I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I want to raise a question which I spoke about in this House last year, but something has again happened now which adds to prove the unsatisfactory position prevailing. Let me just tell the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister what has happened. A man in Cape Town last year had a motor accident in which an official of the British Navy was involved and the · police report was to the effect that the official of the Navy was the guilty person. The wife of the man who had this accident, a well-known doctor in Cape Town, was seriously injured, and she suffered injuries of a permanent nature. She was a well-known pianiste and as a result of the accident she will never play the piano again because her hands have been damaged. He thereupon wanted to claim compensation for the injuries suffered by his wife and also for the damage to his motor car, and it was then found that he had no recourse against an official of the British Navy. If the guilty person had been an official in our Defence Force, he would have had recourse against the Department. The position is most unsatisfactory; here we have a situation where these people can run about this country as foreigners, they are involved in accidents, they can cause injuries to other people and damage to other people and one has no recourse against the Navy. This matter was settled through the intervention of the Secretary for Defence out of court. The Navy made an ex gratia payment and the parties at the moment are satisfied, but the fact of the matter is that only because of the intervention of the Defence Department was an ex gratia payment made by the Naval Authorities to this woman in Cape Town who had been hurt. If they had refused to make this ex gratia payment the Union subject would have had no right to recourse whatsoever. This position is most unsatisfactory. These people are here to do work in connection with the war, but if they are negligent, if they cause damage, our people have to suffer, and afterwards they have to accept an ex gratia payment with thanks. But a further development has now taken place which proves how unsatisfactory the whole position is. The other day there was another accident. There was a collision between a Union citizen and a motor car driven by an official of the British Navy. The naval officer’s motor car was badly damaged. He is now claiming damages from the South African citizen for the damage done to his car, and my legal friends tell me that he has the right to sue a Union citizen for damage done to his car. Here we have this peculiar position, that if a Union citizen suffers damage he has no recourse against a naval officer whereas the naval officer can sue him if he suffers damage. If a naval officer causes damages to a Union citizen the Union citizen has no resourcse against the British naval officer. I am not a lawyer, but it undoubtedly is a very unsatisfactory position, that people who are strangers in South Africa have rights which our own Union citizens have not got. They can cause damage here and we have no recourse against them, but if our people damage them in any way they have recourse against us through our courts. I should like to know what steps the Prime Minister is going to take in regard to this matter. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) tells me that if they sue a Union citizen for damages arising out of an accident, the Union citizen cannot put in a counter claim against the naval officer. In many instances one finds that there is a claim on the one side and a counter claim on the other side. In this particular instance the court can only deal with the claim made by the naval officer; the counter claim of the Union citizen cannot be dealt with by our court, and that position seems to be very unsatisfactory. We grant these people hospitality in South Africa, and — I do not say they are doing so, but they are in such a position that they can grossly abuse that hospitality. There are always careless people about, and we in South Africa will have to suffer for the carelessness of a British naval official while he can go to court if he suffers damages through the carelessness of a Union citizen.

The matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister is one which, I think, is of national importance, and one of which I take a very serious view. I refer to the removal of the restriction for Asiatics to purchase liquor in bulk. Hitherto Asiatics have not been allowed to purchase liquor except by the tot, and I think this is a very serious innovation, and I feel that this concession is going to open the door to illicit liquor dealings wherever natives live in large numbers. The matter is really one which comes under the Vote of the Department of Justice, but I take such a serious view of this innovation that I ask permission to bring it up on the Prime Minister’s vote. Under the existing conditions a great deal of illicit liquor dealing goes on in the suburbs of our cities, so much so that it is impossible for the Police to cope with it. I have seen with my own eyes natives in an intoxicated condition in broad daylight in our streets, I should like to know who asked for this concession to be given. I understand the Indians have not asked for it, and I wondered whether bootleggers had brought pressure to bear on the Government to introduce this measure. I think the Government is making a colossal mistake in allowing Asiatics to buy liquor in bulk. It is simply going to increase crime in our cities, and I therefore make an earnest appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to step in and to stop this innovation in our liquor law, or at least to obtain public opinion on the subject before it is too late.

I wonder where the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are. I don’t see either of them in their seats. I wonder if they are busy drafting a cable to send to Austria. If they are busy doing that I would ask them at the same time to send a cable to Hungary and Bulgaria, and I would also advise the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition to get into touch with Hitler by airmail and protest against the most recent developments.

Is Hungary neutral?

I just want to refer to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition at Burghersdorp on the 15th August, 1942, just after Tobruk had fallen. I am glad to see that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is in his seat now. I just want to remind him of what his Leader said at Burghersdorp that evening. He said: “Britain has hopelessly lost the war.” That was after the fall of Tobruk.

You own Leader said that Britain economically had lost the war.

This statement was made when, practically speaking, we were on the run. He shouted from the platform: “Britain has hopelessly lost the war.”

And thereupon they celebrated.

Yes, they celebrated and they also celebrated at Burghersdorp. They shouted: “England has hopelessly lost the war. There is only one way out of the difficulty for us and that is for us to make unconditional peace with Hitler, and the only man who can do so is the Leader of the Opposition.” Do hon. members know what happened that evening? The Leader of the Opposition sat on the platform and they put the coat of arms of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal—where I used to live—and they hoisted the Vierkleur at the back of the Leader of the Opposition and said : “There sits the President of South Africa.” At that time when South Africa had suffered the greatest defeat of its history, when Tobruk had fallen, when thousands of our citizens were made prisoners of war and had given their lives, they came along and said: “There sits the President of South Africa.”

And then your people called Gen. Klopper all sorts of names.

I asked the Leader of the Opposition a question in regard to Simonstown; I do not know whether the House is aware of the fact that during the last elections I had a further title conferred upon me—that title was given to me in the Kimberley (District)—I was given the title of Lord Simonstown, because I always talk about Simonstown. I asked the Leader of the Opposition a question about his attitude towards Simonstown. We agreed at Groote Schuur on Sunday, 3rd September, that we must defend Simonstown under the Simons town Agreement. That was on the 3rd September. I then asked him: “Dr. Malan, won’t you tell this meeting why on the 4th September you did not tell the public across the floor of the House, what your new explanation of the Simonstown Agreement was?” I am still waiting for that reply. I am very glad that Mr. Pirow, who was also present, rejected that explanation and said that no such decision had ever been taken and other members who were present have also denied it. But the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition was in trouble then, and he made a statement which I regard as an insult to the Afrikaner people.

Can you speak on behalf of the Afrikaner people.

Let me tell the hon. member that I have as much right to speak of the Afrikaner people as he has. Do hon. members opposite think they are the only ones entitled to speak on behalf of the Afrikaner people? Let me tell the hon. member that his son who has taken up arms is an Afrikaner. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) said the other day that I had been ejected from that meeting by a number of women. [Laughter.] Yes, hon. members may laugh now. It is a very fine joke for the type of person such as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). I want to say here that I have never been ejected from any meeting, and the people who attended that meeting at Burghersdorp treated me courteously and were very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition could not answer my question.

What did the women say?

I have never in my life been thrown out of a meeting. And no meeting attended by me has ever been broken up, because I respect the other man’s opinion.

Still, you were put out of a Caucus.

I repeat that I have never been put out of a meeting, nor have I ever been found guilty of perjury by a court of law.

I don’t know why it is necessary for the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) to disclose such a lot of foolishness here. Surely we all know him. I only want to tell him that he is under a misapprehension in regard to the title he has been given. People have never called him Lord Simonstown but I think they may call him Lord Simple Simon. The hon. member is under a misapprehension, but I don’t know whether it’s any use trying to explain anything to him. The hon. member spoke about Hungary. I only want to point out to him that if he speaks about Hungary he speaks about a country which is not neutral. I want to ask him whether Hungary is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I understand that if a country is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations it is our duty as a member of the Commonwealth to protect that country—it is our duty not to attack each other, but to protect each other. Hungary’s position is entirely different. Hungary is a country which is fighting against Russia and against the Allies, hence the hon. member’s statement is entirely misplaced, and one can hardly understand how a member of Parliament can draw such a comparison. It is peculiar, after the English lecture we had delivered to us here yesterday, the grammatical English lecture of the hon. member for Kimberley (District), that he should come here this morning and read what the “Cape Times” has said and pretend to the House that he was expressing his own original ideas. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and I want to appeal to all members on the other side of the House and ask them to deal with questions on their merits. Some time ago I put a question to the Minister of Finance, whether Johannes van der Walt’s widow was getting a pension or a grant from the Government. I don’t want to go into all the reasons, and into the whole history again. I only want to appeal to members of this House to support us. I asked whether his widow was getting a pension or grant, and the Minister of Finance replied—and I have no fault to find with his reply—that if the children’s names were given to the Social Welfare Department, that Department could go into the matter and perhaps assist the widow. Johannes van der Walt undoubtedly was one of the best known Afrikaners in this world. We know the unfortunate circumstances in which he lost his life. There is a dispute about the merits of the case and I don’t want to go into that now, but the fact remains that we know that his widow and his children have been left in a state of poverty. At one time every member of this House and every Afrikaner in the Union felt very proud of Johannes van der Walt. Now he has lost his life under these unfortunate circumstances, and I understand the only way we can come to the assistance of his widow is by this House voting her an amount of money. I want to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the way Johannes van der Walt lost his life, and in view of what he has done in the past, whether he will consider making a proposal in this House to give his widow an allowance? I have quite a number of cases before me where the House saw fit to grant pensions to widows of prominent men. We don’t agree so far as all those people appearing on this list are concerned; we are not in agreement with every case, but the House has seen fit to grant these gratuities, and that’s the end of it. Among these names we find the names of people who have played a part in our political life, our military life, and in other spheres of activity. The widows of these people have been left behind in poverty and the House has seen fit to vote them a certain amount of money. But where we have a prominent sportsman like Johannes van der Walt I want to ask the House to remember his widow. Let me mention a few things Van der Walt has done. He earned large sums of money in his contests but he had a poor father and a poor mother to support, and he helped them. He gave large sums of money to Afrikaans institutions. When war started he spent a large sum of money to open a gymnasium and fit it with the necessary apparatus. Unfortunately he was not allowed by the authorities to continue that project. I don’t want to go into the merits of the case but the authorities refused to give him a permit. He bought an aeroplane and it was taken from him by the Government. That aeroplane was not registered in his name but he paid for it. In all those circumstances, in view of the fact that he had earned large sums of money, that he had lived a clean life and did not squander his money, but spent his earnings on national affairs, and also to help his family, we have been wondering whether the Prime Minister would not meet our request to do something for his widow. I am convinced that I am also speaking on behalf of many hon. members opposite when I make this request to the Prime Minister. Let me mention a few names to show what kind of people’s widows have been granted pensions by the State. I shall mention the names in the order they appear on this list. I have not selected any special cases. There is the widow of the late Mr. Tielman Roos who is getting a pension of £500 per year. He was a politician; we don’t disapprove of it, we approve of it. There is the widow of Mr. Joel Krige, former Speaker of the House of Parliament, who gets £150 per year. There is the widow of Gen. Bouwer who gets £120 per year. There is the widow of Gen. Collyer who gets a large sum of money; and so we can go on to show that the widows of people who have been prominent in military affairs and also in other respects are getting pensions from the State. I am convinced that the young generation of South Africa, which in sporting matters looked up to Johannes van der Walt, would appreciate it very much if the Prime Minister could give us the assurance that he intended asking this House to give Johannes van der Walt’s widow an allowance. I hope the Prime Minister will consider this matter in the spirit I have raised it, and that is that I am pleading on behalf of Johannes van der Walt’s widow. She is being assisted at the moment by people who will not always be able to help her. I hope the Prime Minister will listen to my plea on behalf of the widow of a great Afrikaner whose achievements were outstanding.

There is a matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister which I could have raised on the vote of the Minister of Public Works, but as the matter is very urgent I want to bring it to the immediate attention of the Government. It is the question of returned soldiers who let their homes during their absence, and who cannot get the tenants out of their houses now, with the result that they have no place to live themselves. It amounts to this, that a soldier finds it practically impossible to get his own house back. He has a home but it is occupied by somebody else and under present conditions he cannot get the people out of his house. I realise there are difficulties connected with the matter because if another man is put out of a house, so as to enable the soldier to get back into it—to get back into his own house which is his own property —we immediately have this position, that the other man has to go and look for a house. But still we have this difficulty today, men are being discharged from the army, they come back, they have houses but it is occupied by other people and they cannot get those others out of their house. The Minister may ask what he can do. My point is that this is a matter of public importance and the Government must tackle the question at once, by means of a regulation if necessary. I suggest that some scheme should be devised to enable the returned soldiers to get back into their own homes. The question arises, what are we to do with the people who will be put out of those houses? Well, we should immediately, by regulation, withdraw the restriction in regard to the building of houses. I want to say this to the Prime Minister, because the Minister of Public Works apparently does not believe it, that it is not true that there is such a great shortage of timber that we cannot continue building houses. That statement is not correct. Those members of the public who do not know any better believe it, but I have seen what the position is. I am talking here of what I have seen with my own eyes. On the Umfolosi and in the Northern Transvaal there are 500,000 blocks of cut timber. The owners are prohibited from selling that timber. I could understand it if the timber was required for war purposes, or if it was required for fortifications and the Defence programme generally. I could understand it if the Government said that it needed that timber for Defence works, but I believe the programme for fortifications and war buildings has been practically completed, and I can see no reason why this large quantity of timber, which is ready for use, should stay where it is. There is only one type of person who will benefit from it, and that is the importer of timber when the war is over. When shipping space becomes available again on a large scale timber will again be imported on a large scale. There are two evils connected with that. In the first place we need houses very badly at the moment and the construction of those houses is being held up owing to this timber being locked up. Secondly, the man who produces timber will after the war be practically wiped out by competition. He has an opportunity today and he is prepared to put his timber on the market at a much lower price than what the importers want today. I can see no common sense in building being held up today by the story that there is no timber available. I am prepared to convince anyone who tells me that there is no timber available. I say there is timber available in South African. Perhaps it is not as good as one would like it to be, and perhaps it would not be suitable for big buildings, but it is suitable for the houses which are being put up under the housing schemes which the public need so very badly at the moment. I want to urge most strongly that this matter should have the Government’s immediate attention, and I want to ask the Government to go into the matter without delay to see how much truth there is in the story that there is no timber available. I contend that it is incorrect to say a thing like that and I say that timber is available for the building of such houses for the public. I want to emphasise that that is the position. The returned soldiers in some instances cannot get back into their own houses, and there is only one way out of the difficulty, and that is for the present regulations to be withdrawn, so that these people can get back into their own homes, and the Government will then have to make provision for these other people who are in those houses so that they can also get houses.

I am not going to join in the bombardment of the Prime Minister. We know he has played a very important part, not only in South Africa but also in world affairs. I was rather amazed to hear the attack by the Opposition on him in regard to his forthcoming visit to the Conference of the Dominion Premiers in London. If we know the Prime Minister—as we do— we know he will not betray South Africa. We know that at that Conference very important questions will have to be discussed, and we know that after that Conference there will be a more important conference still—that will be after hostilities have ceased, and we look forward to the day when we shall send our Prime Minister there to represent us. We know that he will do so with credit and honour to this country. I look forward to the time when the Union of South Africa will form part of a great Confederation of African States. Therefore we have to look beyond the borders of the Union; we have to look to the States to the north, and I believe the time is not far distant when there will be a federation of some description with these States, because in the future we shall not only have to look to the defence of South Africa but to the defence of our northern neighbours. In that connection I want to say that the young men of South Africa have played a noble part in preserving not only South Africa but the whole of Africa to posterity, and we owe a debt of gratitude to them for the noble part they have played. They are playing a great part in Italy today, and we pray that they will play perhaps an even greater part before the end of the war. In expressing these views I am expressing the views of the small party here which is supporting the Government in the attitude it has taken up. We must realise that in our Prime Minister we have a man who is not only a great figure in the Union of South Africa but who has become a world figure, and we are very proud that we have a South African who has become such a world figure, and whose advice is sought by the leading statesmen of the world.

