When the debate was adjourned on Friday I was showing the hon. the Minister of Labour that in his ten minute speech he hardly once touched on the real question which had been discussed here. Now let me say this to the Minister: That the trouble which we were discussing the other day started with the situation created in the Garment Workers’ factory in Germiston, which situation constituted a breach of the sound policy of the colour bar. That was the origin of the whole trouble. The trouble originated through non-European workers being placed alongide the white daughters of our people in that particular garment workers’ factory. The hon. the Minister in the course of his speech, which lasted ten minutes, made no reference whatsoever to the origin of the trouble. That was not only the origin of the trouble but it was also the cause of the continuation of the trouble. What our churches asked for, what the predikants who acted there in the interest of the girls of their congregation asked for, was: Eradicate that evil, restore those two women in their positions, Mrs. Moll and Mrs. Nel, who had been dismissed as a result of the development of affairs when non-Europeans were employed to work alongside of white women. The hon. the Minister himself was amazed, when his ten minutes were up, that he had not said anything on the subject itself. I hope that after a week-end of rest he will get to the point of the debate. The hon. the Minister on Friday devoted a considerable portion of his speech to this—he asked this : What is a communist, and what is communism?

I said on Friday that his remarks were farcical and I say so again today. Let me say this to him : If he proceeds along the same lines today and asks : “What is a Church?”, his question will be no less ridiculous than his other question : “What is a communist, and what is communism?” One might be just as foolish and ask : “What is a human being?” What is a human being when he has certain powers under the Emergency Regulations, and an appeal is made to him to use his powers to put a stop to this evil which is developing, and threatens to develop into a conflagation—the Minister has been appealed to to use his powers under Emergency Regulation No. 6 of 1941, and Emergency Regulation No. 9 of 1942. Now, let me tell the Minister that the country expects him to act. These predikants who intervened—some of whom were assaulted—are men who want to protect the people entrusted to their care. The Minister has admitted that there was a difference of opinion at the meeting which was held on the Witwatersr and—that there was a conflict of opinion, and because of this conflict of opinion there was a clash. I want to ask the Minister this : What caused these two differences of opinion to arise which led to a clash? I said on Friday, and I say again that this clash, although it was a small scale clash, was the first clash between the church on the one hand and communism on the other hand—the church which wants to maintain and retain what it has, what it has to attend to, namely the protection of the rights of the people entrusted to it, and communism which wants to destroy the Church and everything appertaining to the Church? I made my speech on Friday in a spirit of warning. I said: “Don’t allow these things to develop too far.” We have had instances here in this House of warnings having been repeated over and over again, and we know of cases where those warnings were simply ignored with the result that there have been bloody conflicts, where the Government has simply shrugged its shoulders and said that this or that group has disappointed it. If the Minister does not take steps this will lead to very serious clashes, and he should use his powers to prevent those clashes. I want to express the hope that the Minister will carry on this debate in the same serious spirit as we started it, and that he will take up an attitude which will create respect; I hope he will not do what he did on Friday, that was to deny responsibility and then say nothing about the question at issue. I said on Friday, and I say again, that we require a statement from the Prime Minister on this important matter. If those conflicts develop, if they become more extensive, he as Prime Minister will be held responsible. The Minister of Labour has already made his statement outside. By what he did on Friday he has already shown himself to be powerless. When those clashes occur the Prime Minister will be called upon to restore peace and order, and that is why we appeal to the Prime Minister today to make a statement on this matter. Even if the Minister of Labour does not know it, the Prime Minister does know what communism is and what a communist is, and he knows the extent of the pernicious influence of communism in South Africa.

Reverting to the debate that has taken place in this House during the past few days, I heard some hon. members say that this was probably one of the most important debates ever to be conducted in this House. I am sorry to hear their assessment of importance, because I am quite certain that this portion of the House considers the spectacle which we have witnessed here during the past 48 hours somewhat undignified. Apart from the contribution to the debate made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and one or two moderate speeches from members of the Opposition the debate resolved itself into a series of gibes and sneers. I should like hon. members present to remember that after all said and done we are the representatives of the electorate and we are the custodians of their welfare, and they have every right to expect that we should tackle this important problem as submitted by the Leader of the Opposition in a calm and collected fashion. This side of the House is not enamoured of the respect shown to the Prime Minister by certain members on the Opposition side. In fact, we are somewhat perturbed at it. If certain members in this House cannot respect the political views of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, they can surely respect his position. I have seen the Prime Minister listen to debate after debate, day after day, and I have never yet heard him interrupt or sneer at anyone who does not agree with his views. Some of us, of course, are politicians and some of us think that we are statesmen, but whatever we are I do think that at least all of us can be respectful. We have heard a great deal in this House about the transmission of this notorious cablegram. This is supported by the Leader of the Opposition and his Party who represent the minority of the electorate. He and his supporters are of opinion that action was justifiable. The Prime Minister and his supporters are of opinion that the action was unjustifiable. Surely we can sit down and discuss this matter and argue it out in a calm and collected fashion, without resorting to gibes and sneers. I for one cannot see any necessity for getting warm about this matter. When I come to the analysis of the transmission of this telegram, I find it fascinatingly interesting. I picture to myself the Leader of the Opposition, a man who in years gone by occupied the Ministries of Interior, Public Health and Education with great dignity, decorum and success. At that particular time everybody was enamoured of the method in which he conducted these Ministries. This is the pre-1939 hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). We recall his praise of the British, of the Jew, of the coloured, of the native, of the Indian and also his praise of the lenient and magnanimous way in which the British treated this portion of the Commonwealth. Then, on the other hand, we find the post-1939 hon. member for Piketberg in exactly the opposite strain. Well, Sir, there are people on this side of the House who find fault with that complete political somersault, but I do not belong to that class. I am of opinion that every one is entitled to change his mind. It is said that folks who refuse to change their minds have probably no minds to change; but it is peculiar, coming in so short a time from an hon. member in this House, whom we regard as being blessed with a certain amount of intellect; and that is why this complete somersault is so interesting. We may find possible reasons or possible stimuli for the transmission of this cablegram. On the one hand it may be a cablegram in sympathy with De Valera. On the other hand it may be an open admission of antipathy towards the cause of the Allied nations. It is not for me to answer which stimulated the mind of the Leader of the Opposition more; he will be in a better position to answer that for himself. But I would like to ask the hon. member for Piketberg two simple questions, the answer to which I leave to him. In the first place, if he had been a member of the German commonwealth of nations and if the position in Ireland had been reversed, would he have sent this cablegram?

He is holding a postmortem examination now.

Another question I should like to put to the hon. member is this: Had pressure been brought to bear upon Southern Ireland by the Reich, would this cablegram have been sent? Those two questions I leave to the hon. member for Piketberg to answer for himself. During the course of this debate, some hon. members of the Opposition, who are in the habit of pointing their fingers at the Prime Minister jeeringly and threateningly, said: “Hy bly maar altyd dieselfde; hy sal nooit verander nie.” Well, I am of opinion that that is one of the finest compliments that has ever been paid to the Prime Minister by the Opposition, and I for one thank God that he has always remained the same and that he has not altered his views.

Are you suggesting that he has not a mind to change?

Once his mind is made up on the correct course, he never alters his course. Hon. members on my right are fond of saying: “Hv hou koers.” That is a favourite expression of the Opposition. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has stuck to his guns; he has not deviated from his original course, and being farseeing, as he is, we in the British Commonwealth of Nations in general and in South Africa in particular can be very proud that he has never allowed himself to be deflected from his course. Experience has shown that the course that he has adopted has been the correct one, and we can say that as far as this side of the House is concerned, we hope that he will continue on the same course. We stand solidly behind him, and may he go from strength to strength.

I am sorry I must endeavour to bring the Committee back to the point that has been raised with regard to the Garment Workers’ trouble in Germiston. The hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. Serfontein) is rather perturbed because I dared to ask them to give me a definition of communism or of a communist. It was a very genuine request on my part because this word “communist” and its corollary, “communism” is being merely used as a bogy. I was about to reply on Friday night to the merits of the case. Now, Sir, this trouble goes back a long way beyond this question of the trouble with the Garment workers in Germiston. It goes back to the time when the Nationalist Party, desiring to capture the Trade Unions, decided on a mole-like policy, first of all with the Mine Workers’ Union. They failed with the Mine Workers’ Union. They were completely unsuccessful. But, Sir, at the same time as stating their determined intention—and they were quite bold about it—with regard to the Mine Workers’ Union they said that the Garment Workers’ Union was to be the next point of attack. Presuming of course that they were going to be successful with the mine workers, which they were not. It is in continuance of that policy that we had this situation in Germiston. Now, what are the facts there? As hon. members know, there has been tremendous activity in the garment making industry in South Africa owing to the war, and they were unable to obtain European girls sufficient to cope with the requirements of the industry, and in consequence they decided to employ coloured girls.

Which they were not entitled to do.

Now, let me say in passing to the hon. member for Swellendam that the Factories Act was given effect to in its entirety in regard to separate entrance to the factory—separate room was provided so that the coloured girls were in no way coming in or going out together with the European girls—they were not in contact with the European girls.

How many were there?

There were ten of them, ten coloured employees. And so effectively were they segregated from the European girls that these people did not find it out until they had been working there two days. So clear cut was the division between the European girls and the coloured girls. Now, the work had to be done. Now, following on the tactics of our friends, the enemy—the Opposition—it is very significant that the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) told us that there was a Standing Committee for the purpose of finding out when and how they could raise trouble and they used this coloured question—and they used it in a most hypocritical manner.

That is not what the hon. member said.

Oh, yes, he did.

No, he did not. That Committee was appointed afterwards.

Oh, no, no, that is what he said.

You had better get a new interpreter.

All this was in pursuance of their settled policy of fishing in troubled waters. But now, let me tell the House the history of this whole thing ….

Yes, tell us the true history.

Mesdames Moll and Nel did not go to anyone in regard to this trouble when they found that they had coloured girls working in the factory— no, they did not go to anyone, they simply led a strike.

That is not correct.

I have been urged by members of this House and by others to use the powers I have. If I did I would have to prosecute these women for having started a strike.

Then you would have got at the truth.

The only powers I have are of an arbitrary character, and they are to prosecute those who strike in an industry which is engaged in a war effort.

Is this part of the war effort?

Of course it is. You are asking me now to take extended powers. I tell you frankly that I have no love for these arbitrary powers, and though I was urged from various quarters to take this action I refused to do it because I did not like doing it. Now, what happened? Not the Executive, not the key people to whom the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) referred, whom he dubbed as “Communists” rightly or wrongly ….

Quite rightly.

But the local branch of the committee in Germiston met and decided to exclude these two women. And only after that had been done did the Executive come in and they endorsed the decision of the Germiston branch. The Germiston branch had excluded them and so far from throwing them on the streets the employer was prepared to pay their wages until they took work which was offered them in a non-European shop. Well, this trade union has the right to discharge its members —to discharge anyone who goes against them in their own interests—as they consider them—just as members opposite have the right to exclude people who go against them. If they claim to be wrongfully excluded from membership of their Union then they have the right to go to law and to prove to the satisfaction of the courts that they have been wrongfully discharged. I have no power, nor do I want the power, to force a Trade Union to take back people whom it has seen fit to discharge. That is all there is to it. And this trouble which has occurred, I am afraid, is the responsibility of hon. members opposite. We know perfectly well what the tactics of these people have been. They have been trying for years now to intrude themselves into these various trade unions.

You know that that’s not so.

I know that it is so, but the trade unions have been sensible. The Mine Workers’ Union would have none of it.

Is that so?

That is so. And the Garment Workers’ Union would have none of it. But these people are trying to stir up trouble—they want to stir up trouble between members of the Union, and then when once they have stirred up trouble they hope to come in. Let me once again emphasise that the members of this Garment Workers’ Union number 8,000 and that practically all of them are Afrikaans. Do you mean to tell me that they would permit anyone, in whatever key position, to interfere with their destinies on such a vital question as white vs. coloured? Oh, no, it is not that at all; that is only an excuse. And again, despite the sneers at my request for an interpretation or a statement as to what a Communist is, I now repeat my request— and I again ask for an interpretation of what a Communist is, but at the same time I would like hon. members over there to tell me what is their definition of a “Christian.”

I am tired of being misinterpreted on the other side when we speak in Afrikaans, so I shall try and speak in English, so there can be no misunderstanding. I say again that what the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) said was not that there was a committee which was trying to make trouble.

I did not say that.

Oh, yes, that’s what you said.

I said a standing committee.

The Minister can reply after I have finished.

Of course, you never interrupted me when I was speaking.

There was this infiltration of coloured machinists. They had been employed by the owners of the factories and there was a strike as a result of that. The owners of the factory asked the girls to appoint a committee to go into the matter. A committee was appointed of five girls. Among them were Mrs. Nel and Mrs. Moll. They were two of the five. They met the owners, the matter was discussed and the whole strike was settled by the owners letting these coloured machinists leave their employ. After everything had been quietly settled ten days later, because these ladies held strong views with regard to working with coloured employees, they were brought before the trade union or before the committee of the trade union, they were insulted and they were cast out of the trade union. That is what took place. And then they did what one would expect any decent persons to do— they went to seek assistance and the assistance they went to seek was from the ministers of their church. Those Dutch Reformed church ministers did not want to act on their own and a commitee was set up after these women had been excluded from the Union and their livelihood had been taken away. Now these were ladies who had been working for years in the factory and the masters were very satisfied with their work. A committee was formed out of the three Dutch Reformed churches and other ministers were added, and they carefully went into matters, and they found that these women had been excluded from the trade union because they held views against mixed working between coloured and Europeans.

That is not so.

The Minister may differ from me, but that is the information which we have from a source which we are prepared to believe. What took place was that this committee went into all the facts as I have given them, and those facts were found to be correct. And then a public meeting was held—not in Germiston but in Johannesburg, and of these garment workers —of these 8,000, only 50 attended, and the others were not concerned in the dispute and were composed of inhabitants of Johannesburg.

The Minister misled the House.

That was the position and I am speaking in English so that there shall be no misunderstanding.

That is not what the Minister told us.

A general meeting of all the people concerned had been called. Now, that committee consisting of ministers of religion of our church tried to attend the meeting in Johannesburg. But they were excluded from the meeting. That meeting where the residents of Johannesburg attended, and these people were roughly handled. Very roughly. The police were called in, because fighting actually took place, but the police could not do anything and they were very gently carried out. Now, what happened on Friday afternoon? The Minister tried to make us look funny. He spoke about the trousers having been taken off a minister of religion. The Minister knows that he was approached while he was in Johannesburg to intervene. He said he had not the power to do so. We say he had the power.

He has the power under these regulations, and apart from that he can make any regulation he likes. Now, I want to say this to the Minister: He may differ from us as to what he thinks happened—he may differ in many other ways, but he should not try to be funny about our Ministers of Religion; we don’t like it.

I did not say a word about your Ministers.

No; but the Minister said a lot of funny things about trousers being removed and he knew that our Ministers were involved. He spoke about their trousers being taken off.

I had the police report and I read that to the House.

I have given the facts as they were found by this Committee— a Committee of able and honourable men, and that is what they said. And that is the opinion which they gave. At this meeting which was held there was a lot of fighting; the Minister went out of his way here to try and make us believe that these 8,000 women were present and that they caused the fighting.

I said nothing of the kind.

Well, the position is simply this, that if the Minister refuses to intervene, if he refuses to take steps to have different spheres of labour for the white and coloured people, let him tell us so.

I made it perfectly clear to the House that every possible precaution was taken to keep them separated.

Of course, as far as the communists are concerned they do not mind what the colour of the worker is. But we feel it very much on this side of the House that this sort of thing should be allowed. We felt it very much when a few Afrikaans girls were sent to Russia to learn Communism. And we felt it very much that they, with Solly Sachs, sat at the same table with a number of coloured people. Yes, we are concerned because those Afrikaans girls are members of our race. Of course we know there are good as well as bad Afrikaners. We consider that these girls had been misled. There are people who can be misled, and these people have taken up the attitude that the church is no good and that the methods they are adopting will bring about a better condition of affairs for everybody. Well, unfortunately there are people among our race who take up that attitude—who have joined Solly Sachs, but the Minister must not imagine that all these 8,000 girls in the Garment Workers’ Union think alike. The trouble is that the majority of these girls are not communists, but unfortunately they cannot live on their pay, they share in the advantages resulting from a strike. These girls come from the platteland, they go to a city and two or three or four girls live together in one room. If one of them gets sick they are in a very difficult position, and that is where the Union comes in, the Union helps these girls, and that is why the girls feel that they have to stand by the Union because they never know when they may require the help of the Union. They know that the Union collects funds, but these girls feel that they want to live their own lives as South African girls and not as communists, and we want to help them to do so. We don’t want them to be ruled by these communist unions and by their communist leaders. We know that in communism they do not believe in the separation of the races, and besides that they do not belive in churches. We, as South Africans, as Dutch-speaking South Africans, feel that these things are of great importance in our lives, and when people are misled and when the communists, and these unions, try to lead the people astray, we feel it is our duty to intervene and try to assist them. We very much resented the way the Minister tried to deal with the question on Friday afternoon. As far as we are concerned we did not enjoy it at all. The way these people were treated was scandalous, and we felt that it was the Minister’s duty to have intervened and to see that justice was done. If we know that he will not intervene and that he will not go into the matter then it is our duty to try and help our own people. And now we are told that if these two women do not like the decision of the trade union they must go to the Supreme Court—where are they to get the money to do that?

Well, what about your £10,000 and your £50,000? You still have that.

We desire to keep our race white, and if the Minister does not see his way to assist us he must not blame us for raising these questions here, and for doing all we can to get justice done to a section of the people which is entitled to our protection. We know that the communists do not mind what the worker’s colour is. They want to throw them all together. That is not our policy—it is not the policy of our church. [Time limit.]

