy, for they pay with a cheerful spirit and we with a sigh.

Under protest.

Yes, under protest.

But surely you enjoy our protection.

If I had enjoyed that kind of protection from the hon. member, he would have been in the North and would not have been sitting here on that comfortable bench.

Drawers of double salaries.

The internment without trial reminds me of the man who once asked his magistrate friend how the latter managed to deal with hundreds of native cases every Monday morning. He thereupon replied that, as they came into the bench for the accused, he looked at them and said: “If you are not guilty, what are you doing here. 5s. or a week.” This may be a joke when the fine is 5s. but it is not a joke when people are being locked up in camps for months and years without having been tried. A further point is that the internment camps cost the State and consequently the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds and that the people who are so interned in many cases are being ruined financially. The question of social security is being debated here. If we consider that on the one hand we plead for social security, for an improvement in the general standard of living in the country and for uplifting the people, we see that it clashes inevitably with the internment of persons, with depriving people of their existence by detaining them in camps. I want to go so far as to say that the release of these people, especially where no serious charges have been laid against them, is in the Government’s own interest. This war cannot last for ever and at some time or other they will come out of the camps in any case. There are still 375 of them in the camps and if the war should last for a further few years, they will be the crusaders par excellence going to war against the Government which kept them there all those years. They may still be of assistance in overthrowing the Government.

The Government will fall in any case.

But they may hasten the process. We appeal to the Government on the grounds of humanity. We ask the Cabinet to release those people. If you can release 20,000 criminals because their detention is costing too much and because you have no room for them, then it also cannot be too much work for the police to control the internees who are released. Under our police system it will not be impossible to control that small group of Afrikaners. The Minister himself admitted that they have not yet experienced any difficulties with the internees which have so far been released. Those people are only too grateful for again being able to inhale fresh air and to enjoy our South African sunshine, after having lived in the camps under conditions about which we have heard several instances today. We therefore appeal to the Government. I am sorry that the Minister of Justice himself is not in his seat now, for I would have liked to make a personal appeal to him. His father fought right through the three years’ war for his Afrikaner people, he fought and suffered and under illness and misery, under everything remained an honourable Afrikaner, a man whose memory will be honoured in the history of Afrikanerdom. We appeal to the Minister to follow in those footsteps on this occasion. The Minister told us that from the members on the other side one half is Afrikaans-speaking. These internees are also their people. We appeal to them to accede to our request.

I think that the most important work we in this country have to deal with is, first, winning the war; and secondly, the rehabilitation of our people; and thirdly, an increase in our internal production with a view to increasing our national income. And may I say that the position is a difficult one. We in this country, as you know, are a non-homogeneous population, and as such we have got to take into consideration that the greater portion of that population are today on a very low income level. And I suggest that if we are going to do anything at all as far as the rehabilitation of our people is concerned, and if we are going to do anything as far as the increase of our national income is concerned, we shall have to re-align our labour forces in our country. I am trying to take an objective view of the future, and I think that is the most important point we have to consider as far as this legislative body is concerned. I look at it from this angle, that as far as productivity is concerned we in this country are continually talking about an increase in our industrialisation, but at the same time if you view objectively the potential labour force of the country. I think the House will agree with me that to increase that industrialisation we have to re-align those forces and that we have not gone very far in that direction. I want to say this, that increase in productivity and increase in our national income means work, and it means the creation of employment, and in this connection I am of opinion that our Government will have to take a very strong line indeed. The creation of employment on the scale that is necessary to rehabilitate this country will assume such dimensions that it is beyond the power of private enterprise. I do feel that the Government will have to take a strong line in assisting the country, to keep it on the rails as far as our industrial production is concerned. Might I say this, Mr. Speaker, when you talk of productivity you talk of productivity in terms of manpower; the manpower of our country is the wealth of our country, and I am convinced today that we have idle forces in this country which are not pulling their weight. I want, for a moment, to analyse the position in view of the thoughts that will be always present in our minds in regard to increased industrialisation. What do we find today? The labour force of our gold mines is 20,000 boys short. In connection with our coal mines, I know for a fact that these concerns have been racking their brains and using every possible device to augment their labour force during the last two years. Coal, to my mind, constitutes the very lifeline of the war effort. Take agriculture, too; it is short of labour right throughout the country. Yet when we analyse our population of 11,000,000 in this country we find that we have roughly 8,500,000 non-Europeans. Only 20 per cent. of those over the age of 15 who are capable of working are working in urban areas and in industrial concerns today. The balance of our population is distributed on native reserves in farming, afforestation and in the fishing industry.

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 10th February.