Does that mean that you are joining the United Party?

Now, Sir, we have heard a lot about the League of Nations. We feel today that we have a League of Nations of our own, and when I say that I refer to the British Commonwealth of Nations. In these dark days we realise the great strength of the British Commonwealth of Nations; we realise that there was a time when we had no one to fall back on but England and the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and we feel that the Commonwealth of Nations will continue to play a great part in the history of the world. Before sitting down I want to say a few words about the message sent by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister of Ireland. I don’t know whether it is true, but a rumour is abroad that a similar message has been sent to Hungary.

You must have read the “Cape Times.”

I believe that this message to Mr. De Valera from the Leader of the Opposition really represented the hon. member’s spirit of vindictiveness towards Great Britain—we know he does not love Great Britain today, although I remember that at one time he said that Great Britain was our best friend. Today he seems to think that Germany is our best friend. It is perfectly clear to us that many members of the Opposition Party today are still hoping for a German victory. Perhaps they are still waiting for Mr. De Valera to ask their Leader to intervene on their behalf. We know that there are a large number of German citizens living in Galway in the western part of Ireland because some years ago there was a great scheme undertaken there—the Shannon Scheme—and it was a German contractor who carried out that scheme, and since then large numbers of Germans have settled in that part of Ireland, and after all blood is thicker than water, and once a German always a German, just as I say once an Englishman always an Englishman, and once a South African always a South African.

And once a Dominion Party member, always a Dominion Party member.

Therefore, the cable of the Leader of the Opposition can be dismissed as a foolish gesture which will not deceive the Irish or anyone. One thing we should not forget and that is that neither Great Britain nor America are challenging the neutrality of Ireland.

I want to nut a question to the Prime Minister which I hope he will answer. I do not want, in putting this question, to raise another point which may lead to a debate at this stage. We only want to make a request to the Prime Minister and our attitude will depend on his reply. We are anxious to know from the Prime Minister what the position is today in regard to the interned Union citizens. Some two months ago we raised the question in the House and the responsible Minister replied and all of us, both inside and outside the House, were given the impression that he was going to release these people on a large scale. As a matter of fact he said very definitely that he was going to release all these people with the exception of those who had been guilty of sabotage and the members of the Police Force who had taken part in subversive activities. The words he used on that occasion were these—

Those were the words used by the Minister of Justice. The Minister was also asked whether the Government would grant relief in regard to the conditions on which certain people had been let out on parole and the Minister of Justice gave us the assurance that that was the Government’s policy. He said that it was already being done and that it was the intention to get these people back to their former employment. That promise was made nearly two months ago. About a month after that debate was held in this House a question was asked by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) and the reply showed that that month 36 internees had been released. It looks quite different. It is not in harmony with the assurance which the Minister gave this House, because as a matter of fact people were released before that time on a much larger scale than during the month immediately after the discussion which we had in this House. And what is more, we don’t know of a single case where the conditions were made lighter for the people out on parole, or where they were able to return to their former employment. We are fast getting to the stage where perhaps together with other belligerent countries, we are becoming more afraid of the peace than of the war. We have reached a stage where feelings are running higher all the time as to what the country’s eventual policy is going to be. That is the position in South Africa too, and I think in South Africa it is in the interest not only of the Prime Minister himself, and of his Government, but in the interest of the country as a whole that we should create a spirit here which would not be animated by vindictiveness and bitterness but a spirit which will help us to get over the difficult conditions which lie before us. This is a golden opportunity for the Prime Minister to create a better spirit in this country. If he were to release these people and unconditionally open the gates to these men who have been in these camps for years he would be doing a great deal of good. These men do not constitute a danger to the country. The Minister of Justice has admitted that the conduct of those who have been released serves as a guarantee for those who are in the camps, and that is why he is not afraid to release these people. There is no reason therefore to say that we cannot release these men because they have taken a leading part in regard to sabotage. I say that that argument does not hold good. I don’t want to go into the whole question again but I can give the Prime Minister instances to prove why I am saying this. I don’t want those people to be taken back to the camps again, but I do say that some people have been released in spite of serious protests by highly placed officials against their release owing to the charges against them being such that those officials did not see their way clear to recommend their release.

Still, in spite of that, they were released. They are out of the camp and it has been proved that since their release they have done nothing to embarrass the Government and have not in any way been a danger to the country. That is evidence to us of the fact that the Minister can go even further than he has done so far and can open the gates and release these others. I just want to remind the Prime Minister of his own promise which on the 20th August, 1943, he made to the Church Council when he told the Denutation from the Churches that he foresaw the end of the war; it might perhaps come in a year’s time, and he said that that being so he would give instructions for the release of all those people whom it was not necessary actually to detain in the camps. We want to appeal to the Prime Minister to make a definite attempt in that direction. Let him get people to go through the files. Let that be done now, so that it will not take months and months to go through everything before a decision is arrived at. Every extra day these people remain in camp adds to the vindictiveness and to the bitterness, and the sooner they are released the sooner will a better spirit be created in South Africa. I don’t want to go into all the aspects of the case, I only want to point to the Prime Minister why we are pleading so earnestly on behalf of these people. I have before me the names of two men who have been interned, and I have also got the reasons alleged for their internment. In the one case the reason given is that on the 20th May, 1942, the man was alleged to have taken part in sabotage. He was already in camp on the 11th May. In the other case, among the reasons given is that the man’s mother is in Germany at the moment. In actual fact that man’s mother has never been outside the Union. I don’t want to take up the time of the House by quoting further instances. I have only mentioned those two to prove that mistakes are made, and if mistakes have been made in these cases they may also have been made in other cases. In view of the fact that we are approaching a stage when a better understanding will be essential, in view of the fact that it is highly necessary to create a better spirit in this country today, I think the Prime Minister should listen to our plea. Actually no war is being waged anywhere near South Africa today. The war is far away from our borders, and the Prime Minister would be doing the right thing if he released these people. Such a step would be to his credit and if he were to get up in this House and say: “I admit that those people have been punished, the offences committed by some of them are trivial, and they were committed because these people were misled—but these men have been adequately punished.” If the Prime Minister were to say that it would do a lot of good. If these men were guilty, well, they have been punished. The Prime Minister as a lawyer himself will admit that. That is why we make this urgent appeal to the Government, and we ask the Prime Minister to open these barbed wire gates and let these people free.

I heartily want to support this earnest and eloquent appeal which the hon. member has made to the Prime Minister. I hope he will give his serious attention to this matter. Now, in regard to what happened in this House last Monday on the subject which I raised, I think it is desirable that we should record the correct facts. There appears to be a lot of confusion and I just want to put the facts before the Prime Minister as they have been put to me, and he can then tell me whether they are correct or not. As I have been told, this £35,500,000 which we are now paying England includes payment for goods which were delivered to us, through the medium of a Master Agreement, up North and in the Union. These goods include goods which England obtained under the lease-lend system and which England gave to us. Then there are certain other goods which came directly under the lease-lend system from America to South Africa, not via England but through the Master Agreement. Those goods are not included in the £35,500,000 and they form the subject of further discussions between the Government of the United States of America and our Government. That is how I understand the position and I shall be glad if the Prime Minister will tell us whether these facts are correct. If that is the position I hope the Prime Minister—seeing that he has said that my representation was absolutely untrue, that my statement that some of the lease-lend goods were included in the £35,500,000—will withdraw his words. If the facts are as I have stated them I hope he will withdraw his words. I don’t want to detain the House any longer on that point but there is another point I want to raise, and that concerns the question which I want to bring to the notice of the House for the sake of sound Government, and for the sake of the dignity of the Cabinet itself, not just of this Cabinet but of any Cabinet. I want to say a few words about Cabinet Ministers being directors of companies. It is difficult to find out whether in regard to this matter the Government has any definite policy. We know that the Minister of Railways and Harbours resigned his Directorship when he became a Minister. That fact was made public. I believe the Minister of Finance is the chairman of a private company which controls a journal.

Unpaid.

I believe the Minister of Native Affairs also is a director of a company, and that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, at the time he accepted a position in the Cabinet, was a director of one or more companies. I do not know whether he still occupies those directorships.

He has resigned.

It appears to me that the Government has no definite policy in regard to these matters, and I just want to point out how important it is that a policy should be laid down. The position of a Minister in many cases is like that of a judge. He is looked up to and he is expected to act with dignity and to be incorruptible and honest. He must not be subject to temptation or do anything which is not impartial, and he must not be subject to corruption. He must never be placed in a position where there may be a clash between his duties as a Minister and his interests as an individual. I think that is in the interest of sound government. And what is even more important, he must not give the appearance of being susceptible to corruption. As an author expressed it—

Even the appearance of the possibility of a conflict between his interest as an individual and his duties as a Minister should be avoided. The old rule laid down by Palmerston apparently is that he—Palmerston—had no objection to a Minister occupying a position of director. That was the old rule. But that was changed in 1895 when the Cabinet laid down—

That was the resolution which was adopted The position was further considered and in 1906 the Government arrived at the following resolution—

But so far as directorships of private companies were concerned, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman further detailed the position as follows—

That was the rule laid down in 1906 and that was again confirmed in 1926 by the Baldwin Government. Mr. Baldwin declared—

That is an extension of the rule of 1906 about directorships. There was a temporary departure from the principle in 1931 under the National Government. That Government did not entirely adhere to that and Ministers were allowed to retain their directorships without receiving any emoluments. But apart from this temporary departure, the rules since 1906 have been consistently adhered to, that all Ministers must resign their directorships. It was not just left dormant, but members of the Cabinet have to resign as long as they are members of the Cabinet. This was also confirmed by authors of standing such as Prof. Berriedale Keith and Prof. Jennings, both of whom emphasised the wisdom and the importance of this principle. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government is following any specific policy in regard to this matter, and if there is no specific policy I want to impress upon him the necessity of laying down a policy in harmony with the policy followed in England since 1906. I want to mention just one instance. The Minister of Finance tells us that the Minister of Agriculture has resigned his directorships. I am only mentioning this as an instance—if he had not done so he would at once have been placed in a difficult position. He was a director of one of the unit security companies and during the Budget debate two speeches were made by hon. members opposite which cast some doubt on the question of control over these companies. If the Minister of Agriculture had not resigned and this matter, as a result of the Budget debate, had to be discussed by the Cabinet, hon. members will realise at once the impossible position the Minister would have been placed in. We consider it is not fair to place any individual in the position where there is the possibility of a conflict between his duty as a Minister and his interest as a private individual. It is in the interest of the prestige and the dignity of the Cabinet that there should be no suspicion on the part of the public of anything of this kind taking place —in this case it is even more important to avoid the suspicion than the actuality. As I have said, the position of a Minister is very much like that of a Judge, and he should not be subjected to temptation, forsaking his duties as a Minister to his interest as an individual.

With a few words I want to support the plea of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) in the interest of the internees. I well remember how at the outbreak of this war the correspondent of the “London Times” cabled an article to South Africa in which it was emphasised that the Prime Minister for the second time was dragging this country into one of England’s wars; in that article he also expressed a hope that the Prime Minister had learned a lesson since the last war. He pointed out that during the previous war the Prime Minister had enjoyed the magnificent co-operation of the late Gen. Botha which had always had a quietening effect on him. The paper reminded him of the fact that he was still dealing with a divided people, but that unfortunately Gen. Botha’s calming influence was lacking, and the hope was expressed that the Prime Minister in the course of time had learned a great many things and that he had learned that when dealing with a divided nation one had to practice tolerance. I make bold to say that the Prime Minister has learned something since the last war. It does look like it however if we compare his actions now with those of the last war. That is why we are making this plea to him and asking him carefully to reconsider the position of the internees. I have only got up to mention a few instances to the Prime Minister. I know of a few people who used to be employed in the Railway service, and who were interned without any trial and subsequently released. The Railway Department wanted to re-employ these men, but the Minister of Justice, or the Chief Control Officer, insisted on certain restrictions being placed on their movements. The Railways are prepared to re-employ them but the restrictions placed on these men are of such a character that so far they have been unable to resume their work. But the Department of Railways, which knows these men, is prepared to take them back. The department does not regard them as being dangerous, but the Chief Control Officer has imposed these restrictions. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister not to have such restrictions imposed in cases where a Government Department considers that these men are not a danger to the State.

I want to associate myself with the plea which has been advanced on behalf of the internees. Quite a number of people have been released, and I do not want the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to conclude from our remarks that we do not appreciate the fact that these people have been released, but there are still a great many men in the internment camp who under present-day circumstances could well be released. We want to ask the Prime Minister to give this matter his consideration, and we also want to ask the Minister of Justice to realise that the release of these men would contribute greatly towards bringing the country back to normal conditions. We feel it is the Government’s policy to create a spirit of quiet and peace in this country as soon as it can possibly be done. We hope the end of the war is not far off, and in order to bring about that spirit we feel the time has come for the Government to set a good example to the people. We do not want to say that there may perhaps not have been some reason for the steps taken by the Government in the past, nor have we any intention of going into the merits of these various cases, but we feel that the time has come for a sensible policy to be followed in regard to the release of these internees, and thus bring about peace and quiet in this country, which will be an indication of the fact that the Government is in earnest in its desire that we should live together in this country in peace and harmony. We ask the Prime Minister to set an example which will show that the Government of this country is intent on bringing about a state of mind and friendly relations between the various sections. We have the two races here and we know that our ideals clash with each other. It is no use glossing over that fact. They do clash. Our Afrikaans-speaking people have for the last hundred years or more had the worst of it, and on every occasion the Government of the country has followed a policy which has been in conflict with the wishes and the very nature of a large section of the Afrikaans-speaking population. One cannot shut one’s eyes to these facts, and I am sure the Prime Minister will be the very last to deny that that is so. In days gone by the Prime Minister stood by us in our protestations against the policy which was antagonistic to us. The Prime Minister fought on our side, many of his colleagues stood by us, and many of them did the things which we are doing today, and which the people who are not on the Government side and who do not support the Government policy, have done, because that policy is one which has been in conflict with the will of the Afrikaner nation, the will of the majority of Afrikanerdom.

No, not the majority.

We are the majority of Afrikanerdom; the hon. member cannot deny that. We represent the Afrikaner people. The Prime Minister knows it. Now I want to ask him whether he is not prepared at this stage of the development of the war, and at this stage of our national life, to give his serious consideration to the question of the release of all internees? Not only of the people who have not been responsible for active sabotage but also of those who have committed acts of sabotage, and also of the police officials and prison guards. We realise that some of them have done things which were wrong. We openly admit that, but as most of them have been in an internment camp for two, three or even four years we want to ask the Government to show clemency to them, and show the citizens of this country that it wants to be considerate to every section of the community. These people will have to live with us again in days to come. The Prime Minister will remember the gratitude of his opponents when he released those men who are free today. We were grateful to him, and we are still grateful, and so far as I know not a single individual who has been released has committed an offence since. I do not think there is a single instance of a released internee having been interned again. The Prime Minister can render further assistance in re-establishing a state of normality among the public of this country. But while we want to help the Government, it should not be a one-sided affair, and we now ask the Prime Minister to unbend and be a little more considerate and lenient. His action would not be misplaced. Then there is the case of the widow of Johannes van der Walt. No matter whether hon. members agree with us or not we are all proud of his prowess. All of us appreciated his achievements as an Afrikaner, and I believe the Prime Minister will be generous enough to show mercy to his widow. She did not do what Johannes did, yet she and her children are suffering today.