I think the country is behind the Prime Minister in the two priorities in respect of which he said he fought the election. The first priority was the winning of the war, and the second was to do justice to those who had helped to win the war. I feel, however, that there is coming into the public consciousness an inversion of the priority with which South Africa is faced. I feel that even people like myself whose main aim is to redress the grievances which men have are beginning to feel that what we should do in the first place is to re-establish these men in civilian life. That is becoming Priority No. 1. Now, the country, I feel, is completely behind the Government in providing funds for the proper rehabilitation of the ex-servicemen—and that feeling has been expressed in the various cavalcades held all over the country. But we do feel that this House and the country do not get sufficient opportunity to receive guidance from the Government as to what is being done, and what should be done, to bring Priority No. 1 to the notice of the people. I do not think this House gets sufficient opportunity of listening to the Prime Minister on really vital issues. That. I feel very deeply. I was almost amazed when I heard the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) having the temerity to ask the Prime Minister even at this late stage to give some explanation about the fall of Tobruk. Now, let me tell hon. members here that the country is a hundred per cent behind the Prime Minister, but we want some opportunity of knowing what our men are doing. We want some opportunity of knowing what the Prime Minister feels can be done. And we want some review of the whole position in regard to South Africa’s participation in this war, in regard to South Africa’s share in winning the war. On the matter of information given to us it came as a matter of great surprise to most people to learn some little while ago that a great compliment had been paid to a South African soldier who had been sent overseas to assist the authorities in England in certain scientific experiments and investigations. I am referring to Col. Schonland. He has been sent overseas to assist the war effort. Most of us did not even know he had been sent overseas. Most of us only saw a report in the press that Col. Schonland had dined twice with the Prime Minister, and then he was out of the news. But about a month ago, listening to the broadcast, we were amazed to learn that if South Africa had played no other part than lending Prof. Schonland to the united effort, it had done a great thing. We don’t know what he has done. We are told by some people in a casual way that he has probably made the greatest individual contribution towards winning the air war in Great Britain—that he has probably played a greater part than any other person—that he has been worth squadrons and squadrons of aeroplanes, and I feel South Africa is entitled to know, unless it is a closely guarded military secret, what it is that Col. Schonland has done, and how South Africa can honour him and be stimulated by his example. I think the Prime Minister should take South Africa into his confidence, but we want to thank him for having given Col. Schonland the opportunity of playing the part he has played. South Africa is proud of what he has done, but we should be given the opportunity of knowing what part he has played. Now, on the question of lease-lend we know that some of our men, who have been serving in the Naval Reserve have been seconded to the Royal Navy; we know that now they have had an opportunity of being transferred to the South African Naval Forces. I am informed that seven officers and 153 naval ratings stationed at Simonstown made application to be transferred from the Imperial Forces to the South African Forces. It is only right that they should do so. The pay and emoluments of South African naval ratings are greater than those of the Imperial Forces, and we feel that our men serving with the Imperial Navy should not be prejudiced. These men should be paid the emoluments which we pay our people. I understand that it is the practice of the Government to transfer them, if possible and then second them back to the Imperial Naval Authority. My information is that out of seven officers and 153 ratings, seven officers have been transferred back to the Imperial Authorities but that the other personnel are still waiting to have their applications considerd by the Union Defence Force or by the Naval Authorities. One only has to put this matter before the Prime Minister to know that he will see that the necessary facilities are extended to these ratings in regard to their transfer. Now, there is one other point. We are modelling our own Navy on the Royal Navy. But there are two non-commissioned officers grades which are not filled in the South African Naval Forces. There is in the Navy a similar rank for a grade running from an ordinary seaman right up to second class warrant officer rank. In the South African Navy no such provision is made. The view has been expressed to me that that is due to the fact that our men being very democratic do not like to salute a warrant officer who wears a Sam Browne Belt—they do not like to stand to attention and address him as Sir. [Time limit.]

In regard to the attack made on the Minister of Labour, some impressions have been created in this House which have no foundation of truth, and the first is that whites and coloureds work alongside each other in a Germiston factory. According to my information, which is thoroughly reliable, that is absolutely untrue, and the man who makes such a statement here and broadcasts it throughout the country is proclaiming an untruth. That is the first point. I want to add that segregation in this respect is so effective that the white girls did nothing about this difficulty until someone came and pointed it out to them, because the white girls and the coloured girls worked on different floors and they were properly segregated from each other. The difficulty was that white girls were not available at the time, and coloured girls were temporarily employed to do the work. The impression created here was that the coloured girls were still employed there, but that also is devoid of any truth. They have already been dismissed. Another impression created in the House is that these two women were dismissed from the Union and were victimised. That is also untrue. They were offered work by the Industrial Council and they refused it. Consequently the three stories which have been told here, and which have been broadcast over the length and breadth of the country, are untrue. Anyone detaining this House any longer with that kind of story is putting up a smokescreen for a purpose entirely different to that of wanting to look after the interests of the white workers. When hon. members make such loud-mouthed statements in this House they should make sure of their facts before starting an agitation, and creating the impression that everything is wrong in the world. The three impressions they created here are entirely false. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour are now expected to take steps. What steps are they to take? The only step which remains to be taken is to take action against these two women because these coloured girls are no longer employed there, segregation has always prevailed, and work has been offered to these girls which they turned down. They were offered work at the same wage and on the same conditions in every respect and they refused. What step is the Minister of Labour to take now? I think the Minister of Labour did the right thing and the House will agree that although these two ladies contravened the law the Minister in the circumstances should not take any further action. I hope the House will not be detained any longer by this discussion.

In view of the scandalous position in Johannesburg where two Afrikaner girls were sneered at and beaten I must say I am deeply disappointed at the attitude of the Minister of Labour, and also at the attitude of his deputy-leader, Mr. Van den Berg. It is perfectly clear that the Minister of Labour appears here as the advocate of Communism, and that he has put the position to us in a totally different light from what it actually is. He is not doing the country a service in not dealing with the matter on its merits and in not putting the position impartially as it should be put. The incident which took place there creates a precedent in this country and unless we contradict the statements made and oppose the attitude adopted I anticipate that this is going to be the beginning of Communistic domination in Johannesburg which will afterwards spread throughout the country. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) gets up in his seat and makes us out to be liars and accuses us of having misrepresented the case. He tells us that no coloured girls have ever worked in that factory—but in the same breath he tells us that the non-Europeans have now been removed from the factory.

He said that they did not work alongside of each other.

He said that the nonEuropeans had been removed. Why were they removed if they had not been working among the whites? The hon. member comes here unblushingly and blames this side of the House and he blames the two ladies who were suspended, and pretends that there were no coloured workers at all, yet in the same breath he tells us that the coloured workers had been removed. Who is telling an untruth now—this side of the House, or the labour group which has stood up here as the champions and the advocates of the Communistic point of view? Last year we also had an incident in connection with nonEuropeans, and the Minister of Finance did not put the position in the way he should have done, but we appreciated the fact that the Prime Minister afterwards stood up and frankly declared that the incident which had occurred on a train was proof of a lack of discipline, and that it was an injustice, and the country appreciated the fact that the Prime Minister had tackled the matter in a manly and frank manner. I say the time has come for us to solve this difficulty. It is not only the Afrikaans-speaking section which looks to us to put an end to this state of affairs, but the English-speaking section does so too. Feelings opposite are running just as high over this scandal which has taken place. If the victims had been English-speaking ladies we would have protested with the other side of the House, but now the victims are two Afrikaans-speaking ladies and surely we should not try and gloss over these events simply because the victims of the communists were Afrikaans-speaking ladies? We feel this position very deeply and very seriously, especially in view of the fact that some of our Afrikaansspeaking predikants who tried to intervene in a Christian manner and who tried to put an end to the difficulty, were insulted and humiliated. The thanks they received were that they were put out of a meeting and treated with contempt. If this had happened to two English-speaking predikants they could have depended on us—on this side of the House—raising our voices against scandals of that kind.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a considerable period of discussion in regard to the international position, but there is one aspect which I would like to see discussed a great deal more from the point of view of securing information. That is the question of our external financial arrangements. In April last the British Government issued a White Paper which was followed by a Yellow Paper issued by the United States Treasury. Both papers are really plans providing for the setting up of an international clearing house after the war; and the object of the clearing house is to formulate measures for financing international trade; to establish a world currency unit; and to institute machinery for the maintenance of exchange parity. Since the publication of these papers deliberations have been held in the United States; I understand that the Secretary for Finance for the Union was present at these deliberations. In view then, of the importance to be attached to the proposed organisation after the war as a major organisation in implementing certain financial aspects of the Atlantic Charter, I am sure the House will be interested to know through the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister what developments have been continued in this connection; to what extent South African participation will be in this international clearing house; and what commitments are likely to be involved by our South African participation. There is another matter on which information would be valuable to the House and the country, and that is in connection with the Social and Economic Planning Council. When that body was set up by the Prime Minister in 1942 it was charged in its terms of reference to investigate economic conditions in the Union and to formulate plans for the improvement of productivity and the living standards of the people. I notice in the estimates of expenditure in connection with the Economic and Planning Council that there has been a considerable increase in its powers and in the number of professional advisers attached to the council. Does that increase in the figures mean extension of the powers of the Council, as asked for in the proposed Bill presented to the House last year. Does the Prime Minister intend to extend the powers of the Council, so as to allow it to be the supreme planning council of the Union? In the interests of the general economic conditions of the Union, both in their internal and external relationships these questions are of great importance to the country. It will be of interest to the House and the country generally to know exactly what is the trend in our economic planning, both internally and externally.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has raised the question of the financial discussions which have been taking place in America and in Great Britain, the discussions that have centred round the two papers referred to. I may tell my hon. friend that those discussions are still going on. It is contemplated in the not distant future, I may say in the near future, to hold an international conference to deal with this question. In the meantime exploratory talks are going on, and in those exploratory talks South Africa is taking her part. As a matter of fact, the Chairman of the Planning Council is now in London taking part in those exploratory discussions that are taking place, and the result of which may be of very far-reaching importance. The ground work is being prepared for the larger and more formal international conference which will take place in due course. In the meantime, naturally, it is not possible for me or the Government to give any information about the position. It is fluid, it is under discussion, and attempts are being made to straighten out the differences of opinion that have taken place and so give an opportunity for a really fruitful conference when it comes to be held, at an early date.

What about the Canadian plan?

The Canadian plan is just an attempt to bridge the differences between the American and the British plan; it is part of the whole discussion that is taking place. My hon. friend the member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) has mentioned the name of Prof. Schonland, and referred to his great services, and has asked why no information is available about the nature of his activities. Well, Sir, I may say this, that the work of Prof. Schonland and his contribution to our war effort has been quite outstanding. When I was in London a few months ago and also on a previous occasion, I was told what very fine outstanding work Prof. Schonland was performing. It is work of a purely scientific character, it is work of a very confidential character, work which has to do with submarine activities and with radio direction, and all those higher developments in the scientific sphere which are now making such a great contribution to the winning of the war. In all that activity, the part played by Prof. Schonland has been most outstanding, but naturally, my hon. friend will understand that work of that kind is of the “hush-hush” character, and it is not for me or any of us to blazon forth the nature and scope of that work too much. South Africa may well be proud of the work that he is doing, and I hope that when he comes back to South Africa during or after the war, he will be able to render outstanding services to South Africa, and to the development of scientific work here. My hon. friend has also referred to the position of South Africans in the Royal Navy. That matter has been under discussion for some time, and that discussion still continues. I am not now in a position to give him any detailed information.

*In regard to the matter which has now been raised by hon. members of the Opposition I must say that it really falls outside the scope of my vote. I therefore thought it necessary for the Minister of Labour, who is the responsible Minister, to express his view on the question. I, of course, do not want to object to any question of administration affecting the Government being raised under my vote. Naturally, in the last instance I am responsible as the Leader of the Government, but hon. members will realise that when it comes to questions of administrative detail these matters should rather be raised on the votes of my colleague. That is our system of Government. I am not the only member of the Government, I am entrusted with certain work, apart from the general leadership, but there are other matters which fall under the Departments of my colleagues and which can be better dealt with in connection with their votes or by them. The matter per se is not a very complicated one and it is really unnecessary for me to go into details, or to go very deeply into the matter.

But surely it is a question of the Government’s policy; it is a question of whether the Government is in favour of white workers and coloured workers being mixed up.

Some trouble occurred and last Friday, when the question was raised here, the discussion in the main concerned itself with the abstract question of Communism and things which had happened during a meeting held at Johannesburg. The Minister of Labour read out the police report dealing with that meeting, and I think members on both sides of the House will agree that the police report about the actual happening is such that it is impossible for the Government to take any further action in the matter. We have the official police report of what happened and I don’t think we can go into it any further.

But the real cause of the difficulty is the fact that Europeans and non-Europeans had to work together, and we want to know what the Government’s policy is.

The matter really concerns the ejectment of two women from the Garment Workers’ Union. This is a question of internal policy so far as the Garment Workers’ Union is concerned. So far as I know the majority of the members of that Union are Afrikaans-speaking girls, and in accordance with their own internal arrangements certain action was taken and I do not think the matter is one in which the Government should interfere. Why should we poke our noses into a matter which is essentially the business of the Garment Workers’ Union. I am now asked to apply a War Emergency Measure and to restore these two ladies in the Union and in their work. I think it would be a very drastic step for me to take, and I don’t know whether I can be expected to do so. I am certainly not going to do it. It is not quite clear to me what the real trouble was. It seems that objection was raised to coloured workers working alongside European girls.

That was the cause of the whole trouble.

I am coming to that. It seems that the cause of the trouble was that coloured workers were employed to work alongside of white workers. The Minister of Labour explained, not only today but on previous occasions, that if there are cases where coloureds and whites work in the one and the same industry they are kept apart, the work has to be so arranged that the coloured and white workers are not mixed up at their work. That is the practice in force in our industries.

Not in the Cape.

If the hon. member wants to give further details about the position in the Cape he can do so on the vote of the Minister of Labour, but without having any special knowledge of the practice I know that it has been repeatedly laid down in this House officially, as the policy of the Department of Labour, that in cases where both coloured and white workers are employed in an industry, the work is to be so arranged that they are to be kept apart as far as possible so that no difficulties will arise in that connection. I don’t know why this difficulty has arisen in regard to these two women.

That is what we want you to investigate.

An investigation is actually going on now.

The Minister says an investigation is being made at present. In regard to this question of Communism I do not think I need detain the House on that. We had a test of the significance of Communism during our last elections. The Communists put up candidates and they were defeated. The figures showed that in this country they do not represent any practical power. All this crying and all this shouting for political purposes about the dangers of Communism were answered at the elections. Take the votes cast for the Communist candidates. This is not a subject which need worry us very much, and I am not going to deal with it at any length.

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasise the point raised by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), to which I do not think the Prime Minister’s reply was adequate. It is possibly rather difficult for the Prime Minister, because it does seem strange that while we are still carrying on with this idea of having a Minister of Economic Development, at the same time the Social and Economic Council falls under the Prime Minister. The work of the Planning Council has so far been exploratory, and chiefly in regard to their social security report. That is only one part of that job. I am particularly concerned to know from the Prime Minister what particular form the economic planning of this council is likely to take. I find that the Prime Minister stated to the Congress of the Associated Chambers of Commerce the other day, his views on the subject. He went into this question a great deal more lengthily than he ever deigns to do in this House. Unfortunately, from a careful reading of his speech, I rather gather that the Prime Minister is the arch-advocate of a policy of laissez faire. There is nothing in that speech to suggest to me that South Africa at this stage is embarking upon anything which by any stretch of imagination can be called planning. The Prime Minister says, and quite rightly—

These statements are becoming nowadays almost economic platitudes in South Africa. We have been hearing them for years. We know all about them. We do not want an economic planning council to tell us this. They have told us that in no uncertain terms. I have been waiting since the beginning of the Session to hear the Minister of Economic Development tell us precisely in which way he proposes to guide the economic development of South Africa, now and in the post-war period; but so far we have had no information. Now is the Economic and Planning Council going to be allowed to bring up plans, and are they going to be in a position, working through the Prime Minister, to get legislation passed which will force private enterprise to carry on economic development in the Union? Or are we merely going to wait until such time as private enterprise has done all it can to develop certain industries, and then step in with State subsidisation. That seems to be the rather nebulous policy adopted by the Government as given expression to by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said to the Chamber of Commerce—

It is peculiar that the Prime Minister should mention the iron and steel industry because at one time the Prime Minister’s party was opposed to an iron and steel industry, and had it not been for the Nationalist Party there would not have been an iron and steel industry. We cannot plan sensibly in any country by leaving such planning to the haphazard speculation of private capital. We want to know for instance and industry would like to know from the Prime Minister, and from the Minister of Economic Development, whether South African engineering can continue to expand at the present price of steel, whether it is the intention of the Government to expand that industry by providing the engineering industry with cheap steel. I want to know whether the Government would go in for a textile industry? What is the purpose of the Economic Council other than to give us information—information of which many of us have been in possession for a long time. Now, the Prime Minister has made an appeal to industry to re-absorb the volunteers when they come back, but you cannot absorb them unless there is work for them, you cannot create employment unless you plan for it. But you cannot leave industry to the haphazard whims of private enterprise. Possibly the Economic Council has not had time. The Planning Council, I know, is in an extraordinary position. I don’t think they know what the Government expects from them. Because when all is said and done that Council cannot lay down a policy—the Government must lay down the policy for the Council. And that brings me to this point, that I do not believe that we are planning for one of the most important difficulties which will confront us in this country when the war is over. Now, just let me say this: We hear Ministers making statements from time to time. The other day the Minister of Demobilisation made a very important statement on national housing to a body outside the House; we are getting used to this. However, there are intimations of a very fine and extensive scheme being delivered to us for re-absorbing our soldiers into civil life, at the cessation of hostilities. These schemes are all very well and most of them would tend towards solving our problem, but when will these schemes be put into operation? Take national housing —take the position of our Public Works Department which are several millions behind in their original programme. If this vast programme is to be embarked upon, it will be impossible to start it until two years after the war for the reason that there is no material at the moment and there will be less when the war ends. Even sub-economic building schemes are held up at the moment on account of the scarcity of cement. [Time limit.]

I as a new member was amazed to hear the superficial way in which the Minister of Labour dealt with this trouble in Johannesburg. The question arose in my mind: If a responsible Minister takes up that attitude, what are we to expect from the Cabinet? I must say that I was shocked to see the Minister handle this problem in such a sneering manner. Instead of going into the trouble, he asked what a Communist was! We on our side might as well ask what a responsible Minister is. The Minister of Mines has spoken, and so has the Prime Minister, and it is clear that they differ from each other on certain points in regard to our foreign policy, but one thing is certain, and that is that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on this point, at any rate, are in agrement—that when the Union Jack is in danger they stand together. The Prime Minister said he would oppose any efforts to release South Africa’s connection with the Empire—“to make South Africa freer.” That statement of the Prime Minister’s will perhaps do a lot of good. I can assure hon. members that there are many members, even of the United Party on the platteland, who in their hearts are Republicans and who do not hesitate to say so. They say that they unconditionally trust the Prime Minister and that he will see to it one day that they get a Republic. Even some of his former candidates at the last election were out and out Republicans, but they put their trust in the Prime Minister and they said: “Well, he will get a Republic for us in his own way.” That being the position it may be a good thing for the country to know clearly what the Prime Minister’s point of view is. We know that the Prime Minister is consistent in that regard. He has always resisted any attempt to release the bonds tying South Africa to the Empire. He even ridiculed the independence deputation which went to England after the last war. Even the increased status of 1926 was brought about without his having contributed towards it one iota. He also interpreted the Status Acts in such a manner that he did not attach to them the full freedom which we attach to them. The Prime Minister is again going overseas, and he will have a good opportunity there of discussing these matters once again. We as a Nationalist Party feel that the constitutional development which has come about in South Africa has so far always emanated from Nationalist minded South Africa. Even the freedom which South Africa has at the moment, the fact that the Prime Minister has the privilege of being Prime Minister of a sovereign state, is the contribution of Nationalist South Africa. Nationalist South Africa has to a large extent brought about this constitutional freedom. The fact that the Prime Minister himself did not contribute to it makes us feel disturbed about the future. On the other hand, however, we feel that the direction, the course followed today by Nationalist South Africa will, the same as in the past, tomorrow or the day after, be the course which South Africa will follow. That is why we want to raise our voice again today, when the Prime Minister is going to England to discuss international affairs, and to say to him: “We expect you to act in such a manner as to make it possible for us in South Africa to achieve this long expected racial co-operation to which all of us are looking forward.” We have often tried in this country to bring about this racial co-operation; even in the days of Jan Hofmeyr there was an urge for this unity. In 1910, with the establishment of Union, and again in 1933, at the time of Fusion, another effort was made. Numerous attempts were made to bring about racial co-operation, but this co-operation was always wrecked owing to the parties not working together to achieve that object. There are two comer stones on which we have to build racial co-operation. The first corner stone is that of equal language rights. Fortunately this is a question which since 1910 has not presented any difficulties, although we on this side have had to fight for the practical application of our language rights. But there are other difficulties still in the way— and if it can be solved the great obstacle will be removed and we shall be able to achieve our long expected racial cooperation—and that is the creation of a common interest. To our minds, on this side of the House, the only remaining common interest which has to be created in order to achieve racial cooperation, is that Republic for which we are striving so hard. We as Afrikaners with a national sentiment have an outlook on life which is based entirely on a Republican foundation, and I can assure hon. members that when this Republican ideal is realised in this country the day will dawn for racial peace to become a possibility. I can assure hon. members that it is not only the Afrikaans-speaking section which is anxious to achieve a Republic. As I have said, the road indicated by the Nationalist Party today will in days to come be followed by this country. I have a journal here, called “Common Sense,” and in the issue of November, 1943, J. P. Cope has an article containing the following—

ment—a dangerous and impossible procedure.