He was a traitor.

We often say that about some of the hon. members on the other side too. The fact remains that he was a man who was looked up to in our national life whether hon. members agree with us or not. I don’t think the Prime Minister will allow himself to be sidetracked by remarks of that kind from his own ranks—remarks which are ill-advised and which show bad judgment. I want to ask the Prime Minister to remember that Van der Walt’s wife and his children are the sufferers today, and we ask him to show clemency to these people, Clemency and mercy have never been misplaced in this country, not even after the events of 1914-15, when force of arms was resorted to. There was a rising and a rebellion and blood was shed, but mercy was shown to the people concerned, and that mercy was not misplaced. No more will mercy be out of place now. In this war there has been no real rising, although feelings ran just as high as they did in the last war, and I am convinced that by taking a step such as we ask for the Government will contribute greatly towards restoring peace and quiet in the minds of the people. [Time limit.]

The appeal made to me by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier), and supported by other hon. members will, of course, be taken into serious consideration by me. We know that mercy and tolerance are never misplaced in South Africa. We live in a country where feelings are easily roused and become stormy. We know the conditions which have prevailed in South Africa for many years and we know that the psychology of South Africa makes it necessary, not only for the people, but also for the Government, to take into account human considerations in all these great matters, and from that point of view I have always done my best to act accordingly, also so far as the internment of certain people is concerned. Last year I had an interview with the “Raad Der Kerken” (Church Council) when they discussed this matter with me, and I told that Council that wherever it was possible in the public interest and in view of national security to release these people I would be in favour of doing so. That is the principle. There are some very serious cases where I have a strong suspicion that if these people are released they will carry on their old evil practices, and in such cases, of course, these men cannot be released; there is no doubt that a large number of the people, under the conditions which existed two or three years ago, had to be apprehended for the sake of public security.

If we can satisfy you that no difficulties will arise through these people being released?

I expressed that opinion to the Church Council on that occasion and I followed it up by telling the Minister of Justice that that was my view, and that I thought that the policy should be adopted that where we thought people could safely be released we should show mercy. The Minister of Justice followed that policy and a large number of these people were subsequently released. We even went so far that the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), or was it hon. the member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier), used the argument that we had released some of the principal sinners.

That is a good reason also to release the others.

The hon. member for Kuruman said that in some cases the Government had gone to the extent of releasing the chief culprits in the sabotage movement, or the movement to disturb public safety, and he asked why, if that was so, the others could not be released as well. That, if it proves anything, proves how far the Government has gone.

It proves that the Government has not gone far enough.

It proves that we have gone very far. Instructions have been given to the responsible officials to again very carefully scrutinise the lists of internees in view of the policy laid down by the Government.

Cannot it be expedited?

It is being done; people are being released all the time. I hope, and I expect, that long before the end of the war the great majority of these people will be released. It is not only the people in the camps whom we have to consider, and what weighs with me particularly are their families. I have no doubt that the families suffer as much, if not more, than these men who are in the camps, and we do not want a heritage of ill-feeling or vindictiveness after the war. The course of history has proved that the path which we have been following has been the right one. Let things develop in that way, but do not let us have an aftermath of vindictiveness and division which may continue for very many years. That is the Government’s policy and that takes into account the psychology of the people.

It is a very fine policy if only it is carried out.

It is being carried out, but I am afraid we are not going to get much assistance from the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus).

There are still large numbers of people who have done nothing but who are still in the interment camp.

Johannes van der Walt’s case has been mentioned. The position to me seems to be quite clear. If the widow and the children are in need—I am not conversant with the circumstances of the case—then their position can be brought before this House by way of petition.

Perhaps they are too proud to do so.

It would be a mistake for the Government to follow an entirely new policy by saying that in the case of a sportsman his achievements should be considered and special action taken. The ordinary method adopted in cases of this kind is, as hon. members know, to bring the case before the House by way of a petition to the House.

In regard to these twenty six names which I have before me, I want to know whether all of them presented petitions.

In those cases public services had been rendered and it was not a question of what these people had achieved in the sporting world. These were ordinary questions of great public services rendered by the men concerned, and the State in such cases feels that it is its duty to act for the sake of its own honour. That is not yet the position in regard to achievement in the world of sport and cases of that kind have to be brought before this House by way of a petition. I hope that that procedure can also be used in this particular case.

Is not this a special case where our national honour is involved?

No, it cannot be argued that that is the position. A few other points have been touched upon. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) raised the question of British officers who were involved in an accident here, and he said that where they were the sufferers they could issue summons, but where they had been the cause of the trouble they were protected. That is a legal point which I cannot go into at this juncture. It appears to me that in the case which the hon. member has mentioned, justice has been done, even though the Defence Department has made an ex gratia payment. The Department in a case of that kind would always take action. In any case justice would be done in an instance of that kind.

I was talking about naval officers.

Quite possibly that is the general rule; if it is applicable to naval officers it would also be applicable to officers of the land forces. In the opposite case mentioned an officer would be the cause of an accident and our citizens would have to suffer. That is a difficult question. It is very difficult for me to decide on that at this stage. I shall go into it and see what can be done because I am not quite sure at the moment what the legal position is.

And meanwhile they can sue our people?

If that is the legal position, then it must be so.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) raised the question of liquor being supplied to Asiatics and he asked who had asked for this. Well, the hon. member knows perhaps that for years the position has been that Japanese in this country have been supplied with liquor. They were exempted to a certain extent from the application of the Liquor Law, and when the Leader of the Indian community approached the Government and made a similar application it was very difficult to refuse them; what had been conceded to the Japanese could not in all circumstances be denied to the Indian, and restrictions of the Liquor Law were relaxed in their case. Our information from our police records is that the relaxation has not been abused. No doubt there are cases of drunkenness among the Indians, just as there are among the natives, but that may be due to the brews they themselves make. I don’t think the hon. member is entitled to infer that drunkenness in such cases is due to our relaxation of the Liquor Law in respect of Indians. I think that in view of the opinion expressed by the police, that there has been no abuse as a result of the relaxation of the law, we had better leave the matter alone and watch developments and see how the relaxation works.

*The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) raised the question of returned soldiers who on their return find that they cannot get into their houses which they let when going on active service. In that connection he also mentioned the question of the great shortage of houses and he also dealt with the whole housing question. My information is that the position in that respect has considerably improved. What the hon. member said is correct. I am informed by the responsible Minister, the Minister for Public Works, that the restrictions on the obtaining of material for building purposes have been entirely withdrawn and that there is no particular difficulty today in regard to obtaining the necessary material for the building of houses. I think the position to which the hon. member referred is a special one. Such cases will arise but generally speaking the position in regard to the building of houses and the obtaining of material should be much easier than it was several months ago.

Could not we relax the regulation so that the soldiers can get their own houses back?

Then we shall have to amend the law and the question still is whether we should place our returned soldiers in a different position in that respect to that of the ordinary citizen. It is difficult to differentiate in that way. The instance mentioned by the hon. member will be brought to the notice of the Director of Demobilisation who acts in such cases and special steps can perhaps be taken to assist returned soldiers. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) raised an important point with regard to directorships held by Ministers. I think the House should thank him for the trouble he has taken to go into this question and to draw attention to the precedents and to give expression to the feeling that we must watch over the public honour of the country. There is a great deal to be said for the hon. member’s view. The position, however, is that while in England there is a fairly definite policy — that policy has not always been the same — but while none the less there is a policy against members of the Cabinet holding directorships, no such ruling has ever been laid down here. It would be an entirely new precedent, and, of course, it would mean making a change. It has never been the practice here in South Africa to compel members of the Cabinet to resign their directorships. It would be a new development in our existing policy if we were to take such a step. Personally I am strongly in favour of it. I am strongly in favour of our doing all we possibly can to keep our public honour clean. And it can be said in honour of South Africa that our Parliamentary and our public life are clean. I think our country is an outstanding country among other countries, in that our public life is clean, and that very little ever takes place on which any reflections can be cast. The public also feel that our public life generally speaking is clean and is not affected by these things which often occur in other countries. But it may be necessary for us to take special steps and the matter is one which I shall have to discuss with my colleagues. So far it has not been done, and we shall have to act carefully in that respect. The hon. member also reverted to the lease-lend account question. I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding on one point. The points on which we agree need not be mentioned again, but it seems to me that on one point we do not agree. The hon. member said that he understood from me that there had been a discussion on the question of our responsibility for war material delivered to us by America direct and not through the Master Agreement in England.

Those goods came direct, geographically direct, but they were still under the Master Agreement.

We did get war material direct from America before the Master Agreement had come into being. For that we are responsible, and that we have paid for, but since the Master Agreement has been entered into we have never paid anything for the war material which has come directly from America. Numerous other articles have been delivered to us; for instance we have had steel delivered here for our Railways; we have had material for our transport system in South Africa, steel and other material for the Mines, or for Iscor, not in connection with our war effort, and for those goods we have paid. But for war material directly intended for war purposes we have never paid America since the coming into force of the Master Agreement, and there is no question of any liability on our part.

Are not negotiations going on in regard to that question?

Those negotiations concern the future. America now says that South Africa’s position is so strong that it should make some return so far as the future is concerned, and that it wants to enter into a separate agreement with us, an agreement outside the Master Agreement. America wants something in the nature of raw materials or something of that kind from us as a quid pro quo for the benefits which we would get under the Master Agreement. The negotiations concern a separate new agreement and not the payments which are still to be made in regard to the past. The hon. member shakes his head. I believe that to be the correct position. I believe that includes everything I have said.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I want to say a few words about the very important point which was raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), in a manner which I think was very creditable, about Ministers occupying directorships of public companies. I think the Prime Minister in his reply has in effect stated that he and his Government aré in agreement with the principle enunciated by the hon. member for Fauresmith. One of the difficulties is that there is no definite rule against Ministers remaining directors of companies and I think a specific rule on the matter should obviate the difficulties in which Ministers are placed, and do what the Prime Minister has said, that is raise our whole public life above the suspicion, however unjustified, which may exist. But there is a point more important than that, because the same evil to a greater extent applies to civil servants. It is true that the Government has issued an appeal to public servants that when they retire they should not accept directorships on public companies. But we know that many civil servants, as soon as they retired, have been snapped up by important corporations. I need only take the case—without any disparagement—of Mr. Leisk, who was Secretary to the Treasury, and immediately he retired he became a director of a number of mining corporations and of Barclays Bank. Mr. Farrer, another secretary to the Treasury, was in the same position. We have had other cases of a similar kind, and the effect is twofold. In the first place it means that those civil servants who realise that the moment they retire from the Public Service they may have a profitable haven in a financial corporation, must of necessity, however anxious they are to maintain high public standards even by implication or unconsciously be prejudiced in favour of corporations which they may be joining afterwards, and as far as the public are concerned that sort of thing is bound to create the feeling that these civil servants are not perhaps having such a high regard for their public duties. I realise the difficulty of the Government in compelling a civil servant on retiring not to accept a directorship but I think we should create public opinion in South Africa not only against these people accepting such directorships but against companies or financial corporations offering such directorships to retired civil servants. I think it would help very materially to put a stop to this position. And then there is another aspect which one should touch on and that is these various controls which exist at present under the War Emergency. I do not say a word against the individuals who occupy the position of controllers but it does create a feeling of suspicion among the public if an individual who is connected with a particular business becomes a controller over businesses, even although for the time being he severs his connection with his own business. It does create the feeling of suspicion that an individual like that cannot be expected, however anxious to do so, to administer these regulations or these control policies with due regard to impartiality. And insofar as their competitors are concerned, who have to come to them for rights or favours or licences or permits, obviously they must feel not only suspicious but very uncomfortable in having to come along to someone who is a competitor of theirs in business for a licence or favour. And they get to know the business of their competitors and I think the Government should definitely take steps in the interest of the public life of the country to see that these difficulties are avoided.

I am sorry to have to rise again to speak on the subject of the removal of the restriction on Asiatics purchasing liquor in bulk. The Prime Minister, judging from the reply he gave me this morning, has misunderstood the purport of my remarks— he has misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I was not objecting to this concession being given to Indians per se, but I want to point out to the Prime Minister the effect it is going to have on natives in urban areas. It is going to assist bootleggers to sell liquor to natives, which is a very dangerous thing, and I say that if this is allowed to continue our cities will not be safe for us to live in, and I urge the Prime Minister to take heed and realise the danger. I do not wish to embarrass the Prime Minister, nor ask him to reply—all I ask of him is to consider the seriousness of this position.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Malan put and the Committee divided:

AYES—28:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

NOES—79:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts. J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J. Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Louw put and the Committee divided:

AYES—32:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen. W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludiek, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens. J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

NOES—85:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbvshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts. J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Water son, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs,” as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 5.—“Defence,” £51,250,000,

I want to move—

I also want to avail myself of the privilege of speaking for half an hour. If the amendment is accepted, the amount of the Vote will still be £10,000,000. We are prepared to vote that sum because we want to leave a certain sum of money available for the defence of the country, particularly in abnormal times. We can only guess at how much is required, and that is why we propose a globular amount. In these abnormal times we are prepared to spend a considerable amount of money on defence. There is another reason why the amount which we want to vote for defence is fixed at a fairly high figure, at £10,000,000, and that is that we consider that South Africa should gradually begin to stand on its own feet so far as defence is concerned, also so far as coastal defence is concerned. I want to say two things about the amount which the Minister of Defence is now asking us to vote here. The first is that the amount has grown from year to year without any detailed explanation. Every year the Prime Minister has received a blank cheque. Today he comes and asks for the biggest blank cheque South Africa has ever had to give him for defence, viz: £51,000,000. The first year he asked for £12,000,000 for defence without any explanation; the second year £28,000,000, the third year £40,000,000 the fourth year £50,000,000, and now we are asked for £51,250,000 or about £1,000,000 per week for defence purposes only. In other words, four times as much as he asked for in the first year of the war. I say that this is a blank cheque which no democratic parliament in any democratic country would vote without full details. We have no details whatsoever supplied to us. I still have learn that it is a military secret for the Vote to say how much will be spent on the Boy Scout Movement, or on the Voortrekker Movement, but no details whatsoever are given. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in that regard takes up exactly the same attitude as the dictators in dictator countries. He spends the money as he thinks fit — he does not even call the Defence Council together. He has a statutory Defence Council. In 1943 that Defence Council was not called together on one single occasion. The Prime Minister is a complete dictator. So far about £300,000,000 has been spent on the defence of the Union during this war and of that £300,000,000—£287,500,000 was voted on the Defence Vote alone, while there are numerous other items of expenditure under a large number of other votes. To rob a blind man is most reprehensible. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has blindfolded the people of South Africa and now he is robbing them as he thinks fit. I propose later on to draw attention to some of the mysteries under this vote. Now I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not agree that South Africa’s part in the war has been reduced to such an extent that a few other things can be undertaken? In the first place the war is outside Africa today. There is no longer any justification for saying that this is a defensive war. In the hills of Italy today it is nothing but a war of aggression. Another reason why we should reduce our expenditure is that nearly two thirds of South Africa’s troops—that is to say two thirds of our 160,000 European troops, apart from the 100,000 non-Europeans, are in the Union itself. Consequently our troops could be considerably reduced. It came as a surprise to hear the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister a few days ago in this House lift the veil in regard to our troops and to give us a little information on the question of where they are. He told us that the Sixth Division, after a year of training, will shortly enter the battle zone again. And then he told us that our troops outside the Union numbered between 50,000 and 60,000. The Sixth Division is there, and the Air Force, and between 15.000 and 20,000 of the Engineering Corps. Consequently there are still 100,000 men in uniform in the Union. Of those he told us 30.000 were training in the Air Schools. What about the 70,000 others? There are 70,000 in uniform in South Africa and in addition we have the major part of 100,000 coloured troops in the Union. If one looks at our streets, our trains and our places of amusement one would almost imagine that the war is fought just outside Johannesburg, Cape Town or Pretoria. There are two things I want to say about this extraordinary situation, that after four years of war South Africa is still maintaining such a large force. In the first place it is clear that to a large extent South Africa is having a military holiday at State expense, and the second thing I want to say is that a large number of the “home fronters” are engaged in making snug.

When, during the last war, a well-known politician in this country made the remark at a public meeting attended by a number of commercial men, that “now is the time to make snug,” the public banned him from political life and he is still out of political life today. But in this war people can make snug as much as they like and nobody makes any comment except the Minister of Lands, who appears on public platforms, waves his hands and says: “They are making pot and pots of money.”

You know all about it.

Yes, because I am keeping my eyes wide open. Let me tell the Prime Minister that in South Africa enthusiasm for the war has vanished. There is a slackening off even among his own supporters. Things have come to a standstill, there is confusion and there are heaps of complaints. I don’t know what the position is on the other side of the House, but we get heaps of complaints from people in the Defence Force, who take the risk of talking —they talk very carefully, of course. The Prime Minister is today gathering the results of his policy. A man who plunges a country into war—a country which is deeply divided—has to gather the bitter fruit. In 1939, when war broke out, De Valera exclaimed : “A country which precipitates itself into war when it is divided about that war, commits suicide.” South Africa has never had its entire heart in this war; there has been flag wagging, but that flag wagging was at home. Many people went to war out of a sense of adventure. Others were forced to join up by starvation and intimidation. South Africa, as a whole, never had its heart in this war. It is not a military secret that after four years the position has developed in such a manner—and I am sure the Prime Minister will admit that that is so—that a large number of troops up North have insisted on being brought back, and they are being brought back. They insist on returning. Why do they want to return? They have found out the Prime Minister. Those people were told that they would come back to a heaven on earth, but they have found out that those who return experience great difficulty in getting their jobs back. A further reason why they insist on returning is because they have found out that on the home front a large number of people are having the time of their lives while they have had to fight. Many of those who have come back say that South Africa has now done its share. Hence the slackening off and the standstill so far as the war is concerned. Many have become the victims of Prof. E. G. Malherbe’s subtle propaganda. But it has had the very opposite effect, because while he has been talking to those people about a heaven on earth they now realise what the position is, and they have come back and they say that so far as they are concerned the war is over. What has happened? What has been the position during the past twelve months? South Africa’s participation in the war has been confined to its Air Force and the Engineers alone. South Africa’s army of 160,000 whites cannot even maintain one division at full strength. In spite of the large numbers in the army on the home front recruiting has to be done day after day, and the nine recruiting officers who get their £3 3s. per day and free transport have suddenly been compelled to find a large number of raw recruits. Why has that decision been taken so suddenly? The Sixth Division has had a whole year to train, and now raw recruits are taken on. What for? One of these days, so the Prime Minister tells us, the Sixth Division is going into the fighting line. There are going to be casualties then, and reserves will have to be provided, and if those reserves have to be put into the fighting line they will include some of these raw recruits who are now being taken on. Something strange and mysterious has occurred in this connection. Perhaps the Prime Minister can throw a little light on the subject. After the Sixth Division has been training for a year, it has been discovered that a large number of motor car drivers are needed. 1,200 motor drivers have to be found, mostly coloured. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this is connected in any way with the startling announcement in the Press, after four years of war, that rape in the field will be punished with death. It is a most peculiar thing. After four years of war one crime has to be picked out and it has to be announced in the Press that the death penality will be applied for that offence. Does that by any chance have anything to do with this sudden shortage of motor drivers up North so that 1,200 coloured men have to be recruited as motor drivers? South Africa’s heart at the moment is here—far away from the war. Its heart is not in the war. The Prime Minister is today gathering the fruit of his policy of dragging into the war a country only half of whose inhabitants are in favour of the war. The longer this war lasts the less the enthusiasm becomes. It is quite understandable. And yet the further the war is shifted away from us the more dazzling become the millions which Parliament is asked to vote for the war. The smaller South Africa’s share in the war, the larger the forces on the home front. Now, I want to ask the Prime Minister this question: Has not the time come to reduce our forces? Is it not time to help South Africa to return to normal conditions to some extent at any rate? Why are these millions spent to keep an army here, practically speaking, on a holiday at State expense? Why ask for more recruits? Why ask for natives and coloured men to join the army to be sent to Italy? Why bring them into touch with elements which are going to do them no good? We have had the experience in the last war. They get into touch there with Communists and other ….

The old story again.

We had experience in the last war that they learned completely to forget the dividing line between white and coloured while they are away from this country. Why does not the Prime Minister keep them out of Italy now that the war is so far away from us? These coloured troops and their families have already cost this country £15,900,000, and every year we have to vote about £6,000 on these Estimates for a war news service among the natives. These are expenses which South Africa should not be called upon to bear because South Africa is taking a very small part in the war. Why carry on these irritating things which we have in this country today? I have not got enough time to mention all of them and I shall have to be satisfied with referring to two instances only. Why do you continue this military information service— this service which has more of a nuisance value than anything else? Instead of using the police to do this work these people are employed to do the work in an amateurism and incompetent manner. They have to open letters and listen to telephone conversations, and these things irritate the public. I fail to see why, now that the war is so far away from us, and South Africa takes such a small part in it, we should continue to treat our own people in this way. The next irritating thing is this Blue Oath and this Red Oath. I don’t know why we persist with that. I don’t know who committed the more dastardly act—the man who in the last war invented the “white feather”, or the man who in this war discovered the Red Oath. The same idea that was conveyed by the white feather in the last war is now conveyed if people refuse to wear the red tab. This thing has caused friction among our people. It has caused friction between race and race. It has caused friction between Afrikaner and Afrikaner, and it has aroused passions. It has caused a lot of bitterness, and I want to appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to prevent these things, to stop them, particularly at a stage when the position in regard to the war is what it is today. Now I want to deal with another point, and afterwards I shall revert to these scandalous matters. As a result of the relaxation of control there have been some happenings, which seem peculiar to me. The camp at Spitskop near Pretoria has been put up on the land of Sir Pierre van Ryneveld, the Chief of the General Staff. That is what we are told. If it is so, I want to ask for a few details about it. I don’t say that there is anything out of the way in it, but I do think the House should be given some information about this.

Why?

I shall give the hon. member my reasons. This is a piece of land which he bought in 1936; the camp was established there in 1940, but if my information is correct he bought an additional hundred morgen in 1941. The information we have is that he gives the camp free of charge for the duration of the war, but after the war? Buildings are erected on this land; there are administrative offices, there are recreation halls, there is a church, and workshops have been erected, and probably other buildings as well. All those buildings have been erected on his land, if our information is correct. He says that he gives the ground free of charge for the duration of the war, but what about all these things after the war? The reply to our question was that they would remain at the disposal of the Defence Force. I am asking for information. I don’t want to besmirch anyone, but it seems most peculiar to me, that the Chief of the Defence Force has a camp started on his farm, and then gives it free of charge for the use of the Defence Force. When we ask what is to become of those buildings we get an evasive answer. I am anxious to get this information from the Minister of Defence. This House in any case is entitled to know the details. There are three or four other matters which I want to go into and I shall get a further opportunity later on. In the time still at my disposal I want to draw the attention of the House to a matter which is important at the moment, and that is South Africa’s coastal defence. South Africa’s coastal defence is of actual importance, even in peace time, and we have before us a report by the Brink Committee on Coastal Defence. This is such an important report that I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without drawing the attention of the House to it. I feel that this report, to say the least of it, is a condemnation of the Government’s policy. Now, what has the Government’s policy always been? It has always been to look up to Great Britain so far as our coastal defence is concerned. Let me mention a few of the points contained in the Committee’s report, and then I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Defence: “We told you so.” We told the Goverment about these things in the past and the Minister took no notice, and now this Committee brings these very same matters to his notice. Let me point out that in addition to Gen. G. Brink the members of the Committee were the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) and the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters). In addition there were some military men actually in the service today on the Committee, and that makes the report even more important. The first contention put forward by the Committee is that the danger of South Africa getting involved in a war with any other country is very slight, except if it is allied to a great Power. That is what we have always said. The danger of South Africa becoming involved in a war with another country is very slight, except if South Africa has an alliance with˙ a big country such as Great Britain. And now this Committee comes along and tells the Government the same thing. Then the next contention put forward by the Committee is that the defence of South Africa’s coast line is a matter concerning South Africa alone and that the responsibility for that defence, for the sake of security, cannot be put on the shoulders of some other country. That also is a contention which has always been upheld by this side of the House, that South Africa must undertake the defence of its own coast line and must not look to some other country to do so. A further contention of this Committee is that we cannot for an indefinite period rely upon the training of our Naval personnel being undertaken in co-operation with Great Britain. In other words, we must undertake the training of our Naval personnel ourselves and not continue to hide under the wings of Great Britain. That is what we have continually been telling the Government, and now this Committee tells the Government the same thing. And then we have the following contention which I want to read to the House—

I thought that this was a war to end war—

If South Africa should decide to remain neutral, this Committee says that South Africa would be in danger if it had no ships of its own ….

When was that report issued?

It was presented the other day. Then we come to another astounding statement by this Committee in respect of which we can also say to the Government: “We told you so.” The Committee says—

What’s wrong with that?

I only say that it is an astounding statement which the Government would never accept from us and now the Committee tells the Government the same thing. This side of the House has always said that circumstances may arise, and should they arise the British Government would withdraw its vessels from here in which case South Africa would have to stand on her own feet. South Africa should have done so long ago.

That’s the greatest joke of the Session.

The hon. member can call a report by a Committee from his own side of the House a joke if he likes to; let him direct that remark to the address of the hon. member for South Peninsula and the hon. member for Wynberg, and also to Gen. G. Brink. What is the position? The position is clearly that South Africa’s strategic value after the war will go down more and more in the event of it being possible to keep open the Mediterranean Sea to all nations. South Africa will lose its strategic value, particularly in relation to the extension of the air service, in relation to the extension of the transport service between South America, Lagos, Khartoum and the Far East. To that extent South Africa will lose its strategic value and the Committee is quite right in saying that Great Britain may lose its interest in South Africa’s ports. Won’t we cheer when the day dawns—the day which in 1938 dawned for Ireland, when Great Britain lost its interest in the three Irish ports and when she returned them to Ireland—won’t we cheer when the day dawns for South Africa when Great Britain loses its interest in Simonstown as a naval base to such an extent that Simonstown is returned to us? This Committee’s report, is an important one. Then there is another matter to which I want to draw attention. Our contention in South Africa in these circumstances, so far as our coastal defence is concerned, is that we should not look up to Great Britain but that we should train our own sailors. The report points out that there is a gap in regard to our coastal defence and that gap is that we have not trained our own men. In that connection the Committee makes certain recommendations to which the Prime Minister should already be giving his attention, even during the war, and that is that we should train our sons here in South Africa, both for our future State fleet and mercantile fleet. This is a very important matter. The Committee recommends in the first place that we should have our own State fleet. We should start forming that fleet, we should create naval tradition in South Africa, and then develop. How is that to be done? The Committee makes an important recommendation and says that the establishment of a State Fleet in South Africa should go hand in hand with the training of our sons, and that we should no longer have to look to Great Britain for the training of our marine personnel. We should have our own marine services in South Africa; we should protect our own harbours and our own coastal routes. The Committee says that for that purpose we require fast escort ships, naturally against submarines. Then we need minesweepers which can be used as a nucleus in war time to do the work here with the aid of smaller ships and a mother ship. We need minelayers to lay the submarine detection loops, so that in the event of a submarine being about the authorities can get to know about it. The Committee says that sixty ships are needed for our State Fleet and to man those ships we shall require between 5,000 and 6,000 young men. Then we shall need twenty vessels for our mercantile fleet, both for our coastal trade and for foreign trade—ten for the coastal trade and ten for the foreign trade. The Committee says that the ships of the Railway Department already constitute a good nucleus in that direction. I shall come back to this question later on, but my time is up now, and I want to conclude by saying that the principles recommended by this Committee should be seriously considered. [Time limit.]

I have pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). I am seconding the amendment in the first place because members of this House, and the public outside, have no idea how these millions of pounds, which the House is asked to vote for war expenditure, are spent. In the second place I am seconding this amendment also from a Party point of view. When the Government declared war in 1939 we on this side of the House declared that we wanted to remain neutral. We stated our reasons for our attitude over and over again, and we repeated our statements on public platforms in the country. Members opposite have been boasting here and they have told us that the public have given their verdict and have given the Prime Minister a mandate to continue the war. But what seems so strange to us is that even the Auditor-General complains about irregularities in the Defence Department. No proper account can be given for all the expenditure. It looks strange to us and also to the public outside. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has shown how the war expenditure has been going up from the beginning of the war until it has now reached this huge figure. If we look at the colossal amounts which are spent we must ask ourselves what all this money is spent on and what benefit all this expenditure is producing for South Africa. At the end of 1940 we had already spent £104.000,000. At the end of the financial year 1943-’44 that amount had gone up to £332,860,000. And now the Minister comes along and asks for another £51,000,000 on revenue account, and a further amount of over £50,000,000 on Loan Account which means that this year we are going to spend something like another £103,000,000 on the war. These are colossal amounts and we here, and the public outside, want to know what all this money has been spent on. If we look at all this expenditure we can ask ourselves whether the Government is consistent and honest to the people of South Africa. In spite of the fact that some people are flourishing today and are living in luxury there are others who are living in poverty and misery—some are even starving today.

Whose fault is that?

I am glad there is no need for us to take notice of everything that comes from the South. When we discuss important subjects here we have to be serious and I am glad the Minister of Defence is listening to me, and I need not worry about anything coming from the South. When war is declared certain things have to be considered. One cannot run a war with war vehicles only. War is a national matter and provision also has to be made so that people in a belligerent country have enough food—provision has also to be made for all the needs of the population. Now, what have we done here? If we think of all we are spending and we go through the country we find thousands of motor lorries standing out in the sun and the rain and getting ruined, we ask: “What for?” The most painful thing is that on the other hand we find that the people’s food is getting ruined. The Government never stirred a finger to prevent huge quantities of South Africa’s food being destroyed. Five million bags of mealies have gone rotten and have become useless for man and beast to eat. When a country is at war, I say the Government must be consistent, and we as members of this House have to study the expenditure and we have to see to it that the country’s interests are looked after. If we look at this expenditure we cannot say that that has been done. If some of this money had been used for the erection of stores and sheds, for the preservation of food, we could have said that the money was beneficially spent. But nothing of the kind has been done so far. No, millions of pounds have been fired away into the air everyday, while nothing is done for the good of the people. Mv hon. friend raised a serious question when he touched on the subject of motor drivers. We are grateful to the Department of Defence for assisting the farmers and for having supplied military lorries for the carting of our grain, but I should like to bring one point to the notice of the Minister of Defence, and that is the attitude adopted by the people whom the Department sends out to work with those lorries. One white man is sent with a whole crowd of coloured men and natives under him, and what happens? These lorries are Government property, but these coloured men and natives do not care a rap how they handle these vehicles. They drive like mad and they capsize the lorries three or four times. It means a lot of expense but not a word is said about it.