Here we see that even the English-speaking people realise that our conception of the development of our constitution is a natural development which must be achieved in this country. He goes on—

Here we find that even English-speaking people are today beginning to realise what we are striving for, and that our striving is a natural one. Other speakers have made quotations from other English-speaking authorities to the effect that the time has arrived for us to enjoy our independence in South Africa, and that we in South Africa should establish a Republican form of government. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is again going overseas to discuss international affairs we on this side of the House take the liberty of asking him to use his efforts in that direction and if he does so the day will come when we shall have a better opportunity of solving great problems on their merits.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I want to raise another point which we should discuss in this House, on which we want some information from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has told us that the Imperial Conference is to be held —we had better call it that because we have got accustomed to the name—and that there is really no agenda but that the Conference will occupy itself—we can assume that—with war and post-war problems. In other words, the fact will be discussed there that peace has to be concluded, and what, generally, the basis is to be on which peace will be concluded. Now there is certain information which the Prime Minister need not give us because it has already been announced and that is that the peace is to be based on what is called the Atlantic Charter. What is more satisfactory in regard to this matter at any rate from the point of view of the information which we want to get, is that it has also been announced that the Atlantic Charter has been adopted by England, America and also by Russia. If I am mistaken I hope the Prime Minister will tell me. But it has been announced that the Atlantic Charter has been unreservedly accepted by these three Powers. Well, it is most important that at this stage we should go into the question of the extent to which provisions of the Atlantic Charter are being adhered to. That will be the test, if we go into that Question, whether the Atlantic Charter is earnestly meant, or whether it is just a bit of war propaganda. The question which arises is this: A basis for peace was laid down towards the end of the last war—Wilson’s fourteen points. Even the Germans asked for an armistice at that time and they asked for a peace afterwards based on Wilson’s fourteen points. This was agreed to and the position was not left in any state of uncertainty. England, America and the Allies said that they accepted that. The Armistice was to be concluded on those terms, and peace was to be concluded on those terms. Very well, we know the subsequent history of Wilson’s fourteen points. Very little came of those fourteen points. The Germans subsequently had good cause for saying that they had been defrauded. Possibly they might in any case have been forced to lay down arms, but none the less they had good reason for saying that they had been led into a trap and that they had been defrauded. That being so, it is a matter of the utmost, importance to us to know what is going to become of the Atlantic Charter and especially what is being done about the solemn undertaking on the part of these Three Powers. It will also throw a light on what the Prime Minister has proposed in regard to the way the world should be ruled, and in regard to the Trinity he wants to have, the Trinity which has to take the lead among the nations, and which will dispose over the fate of the world in days to come. We must look at things in that light and I want to take the Atlantic Charter point by point and look at it in that light. The first point is this—

Now I ask this : What does this undertaking look like in the light of the fact that Russia has intimated that it is going to take part of Poland? And let me add : England has already approved of this—England has already agreed to Russia doing so. What does it look like in the light of the fact that it is generally accepted today that the three Baltic States are to go back to Russia? And what does it look like in the light of the fact that Russia is going to incorporate that part of Finland which it conquered in this war?—

And what is more, England and America have jointly declared that no territory acquired and annexed during the war—of course also by the Allies—will be recognised by them. Only after the war will they give a decision on that point. And that is what point No. 1 looks like. And now we come to point No. 2—

If that is so, if it is a fact that part of Poland against the will of the lawful Polish Parliament is to be handed over to Russia, then I ask what of this provision that in the first instance the matter is to be one to be decided upon by the people living in such territory—that it is for them to decide about their lot. But I go further and I ask this: Mr. Eden, the English Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated that England is prepared to allow Russia to take part of Poland but on the other hand the Polish State is to be compensated by being handed part of Germany. The Prime Minister at the end of the last war at the Peace Conference in Paris declared himself and expressed himself very strongly against the arrangement in regard to Poland, because Danzig and the Polish Corridor, which are German, were handed over to Poland without being consulted, although their colour and their character are German. And now Mr. Eden declares that the same thing is to happen again, perhaps on an even larger scale, and that Poland is to be compensated on the western side by the incorporation of part of Germany, and Poland is also to be compensated to the north of the present Poland. I think the Prime Minister should make a statement on this point. We have had a statement by Mr. Eden, the English Minister of Foreign Affairs. Both America and England were at one time on the side of the Polish Government in London against Russia’s claim. America made representations to Russia in connection with this particular issue, and Stalin rebuffed Roosevelt by telling him to mind his own business. The American President thereupon stated that he withdrew from the whole matter; in other words, he left it to England, the Polish Government and Russia, and after that a statement was made by Mr. Eden that he agreed to Russia getting part of Poland and that Poland would get part of Germany in return. [Time limit.]

One thing emerges fairly clearly from the speeches made in England by our Prime Minister and also from the speech by Lord Halifax and that is that the magnificent ideas which were expressed when the Atlantic Charter was framed are already on their death bed, if they are not actually dead by this time. The speeches which we are now getting are in the direction of a policy of Power politics, and I think the Prime Minister, too, will agree that the policy of Power politics does not harmonise with the principles of the Atlantic Charter. But the Leader of the Opposition has not yet concluded his speech, and I therefore propose to leave the matter where it is for the time being, so that the Leader of the Opposition may pursue it further when he resumes his speech. I want, however, to avail myself of this opportunity of reverting for a moment to the discussion which took place here on Friday when we discussed the question of the Imperial relationships. We thought that the discussion had finished after the Prime Minister had given his reply, but I feel it is necessary for us to place on record at the first possible opportunity—and I therefore avail myself of this opportunity—that the Prime Minister’s reply in his speech on Friday afternoon to that part of the discussion was by no means a satisfactory reply so far as we are concerned. In his speech he confined himself to generalities, and he adopted a sort of pacific attitude when he repeatedly said that he hoped he would be going overseas carrying with him the good wishes of the people, and also the good wishes and support of this side of the House. For the rest the Prime Minister’s answer amounted to nothing at all because he confined himself to two aspects only of the Imperial relationship. He only gave a clear and definite reply to two aspects when he said that he was opposed to the two extremes —he was opposed to the one extreme of secession as advocated by this side of the House and he was opposed to the Lionel Curtis “Round Table” idea of a Central Imperial Authority. Only on those two points did we have a clear reply from the Prime Minister. The position today is that there is undoubtedly a strong feeling of alarm in England and in British Government circles, a state of uneasiness which emanates from the fact that they have a conviction that the present system, the system which prevails today, is too loose, that the present system which has the approval of the Prime Minister, and which is based on the Statute of Westminster and on the Balfour Declaration, is too loose, and contains the breaking up germ. That feeling of uneasiness found expression in Mr. Churchill’s statement when he said—

That is an indication of the feeling of uneasiness at the danger of breaking up. We have also had several Press statements. I particularly want to refer to a statement in the “London Times” which has also had great prominence in our Press, and I think the Prime Minister will admit that the “Times” is a British newspaper which speaks with authority on such matters; the “Times” says—

And then the paper continues and points to the dangers and to the new condition of affairs which is arising, and comes to this conclusion—

We got the same idea perhaps not so strongly, in the Prime Minister’s speech to the members of the British House of Parliament, and we got it more clearly in Lord Halifax’s speech, but the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister confined himself only to the two extremes, namely secession, or the Lionel Curtis idea of a Central Imperial Authority. The Prime Minister in his reply, however, scuttled away from the Halifax speech. He did not express himself on the tendency which exists today towards a greater centralisation, towards a greater unity policy within the Commonwealth, a policy which aims at making the British Empire into a political, diplomatic, military and economic unit. The Prime Minister says that he is in favour of the maintenance of the existing state of affairs, and that he is opposed to the idea of a Central Authority, but the question arises: “What really is his attitude, in view of the fact that those new ideas of closer connection, of closer union come out in the speeches of British statesmen?” Has that idea to be realised by a system of consultation and agreement? That apparently is what the Prime Minister had in mind when he spoke on Friday. He said that there must be the greatest possible degree of co-operation, but he refused to express himself about Lord Halifax’s speech. On Friday I pointed out to the Prime Minister that he was scuttling away from Lord Halifax’s speech. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his reply on Friday tried to create the impression that Lord Halifax’s speech was of no significance to him. He even turned to his own side of the House and said : “Where was it delivered, on some commercial occasion”? He further intimated that Lord Halifax did not speak on behalf of the British Government. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that it is on just such occasions that statements of that kind are made. The Prime Minister himself has made statements on very similar occasions, and the Prime Minister of England has selected such occasions to make very important statements. He went further and said that if a statement had to be made about such an important matter it would be made by Mr. Churchill himself or by Mr. Eden. But what we have here is the very kind of statement which neither Mr. Churchill nor Mr. Eden were prepared to make. What we did get—and I am convinced of that, and I think we are all convinced of it, even the Prime Minister himself—was a kite which was sent up by Lord Halifax. I don’t believe for a moment that a British ambassador would make such a highly important statement like this, a statement contemplating a total change in the present system, contemplating drawing the bonds of the Empire closer, without first having consulted the British Government and his Prime Minister. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted by the luncheon adjournment I was pointing out to the Prime Minister that it is all very well, and probably a matter for congratulation as far as the Government is concerned, to lay down far-reaching schemes for re-employment of ex-volunteers when they are demobilised. But those schemes themselves will be immobilised if South Africa finds itself not in a position to supply the materials. We may be in a position where schemes have been carefully worked out, but where there are simply no materials to carry out the schemes in view. That is a position which is becoming apparent and dangerous even at the moment. We have had, during the past few years, a considerable number of men discharged from the army, particularly men who have seen considerable service in the North, and we have reached a stage, in the building industry at least, where it is almost impossible to carry on. South Africa, I believe, is in a different position from any other portion of the Commonwealth in this respect. We are actually, or we will be actually unless some steps are taken, we will actually be at the close of the war, possibly in a worse position than even the devastated countries of Europe, France, Belgium and so on. The countries of Europe are near at hand to raw material, they are near to Great Britain, which can supply them with all the necessary machinery, and that will possibly be provided. But South Africa is in a particularly isolated position in this respect. Canada is quite well off for all the necessary raw materials, as a matter of fact Canada is an exporting country today. Australia, during the period of the war, has developed her industries to a stage where she can supply herself with the necessary machinery and machine tools, and with the necessary raw materials. A similar position exists in New Zealand, and they can also be assisted by Australia, if the necessity arises. But we have been, as far as I can gather, almost denuded of all the raw material which we ourselves do not produce. We have sacrificed a very considerable amount of our machinery in the interests of our war effort, and rightly so, but side by side with the plannnig for the immediate post-war future in South Africa, we will have to take into consideration this question of building up the necessary raw materials in order that these schemes can be put into operation as soon as demobilisation takes place. I am not going to suggest that the army can be demobilised within a month, within six months or even a year. But what I am going to suggest is that if we are to finance schemes and have not the raw materials and machinery with which to execute those schemes, then we are going to land the country in a very considerable amount of chaos, and our whole planning, so far as we are prepared to plan, will become unstuck. Now the hon. Minister is proceeding overseas to a Prime Ministers’ conference, and I think we should suggest to him that this matter should receive consideration. I would be the last man in this House, and my party the last party to suggest that there should be any slackening of the war effort, and we would be the last to suggest that necessary shipping should be diverted from war purposes to other purposes not connected directly with the war. But we are satisfied today that a certain amount of shipping is being diverted from essentially war purposes to purposes which are not connected with the war at all. I do not want to refer to the fact that we have had so many thousand bottles of whisky imported into this country, nor do I want to pour scorn on the suggestion that these bottles of whisky were carefully packed into the corners of any ship with labour which is even beyond the value of the whisky imported. That story does not cut very much ice with me. There are other forms of goods which are being exported and imported into South Africa, and it seems to me the time has arrived when as part of our war effort we should have some sort of priority for raw material. I maintain that the problems of demobilisation are an essential part of the war effort. I understand that the United States of America formed a Department of Demobilisation something like four days after they declared war, because they realised that part of the war effort itself was the re-establishment of civil conditions in the U.S.A. as soon as possible after hostilities ceased. America, of course, is not confronted with any problems so far as the scarcity of raw materials or machinery is concerned. We, I believe, alone of the Allied Nations, are confronted with this problem, and as far as I can gather, no effort has been made on the part of the Government to exercise priority for the building up of essential material. Our transport position today, I believe, is something which is becoming little short of a public danger. I have raised the point in the House but the Minister apparently does not think it of sufficient interest to give us a reply. While we may be justified in asking that a certain amount of priority be given to essential raw materials for every essential industries in this country, at the moment, I do not even go so far as that. But what I do suggest to the department concerned—here again it is rather difficult nowadays to decide what particular department deals with any particular matter—but I do suggest that we are not too early now if we begin to lay up a stock of necessary raw materials and machinery with which to implement the schemes which are being drawn up by Government departments, provincial councils and municipalities. It is a well-known fact that at the outbreak of the war we gave practically all our roadmaking machinery, which was very fine indeed, particularly for a small country like South Africa, we transferred our roadmaking machinery, quite rightly I say, to the Defence Department. Just how much that contributed to the eventual victory in Libya and Abyssinia, I do not know, but the position is today that having done so and having as a result placed an enormous strain on the machinery, I do not believe that we are in a position in the Union today to build any roads whatever. I do not think the remnants of the machinery is capable of building any roads. Yet roads must be one of the most important projects in any post-war development, road-making must be a means whereby employment not for unskilled but for skilled and semi-skilled men, may be offered on a very large scale. It is very little use planning out a scheme of road development which might employ 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 skilled and semi-skilled men, when any roadmaking scheme itself is dependent on having the necessary machinery. [Time limit.]

I think the world, when the war is over, will want a permanent peace, and that peace can only be permanent if it is a just peace. I assume that was Mr. Churchill’s idea, and President Roosevelt’s idea, when they framed the Atlantic Charter. Russia associated itself with that, and our Prime Minister also declared that he accepted it. Point 2 says—

How then do you explain the fact that part of Poland is to go to Russia without these people being consulted? On the other hand, there is Mr. Eden who approves of part of Germany in the West and part in the North going to Poland and being cut off from Germany, while Russia is to get part of Poland without the people in those areas being consulted, and that in spite of the fact that it is perfectly clear that those parts which are going to be cut off from Germany are entirely German, just as Danzig and the Corridor were. The Prime Minister at the time declared himself strongly opposed to such steps being taken—he did so in connection with Poland and he predicted that international difficulties would arise, and that those difficulties would lead to another war in the future. The question I want to put to him is whether, when Mr. Eden made that statement some time ago, the Prime Ministers of the Dominions—seeing that the Dominions are also involved in this war—had been consulted, and whether they had given their consent—and more particularly, are we entitled to know whether Mr. Eden approached our Prime Minister in regard to this matter before he made the statement and, if so, what was the Prime Minister’s reaction and what was his reply? I think that is a question which we are entitled to ask. Now let me come to my next point, the third point—

This is a very fine and sound proposition. Let the nations themselves decide what form of government they want. Now we are anxious to know, seeing that this was laid down in the Atlantic Charter, whether it is going to be practically applied? To begin with we can even now see how America is acting. President Roosevelt—I do not believe that the American people are behind him in regard to these matters—what is he doing in regard to certain other nations, for instance in regard to the status of South America? One sometimes gets the impression that he is bullying them. That is what he did in regard to Bolivia and in regard to the Argentine. That is the impression one gets. I don’t think it is the American nation. Their conception throughout their history has been different. But that is what one gets, that despite the fact that these grand doctrines have been laid down in the Atlantic Charter these things are being done. There is Russia. Russia simply stated that it was not going to recognise the lawful government of Jugoslavia which at the present moment is in banishment. Russia has put the Tito Government in the place of the Legal Government—and the Tito Government is communistic. Russia wants nothing but a communistic government, without giving Jugoslavia the opportunity of saying what kind of government she wants. One gets the same thing in regard to Poland. The British and the American Governments have absolutely nothing against the Polish Government which is in London today. On the contrary, but because that Government is not communistic Russia has simply formed another preliminary Polish Government in Moscow. It refuses to recognise the Polish Government in London because that Government is not communistic. All these things have happened in spite of the Atlantic Charter. The Government says that this war is being fought against National Socialism, against Nazism. The Government says it is against that form of government. What are you going to do with Portugal? What are you going to do with Spain which has forms of government very much approximating the form of Governments which Germany and Italy have? Do you intend allowing that? Are you going to allow every nation to choose its own form of Government, or are you simply going to say that such forms of Government will not be allowed, that those countries will not have the right to choose such forms of government? I am asking these questions for the sake of information in view of the Atlantic Charter. They say: “They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.” Are you going to maintain that? And then I come to the fourth point—

That’s a great promise! Does that mean that you are going to treat Germany and Italy on the same basis as England and America and Russia, so far as the obtaining of supplies is concerned, of obtaining raw materials for their economic needs for their factories after the war, “on equal terms”? It does not only say that all nations, big or small, will have access, but victors and vanquished alike, without distinction. Or are you going to differentiate after the war? Are we going to have the same position again which we had after the last war, when a boycott was instituted against one country to strangle it to death, as was done in respect of Germany before the declaration of war? Here in South Africa an agitation was started not to buy from Germany; even municipalities came in and said that they were only to buy from England. Are we going to have a repetition of that? America and England have colonies from which they get their raw materials. Are you going to continue the pre-war policy, or are you going to allow Germany, an industrial country which needs raw materials, to get raw materials, or are you going to exclude Germany and not allow her to have any colonial possessions in the world? Are you going to starve Germany in that way, or is Germany only to get its raw materials via London or Washington? Those are matters of importance, and those are questions on which we want an explicit reply from the Prime Minister, because they tell us they want to establish peace on the Atlantic Charter. Those promises have been made. Are you going to carry them out, or are we going to have a repetition of what happened to Wilson’s fourteen points? Are those promises going to be broken and are broken promises in future again going to be the cause of dissatisfaction, of grievances and of a new war?

The Opposition is very concerned about Ireland, and I can well understand it, because in 1939 the Opposition shielded behind Ireland and asked us why South Africa could not remain neutral if Ireland could do so. On all platforms during the last election we were told that Ireland had remained neutral, and it was asked why we could not remain neutral. Today Ireland finds herself in difficulties, and I can well realise that our friends of the Opposition are feeling worried. But what I cannot understand is this. Our great leader in South Africa chose the right path in 1939. Why must he now be attacked so vehemently on the eve of his departure overseas? Why does the Opposition come forward with a motion that this sum of £3,500 should be deleted. Is that playing the game towards a man who has done so much for his country? I have here an extract from “Die Burger” in regard to the advice which old Mr. Joubert gave them. I want to ask them to follow that advice. They held a certain function and on that occasion they sang “Dat’s Heeren zeegen op u daal” (May the Lord’s blessing descend on you). That is all very well. But they must remember his advice not to sow the seeds of discord, because otherwise there can never be an Afrikaner nation. Today we are being told by them that we have freedom only on paper. We are being told that we must separate from the British Empire. I want to ask them whether this is the time to ask for such things, at this time when we are engaged in a struggle of life and death to win this war, while Englishmen. Afrikaners and Jews are standing shoulder to shoulder in the fight to attain victory in this war? Is this the time to come forward with that type of talk? We shall never in all our lives be able to get a change of governmental system as long as they come before the House with this type of motion and as long as they adopt that type of attitude. Until such time as we get the co-operation in South Africa of all the leaders in bringing a motion before this House, we shall never be able to effect a change in our form of Government. In the meantime all this talk will be in vain. We shall talk until we are blue in the face. The Opposition says that the majority of the Afrikaans-speaking people support them. Is that true?

Yes.

No, that is not the case. Eighteen platteland seats in the Transvaal are today supporting our great leader and our party. The Opposition can only pride itself on the Free State, and what is the position there? They are coming over to us by the score, and at the next election we shall need a magnifying glass to see the Opposition.

May I avail myself of the half hour rule? Before proceeding to make a few remarks in connection with the Atlantic Charter, I should like to emphasise one point in this House, which has apparently not received attention in South Africa up to the present, and that is that although the Atlantic Charter aims more particularly, according to the statement of the two framers, at promoting the constitutional, political and social freedom and economic welfare of the world, it completely ignores the religious foundation and those religious principles on which Western European society is founded. And whatever may be said, the experience of the immediate past has proved that its negation has led to war. The absence in such a declaration of any reference to the religious principles of nations has engaged attention in America. The Prime Minister will remember that particular emphasis was laid on the absence of that aspect in the Atlantic Charter, and it was maintained that it had deliberately been omitted in order to make the statement acceptable to Russia. I want to draw the attention of the House more particularly to the economic provisions of the Atlantic Charter, namely Clauses 4 and 5, which read as follows—

No one will doubt that there is some intention underlying this, but precisely what the explanation of this statement is, must come from the best authority we have here, and that is our Prime Minister. It is for that reason that I raise this matter here. In Clause 4 reference is made to existing obligations. In what connection must the existing obligations be considered? Are the existing obligations, the existing trade agreements, or are they internal obligations? Is the position that certain obligations, of which the world does not know, were undertaken under this agreement? It is only stated that existing obligations must be borne in mind. The second point is that there must be access for all, on equal terms, to the trade and raw materials of the world for all nations which need those materials for their economic development. A beautiful picture is painted here, but the question is what is meant by equal terms or conditions. Must we take it that there will be a fixed tariff for all the nations, or that there will be no tariff except for revenue purposes? Must we take it that there will be a maximum tariff, or that a new international organisation will come into being to ensure that equal terms will be available to all nations? This is an important question which at this stage engages attention not only in South Africa but in the whole world. But a question on which great clarity must be obtained, and as soon as possible, is embodied in this clause. It is a question to which a great deal of importance is attached in the economic sphere, and that is the question of protection in South Africa. That is one of the questions which causes concern because the protective policy which is now being followed in South Africa, is the result of what we obtained after a very severe and hard struggle. Before Union came about there was no such thing as a protective policy. Since Union, England has enjoyed preference on a fixed basis. It was only in 1929 that a definite protective policy was laid down, a policy which led to a great struggle in this House. In view of the fact that there was this great struggle at the time to obtain this clear protective policy for South Africa, and since the Party which is today in power in South Africa, were the opponents of that protective policy in those days, it is necessary for industry to know what the attitude of the Government is going to be in respect of the implications of the Atlantic Charter, what the interpretation will be of the Party which opposed the protective policy in South Africa. It was the good fortune of the Nationalist Party to have that protective policy accepted and it is entitled to advocate the same standpoint today. And we as a Party feel perturbed, therefore, because it means so much to the future development and welfare of South Africa. We therefore have this position that the party which is today in power in South Africa, opposed a protective policy for South Africa in the past. In addition to that, we have this protection or preference of trade in South Africa, and it is on this very point that we should like to know what the attitude of the Government is going to be in the future in view of the fact, that that was the standpoint of the Government and since there is still this internal dispute in South Africa to keep out a certain portion of South Africa’s trade for England. It is no secret that the trade in South Africa, generally speaking, still orientates towards Britain. It is no secret, and I am not casting any reflection on commerce as such in saying that generally speaking our trade orientates towards Britain, and that it is not in favour of industrial development in South Africa. And for that reason there must be an end to this internal struggle amongst us, between trade on the one hand and industry on the other hand, the fight for trade to be encumbered as little as possible, so that trade will require the minimum protection, while industry, on the other hand, asks for protection, or otherwise it cannot undergo that development which is necessary. In addition to that there is the other danger that not only is trade against the protective policy, but also the Chamber of Mines which until recently was, and even today, is opposed to a protective policy for South Africa. Because this inherent danger exists, it is so necessary to have a clear statement so that industry can know where it stands, and so that industry can plan with reference to future development, without having to feel concerned as far as the future is concerned. We are also concerned at the fact that in South Africa there are representatives of British manufacturers—I speak here deliberately—who are of opinion that South Africa, in the first instance, must largely be a market for British manufactured goods. I do not want to cast any reflections on the B.M.R.A. It is an association of British factory representatives, and I do not want to cast any reflection on them. I just want to say that they adopt the attitude that they must enjoy preference in marketing their products in South Africa, and in those circumstances, since this Government opposed a protective policy in the past, since we have this inherent internal struggle between the trader on the one hand and the industrialist on the other hand, since the most powerful group, namely the mining interests are against protection, and since the British factory representatives are strongly organised, it is a matter for importance as far as industry is concerned to know precisely where it stands and what it can expect of this Government in the future. There is also another reason why a clear statement is essential. The industrial structure in South Africa is undoubtedly very high. From time to time suggestions have been made to lower it. Until such time as a remodelling takes place, it is essential for the Government of the day to bear in mind the fact that our industrial structure is high and will remain high. Some of these factors may perhaps be eliminated. Rationalisation and classification are possible. All these things can contribute towards safeguarding the position for South African industries. But there still remains a few factors, such as restricted markets which it is very difficult for us to control. Until such time as the purchasing power is increased, we cannot within our borders have a much bigger market for industrial products, and as long as that is the position, economic co-operation, comparatively speaking, will remain a matter of impossibility. The second factor is bound up with restricted markets, and that is the low purchasing power of a large section of the community. It is clear that three-quarters of the population of South Africa does not enjoy an income which makes it possible for them to buy the products of our industries. I do not want to deviate from the point, but I want to mention this point which makes it necessary for an industry to know what the intention of the Government is. Then you have the high wage structure which is a further factor. Transport costs and transport difficulties constitute another factor. These factors are all mentioned in the report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission. A further reason is this. More and more burdens are being placed on the shoulders of industry. I do not want to condemn the measures which are taken to protect and to safeguard the position of the workers in industry and to make industrial work attractive to them. But the Government must understand that there are limits to the carrying capacity of industry, and as more burdens in respect of social services are placed on the shoulders of industry, higher wages, holiday facilities, health measures, rest pauses, insurance, etc., all bring about additional costs, and unless the State is prepared to guarantee industry the necessary protection, it is impossible for industry to bear those burdens and to make plans for the future. In this connection I particularly want to remind the House that after the war the development of South Africa’s industries will have to contend with very serious competition from overseas products. I want to say this in the interests of South Africa’s industries—there are undoubtedly exceptions —but generally speaking labour conditions are maintained in South Africa’s industries which, generally speaking, are a credit to industry. In certain places labour conditions are allowed which are not good, and here and there Europeans and non-Europeans are allowed to work alongside each other, as we have heard here today, but generally speaking the labour conditions are very good. But it is all the more necessary to know what the Government’s attitude is going to be in relation to the future as far as South Africa’s trade and industries are concerned. In the past the gold mining industry argued that it occupied the key position and was the life-artery of this country. But today we know that the gold mining industry no longer plays the primary role. The findings of the Commission to which I have already referred are noteworthy, since the Commission stated that the contribution of industry to ˙ the national income between the years 1927 and 1939 had risen to 18 per cent. of the national income. For that reason it is necessary for the Government and the people on the whole clearly to realise that the most important source of employment and revenue today is industry, and that there is no other activity in the country which offers the same future to the people as industry. Since we expect a new world to come about, and that we shall be able to provide employment to so many more people, we must expect this from industry particularly. It is necessary therefore to safeguard our industries against competition from overseas, with which we cannot cope, and that our industries should be protected against that competition. I want to mention the case of a few industries. In the first place, I mention the leather and shoe industry of Port Elizabeth. It is this industry which first made an appeal to the Government; it was one of the first to receive the attention of the Nationalist Party, and it became an industry of which South Africa can justifiably be proud today, an industry which has developed to such an extent that it not only employs thousands of people, but that it delivers one of the best products and maintains working conditions with which we can be very satisfied. The shoe industry is not making use of this high protection. When one takes into account the existing position, they are not making use of this high protection, because they can meet the country’s needs. If the needs of such an industry are not taken into account, the result will be not only that thousands of people will lose their means of livelihood, but it would also wreck one of the corner stones on which protection in South Africa has been built. I want to point out that the very two countries which framed the Atlantic Charter, are the two biggest competitors of South Africa’s leather and shoe industry. We then come to the iron and steel industry in which we shall have invested £16,000,000 in the near future. Here again the biggest competitors are America and England, and France and Belgium apparently come after them. These are existing industries which will have to retain protection in the future if they are expected to meet the needs of South Africa and to render the services which they will be called upon to render. The engineering industry is in the same position. During all these years we have been dependent on the overseas textile industry. There the future is undoubtedly in our hands if the State is prepared to afford protection. I am not referring to unrestricted and uncontrolled protection. We have all the raw materials which we are exporting today. We retain only a handful, and the time has arrived for us to build up our own textile industry in this country, and it cannot be built up unless the Governmet is prepared to afford a certain measure of protection. We are not asking for excessive protection, but we do ask that the necessary protection should be afforded. One of the implications of the Atlantic Charter seems to me to be that a certain measure of restraint will be imposed on South Africa’s power to enter into trade agreements. It seems to me, if we accept that the factories of all countries will have access on equal terms to trade and to raw materials, that the right to enter into trade agreements is excluded, unless the old principle of protection is perpetuated in this condition. If those terms in the declaration mean that only agreements on equal terms can be entered into, what right is left in the case of a sovereign state to enter into agreements, whereby it can offer advantages in respect of mutual trade. In my opinion that implication seriously impedes the ability of the nation to enter into trade treaties. On a previous occasion I mentioned the question of Empire preference. It seems to me that that is altogether irreconcilable with this wording of the Atlantic Charter, and perhaps the Prime Minister can give us his opinion whether Empire preference is irreconcilable with this statement. I take it that negotiations are already taking place with reference to the implications of the Atlantic Charter. I do not want the Prime Minister to reveal what he regards as being of the utmost importance, but a general statement is necessary, and it is the right of industry in South Africa to obtain that statement. Just two further thoughts. We are making great plans for the future. The Prime Minister intimated in a certain brochure that 300,000 people who took part in the war on behalf of South Africa will again have to be placed in employment. Of those, 20,000 can return to their former positions.’ A large proportion will be placed in new industries and in agriculture. It is an idle hope to think that a large portion of these people will be able to find employment, unless new industries come into being and unless existing industries are expanded. Although Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter refers to the free access of victor and vanquished to the raw materials of the world, a statement was also issued to the world by the Prime Minister of England that the vanquished nations will not, as a matter of right, be able to invoke the implications of the Atlantic Charter. I do not know whether our Prime Minister has also made a statement. The Prime Minister of England did so, and as far as I am concerned, if that is not in direct conflict with this statement, then I do not understand English. One moment it is stated that there will be access for victor and vanquished alike, and the next moment it is stated that the vanquished nations will not have the same right. To me it simply means that a new discrimination is taking place.

Then the Atlantic Charter is again a scrap of paper.

Yes, it will be nothing but a scrap of paper, because we now find that one of the men who framed that declaration says that the vanquished nations will not have the same rights, and if no change is brought about as far as that is concerned, before the nations gather at the peace Conference, and if we are again faced with this principle of discrimination and of restrictive measures, the unfortunate world can be assured in anticipation that the peace will not be something on which it can rely but which it must view with trepidation. The Atlantic Charter itself is vague. It leaves the door wide open to possibilities, and since we in South Africa have the raw materials and the labour forces, and since we are a poor country which has to develop, we want to know where we stand.

I am sorry the Prime Minister did not give me a reply to my query about the Goverment’s policy in respect of the subsidisation of maize intended for human consumption. I hoped that I had made it quite clear that this issue is an issue not of the domestic politics of the Department of Agriculture but of national policy as proposed by the Social and Economic Planning Council. Now, I make no apology for raising the matter again and begging the Prime Minister to consider it, and if possible to give us a reply on it. The simple question is whether the Government is prepared to support and implement the proposal of the Social and Economic Planning Council that the consumption of maize should be subsidised. I feel that the question raises one or two important issues of policy, which is why I am raising it again as I am doing now. In the first place I feel that it raises an issue that has been raised by two members of the House today, the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) as to what is the function and what are the powers of the Social and Economic Planning Council. Here is a positive recommendation by the Planning Council to the Government to adopt the principle of subsidisation of the food of the poorest classes as a national policy. So far the recommendation apparently has not been considered by the only person, to whom the Economic and Planning Council is responsible, that is, the Prime Minister himself. The recommendation was made to the Secretary for External Affairs but was passed on by him to the Department of Agriculture, and the Secretary for Agriculture only decided one issue in the matter, the only one that. I think, he was competent to consider at all, which was whether the plan proposed for such subsidisation was practicable or not. But the issue of the policy of subsidising the food of the people has not yet been decided, and I feel that that is the bigger issue; the means whereby subsidisation should be carried out follow upon the decision as to the adoption of the policy. The issue of the powers of the Social and Economic. Planning Council is, I think, at stake, but there is a further issue at stake which I think is also of the first importance, that is the issue of native policy. We on these benches might be forgiven for assuming that if this matter of subsidisation had affected other sections of the population to any great extent, if a recommendation as strong as this one made by the Social and Economic Planning Council had been made in respect of other sections of the population, it would have been implemented long ago, as in fact the policy has been implemented in respect of wheat and butter which affect other sections of the population who are effectively and more adequately represented in this House, so that we have a strong and, I think, a justifiable feeling that it is because the bulk of the people affected by this recommendation are natives that the matter is not being pushed with the urgency that the Social and Economic Planning Council itself feels necessary. I am not in that regard blaming the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I am simply suggesting that those who are responsible for seeing that this recommendation should reach him have not carried out their obligation in this matter with the force that the Social and Economic Planning Council put behind it. Now any issue so widely involving native policy would be a matter of primary concern to us who sit on these benches, even if it only involved the question of the rights of the native people within this country. But I want to suggest to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that in terms of his statement in London last year and his statement again in this House last Friday about the increasing importance of the African continent and the part which it is going to play in the peace settlement, our native policy becomes a matter of increasing importance not only to ourselves but to the world at large. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has stressed his own belief that at the end of this war there will have to be a reconstruction of the general colonial set-up and that such reconstruction is particularly necessary here in Africa; that the present disposition of the Powers in Africa is illogical and is unsound, and that some new machinery designed to integrate the common interests of the African States to give them a more real aspect, will have to be invented. As to the need for that, I entirely agree with the Prime Minister, as I agree with him that in the ordinary course of events, South Africa as the most fully advanced and the most highly industrialised section of this continent, should play an increasingly large part in the affairs of the African continent, that in fact in any reorganisations in the African continent, the role of the Union of South Africa should be of predominant importance. But in that connection I see various factors that are likely to operate against the Union of South Africa playing just the part that the length of her history and the variety of her experience should entitle her to play in this reorganised Africa, in factors which are both economic and social. For instance, if it is our intention to increase our influence in Africa through economic channels, I feel that unless we ourselves reorganise our economic life on the basis of a reorganised native policy, it is going to be extremely difficult for us to increase the scope of our activities in Africa and to play that extended role. The hon. Minister of Finance pointed out to us the urgent necessity of our getting down the costs of industry in this country if we are to increase our own markets in this country but. Sir. I would suggest that the possibility of our being able to compete in the economic field in Africa is even more a matter of our getting down the costs of industry in this country, which can only be done if we are prepared to use our labour force in that more reasonable and more economic fashion that those Powers are doing with whom we shall have to compete after the war. On that ground I feel that the possibilities of our extending our influence in the rest of Africa, is closely linked with our native policy. On those economic grounds I can see no future for South Africa in the rest of Africa unless we are prepared firmly to take charge of our economic system and rebuild it on a much more secure and firm foundation than we have done; unless we are prepared to oppose with all our strength the sort of demands we listened to this morning from the Opposition benches that non-Europeans should not even be allowed to work in the already wholly inadequate fields now open to them. And if the extended field, in finance we are aiming at is not essentially economic but rather administrative and advisory, as the terms of the speech of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in London would seem to suggest. I feel that here too we are up against great difficulties derived from our native policy. In London the Prime Minister suggested that “we should look for a new grouping of colonial powers that would bring to bear on the problems of these colonial groups the experience and resources and leadership of the local Dominions.” The English Press was as interested in this section of the Prime Minister’s address as it was in those sections dealing with the European situation, and was not slow to note that if the Prime Minister’s ideas are to be developed in Africa, it will automatically be the Dominion of South Africa which will offer her experience and resources and leadership to the rest of Africa. The response of “The Economist” to this proposition is one which reflects a very general attitude in England to the claims of South Africa to any extended interest on the African Continent. Dealing with the dangers that might arise out of Imperial regionalism in Africa, they say—

A commission designed to integrate the interests of colonial peoples. They add—

[Time limit.]