That’s a new story.

No, it is not a new story, I know what I am talking about. I am not like the hon. member who draws on his imagination. I am a member of Parliament, and I have other interests as well, apart from being a member of Parliament, and those other interests bring me into contact with a number of things and I see what’s going on. I have often asked myself how the Minister of Defence, who is a Boer General, can allow public property to be destroyed and ruined by natives and coloured people in the way they are doing now. Not a word is said about it and it is my duty as a representative of the people to say something on this subject. We want the Minister of Defence to give his attention to this matter. There are ample white Afrikaners in the Union who would be prepared to do this class of work at the pay which those ’’gentlemen” are getting today— those “gentlemen,” who are nothing but a curse when they come to our farms. The farm labourers note everything these “gentlemen in uniform” do. These coloured men stand by the lorries and they do not stir a finger to assist in loading up and if the farmer does not load up quickly enough they simply take the lorry and drive away. What a wonderful example to our farm labourers! And when these things happen, and we see this tremendous expenditure on this vote, we ask ourselves: “Has this expenditure been incurred in the interest of South Africa?”

A few weeks ago I put a question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister as to the number of soldiers in the various racial categories who have since August of last year been discharged from the army, and the number of those who had received honourable discharges entitling them to have employment found for them, and entitling them to certain forms of assistance. The Minister of Defence gave me the figures and those figures disclose that of the men discharged, since August last year, about 10 per cent. of the European soldiers failed to get honourable discharges. In the case of the native, coloured and Asiatic soldiers, approximately 40 per cent.—not far from half—failed to get honourable discharges, and hence they were discharged from the army without any claim on the State to see that they were re-settled in civilian life. Now, I asked the Minister what the reasons are for the discharge of these men who failed to get honourable discharges. The Minister gave a number of reasons—some of them obvious such as that the man had been court-martialled and discharged with ignominy, etc., but a number of the reasons given, which are very wide in their character, show, I feel, that the rules must have been interpreted in a very strict manner, for So large a number of men of colour who have served their country to have been thrown out without any claims on the State for their re-establishment in civilian life. There are particularly three of these categories of reasons given to me in reply to my question to which I wish to refer. One is, if a man has been previously convicted before joining the army of some serious offence. Another is where he gave false answers to questions put to him on his enlistment, and thirdly where a man has been convicted of a number of military offences of an unspecified character. I want to deal with the last category first. Complaints have reached me that men have been discharged on a large scale among the non-European troops, particularly the native troops, since August of last year for offences which they feel should not be sufficient to wipe out the years of service which they have given to the country since 1939 or 1940 when they joined. Complaints have reached me that for a number of minor offences such as the loss of their kit, the men have been given dishonourable discharges. I believe that term is not actually used, but that it what the men call it. And not only are they turned out without any claim to reinstatement in civil life, but they go out under a definite stigma. I have seen examples of their discharge certificates. Where a man is dishonourably discharged, as the men call it, the word “bad” is written on the discharge certificate. And a man who goes out of the army with “bad” on his certificate carries a stigma which will prevent him from getting employment in civil life. I have been told that even N.C.O.’s have been discharged with “bad” written on their certificates. If an N.C.O. goes out with a dishonourable discharge it means this, that he goes out with a dishonourable discharge on account of circumstances which were not sufficiently serious to justify his stripes being taken away while he was in the army. I have always understood that if an N.C.O. gives trouble and is convicted on a number of occasions he loses his stripes. I have known of cases where that happened, and yet there are cases where N.C.O.’s are dismissed with dishonourable discharges for petty offences which were not sufficiently serious to justify the taking away of their stripes. Then I want to draw attention to the case where a man gets a dishonourable discharge because of something he did before he joined the army. I am going to submit this. Even if a man has been convicted of a serious offence before· he joined the army he has paid for that offence by the sentence which he served and he has expiated it by the service which he gave to the country. To give that as a reason for dishonourable discharge seems to me not to be a credit to this country. As a matter of fact I have made representations to the Defence Department in regard to these matters and I understand that there is some suggestion that there are men who were taken on at the beginning of the war and who, it is now felt, should not really have been taken on because of previous criminal records. I want to express the great difficulty that I feel in accepting that because 80 per cent. of the native troops come from the native reserves where the incidence of serious crime is not high. I do not think it can be suggested that the incidence, of crime is high in the rural areas, and furthermore, were these men told on enlistment that because they have bad records, they would be dismissed dishonourably at a later stage when the country did not feel the need of their services so urgently? Native soldiers who have been in the army right from the beginning in 1940 when there was a big recruiting drive have only now been dismissed with dishonourable discharges. I do not want to suggest that there should be no such thing as dishonourable discharge but I do feel that if a man has served his country, more particularly under the conditions of pay which prevail in the case of the natives, it ought to be a very serious step to turn him out with a dishonourable discharge and to place “bad” on his discharge certificate, with the result that not only is a stigma placed on him, for the rest of his life but he is loaded with a heavy handicap in getting employment. I have been informed that in the middle of last year a circular went round to regimental officers saying that there must be discharges on a much larger scale of nonEuropean troops and that this policy must be fully carried out. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Minister whether my information is correct. [Time limit.]

I only want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister a few simple questions, or rather I want to bring a few matters to his notice. I understand that at Pollsmoor in the dispersal camp there are a number of men who used to be small farmers and who through being kept in camp have no opportunity of getting a farm again. We know that small farms are obtainable today. We know that the vegetable farmers are doing very well. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to see if arrangements can be made to give these men, who only get week-end leave now, an opportunity to go out and try to get a suitable place. I understand that these men are dissatisfied because they do not get the opportunity of going out and looking for farms. The land is avail able and these men could do very well today, and they would soon be in a position to rehabilitate themselves entirely if only they were given the opportunity. I also want to bring another matter to the Prime Minister’s notice. I think he is fully aware of the fact that there are a great many men in the Defence Force who are very anxious to go up North. They are looking forward to an opportunity of going North but one finds that men who have been up North are sent back, while these chaps are not given the chance of going. I quite realise that it is difficult to fit these men who are in the Union into the units up North but I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, wherever possible, to meet these fellows who are now stationed in the Union and who have not yet had a chance of going, and give them the opportunity of exchanging with men who have come from up North. Now, there is a third point I want to touch upon. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister this: There are large numbers of members of our Police Force who while they were on active service have become unfit for the army. They have become unfit for the purpose for which they were originally taken into the army. Could not we let as many of those men as possible come back and give other members of the Police Force an opportunity of taking over from them up North. There are men in the Police Force who are anxiously looking forward to a chance to join up. These men have approached me and have begged me to put forward their case so that they may get the opportunity of joining up. I realise that when there is a shortage of Police, we cannot allow these men to go up North, but I should like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to look into this question and see whether the men who have become unit for army service, cannot be exchanged with other members of the Police Force who are very anxious to go North. That would give a great many members of the Police Force the chance which they are so anxious to have, and it will give a lot of satisfaction. There are others, too, who have already been away on active service and who perhaps are no longer entirely physically fit for the army. Perhaps we could also get some of those fellows back into the Police Service, so that we may release others in the Police Service who have not yet had the chance of going up North.

In regard to the establishment of a State Fleet for South Africa and a Nautical College, I only want to say three things. The first is this: that it will have to be started on a very modest scale, and the second that a Nautical College is indispensible for that purpose, and thirdly that South Africa if it wants to stand on its own feet in shipping matters will also have to have its own Mercantile Law. Let me quote a paragraph from the report of the Frye Shipping Commission of last year. It reads as follows—

I say that if we are to have a State Fleet, we must first of all have a Nautical College, but attention must also immediately be given to our Mercantile Law if we want to stand on our own feet. Now, I also want to ask the Minister if it is true that we are manufacturing mustard gas near Pretoria? Is it a fact that our experiments have developed to such an extent that we have even improved on the plans which we received from the British Government in that connection? I feel that we have reached a stage where this subject can no longer be looked upon as a great military secret. I think it is a scandal. I want to ask the Prime Minister if it is true that we are manufacturing mustard gas near Pretoria?

Why is it a scandal?

I am addressing the Minister now. If the hon. member waits another twenty years I may perhaps ask him some questions on the subject. Then there is another matter I want to refer to to show how this blank cheque which we are giving the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister may lead to abuse. I want to draw attention to two cases which have come to my notice. The Prime Minister’s Department is like a closed book. Consequently, what the public get to know is only a fragment of what happens.

You mean the Opposition does not know?

Judging from the way that hon. member carries on in this House it would appear that he in any case knows very little about the matter or about anything at all. In Pretoria there are a number of bakeries which have a contract to supply bread for the Government forces. That has not always been so. Until some time ago the price the Government paid was high. The Government found that the price of bread had to be reduced by ½d. And it did reduce the price, but now I am talking of what happened before that. A certain baker in Pretoria had a whole chain of bakeries. Some time ago he suddenly started putting up another large bakery in Pretoria and when he was asked what he was, doing he replied that he knew what he was doing. Six months later he got a military contract for the supply of all bread in the military district of Pretoria and not only in the military district of Pretoria but he also got a contract to supply bread at Roberts Heights and Sonderwater. And afterwards he got another contract to supply bread to 50,000 Italian prisoners-of-war. That man made an average profit of £300 per day for eighteen months, and it was only at the end of eighteen months that the Government suddenly woke up. I believe that man paid £60,000 income tax for the year. The profit he made must have been tremendous. The Government only woke up then, and it subsequently distributed the contract among five or six bakers and reduced the price of bread. That sort of thing went on under the very nose of the public—people were allowed to make such huge profits out of Government contracts under the very nose of the public. I also want to mention an instance to show the waste going on in regard to our medical stores. Shortly after the outbreak of war the Government commandeered all the Elastoplast available in the country. It commandeered a large quantity, amounting to about £10,000 in value. And what happened then? That Elastoplast was stored in Pretoria in a large building with a corrugated iron roof—this £10,000 worth of Elastoplaat was stored right underneath a corrugated iron roof, with the result that the whole lot melted and the Government had to bear the loss. These are things one hears about from time to time, and this is only one of many things that have come to our notice. Probably we never hear anything about the big losses. One cannot help getting the impression that with this blank cheque the Defence Department gets, things happen which would open the eyes of the public if they got to know the real truth.

There are one or two points on which I would like to have some information from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister is aware there has been considerable dissatisfaction, not only amongst the women serving in the army but also amongst the women in the country generally over the successive resignations of the chiefs of the women’s army. First of all the chief of the W.A.A.S. resigned and after some time it was followed by the resignation of the chief of the W.A.A.F.S. Let me repeat there has been considerable feeling both in the army and amongst the women outside, over this fact that they resigned, that no information was vouchsafed as to why they did so, and in addition that was followed up by putting at the head of both the W.A.A.F.S. and W.A.A.S. a man to do the work that was formerly done by the women chiefs. Now what I would like to know from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is this: Firstly, can he not tell me why these women resigned, and secondly, is it the deliberate policy of his Department that the chiefs of the women’s army should never again be women, because if that is so then I think that the women of the country are entitled to know. There is a great deal of heartburning on this matter, because as I have heard said, very often while the Prime Minister has on numerous occasions eulogised the work that the women’s army has done, and if I may say so, he has eulogised it rightly because there is no doubt that the war effort that the women have put up here has been magnificent, yet despite the eulogies, practically the women have been slighted. If the only reward they have for the magnificent services which they have rendered, is that in the future they shall not be commanded by their own women officers but always be under the command of men officers, then there is a definite feeling, both inside and outside the army, that this is an unwarranted slur on the women officers in the army. I repeat a slur, no less, so it would clear the air and it would be a real service to the women, both in and outside the army, if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister would define his policy in this matter. That is one point I desire to bring to his notice. There is also another matter on which I should like some information. Quite recently, not in this House, but at a meeting outside the House, the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation stated that in future there would be a cash payment of £15 made to all volunteers who were honourably discharged from the army. I would like to know whether that sum of £15 will be paid also to women volunteers? I ask that because up to now there has been a curiously ungenerous and indeed almost niggardly attitude on the part of the Department in regard to the woman volunteer. To begin with—I take this as an illustration—when it came to a cash allocation for the woman volunteer, it was suggested at first that she should receive less than the man volunteer. That was subsequently rectified. Then there came the clothing allowance and a means test, and it was only just recently that the means test was abolished with regard to the woman volunteer when it came to the allowance for civilian clothing, and that was only done under considerable pressure on the Defence Department. Almost from the very beginning the man volunteer was allowed a clothing allowance and he was allowed that irrespective of his means. But the woman volunteer had to fill in a stringent form setting out her circumstances, whether she was married or not, or whether she was supported by a father and numerous similar questions. That too has been rectified, but only after a fight. Now I admit the woman volunteer no longer has to fill in a form which in effect was a means test; but because of these facts I would like to know from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether this fresh allowance that has now been announced, this allowance of £15, will be extended also the woman volunteer who is honourably discharged from the army. At the same time I might also draw his attention to the general curiously Victorian attitude to the women that is still prevalent in his Department. It is evident, even in such things as pensions, where one would imagine only disability would matter, yet the woman volunteer who is disabled to the same extent as the man volunteer and who conceivably may have dependants on her to the same extent as the man volunteer, receives a considerably lesser amount in pension because she is a woman. I mention this as a portion of my charge that the Department’s attitude to women is very much less liberal than it is to the man volunteer, and in view of the circumstances and in view of the magnificent work that the women have done, I hope the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will turn his personal attention to these circumstances with a view to seeing that the differentiation in his department between men and women comes to an end.

I was dealing just now with the alarming proportion of dishonourably discharged native and coloured troops in the army, and I want to emphasise that my information is—I do not know whether it is correct or not—that in August of last year a circular was sent out from Defence Headquarters recommending to regimental officers a policy of weeding out these particular troops. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Defence whether there was such a circular and, if so, what its contents were. I do not want to ask for any confidential military information that would in any way be detrimental to the war effort, but it seems to me that it is very important to know the full facts, because we have heard that the non-European Army Services, African and coloured and Asiatic troops, have rendered outstanding services in this war. Admittedly they have not been allowed to bear arms. As the Rt. Hon. Minister knows, I have never been in favour of that policy of not allowing them to bear arms. But nevertheless in the field where they have had an opportunity to serve, they have a good reputation. But if 40 per cent. of them, when it comes to discharges, are thought fit for dishonourable discharge, that would seem to belie the good reputation which they gained. It seems to me to be not only an injustice in many cases to the individuals, but it casts a slur on the non-European Army Services. The fact that there is such a large number of dishonourable discharges in itself would appear to bear out the authenticity of the information which I have received to the effect that a large number of these cases have been dishonourably discharged where they have had a record of very trivial offences. The feeling amongst many of these men and amongst the native community generally is that now that these men have done their duty, they are being got rid of, whereas the army was only too glad to have their services in the dark days of 1940. I hope that the Minister will have these cases reinvestigated and that in future dishonourable discharges will only be imposed where it is a very serious matter, where it really is serious enough to place a man under a stigma for the rest of his life. It seems to me that that should only be done where there is very serious cause for it. Now I want to say a word or two as to the methods by which African soldiers are discharged, even where they are honourably discharged.

To whom do you refer when you speak of African soldiers?