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to protest against the closer linking of the Union with the British Empire. I want to warn the Prime Minister that if that happens we are most certainly heading for one of the greatest disasters ever to befall the Union. We can no longer bind ourselves to a sinking ship. If we do that the danger is that we shall also sink. It has already been admitted by the Prime Minister that England will emerge from the struggle a weak and a poor nation. It has already been stated by him that he would like to see the kindred nations in Europe co-operate in order to give England a full say in the Trinity of which the Prime Minister spoke. That proves that the Prime Minister regards this matter in its true perspective, I say therefore that since we notice that England is in the process of sinking, we must not allow ourselves to be dragged into her troubles. If we join forces with those kindred countries we shall in the near future be faced with a third world war, in which the Union will again have to do its share, and the struggle will be in the service of the Empire to drive Communism out of Europe in order to save England from ruination. I think that the lessons we have learned during the past four years under the British connection, must convince us that it is high time for us to separate from the British connection without delay. We must sever the British connection. I do not want to go into all the specific disadvantages, but I want to mention a few consequences of the British connection as far as the Union is concerned. During the past 40 years we have had the Second War of Independence. That war cost the Afrikaners a great deal; it brought about the ruination of their possessions, the burning down of their houses, the destruction of what they held dear, and the sacrifice in the concentration camps of 27.800 women who were murdered there. We do not want to have a repetition of that experience. During the first World War we had to sacrifice approximately £60,000,000 which it cost the Union to take part in that war. Up to the present this war has cost us approximately £260,000,000; and I want to ask what advantage the Union derives from the British connection? We were told that it was our duty as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations to participate in the war because we enjoyed the protection of Britain. I repeat that during the past forty years we have had no protection from her; on the contrary, we had to protect her. Notwithstanding the fact that we spent millions of pounds on the protection which she is supposed to have given us, we received no protection. We have to assist her. We have heard it stated that England has already lost this war, that even if Germany were to be defeated, England would not win the war. Russia would then rule England. And because England has already lost this war, we must now sever the British connection. We found during the Second War of Independence that when England could not succeed in defeating the Boers, they exterminated the women and children. And the same thing is happening today in Europe. I, as a son of the concentration camps, know what I am talking about. They even gave us vitriol in the camps to exterminate us. Hon. members on that side must not tell us of the cruelty of the Germans. Together with America they are engaged today in fighting not against Germany, but to murder the women and children. I say that England has already lost the war, and South Africa must therefore sever the British connection as soon as possible. She has lost the war in this sense : A war can only be won by one of the belligerent countries, and the only powers which are fighting today are Germany and Russia. One of these two powers must therefore win the war. That is only natural. Who is going to give a say to England in this struggle in which she plays an inferior role? She is weak; she is already seeking assistance from the smaller powers, and she will therefore have no say after this war. Let us therefore realise once and for all that we must withdraw from this war and that we must establish a free republic in this country in which English-speaking people as well as Afrikaans-speaking people will be able to feel at home. I am referring to those who want to make this country their home, and who do not always speak of “home.” I have a French name; I am of French descent, but I do not regard France as my fatherland. I regard South Africa as my home and I am convinced that if the British connection is severed the English-speaking people in this country who are prepared to make South Africa their home can be happy here and make a great country of South Africa together with the Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. We shall be able to make this country a happy country, because one section would then be able to understand the other section; one section will respect the other section’s language, customs and traditions, and we shall not have a “mother” to whom we always think back. Today, however, the position is that the English-speaking people in our country and that section of the Afrikaansspeaking people who went over to them, regard “home” as the only country; they regard England as their home. If that had not been so, there would long ago have been happiness and co-operation in this country. Do what we did; separate from England. We must work out our own salvation. And I just want to say this to the Prime Minister in conclusion. He sees very far ahead in this struggle. He cannot, of course, say everything he believes otherwise we would hear many things, but since he sees so far ahead in this struggle I want to tell him that if they want to save the Wetsern civilisation in Europe, there is only one solution, and that is that England and America must make peace with Germany and throw in their lot with Germany against the colossus, Russia.

When I read in the newspapers this morning the speech made by the hon. leader of the Opposition at Paarl on Saturday last, and that he had said that the Afrikaner was regaining his soberness of judgment after a period of political turmoil in which some had fallen under the influence of foreign ideologists, I really began to think that a miracle had occurred overnight and that South Africa at last has a leader of the Opposition who has woken up to reality. But when I listened to the last speaker I wondered whether I was dreaming or not, and I wondered whether that hon. member had failed to read the speech which his leader made at Paarl last Saturday. I have always advocated and I still advocate that until such time as our country is strong enough to stand on its own feet, economically and politically and particularly from the Defence point of view, it is in the interests of South Africa to be associated as closely as possible with the other nations within the British Commonwealth of Nations. It would be madness to do otherwise, and if, as the leader of the Opposition says the great colossus, Russia, is now going to become a danger for South Africa and the whole world, then that is all the more reason why we should endeavour to strengthen that connection, which is not a legal connection but a connection built up through years of co-operative working, of mutual services and of help towards each other. I feel that that connection alone can preserve us for many years to come. I still feel that South Africa is best served by remaining within the British Commonwealth and, if possible, by having a common Defence policy with the other Dominions. I advocated that policy in my humble way as far back as 1936, and I was very much out of favour with the Government at that time over this matter, because what I advocated was contrary to the Government’s policy. I thought that if there had been a common declaration at the time from the constituent members of the British Commonwealth, that if any one of those members were attacked, the rest would stand firmly by her, the danger of an attack from Germany would be considerably lessened. We have since learned that Germany thought herself strong enough to go out for complete mastery of the whole world. But when I hear the Leader of the Opposition say that in view of the fact that Russia has announced that it intends to annex certain portions of Poland, she is acting in direct conflict with the terms of the Atlantic Charter, I wonder what he was really getting at, whether he was admitting for the first time that the Allies have won the war or whether he was out on a fishing expedition to gain some sort of Information which he can broadcast to South Africa as showing how very deceiving the British race is. I feel that when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister goes to England to attend this conference of Prime Ministers we need have no fear. We know that he will act in the best interest of South Africa, as he has always done. We know that with his experience and knowledge and in view of the fact that he is recognised overseas as one of the leading statesmen of the world, our future and our present are absolutely safe in his hands, and I do not think it is necessary for us in this House, either on this side or on the other side, to try and tie his hands in any way, because we know that he who has served us so well in the past, will serve us equally well in the future.

I think it is rather regrettable that on the eve of the departure to England of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister a telegram of the nature sent by the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to go. I feel that our present army in the field has been grossly slighted. In endeavouring to tell the world that South Africa was sympathetic towards Japan or Germany, I think, a great disservice has been been done to this country by that telegram. Owing to dissatisfaction on the part of the people of South Africa, chiefly due to the Control Board methods, the Nationalist Party has been claiming that they were gaining a certain amount of sympathy for their cause in South Africa, and they have gone so far as to say that the English-speaking in South Africa are beginning to turn to the Nationalist Party. I have heard it stated myself.

That is so.

I have heard it stated that if the present Opposition will drop their Republicanism, a number of people in South Africa will look upon them with some favour. Let me say now that after their adventure last week, after this telegram which was sent to Southern Ireland, any sympathy that the English-speaking section may have had with the Opposition on certain lines, has been wiped out, and has been wiped out for a good many years. It is true that the Nationalist Party in South Africa has a number of English-speaking supporters. There is no doubt about that, but with the attitude which they adopted last week. I think they have done more to strengthen the position of the Government than they have done by means of any of their actions in the past few years. We are very pleased to hear the reply of the Prime Minister. We feel that when he arrives in London to meet the other Prime Ministers and some of the greatest men of the world, he will inevitably be asked: “What about this telegram to De Valera which was sent by the Opposition”? Fortunately the Prime Minister will be able to say that the Opposition in this country has a small minority supporting it and that he carries the confidence of the vast majority of the people of South Africa. I submit that is was not quite playing the game to endeavour to handicap him in that way. They might have refrained from doing things like that for the time being, because the Prime Minister will be fully occupied in looking after the welfare of South Africa, and it would have been better in the interest of the Nationalist Party not to have sent that telegram. It is rather strange that this morning we had quite a heated debate on the coloured question, in connection with the garment workers, and yet we find that a telegram was sent to De Valera asking him to protect the representative of a coloured nation. On the one hand hon. members complain about the infringement of the colour bar and on the other hand they want the Japanese ambassador in Southern Ireland protected. It is very difficult to understand the attitude of hon. members on the other side. Hon. members on that side must not put forward claims of that kind when they are attempting to defend Japan, their new found Ally. If the Prime Minister would care to interest himself in a little matter when he is discussing matters with the other Prime Ministers, I think he will be doing South Africa tremendous service; I refer to the South African Navy. We have the nucleus of a great navy. Both races in this country, Afrikaans- and English-speaking sections of the community, come from sea-faring races and there is not the slightest doubt that the question of navies will be discussed in London, and I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that the war in Europe will not last too long, and that the war in the East will not last too long, and I am inclined to think that there will be quite a number of very nice ships going begging. Huge navies have been brought into being throughout the world chiefly by the Allied Nations, who have been building war vessels as rapidly as they possibly could. The time may come when our Nationalist friends will have some say in the control of the Government of South Africa, and we may find that we are left practically defenceless; so in the interests of our Nationalist friends I hope the Prime Minister will be able to secure for South Africa a few of these war vessels, a couple of battleships would be very fine indeed. I am perfectly certain the Allied Nations will be only too pleased to hand over a number of these warships to us to support our navy. They have done it with Australia, they have given warships to Australia, and New Zealand, and they have also helped Canada in this matter. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to come back and tell us that they will be only too anxious to help us. In our young navy we have some jolly fine fellows, and I want to tell the Prime Minister that they are concerned at the moment as to what is going to happen to the navy when the war is over. The Prime Minister has been an army man, but I feel sure that an opportunity now presents itself to build up a navy for South Africa, where the difficulty will arise will be to raise money for a fleet of any decent size in South Africa. I am sure we will be able to get some sort of a navy at a very reduced price. Knowing the good feelings of the Allies towards South Africa, nothing would give them greater pleasure than to give us a small fleet to start off with. There is a certain amount of anxiety in connection with our navy. They have done marvellous work wherever they have been sent, and I hope the Prime Minister will be able to assure these young men who are anxious to make the navy a profession, that they will receive all possible support in their endeavours. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to assure us of a future for our navy, and that we will have a navy quicker than most people expect. I am sure this is an opportunity we should not miss, and that we shall have a navy as big as we have had an army.

Mr. Chairman, it is refreshing to listen to the optimism of my hon. friend. I do not know whether there will be many battleships going begging after this war, but whether that is so or not I think we shall have to put our own house in order. There is no doubt that one of the lessons we have learned in this war is the importance of that side of our defences, our naval defences. I hope that the efforts that have been made during this war in order to keep our small fleet going and to prepare for the defence of South Africa on the seas, will be intensified after this war. Several steps are now being contemplated in order to improve our position on the seas. The Committee knows that we have on the stocks a Bill which will provide for the organisation and expansion of the fishing industry. The commercial marine always goes hand in hand with naval development. We also contemplate in the not distant future starting a naval college in this country, where our boys will get the necessary naval training in order to equip them for the small fleet which it will be in our power to maintain in this country. There is no doubt that naval developments in a country situated as we are, are called for very urgently, and I hope our circumstances will allow us to build up a small navy adequate to our resources and our needs. I must apologise to my hon. friend, the member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that I omitted answering her question about a subsidy for maize. I do not know how this happened to escape my mind, but in the multitude of questions that are floating about some points get overlooked. I should have said what I say now, and that is that this matter of maize has been engaging our attention. I have before me this correspondence between the Planning Council and the Agricultural Department. The attitude taken up by the Department was this, they did not object to the policy of subsidising maize for the lowest wage earning classes in our community, but the difficulty was that they considered the actual measures proposed by the Planning Council were not practicable. They were afraid that the benefits of what was proposed would not go so much to the natives as to the other classes of the community who did not deserve that assistance. Since then the matter has been taken in hand by my hon. friend, the new Minister of Agriculture, by the Finance Department and also by the Food Department, and they are trying to work out a way which will be more practicable and a more workable means for subsidising maize for native consumption, and the consumption of our lower wage earners. The maize crop in this country does not promise very well. It is possible that the maize price will be such that it will be necessary for the Government to subsidise maize for consumption by our natives and the lower wage earners. That measure is under consideration now, and I hope that something will be done in a matter which is of very large human interest. My hon. friend has referred to what I said in London in regard to the new colonial set-up in Africa—larger groups for consultation, for help, for pooling experience and so on; all that I said in London I spoke out of my heart and my experience, and I do hope that collaboration towards that end between us in South Africa and our neighbours further north may prove helpful to us and to South Africa generally. There is no doubt that we shall hear points of view which are not commonly voiced in the Union. Equally, our neighbours will be able to gather from our experience, which after all counts for something—they will be able to gather some hints and clues from the experience that we have gathered here. I do think it is one of the most salutary prospects before us, this collaboration within South Africa, Africa south of the Equator, or even further north. This will be helpful to us and helpful to them. All that I have heard from recent visitors, men of great experience and high authority who have looked into our conditions shows that they are absolutely of the same opinion as myself, that is that this collaboration, this working together in consultation between those in the north and us here in the south, may prove very helpful in solving problems which lie before us

What form is it going to take?

We must see; you begin with talks, conferences, and gradually you find your way to more practical methods of getting on. I am sorry I also forgot to answer the question of my hon. friend, the member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), this morning about the Planning Council. He raised the question whether the enlarged vote for the Planning Council means an extension of our scope and our authority. I forgot to answer that question. But I now say here that it is not necessary to enlarge the scope of reference to the Planning Council. It is as large as possible, the widest scope that has ever been committed to any council or commission in this country. All that is necessary now is to staff the Council with some more expert personnel, and the provision which is on the estimates now is intended to achieve that purpose. The staff of the Council is overwhelmed with work. They have the widest field possible for planning and for advising the Government generally on new departures, and their complaint is that they are lacking in the expert personnel to help them in their work. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) made it a matter of complaint that in matters of importance, of public importance, Ministers make speeches in public instead of addressing Parliament. Well, Sir, I think my hon. friend will understand that that is unavoidable. We are not the only body concerned with public questions. South Africa is covered with associations and bodies of one kind and another who are concerned with the great questions of development in this country. We have to meet them and address them and compare things with them, and it is quite necessary that we should do so. If we tried to concentrate all that collaboration and consultation here in Parliament, we should be sitting for the whole year and not even then do all our work. The hon. member also referred to the work of the Planning Council and wanted to know what they were doing to organise or advise new development, new employment, in order to keep going the new industries and the men returning from the war. Largely, of course, that is the work of the Government itself. The Planning Council, after all, has to guide thought and practiće in this country on large general lines. But the actual exploration of the means of employment, industrial expansion and the like, is for the Government, and I may say that we are pushing ahead as fast as we can with these matters. My hon. friend is wrong when he says that we are behind other Allied governments in this task. I think we are advancing pretty well along many lines in the developments we are undertaking. He mentioned, for instance, this question of cheap steel for engineering. Well, my hon. friend knows, everybody in this country knows, that the importation of steel, except for certain very limited and specific purposes, is entirely out of the question. Steel is one of the rarest things in the world today, and to ask for steel to be imported into this country in order to build up stocks for future engineering, is to cry for the moon.

I did not ask for that.

I know my hon. friend did not ask for that. We have made provision as much as we can in order to enable us in future to build up our steel resources. Iscor is practically doubling its capacity, its pre-war capacity, and it is a marvellous achievement that during war when there is this scarcity of material and machinery, this scarcity of shipping to bring the material here, we should yet be in a position to practically double the steel industry in South Africa. The hon. member referred to the textile industry. That also has been taken in hand. The Industrial Corporation is fostering and trying to build up that industry, which is a very natural one in South Africa, as everybody knows, and for which there will be a large market, both in South Africa and further North. We are doing whatever we can along many lines to build up industries for future employment in this country. Only our conditions are not favourable, our man-power is limited, our forces are engaged in war production or in fighting, and we have not much left by way of man-power or material to develop industry now. But even so we are doing a great deal, even so a number of small industries are springing up in many directions and our war industry itself is going to mean a great push for the civil industries in this country in the future. I think we are doing a great deal. My hon. friend referred to the question of shipping; that too, is a matter which we are keeping well in mind. Now that there is improvement in the shipping position, we have put in our plea for increased assistance, and we have got it too. Owing to the successful countering of the U-boat menace, vast orders which have been waiting in America and Great Britain for shipment are being discharged at a very good rate. I do not think there is much to complain of on that score.

*The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) raised a few points in connection with the Atlantic Charter. He confined his remarks to the economic aspect of the Charter and he asked: “What about protection?” He said that it appeared as if the Atlantic Charter, at least in tenor, is in conflict with the policy of protection, and he wanted to know in how far our policy will remain to protect the industries of South Africa and to leave possibilities for the expansion of new industries. The hon. member can rest assured as far as this point is concerned. I do not think that it can be asserted that the Atlantic Charter is a negation of the policy of protection.

The Chairman of the British Wool Commission does not agree with you.

I need only draw the attention of the hon. member for Ceres to the fact that the Atlantic Charter originated in America, which is known to be a country of protection, and if anything is difficult, it will be to bring down the American protectionist system to a reasonable level in the future.

What about Clause 4?

I am coming back to that. The hon. member for Ceres can rest assured that the Atlantic Charter or its terms are not in conflict with any policy of a justified and reasonable and proper protection which we here may consider necessary for safeguarding our industries. The hon. member also spoke about Empire preferences and asked whether that question had been discussed. Not as far as I know. I do not think that either in this regard or in any other regard discussions have been taking place lately. But the hon. member can rest assured that the protectionist policy of our country will be safe. It is essential to the development of South Africa. It is not only essential to its development, but it is also necessary for the period immediately after the war, when we will need opportunities of employment on an unprecedented scale, and for that reason it is necessary to establish industries—to protect those that we have and to establish those we do not yet have.

Will that be protection for our own needs?

There is no doubt about it that the great prospect for South Africa in the near future is industrial development and I do not see why we shall not achieve that, even when the Atlantic Charter is applied. I now come back to the remarks of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the application of the Atlantic Charter. He read some of the articles to us and asked what the position now is. It is said there “no aggrandisement, territorial or otherwise” and he asked how this can be reconciled with the actions of Russia which wants to absorb a part of Poland. I can ask the hon. member with as much right: “How does that reconcile with the actions of Germany?”

That is a good question to put in the German Parliament, but not here.

The hon. members on the other side can only see one side of a question.

You are now trying to evade my question.

While President Roosevelt was busy writing down the Atlantic Charter, what was Germany busy doing? To absorb half of Poland and to give the Baltic States, to which the hon. member referred, as a present to Russia.

You are evading the point now.

I say this: That Germany should imagine enjoying the benefit of the Atlantic Charter and continuing to behave as it did, is of course the greatest nonsense in the world. That never was the intention of the Atlantic Charter and on that basis peace will definitely never be established. Just imagine!

But read Article 4. What does that say?

The Atlantic Charter represents the Empire’s aims and those of its Allies, but if the enemy does not accept them and continues to annex countries and to make and break the territory of other countries as it likes, Germany cannot hide behind that article.

The Charter was drafted in 1941, after all those things had happened.

Germany wants to have the benefits, or rather Germany’s friends want to see Germany receiving all the benefits of the Charter, whereas all actions of Germany in the Baltic States and in Poland are in conflict with it.

We only want to know whether it is meant honestly.

It will cut both ways.

Are the actions of Russia in regard to the Baltic States also in conflict with it?

I am not speaking on behalf of Russia. I have no right to speak for Russia. I know, however, that Russia’s reply to all those arguments will most probably be: “Who gave me the Baltic States as a present?” Russia will say: “What did Germany do with the western half of Poland?”

Another scrap of paper.

There is a further point which the hon. member raised and which is of importance, and that is the supply of materials also to vanquished countries: “Access on equal terms to trade and materials needed for their economic prosperity.” I believe there is much in that. It is one of the lessons we learnt at the end of the last war. It is one of the things which contributed most to deteriorating the position in the world to such an extent that a real peace afterwards became virtually an impossibility, and I think that the fourth point of the Atlantic Charter is meant to give expression to the feeling that we shall not again go in for the closing of markets, for blockades, etc., as after the last war. Even as far as enemy countries are concerned, they will have to get materials and the trade which they need for their own existence and development. I quite agree with that and I hope that it will be possible in the peace which will be concluded, that we shall avoid the mistakes of the last peace and that the door will be left open and that even vanquished countries will have a right of existence and an opportunity to recover, so that they will not be a millstone round the world’s neck. But the hon. member for Piketberg goes further. He wants Germany to get colonies. That is not mentioned in the Atlantic Charter and I do not think it will be the policy of any country to give Germany colonies after it has lost the war. I do not think that will be possible.

What about the declaration of Mr. Eden?

He asked whether I had been consulted. No, I was not.

That is terrible.

The hon. member, I suppose, has a bone to pick with him.

We thought you would do that.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) referred to the debate of last Friday and said I virtually evaded the point. He said that I dwelt upon the two extreme views, viz. the one extreme of closer bonds within the British Empire and the other extreme of republics and secession from the British Commonwealth, but that I did not discuss the middle course, that of a uniform policy. I thought I did so.

You ignored the speech of Lord Halifax.

The hon. member wants me to fight with every means against the speech of Lord Halifax. I do not feel called upon to do so. I explained what my point of view is and what I think the point of view of this House is. I did that and I said that we are in favour of our own policy but that we also want to see in how far we can adapt our own policy to the larger policy which will lead to co-operation within the Empire and also with other countries of the world.

Is that a uniform policy?

No, this is not a uniform policy. This is a policy of co-operation and consultation as far as it is possible and as far as we can adapt our interests to those of the larger group to which we belong and of the world outside. I think I have replied to the questions put to me by hon. members.

I am sorry I was cut off in my last speech before the Prime Minister replied. I was not suggesting that we should import steel into South Africa—I was just referring to steel as one instance. The point I was referring to was in connection with the schemes we are planning for re-employing our volunteers when they are demobilised, and I am surprised at the lack of support I have had in this House for the schemes I have put forward. Well, it is on all fours with the policy of the Nationalist Party that they would prefer to chase hares rather than get on with something of importance to the country. The remarks I was making, and I am making now, show how much this country is still dependent on the United States and on other countries for certain raw materials and for machinery. The present position should also bring home to hon. members over there in what a parlous condition South Africa would have been had she remained neutral in the last four years with an economic ring placed round her. But the point I want to make is this, the Prime Minister is proceeding overseas to attend the Dominion Prime Minister’s conference. I want to emphasise that South Africa is in a worse position than even the devastated countries of Europe. We are in a great sense cut off from the rest of the world. Take ne particular commodity— take the small Quantity of timber we have in this country. We only have about enóugh ţo build 4,000 houses. The Question is what is going to be our position immediately after the cessation of hostilities. What is going to be the position if we are going to be faced with 25,000 or 30,000 men, as a preliminary to the actual demobilisation; we shall be able to say to these people: “We have the schemes ready, we have the money, we have the ground laid out and surveyed, but we have not got the material to put the scheme into operation, we shall only be able to get the materials after six or twelve months.” So I feel that now, with the shipping position being easier, we should request the Allied countries to help us and allow us to build up sufficient materials to ensure that when our first troops begin to arrive here, the various schemes which have been worked out and planned, will have been put into operation. If we don’t do that, we shall have no alternative but to supply the returning men and women with subsistence allowances. That is the proposition which we have to face. Our transport is becoming a dangerous proposition. We cannot run our schemes successfully if the whole of our public transport breaks down—and our public transport is actually within measurable distance of breaking down. It is becoming more and more difficult for people to get to and from their work—let alone the question of their going out to any places of entertainment. And if, as the Transportation Board says, we are not likely to get any transport vehicles until 1947, South Africa is going to be in a very sorry mess indeed, and my suggestion to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is that if possible, before he goes to Europe, he should see to it that the various schemes which are now in process of being planned out, and the schemes which are already planned out, should be collated and some estimate, as close as possible, should be made as to the amount of material which it is absolutely necessary to import. I am not at all anxious to import material if, under any circumstances, the material or the machinery can be manufactured or made in South Africa. Of course, I am all for that, but there are certain other essential things attached to almost all the schemes. I quoted to the Prime Minister the instance of this highly important road making machinery. There are certain essentials in connection with our bigger industries. Now, it has been computed in Great Britain that one worker in every five in Britain depends for his living in Britain directly or indirectly on the building industry. I suggest that the solution of our unemployment problem is also largely to be found in the building industry. South Africa obviously is faced not with the question of putting great projects into force, to avoid unemployment, but we are faced with the position of undertaking these projects. We have our Housing Scheme, our Railway Building Scheme, our Municipal Building Schemes, and if these schemes are still to be started when the war ends, and we have no material with which to undertake them, it means that we shall not be able to do anything. I suggest that the Prime Minister should attempt to get shipping specifically for South Africa. I would even say that South Africa should try and charter some neutral ships of our own and that the Prime Minister should try and get priority for the importation of the minimum raw materials in line with the schemes now being planned because if we carry on for another two years even without a great deal of shipping, we could bring to this country a great deal of raw material which could be kept aside. I do not say that these raw materials should be dished out arbitrarily for certain classes of work to be undertaken now, I am concerned mainly with the schemes which are being planned, and will be planned, for the re-absorption of the ex-volunteer. And if that is done, and the industries are gradually built up, I am sure South Africa will not be faced with a serious unemployment problem. Various things are crying out for development. People can be employed at decent rates of wages. But if, through lack of foresight, we are not in a position, where development is crying out and we have the men ready to do the work, to undertake that work through lack of material—if such a position arises through our not having taken the precaution of building up the necessary stocks, and requirements, we shall indeed be faced with a very sorry state of affairs.

I agree with the remarks of the previous speaker that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have been raising a number of questions here about the forthcoming Imperial Conference, the neutrality of Ireland, the concentration camp of Boer War days and so on, but I think that they would do the multitude—the masses of South Africa—a very much greater service if they were to co-operate with the Government in trying to solve the many problems which are facing us. Hearing the hon. members talk about Irish neutrality and about Communism, I ask myself what is their object? I must come to this conclusion, that the “cupboard of reason” of the Opposition is bare, and it is now trying to convince the public that the Government is not doing the right thing by South Africa. This communist bogy is being raised continually by members of the Opposition. As one who has for many years taken interest in Trade Unionism, I say that the Opposition is merely raising the communist bogy as an excuse when they find that they cannot get control of meetings. I say very definitely that Trade Unionism in the Transvaal does not want interference from predikants or politicians. They are well able to look after their own affairs. What do we find in Johannesburg? 800 odd Afrikaans women belonging to an organisation.

You mean 8,000.

They cannot be accused of being communists. They have a public meeting to discuss their troubles and we find predikants coming to the meeting. I had always been under the impression that predikants and ministers of religion were saviours of souls and they should confine their activities to that purpose and not to interfere with the activities of trade unionism. I want to say this, as far as the Opposition is concerned— when they find they are in the minority at a particular meeting they squeal.

And you squeal all the time.

But who are the individuals who arrange all this opposition at public meetings—whether these meetings are municipal, political or trade union meetings? It is always the Opposition who try to smash up meetings. I had an instance brought to my notice a few weeks ago when at a municipal election meeting we found a predikant taking an active part. An Afrikaans woman, a Mrs. Van Heerden, told me that at 6 o’clock that evening she appealed to the predikant to come to her house where her husband was in a serious way suffering from phthisis. The predikant’s reply was that he was otherwise engaged. Well, the woman satisfied herself by going to the meeting where she found him occupied in politics. Let me tell hon. Opposition members over there this, that they are helping to empty their churches, because the Afrikaans section are getting wise to what is going on.

You are reflecting on the church.

I want to suggest to the Prime Minister that since the Opposition is so anxious to know what the agenda for the next Imperial Conference will be and knowing the Opposition is very anxious to help Hitler, he should appeal to the British Government to place the Queen Mary and part of the British Navy at their disposal so that our pro-German Opposition members might all have a safe passage to go over to help Germany in her war effort.

I put some pertinent questions to the Prime Minister in regard to such an important matter as the Atlantic Charter. The manner in which the Prime Minister replied to them is, to say the least of it, remarkable, and I do not think we can simply leave it at that without reacting to it and giving a reply to it. First of all I want to say that the Prime Minister does not understand or pretends not to understand what the Atlantic Charter really is and what its purpose is. According to what he suggested the Atlantic Charter is something originating from America, England and Russia, but also in fact from Germany, and because Germany broke the Atlantic Charter, he need not reply now. I want to read to the Prime Minister, as he pretends not to know what the Atlantic Charter is, the opening sentences of this declaration—

So that is America and England. If anything is clear, it is that the Atlantic Charter is obviously a declaration of policy on the part of England and America, and at a later stage when Russia accepted it, also of Russia. What other nations do is beside the point, but the question is whether these countries are going to stick to this declaration. The whole Atlantic Charter is concerned with the post-war policy in the supposition that the Allies will win the war. That is its purpose. In what wav does the Prime Minister reply to the questions by which we want to test whether they are going to stand by the provisions of the Atlantic Charter? His reply is: What is Germany doing? Germany did so and so, and for that reason he need not reply to us whether these stipulations of the Atlantic Charter will be translated into practice or not. I think that the Prime Minister himself will realise that this is no reply and that it is a mere evasion of the reply. He moreover comes along and accuses us that we on this side of the House really want to assure Germany of the benefits of the Atlantic Charter. Nothing of the sort. We look at what is laid down in the Atlantic Charter and then we ask you how you are going to interpret it, and one of the matters discussed here was that those principles are laid down there and must be put into practice not only for one or the other side, but in respect of the whole world. In one of the paragraphs mention is made of “all States, great or small, victor or vanquished.” When we ask them how they are going to apply this, then we do not do so in order to obtain benefits for Germany. No, the actual facts are that the United States and England. President Roosevelt and Churchill, have laid down certain principles for a world peace, for a lasting peace in the future. Russia did not stand by it, in spite of having given its word, and you are so dependent on Russia, I would venture to say you are so much the slave of Russia, that you capitulate. Those are the actual facts. The Minister also gave a reply in regard to the opportunities for recovery and he said that he hoped that after this war all nations of the world would have an opportunity to recover as far as supplies, etc., are concerned, and that these would be accessible to them. But one reply which he also gave was that Germany would not get any colonies. Those colonies were taken from it after the last war and that position will remain as it is. If that is the case, then nothing will come of the access on equal terms to the raw materials, as far as Germany is concerned. We know the Prime Minister from the last war. In 1917 he went to the Imperial Conference together with Mr. Burton the then Minister of Finance, and what did they decide at that Conference— that England would be the industrial country and that the rest of the British Empire was to produce the raw materials.

No.

It is written black on white and we read it out to you here in Parliament after you came back.

No, that is not so.

We can quote it again for you. It is down black on white. The Dominions were to supply the raw materials to England. England could thereupon produce goods therefrom and also use it as a means of barter—“bargaining”—for favourable trade agreements in order to further its exports to other parts of the world. That is written black on white as the decision of the Imperial Conference and you and Burton voted in favour of that. If you now cut off Germany as far as the direct supply of raw materials is concerned, that is to say refusing to give her colonies, then nothing will come of this access to raw materials on equal terms.

Should we return South West Africa to Germany?

That is another matter. My opinion in connection with South West Africa I clearly expounded in this House and you can read it up in Hansard. In regard to the declaration of Mr. Eden I am surprised to find the Prime Minister saying here that this serious and important statement was made by Eden in connection with the settlements and arrangements at the end of the war, in connection with Poland in regard to which this war was started, and in regard to which certain parts of Germany were given to Poland at the end of the previous war, something to which the Prime Minister strongly objected—that Mr. Eden can make a statement in regard to all those matter without ever having consulted the Prime Minister about it. We notice what De Valera thinks of him. It seems as if Mr. Eden thinks the same of him, and that he need not consult him. He can make any statement he wants in regard to an important question of this nature, and he can assume that the “yes-men” in South Africa will say yes. No, I think the matter is very serious and that the Prime Minister’s replies to these important questions are tantamount to admitting that the Allies are dealing with the promises in such a way that every point of them has virtually been broken already.

Much has been said here in regard to what the international position of South Africa ought to be, or as far as the establishment of a republic and secession from the British Commonwealth is concerned. But in spite of all that has been said here in connection with those matters, I have not yet been convinced that this is a question which should come before this House. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that this belongs somewhere else, which I should like to indicate. It is a well-known fact in this House that the late Gen. Hertzog had many political friends but also many political enemies. Today, however, everybody will admit that he was a man who could speak with authority on constitutional matters of this nature. He laid down and he impressed upon the people, that no government dare to ignore or cold-shoulder the express will of the people in regard to constitutional matters; but that any government will have to take cognisance of it and will have to give effect to it. On the other hand if the people, or again a substantial majority of the people, were to express itself against such a policy then no government in South Africa would dare to enforce such a policy on the people. It is well known that the Opposition after the split in this House on 4th September, 1939, demanded an election, because they wanted to prove thereby that the people would not agree to the declaration of war of the Government, but that the people would solidly back a policy of neutrality. They threatened that if the Government of South Africa with a bare and mere majority were to plunge this country into a war, then they would with a bare majority in this House be entitled to establish a republic and secede from the British Commonwealth. They even threatened that if thir majority would be only one, they would do so.

Is that not a logical thing?

They had that opportunity on the 7th July of last year.

Why wait such a long time?

But they have had that opportunity. They ultimately got it and we on this side of the House thought that the Opposition were then going to defend that policy of neutrality for South Africa among the people and that they would submit it to the people. Nothing of the sort happened. They suddenly left that point severely alone. Nobody was the wiser. That policy on which the Re-united Nationalist or People’s Party was called into being, they simply left alone and they conducted the election on various other planks, such as Communism, the black peril, etc. But they made the republic the strongest plank in their platform. They put the choice before the people : vote for the Re-united Nationalist or People’s Party and you vote for a republic. In other words: People of South Africa, if you want a republic, vote in favour of the Re-united Nationalist or People’s Party. Good care was taken that this appeal on their part was brought to the notice of every elector in South Africa. It was propagated from the Cape to the Limpopo, one heard it in the streets of Johannesburg and could read it on the trees at Waterberg. They said: Vote for the Re-united Nationalist or People’s Party and a republic. What did that mean by implication? If you do not vote for the Re-united Nationalist Party, then you vote against a republic. We did not put that choice before the people. The Opposition itself put that choice before the people. If they wanted a republic they had to vote for the Re-united Nationalist Party and if they voted against it, it simply meant that they did not want a republic. We all know what the result was. The people of South Africa definitely did not vote in favour of a republic but rejected it unequivocally. They now come here and demand that the Government give them a republic. I venture to suggest that under the present circumstances the Government dare not force a republic down the throat of the people, for the people will as resolutely refuse to swallow it as they refused to vote in favour of it. Where then does this matter belong? There is only one place where it belongs and that is with the people itself. My advice to the Opposition is to go back with this matter to the country. Proclaim your doctrine from the rooftops and if one day you have the majority of the people in favour of your policy, then come back and discuss it here. With their discussion today they are achieving nothing at all.

I just want to ask: “What did Ventersdorp do?” They must have been blind, deaf or mute, or all three of them. I do not want to say any more about that. I want to say something about wool. Wool is an international article and I should like to discuss this question not as a political question, but as something which is of vital importance to South Africa. Approximately 25,000 farmers in our country make a living out of wool and another 25,000 partially depend on wool for their existence. We produce about 800,000 bales of wool which gives South Africa an annual income of about £10,000,000. Australia produces about 3,000,000 bales of wool, yielding approximately £60,000,000 and New Zealand also produces about 800,000 bales which also brings in about £10,000,000 per annum. That means that in the three Dominions the income from wool per annum amounts to a total of about £80,000,000. The Prime Minister is going over to England and I should like him to deal with this matter. It is of vital importance to us and there should be co-operation with the other Dominions. I just want to outline what has already been done. In 1926 an Imperial Conference was held in Australia and it was then decided that the three Dominions, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand should co-operate and deal with the wool problem as a whole. At the time we also invited other parts where wool is produced. The British Commonwealth produces more than half the wool of the world. We then established the International Wool Secretariat in London. It did very good work as far as publicity and the combating of synthetic materials is concerned. The synthetic material is a great danger to us. We are afraid that after the war the Continent of Europe, not having received wool for many years, will go in for synthetic materials only and that these will be produced throughout Europe. We should like to know whether it is not possible under the Atlantic Charter for America and England who divide the wool amongst them, to subdivide it again amongst the other countries. Then the countries which in the past used to get wool, will again be able to get it. Otherwise there is a serious danger that wool will be ousted by the synthetic article. It may perhaps be argued that we in South Africa would not be so seriously affected by it because we can process part of our wool here, but at the moment we cannot process one quarter of our wool here. A world-wide system of rationing should be applied, as otherwise we are going to suffer much from the synthetic material. Which is the best way to proceed? Not to return to the open market and to give a free hand to speculation again. We must cut out all speculation and wool should be valued on the type basis, and then Europe should be rationed in accordance to its requirements. There are still some people who are in favour of a return to the open market, but we feel that if we have to face the competition of the synthetic material, then there should be close co-operation between the manufacturers and the wool producers and all wild speculation must be avoided. We realise that the price of wool will come down. I criticised the wool scheme in many respects but there is one point in connection with it which is most valuable and that is the type basis on which wool is being bought. This means that wool is being bought on quality and net yield, and all speculation is cut out. The numerous middlemen who existed under the old system, are eliminated and their profits fall away. I hope that when the Prime Minister goes overseas, he will come into contact with the Wool Secretariat which can give him all the information and that he will then do everything possible in the interests of South Africa. The wool of South Africa and Australia and New Zealand must be pooled. It is our existence. If we no longer have a wool industry then I am afraid that half of our farmers will be driven from the land. I hope that the Prime Minister will do everything in his power to see that the wool will be bought on a sound basis, viz. the type basis.