I am sure the Minister understands what I am speaking about. As I was saying before the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) indulged in that intelligent interruption, there is great cause for dissatisfaction at the methods by which African soldiers are discharged. The Defence Department does not seem to take responsibility for them until such time as they can secure employment, nor is there adequate machinery for securing employment for them. For soldiers of all other races there are dispersal depôts, and the man has an opportunity of remaining in a dispersal depôt, of drawing his military pay, until such time as employment has been found for him. These facilities do not exist for the African soldiers. I understand a statement was made the other day by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation that the native soldier may apply to have work found for him from a dispersal depôt. Only a very few can exercise that option, because the position seems to be that they have to wait at their own expense, they are not put into a dispersal camp and kept there under the conditions that apply to soldiers of other races. The suggestion has been made that the reason for this is that most of them come from the countryside, from the reserves, and they want to go home to their families. I feel that that can easily be met by giving a short period of leave, even if unpaid. In any case, the men should clearly understand that if they wish to remain under military conditions with full pay until employment is found for them, they can do so. Actually these men are simply discharged and the Native Affairs Department, which is supposed to find employment for them, cannot deal with them, it has no machinery for that kind of thing. As a matter of fact, the Department is quite unable to cope with this new duty that has been laid upon it. African soldiers should come within the scope of the ordinary demobilisation machinery, and the fact that a large proportion of them come from the reserves is no reason against that. It is common knowledge that the majority of able-bodied men from the reserves are dependent on employment outside, their ordinary way of life is employment, and the reserve is only a place where they remain temporarily. If it were a question of treating them as rural people, people who live on the land, then there should be a proper land settlement policy, enabling them under reasonable terms, to acquire allotments large enough for them to make a living. If that is not done they should be found employment in the ordinary way, and employment suitable to their attainments and such training as they have received in the army. A large number of these men have been trained as transport drivers, and if employment is found for them it should be of a type commensurate with the training they have received in the army. I am aware that this whole matter of demobilisation is about to be reorganised, but I want to take this opportunity of impressing on the Minister the necessity of doing justice to these African soldiers, who should be included in the ordinary machinery of demobilisation. This is a matter of immediate urgency. The Defence Department should continue to take responsibility for the African soldier until he has been found employment, as is the case with soldiers of other races. I have met numbers of African soldiers who are wandering about the streets looking for work, and no opportunity is offered them. Officials of the Native Affairs Department have told me that they cannot do anything, even with the best will in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister of Defence to realise that this dishonourable discharge is a thing that can be thrown at the man many many years after his discharge, it is a stigma that will rest on his head for the rest of his life. We must not forget that although that man was perhaps not a success in the army, he was a volunteer, he volunteered to fight for his country. There are failures in every walk of life, and the fact that the man was a failure as a volunteer soldier should not be held against him for the rest of his life. I think this is something which should be reconsidered, and “dishonourable discharge” should be done away with altogether. As long as man is in the army, no one will object if he is punished for not doing his duty, or not carrying out the orders that are given him. But I cannot see any good purpose which is served by punishing a man for the rest of his civilian life. These men were prepared to sacrifice themselves, and if they found that war is perhaps much harder or military discipline too hard for them, or they do not behave themselves as well in the army as one would expect, that is no reason for landing them with a dishonourable discharge for ever. I say that whether the man is a European, a native or anybody else, we are not justified in treating a volunteer like that. I cannot see the point of it. What do you gain by it? All you do is to punish him for the rest of his life. If an employer asks him: “Have you been in the army?” and the man says “yes,” the employer says: “Let me see your discharge.” It is a dishonourable discharge, and the man suffers.

That is bad.

It is bad, it is unsatisfactory. If the man is in the army and he cannot submit to discipline properly or carry out the orders givien to him, well and good. But when he is finished with the army he should not carry a stigma for the rest of his life. I hope the Minister of Defence will reconsider this matter. I also wish to support what has been said by an hon. member about the war effort. Some time ago my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) made the same remark. Although the actual fighting front is removed thousands of miles away from the Union, we must not forget our men and women, when the call came, said: “Here we are at your service.” I want to say that this is not the time for the Defence Department to annoy the women who have joined up, and who axe capable of service.

All women are capable.

Yes, I agree with the hon. member, but I am not going to argue on that. Now is not the time to annoy the ˙ who have rendered their utmost service, because I can see the time coming when the Minister will again have to appeal to them to assist the country. I am going to insist that this country must launch a new offensive in this war effort. We cannot allow our Allies to go on alone. We cannot say to Australia: “You have removed the Japanese menace from South Africa,” and we are safe; we cannot say to England: “You have secured the Mediterranean,” and we are now safe. We cannot say to America: “You have played your part,” and we are now safe. No, Sir, I say that we must launch a new offensive, and seeing that that is so, we cannot afford to treat the women like that, because we will have to call on them again. Many of them have resigned and are out of the army, but they will come into it again, and I plead with them to come back again. I want the Defence Department to reconsider their position as well. I want to repeat what my colleague mentioned the other day, and that is that there is no promotion for these women. The Defence Department should consider whether it is possible to give promotion. After all, when the war is over and these people have to retire to civilian life, many of them will have to seek employment. They are entitled to some form of recognition, and one way of recognising their spirit is to give them what is due, and that is some form of promotion.

I wish to speak on a matter concerning our Defence Force, but before doing so I would like to refer to the very unsatisfactory state existing in this country at the present time as regards our general war effort. Unfortunately there appears to be a feeling that in so far as South Africa is concerned we have finished with the war, and all we have to do is to make plans for our post-war world problems. Even in this House we are inclined to give greater attention to post-war problems than matters dealing with the war as it affects this country today. I wish to speak now on a baby, or shall I say the baby of our Defence Force, the South African Naval Force a force which has made a glorious name for itself in the short period of its existence. It is contemplated by the Prime Minister that we shall continue this particular service after the war, and if so I feel it will be necessary to increase its size so that we shall not have to rely upon Great Britain or any other country to protect our coasts and harbours as was the case in the early part of this war. The Prime Minister has stated that steps are contemplated to enlarge and improve the service. If this takes place, I feel that some alteration must be made in our naval force as it stands today. This, in my opinion, cannot be done without divorcing completely the naval force from the military authorities. Surely, our naval force is large enough to warrant it being controlled by naval men such as a naval board, and that it should no longer be under the control of the military. At present there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the South African Navy regarding promotions, and if we are to make this force attractive to young South Africans we must at once scrap our present ideas and start afresh. In order to give this House some idea as to the present unsatisfactory state regarding promotions, it is only necessary to quote one case, from which I think the House will realise the unsatisfactory position. A sub-lieutenant was appointed over an officer holding an extra master’s certificate who had been in command of the ship for many months. The senior officer was placed second in command of the same ship. The promotion, I am given to understand, was due to the father of the junior man holding high rank in the service. There are many such cases, but I quote only this one to give some idea of the unsatisfactory position. At the present time the highest rank in the naval force is that of captain, which is equivalent, I am informed, to a colonel in the army and in consequence he has little say in dealing with matters concerning his particular force. There have been complaints regarding the question of pay. Those complaints came before the Select Committee on Soldiers’ Pay last year, and it was decided that the anomalies that existed would be investigated. I understand that a committee has been appointed to deal with these anomalies, and I shall be interested if the Prime Minister can give us some idea as to when its report will be made public. Finally, I feel that if we are to arrange for the South African naval force to continue after this war, it is absolutely necessary that it should be divorced entirely from military control and either a rear-admiral or a commodore appointed to take charge of the force. The South African naval force is sufficiently large to warrant such an appointment, and for the formation of a naval board, which would be responsible to the Minister for carrying out naval policy and all matters in connection therewith.

Do you mean similar to the Defence Board?

A board of naval men, I think they know more about it. I put forward these suggestions because representation has been made to me that something of this description should be done. I feel that if these measures were adopted, we should be placing our naval force on a sound footing, and it would also serve as a reward for the gallant and magnificent work these men have performed during this war.

When we opposed this tremendous expenditure and this waste of millions of money on the war we did not mean to convey that we were opposed to any expansion of our Defence Force. We are anxious to see South Africa made safe for the future. The hon. member spoke about a State Fleet. We have not the slightest objection to expansion in that direction. We also want to see our Air Force strengthened so that in future we shall be able to stand up for ourselves. I well remember that one of my fellow officers in 1940 discussed this question with me and asked me what I thought of the war. I said that I was convinced that the country which was strongest in the air was going to win the war. I think we must all realise that South Africa should prepare itself so that even after the war we shall be able to hold our own against any country in the world. One hears all sorts of doctrines preached now-a-days. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) spoke about the “African troops.” I don’t know what he means by that. We are used to call a spade a spade. When we mean a native we call him a native, and when we talk of a coloured man we call him a coloured man; we call a white man a white man. When those hon. members speak in this House they should use terms which show what they mean. I have already drawn attention to the way the natives handle Government property, and I would appreciate it if the Minister of Defence would take steps to dismiss all surplus natives in the army, and also all surplus coloured men. That would help the farming population in the rural districts to get a few more labourers, even though the position is going to be a very difficult one to the rural areas, because the natives who have been in uniform are under the impression that they are the equal of the white soldiers, that they are no longer farm labourers but something much better. This sort of thing is going to have most disastrous effects so far as we are concerned. We warned against it when the war started, we said at the time that natives and coloured men should not be armed and that they should not be allowed to handle any guns. But what do we see today? If we study the reports we even find that coloured men and natives are employed today in the Broadcasting Stations. They are being trained so that they are becoming a danger to white civilisation in South Africa. We want to warn the Minister of Defence. He has gone quite far enough now, and he should call a halt. We have pointed out that our national assets are being neglected and destroyed. One hon. member quite correctly said that it was no use the Government and the controllers trying to make us believe that this or that material was not available. If we see the things that are available for Cavalcades and things of that kind we cannot believe all these statements. In addition to what we are spending on the war we still have the contribution of £20,000,000 by the Railways. While our mealies are lying and rotting on the ground, while there are no trucks and buck sails available for our mealies, hundreds of Railway sails are available for the so-called Liberty Cavalcade to put over the buildings there. What for? Is it for the national protection of the people?

Yes.

Yes, the hon. member can say “yes” but if he does not get mealies and wheat food he will die of starvation in spite of all these Liberty Cavalcades. The Minister of Defence should watch these things. Every time we have warned the Government, our warnings have come true. We want the Minister to take notice and to listen to what we say. We, as a Party, are not opposed to precautions being taken for the safety of South Africa; we want to see our sons and daughters properly trained and educated, and I want to say that nobody appreciates the services rendered to the Union of South Africa by our sons and daughters more than I do. We appreciate what they have done, but we must be fair towards the whole of our people and everyone must get the legitimate share to which he is entitled.

I want to say in reply to the hon. member opposite that one appreciates such a tribute coming from him. They wonder why a native is referred to as an African. Well, so long as we are referred to as Europeans surely it is right that a native should be entitled to style himself “African.” You cannot have it both ways. And so long as you deny the African the right to which he is fundamentally entitled, so long will you devolve upon him the right of calling himself an African. I want to add my meed to those who take exception to these dishonourable discharges. I have felt this for a long time. I know of cases of men who have been honourably discharged and who have been stigmatised by these words “dishonourably discharged.” Let me give one concrete example which I think will clarify the position better than a thousand platitudes. This is the case of an Irishman who came here in 1912. He got a job in the Post Office, and when war broke out he offered his services. Owing to conditions prevailing at the time he could not join up here so he left his wife here and he returned to England where he joined an Irish Unit, with which he served through the whole campaign until South Africa sent forces to Europe. He was then permitted to transfer from the Irish Fusiliers in which he was serving at the time to a South African unit. He returned after the war and he found that his absence from home had caused an estrangement between himself and his wife. He returned to his job in the Post Office. He was sued for maintenance by his wife and he refused to support her. He got a nonsupport order against him and was sent to Roeland Street gaol for a month. That was a hard labour conviction which was recorded against him and he lost his job. Some time after his wife again got a non-support order against him and he again went to gaol. Then, on New Year’s Eve, he got into trouble in a pub; the police were called in and were thrown out. Anyhow, he was taken and he was convicted. That was conviction No. 3. His fourth conviction came some time afterwards, after he had managed to get a job as a caretaker of some flats. In that job he had to work 24 hours per day for which he got 30s. per week. Well, he stole some jewellery and sold it. The police appeared on the scene, he was suspect and he made a clean breast. He had stolen £30 worth of jewellery which he had sold for £7. He went to gaol and served his time. Then he got some other jobs and when this war broke out he had a clean record over a period of some ten years. He enlisted in the Cape Peninsula Rifles, he went out of the Union, but word followed him that he was an ex-convict and he was returned to the Union and thrown out. He was given a dishonourable discharge. He could not get a job in this country by virtue of the fact that he was of eligible age, and they wanted him in uniform. So he destroyed his discharge certificate and enlisted in the navy. And I know as a fact that the whole time he was in the army he had no crime against him and he gave honourable service. He joined the navy and for twelve months he rendered valuable services until it was again discovered that he had a criminal record. He was thrown out of the navy, despite the fact that his officers said he was one of their best men. Again he was given a dishonourable discharge. Knowing the futility of that discharge he altered it. So he got a job on the Railways and he showed his discharge, but the moment it was found that he had been dishonourably discharged he was dismissed again, and they said there was no job for him. He was thrown on the streets. If that is the attitude taken up by the Minister of Railways who is one of the biggest employers, what hope is there for any man who gets his discharge in this way? Well, I represented this man’s case to the Secretary for Defence and to others, and they said it was a crying shame. The intervention of the Adjutant-General was resorted to and he immediately found an opportunity of further utilising the services of this man who was a born fighter, and he is now serving in the Union forces. There can be no question about it. These men who bump up against it sometimes are none the less able to fight for South Africa. They have some rights. And it is in defence of these rights that they seek to serve the country, and we welcome them, and we hope the opportunity will be given them to give South Africa their services, and we hope they will not be thrown on the streets. Now, what does honourable discharge mean? It means the ability for a man to get a cash payment. Something to make it possible for him to rehabilitate himself. I know of instances of men who have got dishonourable discharges who have been threatened with prosecution because they will not get out of uniform—well, they cannot get out of uniform, because they have nothing to get into and an honourable discharge is the only thing which enables them to get civilian clothes. I appeal to the Prime Minister. Have your dishonourable discharges if you like. Kick the man out if he is not fit to serve in the army—let him be kicked out for breaches of the military code—give him his conviction and then discharge him, but do not deprive him of the right of getting what he is entitled to—that is to get back into civilian clothes. We are making contributions to various funds—I am making my contributions and so are others, in order to enable our men to re-establish themselves in life, and to wear civilian clothes. I make my contributions for the services which these men have rendered. Let me quote a few words which Gen. Tanner used to employ—

In the front line, where the men are under discipline, out in the veld, these men are excellent soldiers often, but the moment you get them behind the lines where discipline is relaxed and they have the opportunity of getting drink they fall back. It is for lack of discipline that men are thrown out—today more than at any other time. Today we want to bring South Africa’s need for soldiers and volunteers to the notice of the public. Now, what did I notice in a newspaper the other day, after an investiture had been held here in Cape Town? I read this—the names of the men, of the heroes, who had been granted their D.S.C. or D.S.O. and their V.C.’s were hardly mentioned, but the newspaper report said: “Among those present was the Mayor of Cape Town” and then the names of a number of other distinguished people. But the names of the heroes who came there to receive their distinctions were either not mentioned or hardly mentioned at all. It is that sort of thing which one objects to. [Time limit.]