Despite the Government’s adherence to the Atlantic Charter, speaking in Cape Town on Tuesday of last week Mr. F. J. du Toit, the Under-Secretary for Commerce and Industries, is reported in the “Argus” and the “Cape Times” under the caption of “Only an Ideal”—the thing which is only an ideal being the Atlantic Charter—Mr. Du Toit, if he was correctly reported, said that the practical application of the Atlantic Charter was very far off, meaning very far off in South Africa. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether such a statement made by the Under-Secretary for Commerce, is a statement made by the authority of the Government, and whether it is a statement representing the opinion of the Government of South Africa that the application of the Atlantic Charter in South Africa is very far off. I can see no provision in the Atlantic Charter which cannot be implemented in South Africa in a very short period after the cessation of hostilities, and those people who quite willingly voted during the last election to give the Government the majority which it has today, can only be alarmed and astounded to read authoritative statements from representatives of the Government which suggest that the application of the Atlantic Charter is something which will be long deferred in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, just a while back in reply to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), the Prime Minister said our relationship with other States in South Africa is being brought nearer and closer together by collaboration and consultation. That is a statement which I was quite pleased to hear from the lips of the Prime Minister, and it is quite true that the nearer one comes in consultation to people of other nations, the more closely we learn to understand the aims and aspirations of such people, and it is desirable that the people in other parts of Africa should be brought much closer together, not only in the interests of South Africa itself, but in the interests of the other States, so that friendly relations will develop to the mutual interest of both. One can draw the same parallel in regard to other countries in an international sense. I had the privilege of asking the Prime Minister whether it was his intention to follow the example of Australia in sending an ambassador to the Soviet Union, and the reply, which was to my mind quite unsatisfactory, was that there was to be no extension of diplomatic services during the period of the war. Now, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the war is the best reason why there should be an extension of diplomatic relations, and that there should be an ambassador sent to the Soviet Union. Even if the Prime Minister feels the time has not arrived for an ambassador to be sent to the Soviet Union, I submit it is the clear duty of the Government to reciprocate the action of the Soviet Union in sending a Consul-General to South Africa, and that we should do likewise to the Soviet Union. The need for developing closer relations between the Soviet Union as an important part of the United Nations Alliance requires no stressing, and the means by which South Africa can express, even if only as a token the desire on its part to have closer relation with the Soviet Union, is in sending at least a Consul-General to Moscow That such an act on the part of the Government of South Africa would be appreciated in the Soviet Union goes without saying, and the fact that I want to stress in the House and to draw the attention of hon. members to, is this, that the Government of the Soviet Union examines other nations not in the light of words which they express but in the deeds which they perform. There have been many words spoken on the part of the Government of South Africa expressing the desire for closer collaboration, and closer mutual relations between the people of South Africa and the people of the Soviet Union, but words are not sufficient For instance, on the occasion of the 26th Anniversary of the Red Army, the Government sent spokesmen to meetings organised in different parts of South Africa at which they paid a tribute to the Red Army for the deeds it has performed in the course of the war. Indeed, the view was expressed that the Red Army and its acts had saved civilisation from Nazi tyranny, and that mankind had been saved thereby. No one appreciates more than I do that such words were used, but as I say words are not sufficient. The Soviet Union is not entirely guided by words which are used, but by acts which are performed, and the Soviet Union will accept the words much more readily if they are supplemented by such an act as sending to Moscow a Consul-General. I urge upon the Prime Minister in the interests of South Africa, and in order to reflect the wishes of the people of South Africa, that he should send a, Consul-General to the Soviet Union.

I just want to put a supplementary question in connection with the question of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) as to whether the Prime Minister was consulted in regard to Mr. Eden’s statement. The Prime Minister said that he had not been consulted, but in that case I should like to hear from the Prime Minister whether he agrees with what Mr. Eden says and whether that is something which he is going to advocate at the forthcoming Conference. I think he owes us a reply on that point. It was an important statement on the part of Mr. Eden, and one would have thought that he would not have made it without consulting the other members of the Commonwealth. But What is the attitude of the Prime Minister? Is he going to support or oppose it? Up to the present we have heard nothing from him, and I think that the country is entitled to an unambiguous reply on this question. Then there are a few other questions which I want to put to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and that is in connection with the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, briefly known as Unrra. I understand that a conference of Unrra was held in Atlantic City in November last year. I would like to know whether our Government was represented there, and if so, by whom? With regard to the resolutions adopted at this conférence, we should like to know what those resolutions were. From time to time something comes to light in the Press, but we feel that we would like to have the necessary statement officially, and we should not have to rely on scraps of news which appear in the newspapers occasionally. I should like to know whether any decision was come to in respect of the question as to which countries will be afforded assistance under this scheme. Is it limited, or is the only restriction the needs of a country? In other words, will the scheme of rehabilitation and relief be a schème for the whole shattered Europe, or will there be discrimination in providing aid and support? According to the newspaper reports, there was a difference of opinion in regard to this matter, and I should like to ascertain whether the Government agrees with the resolutions which were adopted at the conference. Then we come to the question as to the form which this assistance; will fake. Was any decision arrived at in respect of the form the assistance will take? Furthermore, was any resolution adopted in regard to the amount to be contributed by the various nations to the fund? In other words, what are the obligations which we have taken upon ourselves? It is of the utmost importance to know that; A journal which is usually not far wrong in these matters, “The Economist,” says this in respect of the contributions of the various nations, in its issue of 27th November, 1943—

Is South Africa bound by that resolution? On the 1 per cent. basis of the national income, it would mean an annual contribution of more than £4,000,000. This is apparently in respect of one year only, but there will be an annual contribution. In view of the large sums of money involved, it is necessary to have more information. A small amount was voted for Unrra in the Part Appropriation Bill, but what resolutions were adopted at this conference and to what extent is South Africa bound? What will our future monetary obligations be under this scheme? I think it would only be reasonable if the Prime Minister took us into his confidence in regard to this matter, and replied to the specific questions which I have put to him. We should also like to hear from the Prime Minister personally what the general objects of Unrra are. We have read a great deal about it in the newspapers, but we expect a more official statement than those we have had in the newspapers.

With regard to the first question of the hon. member as to whether I agree with the statement of Mr. Eden, I would first like to see this statement; I should like to know what the details are.

Do you agree with the principle?

It is not a matter of principle as far as I am concerned, but of facts. I do not go into it until I know what the facts are. I have laid on the Table of the House the Unrra agreement, which we signed. We were represented in Atlantic City by our representatives in the United States. The hon. member will see that there is no question of discrimination. All the shattered or suffering countries will be assisted under this.

But what about the resolutions adopted at the conference?

I have tabled the agreement. I do not know about the resolutions. The contribution of every country, as the hon. member has read, will be 1 per cent. of the national income. But that is only in respect of this year. The contribution depends on our national income, but it will be the amount which is voted by Parliament. The 1 per cent. will be taken as a guide, but it is left to Parliament to decide what South Africa’s contribution will be. The hon. member will find that in the agreement.

If there is one thing which has struck us during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s vote in the past few days, it is the fact, in the first place, that, to some extent, he dealt with these matters in a frivolous manner, and in the second place, the Prime Minister’s ignorance in regard to matters which fall under his vote. We had this remarkable phenomenon that the Prime Minister said that he has never read that important speech of Lord Halifax, and the Prime Minister now states that he does not know of the resolutions which were adopted in Atlantic City. There must be something wrong in his office if such important matters are not brought to his notice. About four weeks ago we had a debate in regard to the same matter, and I then put certain questions to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and he replied that he had not yet seen the agreement. One would have expected, in view of the discussion today, that in the meantime the Prime Minister would have acquainted himself with the position. It falls under his vote, and we would have expected the Prime Minister to be au fait with the items on his estimates, and that we would have been able to get the necessary information. The Prime Minister is asking for money here.

Where am I asking for money?

It is in the estimates. In reply to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. DÖnges) the Prime Minister said that our contribution would be the amount which is voted by Parliament. This is not the position. What we have to contribute is what was agreed to by our representatives in Atlantic City. How can the Prime Minister say that it will depend on the amount voted by Parliament.

Read the contract.

The basis is 1 per cent. of the national income.

Read the contract.

An amount was fixed, and we asked the Prime Minister whether it was on the basis of 1 per cent. of the national income. According to the newspaper reports, and also the report which is quoted by “The Economist,” it is laid down that South Africa’s contribution will be approximately 12 million dollars. But the Prime Minister cannot give us that information. I can only say that we are very disappointed at the attitude which the Prime Minister has adopted in this debate on Thursday, Friday and today. I rise to talk more specifically on Item A.5, an amount of £22,300, being a contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations; and before I proceed I want to move—

One does not usually vote money to maintain a defunct body, and as far as the League of Nations is concerned, we are here dealing with a defunct body, and if it is not a defunct body, it is in such a position that it is necessary to give it oxygen to keep it alive. The Prime Minister admitted during another debate in the course of this Session, that the League of Nations was defunct, and today he is asking for this amount of £22,300. During the last Session the Prime Minister said that the political section of the League of Nations was no longer functioning, but that its economic section was still functioning, and today we are being asked to vote £22,300 to keep the economic section of the League of Nations going in America. I have never known South Africa to derive any benefit from any discussions of the League of Nations, even as far as the economic section is concerned. I think the Prime Minister will admit that there is no likelihood of restoring the present League of Nations. It has seen its day, or at any rate, it is a deformed child which never had any chance of living. The League of Nations has never served its purpose. It could undertake nothing successfully, and the only case in which it did try to take practical steps in connection with the, application of sanctions, was a hopeless failure. The hopeless failure of the League of Nations was due to the manner in which it was constituted, and to the fact that certain special privileges were given to certain great Powers. It was stillborn, and it had no hope of living. It became a hotbed of intrigue. Those few great Powers plotted amongst themselves, and the League of Nations, instead of maintaining peace, became a danger to the peace of the world. It is possible that another League of Nations may come into being in the future, that type of League of Nations to which the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred, a League of Nations where no special powers will be given to certain nations, but where all nations of the world will have an equal say, although I want to express my personal opinion that that will not be a success. Personally, I have little faith in it, but I am prepared, if there is any prospect of success, to give it a trial; but I want to repeat that in its present form it is a hopeless failure, and in voting this money we are not dealing with a new League of Nations which may come into existence in the future; we are dealing with the present League of Nations, which is defunct, and which should be buried as soon as possible. We are not prepared to vote money to maintain a defunct body, and in those circumstances I move the deletion of this amount.

We have had the privilege of listening to and hearing quite a lot about the Atlantic Charter this afternoon. I should like to associate myself particularly with the views expressed by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) when he referred to the Atlantic Charter particularly with reference to the industrial protective policy of the Government with reference to the Atlantic Charter. Since the commencement of the present war this country has continually been informed by optimistic members of the Cabinet and particularly by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that this conflagration will herald the birth of an unprecedented industrial expansion immediately upon the termination of hostilities. We have been informed that this expansion will guarantee the re-absorption of the returned soldier and the number of eagerly increasing immigrants. It appears to me, Sir, that this is one of the various stimulants applied in order to encourage the population towards maximum exertion in the war effort. However, I do consider it disquieting, if not alarming, that, if judged inductively these assurances do not rest on the foundations of hard facts. In order to elucidate this statement it will be necessary to recall some cardinal events in Government industrial policy since Union. In September, 1910, Gen. Smuts, then Minister of Finance, made the following statement at Pietermaritzburg [translation]—

Very well we are going to raise protective tariffs in regard to these articles, and we are going to fix a tariff for a number of years, so that a man who wants to invest in South African industries may have security for them, and may have the assurance that his money invested in this country will not be lost. The result will be that you will see these industries arise. This is most important to South Africa. Industries proper have never been supported in South Africa. If you come to other countries in the British Empire, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, you see a very different state of affairs. I cannot conceive in any matter more important to the people of South Africa today than this matter of the Customs Tariff, and this matter of the encouragement and develpment of industries in our country.

In order to ascertain the position of existing industries and to determine which industries should be encouraged in the way referred to by the Minister, a Customs and Industries Commission was appointed in 1910 under the Chairmanship of the late Sir Thomas Cullinan. After an exhaustive enquiry this Commission reported in 1912 substantially in the trend indicated by the Minister in his speech two years before. No action was however taken by the Government until its Customs Tariff Act was passed in 1914, without giving effect to practically any of the positive recommendations of the Commission. The Minister of Finance excused himself in his Budget speech on the 24th April, 1914, stating that it would be a mistake “artificially to build up a large number of industries on the cost of black labour,” adding [translation]—

No wonder, Sir, that the official journal of the South Africa Manufacturers attacked the latter speech in May, 1914, in a leading article headed: “The Economic Somersault of General Smuts.” The article stressed the extreme dissatisfaction of manufacturers, who for four years, after the celebrated speech of 1910, had been waiting merely to find that the luscious fruit of expectancy had returned to the poisonous fungus of expediency. The writer added that no one knew better than General Smuts that his talk about black industries was the merest hyperbole. This was the position of the South African industries in 1914 when Providence saved them by means of a World War from an unsympathetic Government.

Today that we are again in the clutches of a world war it has become customary to refer to the impetus which the war will give to industrial development. In support thereof figures are often quoted to indicate that the value of industrial production had been more than doubled between 1915 and 1920. The value of production actually increased from £40 million in 1915 to £70 million in 1918 and £98 million in 1920; that is, production increased to 45 per cent. between 1915 and 1918 and 145 per cent. between 1915 and 1920. This is, however, true only for the value of output measured in terms of money. If other factors are taken into consideration one finds a rather different picture. Such factors are: The increase of over 50 per cent. in the price of local industrial products between 1915 and 1920, and, the amendment of the industrial law which caused the inclusion of smaller factories since 1916-Ί7. If the first factor only is taken into consideration it is found that the volume of production increased by 39 per cent. only between 1915 and 1918 and by 53 per cent. only and not by 145 per cent., between 1915 and 1920. It is a fact, Sir, that the trend of the increased volume of production was just about the same between 1915 to 1920 as it had been in the pre-war period 1911 to 1915. The number of factories increased from 2,600 in 1911 to 4,000 in 1915 and to 7,000 in 1920. The volume of output per factory increased from £11,500 in 1911 to £11,600 in 1915 but declined to £10,200 per factory in 1920. It is consequently clear that the previous war caused an increase in the number of small factories which satisfied the demand for a greater diversity of locally made industrial products mainly for civil requirements.

I should like to put a few questions to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in pursuance of the question of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). Since we are being asked, in the present circumstances, to vote an amount of £22,300 for the League of Nations, the question naturally arises as to the benefits which South Africa and the world may expect from this contribution which is being made to the maintenance of the League of Nations. I personally inferred from the speech of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in London that he had lost all confidence in the League of Nations. On a previous occasion I expressed my disappointment at the fact that the Prime Minister no longer cherishes that idealism which he cherished in 1920. But since so many years have elapsed, and the League of Nations has caused so much disappointment and the world is practically aflame, and the League of Nations has proved powerless, why should we vote this considerable sum in order to maintain the League of Nations? I thought the Prime Minister made the funeral oration of the League of Nations in London. Since the Prime Minister has lost confidence in the League of Nations, and since he has suggested to the world a Trinity of Power of three great nations for the maintenance of world peace, why must the League of Nations still be kept alive? Is it possible that the League of Nations may serve as a model for a future organisation instead of a Trinity of Power? That is an important question because a large number of thinking people of the world are sick and tired of the thought that there is no organisation which can control and keep in check the world’s passions. I also want to ask which States belong to the League of Nations today? If it is a League of Nations, surely a number of states must belong to the League of Nations, and it is very clear that the Axis Powers and their associated nations do not belong to the League of Nations. The question then arises whether the Allied Nations are all members of the League of Nations. It is a tragedy for the world that a country like Poland, in its anxiety and concern, could not make an appeal to the League of Nations. If the League of Nations still exists, if the League of Nations is still an organisation which has any say in the world, why did Poland ignore the League of Nations and make an appeal to a few independent states to protect her rights? Can the League of Nations, as constituted today, render any service to Poland? If Ireland had preferred to appeal to the League of Nations, would the League of Nations have been able to do anything for Ireland which is a member of the League of Nations in the face of three great belligerent Powers? A great deal is bound up in the continued existence and the continued contribution which we are being asked to make to the maintenance of the League of Nations. If it can be a model for an organisation which in the future can render better services than the League of Nations has rendered in the past, let us then try, as the hon. member for Beaufort West said, to give it oxygen to prolong its existence, but since there is no prospect of its being able to serve as a model for the future, why then should it be kept alive? The question is what right the League of Nations has to continued existence? If it cannot be of service today, if it cannot serve as a model for the future, why must we keep it alive?

I have not had the privilege of reading the agreement, but perhaps the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will tell us what amount is mentioned in the agreement which was signed by our representative? Can he tell us what amount we are obliged to contribute under that agreement? We are a little careful in connection with this matter, and perhaps the Prime Minister will forgive us. Last year in connection with the lease-lend system I asked the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether there was no quid pro quo, and I said that in speaking of a quid pro quo I did not want to limit it in any way, whether that quid pro quo was in the form of monetary compensation or arose out of any legal or moral obligation. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister’s reply was—

And then he pointed out that America was giving much more than we were giving. I then interjected and said—

and to that the Prime Minister replied—

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) then asked—

The Prime Minister’s reply was—

What are the facts? We now discover that in October last year an agreement was entered into with England, and under that agreement we have to pay £35,500,000. That is the quid pro quo; apart from the convoys and ships which we provided, apart from the repairs to ships, we have to pay an amount of £35,500,000 in hard cash and a further £1,000,000 per month in the future. That is the agreement which the Prime Minister said he would consider placing on the Table of the House. That is the lend-lease system, and that is the reply which we got from the Prime Minister last year. In those circumstances we should like to have a little more clarity, so that we may know whether we shall be told next year that we are obliged to contribute so many millions to Unrra. In reply to the Prime Minister’s statement that we had been asked not to keep any accounts, I said last year by way of interjection—

The Prime Minister smilingly admitted that that seemed to be the case. In these circumstances we should like to have more clarity in regard to this question, so that we shall have the assurance that we will not at a later date be faced with an account in respect of Unrra, which will place us before an accomplished fact. Since I have not had an opportunity of studying this agreement, and since I take it that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is completely au fait in regard to the contents of that agreement, I want to ask him what amount we undertook to pay under that agreement. That is one clear and specific question which I want to put to the Prime Minister, and a further question which I want to put to him is this: Are we bound by the decisions which were taken at the conference in Atlantic City in November, 1943? He has not yet replied very clearly to that portion of my question, and I shall be very glad if he will do so now.

The hon. member is making a fairly crude accusation against me. The hon. member says that I gave the House the assurance that no accounts were being kept, and that we were not paying anything in connection with the lease-lend except the services which I enumerated, and he said, that it is now discovered that we have to pay £35,500,000 in connection with the lease-lend system. There is not a word of truth in that. We are not paying a penny. We are not paying a penny of that in connection with lease-lend.