During the last Parliamentary session the pay of the private soldier was increased and increased substantially. But here is a feeling growing among the noncommissioned officers—I don’t know whether it extends to commissioned ranks—that the Treasury is not bearing the cost of that increase but that the non-commissioned officers are bearing it. When I was travelling from Maritzburg to Durban the other day I picked up two soldiers. They did not know who I was and they opened their mouths and groused, and I listened to them. It transpired that when a man leaves his unit to go to hospital or to some other unit he is sent to some depot pending re-posting to his own unit, or to some other unit—but he is reduced one step in rank and he suffers a reduction in pay and allowance. And furthermore, when he is re-posted, he is not at all sure that he is going to get back the rank which he had before, and it may even be that when he gets back to the unit which he left he will not get his rank back. Now, there is a lot of feeling developing among the men on account of that sort of thing. The case which I have just mentioned is not a solitary one. I have had it confirmed from quite a number of sources and it seems a wrong procedure that a man on leaving his unit should lose his rank and consequently some of his pay. The men have a feeling that the Treasury is not bearing the cost of the private soldier’s increase of pay, but that the non-commissioned officer is bearing it. Now, there is one other matter which is causing a lot of speculation among my constituents and possibly in other constituencies too, and that is why our South African Naval Forces do not bear the prefix of “Royal”. It seems rather peculiar that the Australian Navy is the Royal Australian Navy, the Canadian Navy is the Royal Canadian Navy. Why are not the South African Naval Forces called the Royal South African Navy? I think this is a matter for the Prime Minister to deal with.

I should like to say a word or two in support of what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), about these dishonourable discharges of natives. As I understand it, the insinuation behind the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Western is that in these dishonourable discharges there has been some unfair treatment, some victimisation of the natives, and I must confess that from the figures which he has quoted, I am inclined to draw the same inference as he drew. It is very hard to accept that there is among these 10,000 or so natives who have been discharged a proportion of criminally inclined natives four times that of the Europeans. It is very hard to accept these figures. It may be so. We may have a lot of scallywags among the natives and the non-Europeans in the army, but I question it. It certainly does not square with what we have heard even from the Prime Minister himself about the good type of non-European we were recruiting. But I cannot help feeling that the right inference is that these discharges are not done on a proper or fair basis. If we have this very high proportion of criminally inclined natives, then that alone is a matter for enquiry, but my suggestion is that it is not so, and I would urge on the Prime Minister the desirability of making a full enquiry into the circumstances under which these natives have been discharged. I entirely subscribe to the point made in regard to the stigma which must inevitably attach to soldiers, nonEuropean and otherwise, who have been discharged in this dishonourable fashion. Who have been given a dishonourable discharge. I do not want to say any more but that I would welcome some assurance from the Prime Minister that this matter will be thoroughly looked into and the system under which these discharges have been made overhauled. Speaking of the system by which these discharges are made, one or two further points occur to me. In looking at the replies given by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Cape Eastern I find that non-European soldiers are given a dishonourable discharge for various reasons—namely, if they have been convicted either before or after attestation, or in some other manner if their records are bad. I abbreviate the various reasons. But I do find among the criteria which are applied by the officers whose function it is to give them, or withhold an honourable discharge, no reference to the nature of the services they have rendered in the army. I find no indication that whatever a man’s previous record may have been, that he can expiate his previous misdemeanours by good service in the army. In particular I want to draw attention to the category of soldiers who may have been dishonourably discharged for conviction by a court prior to attestation, and one would expect in relation to such a soldier to find that he would have an opportunity while serving in the army to expiate his previous misdemeanours and of proving that he was a satisfactory man to be re-absorbed in civilian life. This seems an extremely serious matter. A dishonourable discharge as mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Western, and by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, marks a man for life. It is equivalent to a previous conviction by a court of law, and one asks oneself what sort of a tribunal comes to the conclusion that a man is to be dishonourably discharged. I don’t know what the system is, but again I would ask the Prime Minister to give some assurance to the House that he is satisfied with the type of procedure followed, with the criteria to be applied and the personnel who are acting as judges in matters of this importance. One cannot help getting the feeling from the figures given that these soldiers come before their commanding officers and that no definite procedure is laid down by which their cases can be judged— there is no uniformity in approaching the problem. One tribunal may take one view, and another may take a different view, and you may well get a sort of haphazard system, a more or less ill thought out procedure by which these men are thrown on civilian life without serious consideration being given to the gravity of throwing them out with this stigma attached to them. I don’t want to detain the House on a matter which has been the subject of some comment. All I ask is an assurance that full consideration will be given to this matter and that these dishonourable discharges are carried out in a thoroughly equitable manner.

I do not want the House to misinterpret the remarks of the hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse). His remarks amount to this, that we do admire the bravery and the courage of the Union Forces. You would even admire me if I performed an act of bravery, even if you don’t like me. But in saying that, we say in the same breath that we disapprove of these young men going forth to give their precious lives for a cause in which South Africa has no interest, a war which is not in the interest of our country, a war which was started in the interest of the Jewish world. I want to remind the Prime Minister of his words and of the promise which he made at the beginning of this war. He promised me and others that he would not send our troops across our borders. Then Italy entered the war and the Prime Minister said that we would now have to send troops up North. Well, the whole of this Sub-Continent is free from the so-called enemy now and we have the right to demand of the Prime Minister that he keep his word and recall the Union forces and demobilise them. The Prime Minister cannot deny that he did promise that he would not send Union forces overseas. Why does he persist in saddling the country with these heavy burdens? Why does he extend his war powers—why does he impose a heavier burden on the country every year? I want to put this question to the Prime Minister. How much longer is this war going to last? At the beginning he said it would last six months. Afterwards he said a year, and only recently he said it would be over by Christmas. We are in March now. If the war has to go on another five years the question is whether our country can afford to bear such heavy burdens every year. I want to say that the people in the country are tired; we have been bearing those burdens too long. I want to warn the Prime Minister that his own ranks will become war weary and even the Union forces will become war weary. Numbers of them who have come back have said that they have had enough. It is high time the Prime Minister started thinking of cutting down expenses; it is high time he reduced this war expenditure. It is high time he realised that we are a small country and a poor country, and that we cannot allow ourselves to be bled to death for the sake of this war. I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a total concentration in Italy, where he is now going to send 30,000 or 40,000 of our troops. There are forces from Great Britain there and from America, Canada and New Zealand, India, France and Italy. The whole of the British forces are concentrated there, and what are they doing? They are up against a brick wall. It seems to me that if Russia goes on as it is doing today Stalin will be celebrating in Berlin one of these days, and the concentrated Allied forces will still be lying outside Cassino. And what is going to happen then—they will immediately call on our Prime Minister to use our troops against Russia. Then there will be a world war against Russia to help England, and I wonder what people will then have to say about the Russians—when that day comes they will be called vermin and what not. The Allies have been struggling hard to open a second front. It was to have happened on the 1st January. Three months have passed and we see no sign of it yet. Even if a second front is opened I suppose it will look like Cassino in Italy and the Russians will have to do the fighting. Now, there is another point to which I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention. If we compare the previous world war with the present one, it appears to me that the position today is more or less identical, except that the Allies now have these great Russian forces to help them and that Turkey is not on the side of the Axis. How many men did we send to the last world war? We sent about 25,000 men, and our expenditure was kept down to a minimum. Why must the Union now suddenly keep an army of 250,000 men, both in the field and on the home front, both white and coloured? Why must the Union make this huge contribution? Why must almost one-tenth of the population of the Union of South Africa go to war? Why this great sacrifice? We say that it is not necessary and that too much is demanded of us. The Prime Minister said that once Abyssinia was taken and the enemy was away from our borders, our troops would come back.

He never said that.

That is what he gave us to understand; he said the enemy must be driven from our borders. I now ask why these additional burdens must be imposed on the people of this country. [Time limit.]

I don’t think the House expects me to take the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) seriously. He talks of the so-called enemy. Imagine! The cruel Germans are now the so-called enemy—the Germans who had their eye on South Africa and who were prepared to establish a small republic of Boers somewhere in the desert. I suppose the idea was that the hon. member for Namaqualand was to be the president of that republic. We would not have begrudged him that honour, but anyhow we are glad the hon. member’s son got greater inspiration from his mother than from the hon. member, and he is doing his duty in England today.

Just as your inspiration was different from that of your father.

I shall certainly not look for inspiration from the hon. member for Waterberg.

You look for inspiration overseas.

I know where the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) got his inspiration, every member of the House knows it. The hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse) spoke about the large amounts we have to sacrifice for the war. I have no doubt that every one in this House would prefer to see that money spent more beneficially, for the building of dams, for the conservation of water and for the establishment of industries. What have the people of South Africa to say about it? Less than a year ago the people of South Africa in an unequivocal manner gave their approval to the attitude and the actions of the Prime Minister and the Government in siding with England. They did so by giving the Prime Minister and the Government the greatest majority this country has ever seen. I want to refer very briefly to another point mentioned by the hon. member for Heilbron. He did a great injustice to the coloured men and natives who have contributed their share to the war. The hon. member referred to the drivers of military lorries which are used for the carting of food and fertilisers, and he said that it would have been better to have used white men for that purpose. He intimated that the lorries were being abused and ruined. I think his remarks were unfair. In my part of the country, on my farm, twenty-two Government lorries cart kraal manure every day. Originally they were driven by Europeans. I don’t want to say anything about that, but one of those lorries capsised and a coloured man lost his life. But what’s the position today? There are natives and coloured drivers today and I must say that everything is done in a most orderly manner, and one can almost measure up the tracks of the one lorry after the other.

Angels with wings.

Hon. members of the Opposition look at everything through their own narrow spectacles, and they are always very much prejudiced. I want to put the position as it is. It is the attitude adopted by hon. members over there which causes the people of South Africa to reject them.

Zoutpansberg.

I want to mention a few matters which I feel it my duty to bring to the notice of the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Defence. I am sure the Minister will remember that last year we approached him, as farmers, through our organisations, with a request to assist us and provide the necessary lorries to cart our grain from the farms. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was kind enough to give us assistance and we are very grateful for the help he gave. We also got numbers of prisoners-of-war. Our crop was brought in, and eventually the lorries were placed at our disposal. It took from July, August, practically to December, to get the crop moved, but the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is, I am sure, not aware of everything that has happened between the farmers and the drivers of those lorries. I have a letter here from a farmer and I was aware of what that farmer said before I left Kroonstad—I knew that he had made an affidavit before the detectives in regard to this matter. Now, what happened there?

There had been corruption of the gravest kind. There were officers, sergeants and corporals in charge of convoys of five—five lorries to cart mealies. Corruption came into the whole business then. The farmers were placed in such a position that they could not get their grain moved. Then these drivers came along and fixed their prices. I have letters here, and I am prepared to give the Prime Minister the information. I have a letter here in which it is stated that a sergeant told this particular man and other people: “I earned £16 the last two nights and I am going to take a holiday on that money”. The price which farmers had to pay to the corporal or sergeant in charge of the convoy was £1 per 100 bags, and every native driver had to get 5s. per every 100 bags. If the farmer paid that the lorries of the Defence Department were used after hours and the grain was transported rapidly. That is what happened at Kroonstad, in the Henneman area, at Wesselsbron and Odendaalsrust, and afterwards it became generally known that if a farmer was open to corruption those people were also open to corruption, and those farmers who were prepared to pay the extra money got their grain moved while the grain of other farmers had to wait weeks and months on the farms and had to lie and rot.

Did not the lorries do any work during the day time? It seems most extraordinary.

I want to tell the Minister that it is a well-known fact that the lorries carried one or two loads in the day time, and early in the afternoon at 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock they returned to their camp and the lorries were fixed up then for night trips. I have seen them go out after 5 o’clock and I have seen them start off with convoys to go and load up. It is corruption of the worst kind. I felt it necesssary to raise this matter here because our farmers are again coming to see the Prime Minister, and we hope he will help us again.

Where do they get petrol?

Their tanks are always full. The Prime Minister will again have to help us get our grain shifted. The farmers have not got the slightest chance of getting hold of lorries, and even if we want to buy we cannot get permits to buy lorries. We shall again have to come to the Minister to assist us to get our crops moved. I therefore want to ask him to have this question enquired into and see that these things do not happen again. I can mention farmers who have sat for three months waiting to get their mealies shifted because they were not prepared to put the extra money into the pockets of these people. Then there is the question of the native drivers. They come to the farms, and the lorries come at such hours that the farmer and his native labourers cannot help to off-load the stuff. The native driver demands an extra 2s. or 3s. for offloading 30 bags of mealies. If the farmer is not prepared to pay it means he has to take his car and drive to the station, and offload with his own labour, and then he has to bring his labourers back because the convoy won’t come back. These things have been going on on a large scale and I have all the information here. But what is worse, after this matter had been reported to the South African Police and detectives had gone out to make investigations and to get affidavits from the farmers, instructions were received from the Department of Defence that the detectives were to leave the matter and that the Department itself would take up the question. The Department did take it up at that stage, but so far we have not heard another word about it.

I want to bring one matter to the notice of the Prime Minister. Very much concern is felt that soldiers on discharge from the army are required to sign a form exempting the army from liability regarding them. I want to give the facts of a case. In November, 1941, a certain soldier was on leave; he returned to Pretoria and in Pretori˙ he saw a European woman being molested by a native. He went to her assistance, and this native shot him in the leg. He was in hospital for a matter of six months, when owing to certain domestic reasons he wanted to leave the hospital, and he was required to sign a form indemnifying the army from any further liability for his injury. I may say, Sir, that that leg is not right yet, it still requires treatment and it will probably be a very long time indeed before the man is right. It was felt at the time that it was unfair on the man to sign this form, but as he wanted to get out he signed it. Now it seems to me that soldiers ought to have some independent body to which they can go and have their case examined, and get advice as to whether they should sign this form or not. There should be some independent body outside the army in a position to advise the man whether he should sign or not. In this particular case the man was most concerned, because having signed the form he is now told that the army has no longer responsibility. Under the Defence Act, I believe, it is held that this soldier was not on duty at the time.

That is right.

Not being on duty, he does not fall within the terms of the Act, and even if he had been killed at that particular time, he would have had no redress under the ordinary pension law of the country, except under this other sub-section. Obviously, if not officially on duty the man was doing his duty in coming to the assistance of the person being assaulted, and it seems to me to be drawing the line very fine indeed to say he was not on duty. He was certainly doing his duty as a citizen of the country. I think a case like that looks for some redress. The Act lays it down very clearly that the injury must be contracted “on or by reason of such service or duty,” that duty being on active service. Therefore no pension is payable under the Act. Well, this particular individual who is still in the Defence Force, is not claiming any particular redress now, but such people do want protection when they leave the army if they suffer under serious disability in after life. It does seem to me that some provision should be made to cover a case like that. What I want to stress is that no man should be required to sign this form when he is in hospital, because he is not in a fit state to judge whether to sign or not. In any case I think these forms should be vetted by some independent body outside the Defence Department, call it the soldier’s friend or something else. I hope the Prime Minister will see how far such a case as this can be met and relief given.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister a matter in connection with which representations have been made to me. A little more than two years ago 32 policemen were stationed at Durban. They took the “red” oath and were then forced to go to the front and as a result of this they deserted. A number of them gave themselves up very soon; others stayed away longer; but I asume that by this time they have all been traced. In that connection I just want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether, since heavy sentences were imposed on these people in some cases, he will not regard this matter in the same light in which he looks upon the internments today, in other words, whether the time has not arrived when in the interests of unity and in order to remove the feeling which has been created, we should as far as possible, wipe out the traces of the past. The postion is that these 32 policemen took the oath, put the red tab on their shoulders, and were then forced to go up North. They were unwilling to go and they deserted. Before they did so they attempted to get their discharge. There is one specific case in my constituency of a man who says that he insisted on his discharge on three occasions, but it was refused, and according to their way of thinking there was no alternative but to leave the service and to desert. I should like the hon. Minister to see this whole matter in the light of the circumstances which prevailed at that time. They never intended going up North, but a higher officer —in this case reference is made to a captain—told them that the taking of the red oath was purely a formal matter and that they would not be sent up North, and that they need therefore not be afraid of taking the red oath. According to their statement, they were induced in this way to take the oath. I should like to point out something else to the hon. member, and that is that two years ago a large number of the police refused to wear the red tabs, but those who refused and who remained on in the police service were attacked by the rabble, as happened in Cape Town. The matter became so serious in Cape Town and Johannesburg and other places that the Government abandoned this thing and no longer required the police to wear the red tab. At that time, therefore, they took the red tab for their own protection, to protect them against attacks. I think these are circumstances which the hon. Minister must take into consideration. The majority of them, perhaps all of them, have already given themselves up. What sentences were imposed on them? According to these representations, the sentences imposed differed very greatly in severity. Some of them who gave themselves up were sentenced to a month’s imprisonment; other to three month’s imprisonment. But in the case of the man in my constituency—a certain Smit, who gave himself up in August last—he was sentenced to one year’s hard labour and he is today in the Central Gaol in Pretoria, where he has to serve a sentence of one year’s hard labour. In another case, that of De Beer who gave himself up in December, a sentence of two years’ hard labour was imposed, and he is also in the Central Gaol in Pretoria. The treatment meted out to him seems to be unusually severe, inasmuch as he is only allowed to write one letter per month to his mother, who is very worried about him and she is allowed to see him only once a month. Those are the representations which have been made to me, and I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, in view of all these circumstances, and in view of his attitude towards the question of internment, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice sime time ago released criminals from the prisons on a large scale, to give this matter his sympathetic attention.