What is this £35,500,000 for?

That is a different question. I just want to say that what the hon. member said here is not the truth, and I shall not allow any doubt to be cast on my honour in this House. That question can be discussed at the right time. I am only replying to the accusation made by the hon. member. With regard to the amount which was agreed upon in the Unrra agreement, the hon. member has the Unrra agreement before him—it has been laid on the Table of the House—and he can see from that to what extent we are bound. We are bound to the amount voted by Parliament.

What is the guiding factor?

One per cent. of the national income, but it is agreed that we will pay the amount which Parliament votes. I think that is in the agreement. If the hon. member, instead of making accusations and casting doubt on the honour of people, reads the agreement, he will see what the position is.

On a point of personal explanation I just want to point out that what I read here was the reply of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I do not for a single moment want to cast any doubt on his ˙ bona fides. There is a possibility that the Prime Minister, when he made this statement, was not fully acquainted with the facts. I do not, however, want to impute any motives. I merely mention the facts. It is not my habit to impute motives. What I did here was only to mention the facts.

I shall reply to that question, and I hope my reply will remove the misleading effect which the hon. member has created. It is this, that of this £35,500,000, there is not one penny under lease-lend. In regard to the other point which was touched on by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and also by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) about the League of Nations, I naturally · quite understand the hon. member’s attitude. He does not believe in the League of Nations; the League of Nations is dead according to him; what is its use?

You also said it was dead.

No, I did not go as far as that.

How far did you go, did you say it was asleep?

Yes, I said it was asleep.

Will it ever wake up again?

One might say that to a certain extent the League of Nations has been put in cold storage.

It goes to sleep in winter.

I think it will be a great mistake if we at this stage, when we are nearing the end of the war, and in view of the introduction of measures to preserve peace in future, become hesitant now. My opinion is that the League of Nations will yet become part of our future arrangement.

How many members are still contributing?

Not many.

How many have already left the League?

The friends of the hon. member have left the League.

And many of your friends as well.

Yes, but there are a large number who cannot afford to pay. Those are the countries which were overrun by the Axis. Some countries say that we should continue to make our contributions until such time as we can see what the future is going to bring us. Quite possibly the League of Nations will be introduced into the new arrangement, and it would be a mistake to stop our contributions now.

As I pointed out a minute ago the increased industrial development or the increased industrial production during the last war was mainly an increase in the number of smaller factories and I may add that owing to the scarcity of shipping, and owing to war-time impediments in the way of international trade, this increased production took place mainly in civilian goods. The shortage was in the form of goods for civilian requirements. Now, as the Government at the time was under the same Premiership as today, it is essential to study its attitude towards local industrialists, and particularly the attitude of the Prime Minister himself. In August, 1919, he was reported to have said—very much like we hear today—

In September, 1919, he said this—

In November of that year the Acting Prime Minister (The Rt. Hon. F. S. Malan) made the following very definite statement in a speech in the Transvaal—

By the middle of 1920 it was becoming more and more apparent that the enormous increases in the importation of goods at prices against which local producers could not compete, would threaten the very existence of large numbers of local factories. The time had arrived when industrialists were beginning to look with eager expectancy towards the Government for the definitely promised help by means of the tariff. As I said, the existing industries of this country, and particularly the so-called war baby industries felt the strain in particular. These industries approached the Government and said : “What about the help we have been told about so much?” and instead of this help the Prime Minister said at a banquet of manufacturers in 1920, or was reported to have said—

In other words, when the country was threatened by a major industrial slump the Government told them: “We regret we cannot help you, but don’t worry, keep smiling and help yourselves.” The position became so bad that the footwear industry to which my hon. friend from Ceres (Dr. Stals) referred, sent a deputation to the Government, and, I am speaking subject to correction—I was told by one of the leading industrialists that they actually had to threaten to overthrow the Government before some form of relief could be obtained. I was told that the deputation which was accompanied by a number of members of Parliament, told the Government that they were strong enough to overthrow the existing Government if no help was given. And they threatened the Government, and the result was that some help was given to the footwear industry. The result of this unsympathetic attitude of the Government caused industrial production to drop by £24,000,000 between 1920 and 1922 with the result that disappointment and dissatisfaction became so general that the Government was actually overthrown in the general election of 1924, and the struggling and often crippled industrialists received a Government with a definite and positive industrial policy which guaranteed their future sound development. This policy was the foundation on which our very considerable industrial structure of today was built up in the years that followed. It is not surprising that in the light of their sour experience at the end of the previous world war industrialists are again becoming very uneasy about their position after the termination of the present war. This feeling of uneasiness exists not only among large numbers of individual industrialists, but it is also found to exist with the official organisation of all South African industries. In a very interesting lecture given by Mr. Harold Laite before the S.A. Leather Institute at Port Elizabeth in September of last year he particularly stressed the following points which I should like quote—

1. (a) Does it not strike you how great a similarity there is between the official utterances of yesteryear and those of today;
2. (b) the only missing link in this general prophecy (the prophecy of a great industrial future after the war) is an indication of how all this is to be brought about.
3. (c) In all my reading of history, wars have been followed by aftermaths which have an extraordinary similarity to one another.
4. (d) I think one of the cruelest things that a politician or statesman can do, is to build up hopes which are not destined to be realised.

I not only agree with these views expressed by Mr. Laite but I feel it my duty in particular to stress the last quotation from his lecture. It is not only cruel but it is unfair and unjust that the leaders of the country should hold out hopes to the industrial future of this country which they ought to know have little chance of being materialised in the way purported by them. During the previous world war there had also been a considerable industrial development in the Dominions, and even in the various countries of Southern America, but the development in the Dominions, as I have already pointed out, in the case of South Africa, was mainly in the direction of producing a larger variety of goods for civilian use. The present trend of industrial development in these different countries as well as in the United States of America, has been, as far as one can ascertain, practically exclusively in the production of war materials, and in many cases an actual decrease in production for civilian needs has been experienced. For example, the aggregate industrial production of the United States of America has increased by 80 per cent. from the beginning of 1939 to the middle of 1942. But during the same period there was a decline in the production for civilian needs. In the one year, June 1942, this decline was as much as 28 per cent. while the production for war purposes increased by 275 per cent. for the same period. Although the statistics for South African industrial production have not been published since the war, the employment figures for Europeans in a group of eleven industries selected by the Census Department for industries producing for civilian needs, have actually decreased by about 1,700 (from 56,917 to 55,225). These figures seem to be prima facie evidence that the increased production in South Africa, of which we hear so much has also taken place mainly, if not exclusively, in industries producing war requirements. If one takes into consideration the considerable strain to which local industries were subjected at the end of the previous war in order to face world competition it will become evident that today’s war baby industries will find the strain much more severe when they have to adapt themselves not only to competition from overseas but also to the strain of adjustment from war production to civilian production. [Time limit.]

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to put a few questions to the Prime Minister, and I think we are entitled to ask him these question before he leaves for the Imperial Conference. We have noticed that the Minister of the Interior, and also the Minister of Railways and Harbours, have been to Rhodesia where they were received in a most friendly manner and where they met the Rhodesian Government. They made speeches there about the relations between Rhodesia and the Union. We notice the same thing in regard to South West Africa, and as a matter of fact we were even told that a request had been made to the Government to incorporate South West Africa. In the circumstances I think we are entitled to ask what the Minister’s attitude is going to be at the Imperial Conference on these subjects? At the same time I want to refer to the Protectorates like Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. Is the Prime Minister going to raise these questions, and can we expect an incorporation or a union or something of that kind to take place in the near future? I am anxious to know so that we can inform the public on these matters.

Another point that will weigh considerably against the chances of a successful adjustment is the fact that these war industries are mainly using steel as a raw material and that, according to the investigation made by Professor Richards, into the S.A. Iron and Steel Industry, just before the war, South African steel is among the dearest in the world. One can now picture what the chances of these industries will be when—

1. (a) they have to adapt themselves to compete with the enormous factories of America, Great Britain and Europe;
2. (b) they have to readjust themselves from the production for war purposes to the production for civilian purposes; and
3. (c) they have to do these adjustments in face of the fact that their raw material will be of the dearest in the world.

In this respect, there is one other point that is worth while considering. According to the figures published in the latest economic survey of the world, by the League of Nations, there has been a downward trend in the prices of industrial shares, from the beginning of 1940 till the middle of 1941, in the following countries: The United States of America, Canada, Australia and Japan. According to the figures quoted by the Minister of Finance in his reply to the Budget debate, the shares of the vast majority of South African industries have increased considerably during the war years. One is inclined to conclude that the development in the above-mentioned countries has therefore been on a sound basis, while the development in South Africa has to some extent at least been an inflationary development. There is the further point which will be of considerable importance to the South African industrialists after this war, and that is the competition which they can expect from Eastern countries. I have just had the honour of having long discussions with an authority on the Indian financial and industrial position, and these discussions have led me to conclude that the expansion which has taken place in India is considerable. The industrial expansion in China and in Japan are further factors which will have to be considered in regard to a long term policy for our industries. In this respect I feel that the Chinese industrial development, which is bound to adopt considerable proportions in time to come, will make itself felt very severely in this country in the years that will follow the war. The threat of severe competition to the South African industries comes therefore on the one hand from the highly developed large scale manufacturing industries of America and Europe, and on the other hand from the low wage Eastern industries, many of which are also producing on a scale larger than the average South African industry. In the face of these facts the South African Government is subscribing whole-heartedly to the terms of the Atlantic Charter which provides in Clause 4 for the access of all states on equal terms to the trade and to the raw materials of the world, and in Clause 5 for the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field. In view of what I have already said, I think it is quite clear that these clauses will either be adhered to at the expense and with the result of the destruction of a large number of our newest local industries, or otherwise the industries will have to be protected and the flowery language of this Charter will again be merely idle talk like so many similar expressions of opinion on international policy have proved in the past. Now, in the lecture by Mr. Laite to which I have referred, he considers that a policy of tariff protection should be given to these industries —they should be given higher customs duties. I understand that technical experts have put forward the suggestion of a blanket duty—an all covering duty to these industries. If we are to allow uneconomic industries to grow up in war time and just blanket protect them, it will have grave repercussions on our sound economic development in future. Our solution is that we should avoid the development of these war baby industries on an unsound basis, and if we cannot avoid it we should make them realise fully that at the end of the war we are going to shut up these industries which are entirely uneconomic even if we have to buy them out. There is another approach and that is the elimination of the tremendous waste which is going on in these war industries. That is not only my opinion. One man expressed his opinion to me that he hoped to make his profits out of what they waste today. As I have already said, the true facts should be placed before the industrialists of South Africa and before this country. One can face a slump much more easily, like any problem, if one knows what the problem is. But I think that the worst thing of all is to nurse these war babies with a cradle song of: “Don’t worry, you will grow up.”

In regard to the discussion about the League of Nations the Prime Minister said that he still believed very strongly in the League of Nations. I want to refer the Prime Minister to the speech which he made here on the 25th January of this year on the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. On that occasion the Prime Minister said—

I want hon. members to note that he used the past tense—

That is a clear recognition by the Prime Minister that in practice the League of Nations did not work. Theoretically the scheme was ideally conceived. That is so, but as the Prime Minister said, the course of events proved that although theoretically it was ideally conceived, and although theoretically the League of Nations was a sound institution, it did not work out that way in practice. And then he went on and said this—

That is an acknowledgement that the League of Nations in practice did not work, and I do not think there can be any doubt about it. The Prime Minister cannot point to a single instance where the League of Nations in practice answered well; it was a failure. And now the Prime Minister says we must be realistic! Well, let him be realistic. We are asked here to vote an amount of £22,300. Last year we voted £25,000. Year after year we are voting this money and the Prime Minister admits that quite a number of countries today are no longer members of the League of Nations. He says they are my friends. I do not know what he means by that. But apart from enemy countries there are many other countries which have already left the League of Nations. Quite a number of these South American Republics left the League even before the war, and quite a number of smaller countries in Europe were on the point of leaving. Sweden was one of them. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister, if he still believes in the League of Nations, whether he will not do what Mr. De Valera has done. I know that De Valera is not popular at the moment in British circles or with the United Party, but last year the Irish Parliament unanimously voted to contribute a token payment of £5 but refused to pay the full amount. This £22,300 is only going to be used to pay a whole crowd of officials who are in America today. The money is only used to keep a whole crowd of League of Nations officials alive, while we need the money here for our own country. If the Prime Minister still believes in the League of Nations, let him do what Ireland has done and simply contribute an amount of £5 to show that he still believes in this organisation which has outlived its usefulness, and which is a complete failure. Now I come to the Budget itself. I want to put a question to the Prime Minister about our representation in the United States. In the year 1939-’40—the year when war broke out—the expenses in connection with our office in Washington and New York were £14,843. This year the amount is £42,900— within £100 of £43,000. Last year I already drew attention to the rapid increase in this expenditure. I think the Prime Minister will agree that I am not complaining about this expenditure without cause. Both these offices were started by me personally, they are my children, and I take a great interest in them, but I also take an interest in the country’s expenses, and when the expenditure rises from £14,800 to about £43,000 within four years then I must say that that increase is a very serious one, and we should like to know from the Prime Minister why it is necessary to vote such a large amount. We see that there is a Public Relations officer in America who draws a salary plus allowances, amounting to £2,030. I should like to know what exactly is the work and duty of this Public Relations officer? It is an American title for a man who serves as a link between the office and the Press. Now, what is his work really? Does he give a bit of information to the Press, or does he have to make war propaganda? We want some information because there does not seem to be any necessity to spend all this money. I also want to refer to the provision for staff in the London office in the political section. There is a Public Relations officer and also a Press officer there. One draws a salary of £1,200 and the other a salary of £990 per year. In all seriousness I want to know from the Prime Minister whether it is necessary to have two Press officers in London drawing more than £2,000? I want the Prime Minister to give us the information so that we can see whether those appointments can be justified.

On this question which has just been raised about lease-lend I want to refresh the Prime Minister’s memory on what happened here last Wednesday. The question of the agreement under which £32,500,000 is paid was raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). Arising out of that I asked a question about the lease-lend system and I asked whether we would have to pay England for the goods we had received from America via England. Now let me read the Prime Minister’s reply as recorded in Hansard—

England has undertaken all the risks; we pay nothing to England.

Not in future either?

That matter has been squared up. We only pay the £12,000,000 per year now.

Are we, if we get goods from England in future—from America through England under the lease-lend— not going to pay for anything either?

Nothing for what we get through England.

Not even for what we get from America through England?

Nothing. England has undertaken the whole risk.

England pays and we only pay this fixed amount?

Yes.

In other words, any goods or any services which we may in future get from the United States via England are included in the amount of £12,000,000 per year? I put a further question to the Prime Minister, whether he had made any arrangement with the United Kingdom in respect of goods which we had received through the lease-lend system via England from the United States. The Prime Minister interrupted me and said—

That is the amount of the agreement, namely, the £32,500,000. In the circumstances, if there is any misunderstanding, it is not on my part. It is perfectly clear here that the Prime Minister told me that the £32,500,000 includes everything which we got by way of lease-lend from America, through the Master Agreement. If these words mean anything else it is not my fault. I went on then and pointed out that I asked a question the day before about the agreement, and that the Prime Minister had replied:

What is the position now? Is this question still under consideration, in regard to the goods which we got in the past? Three things are possible now. One: The question of the goods which we got from America under the Master Agreement is still under consideration as the Prime Minister told us last Tuesday in reply to my question; or, as he said last Wednesday, all this is included in the £32,500,000, or, as we are told today, it is not included in the £32,500,000 and we are not going to get an account for it. If we are not going to get an account then surely there is no need for the matter still to be under consideration if it has already been decided that we are not going to pay anything. I think if there is any misunderstanding the Prime Minister should apologise for it and not I. I don’t want to ascribe motives to anyone but I have quoted everything because it shows very clearly what impression was created. I did not think my memory was going back on me, but I have gone over my speech very quickly again and the impression was created that the £32,500,000, or the £35,500,000, covered the supplies until October, and that this included all the goods we got under the Master Agreement through England from America. In reply to my question, however, the Prime Minister said that the matter was still under consideration. Now, which of these three is correct? Either last Wednesday’s statement by way of an interruption, or today’s statement, or the reply to my question on Tuesday? What is the position in regard to goods which we have secured under Lease-lend via England in the past, and which we may still get in future. As I understood the Prime Minister, so far as the past is concerned, everything is included in the £32,500,000 and so far as the future is concerned everything is included in the £12,000,000 which we now have to pay.

I am sorry if there is a misunderstading. There should be no dispute or misunderstanding about the actual facts. For the Lease-lend materials supplied to us via the “Master Agreement” we have paid nothing, we have never paid anything.

Have we not paid America anything?

We have paid nothing to America, nor to England.

Then why this £32,500,000?

We have had a lot of other things from England.

Then your reply is wrong, that the amount which you have paid squares off everything.

It squares up everything so far as England is concerned. America does not enter into it at all. That is how misunderstandings arise. We have had war equipment from England and from America. The English account has now been squared off. With the exception of what we got from England and what is now involved in this £32,500,000, we got goods from America since the lease-lend agreement was entered into. Before that time we got goods from America and paid for them. But since the lease-lend agreement has come into operation we have still been getting a lot of things from America, but we have not paid anything for those goods.

England has to pay America?

England does not pay either.

England has to pay—but after the war. Look at Clause 7 of the Mutual Aid Agreement.

England does not pay either; the position is that England does not pay. What England does is to render counter services. For instance, England maintains all the camps which are in that country today and she supplies the American Navy, Army and Air Force in Europe. She does not pay but she renders counter service.

But Clause 7 says that the final accounting, the final settlement, will come later, without disturbing the commercial position. England therefore will have to pay.

No, England renders counter services. The object of the lease-lend agreement was to avoid payments between the countries. Where they can render services they render counter services. We were clearly told: “Don’t keep any accounts.” That was England’s original instruction. No accounts are to be kept, but we also were to render counter services where we could do so.

A marriage in community of property.

We have also had to render counter services to America.

Will the Prime Minister tell us what services we have rendered to America?

Very few, and that is exactly how the trouble has arisen. Troops passed through here and we supplied food; we supplied provisions to ships and we did the necessary repair work. That is all we could do. Now America says that she is not getting a quid pro quo from us and that some different arrangement must be made. Negotiations are still going on in that regard and they have not been concluded yet. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding.

Not on my part.

Well, let it be on my part, we are not going to quarrel about it; I think the facts are clear. The £32,500,000 does not include anything for payment to America for war equipment or anything else. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) asked why the expenses in connection with our representation in Washington are so high. The hon. member will realise that there is a tremendous expansion of our work in Washington in connection with the war; the position is entirely different today from what it was in his days.

But surely it is not as heavy as all that.

It is not only our State political representation but all the work in connection with war supplies and all other work also has expanded tremendously.

Also in connection with lease-lend?

No doubt, also in that connection, because we have to adjust orders, both in London and in Washington. If we want anything, there has to be correspondence with London and Washington.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 21st March.