I should also like to bring something to the notice of the Minister of Defence, i.e. in connection with the youth brigades. I think the work which is being done there is of an excellent nature, and many parents including supporters of the Opposition, are very grateful for the excellent work which is being done by Col. Murray and his staff. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to allow this work to suffer shipwreck after the war, but that every effort should be made to carry on with this movement in the same spirit in which it is being undertaken today. Then there is another matter in regard to which I feel very concerned, and that is in connection with the older people who joined the Essential Services Battalion some time ago. They were not regarded as forming part of the forces. They do wear the uniform of the Defence Force, but if anything were to happen to them, their families would receive no compensation. I want to ask the hon. Minister, where cases are submitted to him where a family has been placed in difficult circumstances because of the death of such a person on service, that something should be done for the members of his family. There is another matter to which I wish to draw attention, and that is in connection with farmers who are today on active service. From time to time requests have been made by farmers on active service, who have been in the service for the past three or four years, that if possible they should be discharged from the service in order to enable them to carry on with their farming. As one who has to make my living out of farming, I realise that they have experienced great difficulties. They gave up their farming operations when they enlisted, and not only did they lose what they would have earned, but they also lost their capital. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) was concerned about doctors and the financial assistance which they will get when they return. I feel that the claims of farmers who have made great sacrifices should be considerd when they apply for permission to carry on with their farming. I think it is heart-rending that we still have to hear from the other side today that they were opposed to the war policy, and that they are opposed to the Government spending money for war purposes, while the majority of members on the other side who are dependent on farming have never made as much money in their lives as they are making today, and I think the farmers of South Africa can be grateful that this money is being spent on the war, and that the Prime Minister convinced the people of South Africa that they should defend the country and take part in the war. If that had not happened, many farmers in South Africa would have been ruined today and would have starved. There are hon. members on the other side who have built up capital which they would never have built up if it had not been for the war. I ask, therefore ….

According to you the war is a good thing?

I must say that I do not believe that the hon. member who made that interjection can be dependent on farming, otherwise he would not make that interjection. But if the farmers of this country want to be honest, they will thank God for this war.

I suppose in that case you pray that the war should continue?

I just want to say why this side of the House obtained such a big majority during the recent elections. It is because supporters of the Opposition voted for the Government because they realised how much this Government was doing for them.

You ought not to be here.

May I say a few words in connection with Zoutpansberg. This is the second occasion on which Zoutpansberg has been mentioned here. I want to repeat that out of 7,000 voters in my constituency no less than 1,000 of them were courageous enough to do their share in seeing this war through. There is many a lonely grave in the deserts of the North, which brings sorrow to the mothers.

Whose fault is that?

And you say that war is a good thing.

I just want to say that hon. members on the other side are today concerned as to what will happen in the future. I think they ought to be grateful that those mothers were magnanimous enough for the sake of our freedom, and also of hon. members on that side, to give their sons who lie buried in those lonely graves. The day will arrive when hon. members on the other side will be proud of those men who went up North to fight for their freedom.

Under which vote are you talking now?

There is another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. the men who die of natural causes in the Union. When a man dies in the Union and the doctors certify that he died through natural causes, his relatives do not receive a pension. But if he died of natural causes outside the Union, his relatives do get a pension. I want to make an appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to see to it that the relatives of men who were kept in the Union, through no fault of their own—they were prepared to go to any place in Africa—will have the same privileges as the relatives of men who die outside the Union. I know of a few cases in my own constituency where mothers with small children are not entitled to that privilege, and I hope something will be done by the Minister to come to their assistance in view of the fact that these men were prepared to go to any place in Africa. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the natives. I think that more natives were probably drawn from my constituency than any other constituency in the Union of South Africa to serve this country when this country needed them, and I was disappointed today to hear hon. members saying that the natives were not fairly treated in the Defence Force. I must say in all honesty that in my constituency there has not been a single case in which the Defence Force has not taken sympathetic action. The Defence Force has always referred the case to me or to the Commission to see whether we could not be of assistance to those natives. I am very sorry that hon. members on the other side objected to native soldiers driving lorries. They are concerned about the fact that natives drive these lorries, but not one of them is concerned about the fact that natives work in their kitchens or look after their children. [Time limit.]

I shall be glad if the hon. Minister can give the House some information as to the arrangements which have been made for the reception of our South African prisoners-of-war who have escaped to Switzerland. From all accounts they are being well treated by the Swiss people, and I do not know that our Department has made arrangements as regards the boarding, the feeding and the clothing of these men. But I am concerned about this, that if they have to stay in Switzerland for a long time their rehabilitation in civilian life will be retarded, and I shall be very pleased if the hon. Minister will give the House some information as to the steps which have been taken to enable these men, many of whom are young students who started their university careers four years ago, to resume their studies or work in Switzerland. There is another point that worries me and that is the fact that many of our prisoners-of-war in Italy had deducted from their pay the small amount of Italian money they got at the rate of exchange that prevailed before the war, with the result that many of the men who subsequently escaped found that instead of having a credit balance in their pay book, they had a debit balance. I would like to ask the Minister to treat cases as fairly and as leniently as possible. After all it is no fault of their own that they were taken prisoner and I am confident that my appeal will not fall on deaf ears. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the question of pension boards. There are many medical men in civilian life today who served in the last war and also in this war, and I think it would perhaps be advisable for the Defence Department to consider the question of anoointing a civilian as one of the members of the pension board. I am confident that they can get men of wide experience, and I am sure that if this were done it would give satisfaction to all the men who apply for pensions.

I should like to say a few words in regard to the Defence Vote. I am sorry that the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Cilliers) practically accused this side of the House of always placing wrong facts before this House. The hon. member is very concerned about the result of the Zoutpansberg by-election. He also pleaded for the native drivers on the motor buses. Before I come to that, I want to say a few words, first of all, in regard to the Defence Vote. I do not think that hon. members in this House can support that vote in view of the fact that an amount of £51,000,000 is being asked for Defence, and the House has not been told how that money will be spent and what it is required for. It is merely stated that it is for Defence, but how is it going to be spent? Can we, as the representatives of the voters, agree to vote such huge sums of money when we do not know how the money will be spent? The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) said that the Minister was practically being given a blank cheque, and it is not only this £51,250,000; it is practically more than £100,000,000 which we are voting for defence. No, let us be reasonable.

You are not being reasonable.

Can hon. members on the other side say that they know how this money is going to be spent? We know that we are at war, but nevertheless we want to know how the money is going to be spent. The people in the country will have to pay for this. I say that no one in this House can agree to this Vote with a clear conscience. Then I should like to say a few words in connection with the native drivers on the military lorries which convey mealies to the towns. My constituency is a very big mealie-producing area. Last year we had great trouble with the native drivers on the military lorries, and the farmers are objecting to the employment of native drivers. We would like to make use of those lorries, but the native drivers have no sense of responsibility. They are doing work which they should undoubtedly not be allowed to do. The farmers object to that. I have a letter here which comes from my constituency in which the farmers ask that the Government should make available additional lorries, but they ask that the Minister should employ European drivers. I want to express the hope that if no European civilians are available, the services of returned European soldiers, who are walking the streets and who cannot find employment, will be used. Let the Government employ them to drive these lorries.

I want to draw the attention of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to something which occurs quite frequently and that is the question of overpayments in the army. But in the circumstances I am not going to say very much about these overpayments because one realises the difficulties in the army in connection with the soldier’s pay. I want to say this, that I think that these overpayments were quite excusable, because I believe there were not sufficient auditors, and I think that that is the most likely cause of overpayments. But what I would like to complain about is this. When overpayments take place in this way the men are called upon to refund the money, and I want to say a few words in regard to the hardships experienced in many cases in refunding these overpayments. I know of one case where a man’s wife had overdrawn something like £120. This man was allowed to leave the army provided he undertook to repay this amount at the rate of £2 10s. per week, which is equivalent to £10 per month, and my information is that when this man left the army he got a job of 20s. per shift on the mines. I understand that his wife had to live on £3 10s. per week in order to be able to liquidate that amount. This woman carried on and maintained her family on £3 10s. per week for a matter of 6 or 7 months, until representations were made to the Paymaster-General. He then reduced the weekly instalment to £1 10s. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to see that when overpayments do take place and the men are called upon to refund the money, a more sympathetic and a more reasonable method will be adopted so that men will not be placed in a position of having to repay £6 or £7 and in some cases £10 per month when they earn only £6 per week. I hope that he will take the necessary steps to see that the hardships are reduced as far as possible in the future.

I am sorry the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) is not in his seat, because I wanted to say a few words to him. It is remarkable that the result of a by-election can make a man so extremely nervous. The hon. member has a wonderful temperament. He gets up and tells us how grateful we should be that war was declared so that we can make money, but in the same breath he becomes extremely sad because many young men had to sacrifice their lives in this war. We want to ask that hon. member who declared war. Was he himself not instrumental in causing this sadness? His argument is tantamount to this, that war was declared to give us good prices for our products. The hon. member stood up here the other day and told us that the people in his constituency called him “Uncle Jim.” I just want to remind the hon. member that there was another notorious man in this country, who also bore that name, but he was Starr Jameson. The hon. member is wrong. The people do not call him “Uncle Jim”; they call him “Empire Jim,” and we need therefore take no further notice of him. I want to address myself to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and tell him that the various agricultural unions in the country are concerned about the position in connection with war material. When the war comes to an end we assume that there will be large quantities of wire and poles and wood and clothing, galvanised iron and lorries etc., and we have been told that even today there are certain people who are selling such articles as shirts at huge profits. Since there is a shortage of wire and poles the Agricultural Unions are concerned about the fact that these articles may be sold by tender and that the people of South Africa will be required to pay huge prices for them. I should like to know from the Prime Minister on what conditions he will sell this material after the war. I hope he will not do what was done after the last war—I may be mistaken but I think it was done after the last war — i.e., that these articles will be sold by tender and that the individual who buys it will be entitled to make colossal profits. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether it will not be possible to give such articles as wire and poles to the local co-operative societies after the war, so that they in turn can sell it at a reasonable price to be fixed by the Government. I realise that in the case of clothing, shoes and shirts …

And artificial dentures.

I can only reply to that interjection by reminding the hon. member of the fact that he still has to learn many things in this House, and one of them is civility. In the case of clothing it may be impossible to eliminate the middle man completely, but on behalf of the farmers’ associations we ask that the middleman should be eliminated as far as possible, and that the Controller will fix the price at which the articles have to be sold. I now want to deal with another matter. I have one letter before me, but it is not the only letter which I have received in connection with this matter. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will know that the soldiers enlisted for a period of four years; or let me put it this way: This man writes that he had to sign on for four years; or for the duration of the war, whichever was the shorter period. I am given to understand that no soldier can be kept on after reaching the age of 60 years. This man, after he had been in the army for three years and four months, received his discharge. Today he is in this position, that his farm has been let and he cannot carry on his farming, and he is practically unemployed. He states in this letter that there are many other persons who are 60 years of age, but who, in spite of that, are retained in the service and moreover they are in receipt of a pension. I should like to have this information from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to know whether there are any exceptions as far as this matter is concerned. Is every person who reaches the age of 60 required to leave the service or are there any exceptions? I regard it as unreasonable that a man should be brought under the impression that he is enlisting for a period of four years, and that he then finds himself in this position that he cannot return to his farming operations owing to the fact that he let his farm to someone else for the full period of four years.

I would like to appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister on lines similar to those put forward by the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen), that is, in connection with soldiers who have received a dishonourable discharge. I feel, Sir, that some of these cases need a little more human treatment. In Pretoria West several soldiers have come to see me who have received a dishonourable discharge and finding that the certificate bears the endorsement “conduct fair,” employment is actually found for them but after enquiry is made to the military authorities the result is that in some cases they are refused employment. I have had a mother and son come to this House frequently during the last three weeks to see me. The lad enlisted with the permission of the Railway Administration before he was 21 years of age, and whilst in Pretoria, having returned from the North, he happened to become associated with two other soldiers very much older than himself. These individuals became intoxicated and this youngster was with them, and unfortunately the two soldiers robbed an old man and the lad was arrested along with them. He was brought before the court and was given a suspended sentence, which resulted in his dismissal from the army. His certificate was endorsed “conduct fair” and he now finds that so far he cannot get his job back on the Railways. This lad was misled by others, and it was through his association with them that he found himself in this predicament. I feel that a matter of this kind deserves further investigation. I would like also to appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister for a special investigation to be made into the long delay which takes place in the case of would-be discharged soldiers at the dispersal depots. I find from personal experience and actual investigation in Pretoria West that some soldiers who actually received their discharge certificates are kept in the dispersal depot as long as a fortnight and even longer. I feel that when the armv has no further use for a man and he has civil employment to return to, it is not economic that soldiers should be kept kicking their heels in a dispersal depot. I want to make a special appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister on behalf of married soldiers, in particular that where the men have homes to go to. I feel that it would be more economical to the Government if they were allowed to go to their homes and their discharge certificates then forwarded to them. There is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in regard to this question, and I trust that the Prime Minister will cause an investigation to be made into the matter.

I should like to deal with three aspects of this matter this afternoon, and make an appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister or the Department to bring about certain changes. Some of these points have already been made, and I want to associate myself with what has been said in that connection. The first is the question of dishonourable discharge from the army. There is a variety of reasons for such dishonourable discharges. There is, for example, the case where a young soldier, quite unconsciously and through no fault of his own, got into difficulties. One also finds that a young soldier who merely has an argument with his sergeant or anyone senior to him gets a mark against his name. As one who has done a great deal to place returned soldiers in civilian positions, I think I have the right to speak here, and I want to assure the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that it makes it very difficult for one to place a returned soldier when he has been dishonourably discharged. He may be a very good bank clerk; he may be a good manager; he may hold a good executive position, but it still does not mean that he will make a good soldier. I think it would meet the case if in those cases where the person was guilty of a serious contravention, a bare discharge certificate were issued. That is a chapter in the man’s life which will have to be closed at some future date, and I feel it would meet the case if a bare discharge certificate were simply issued. The second aspect in regard to which I feel very strongly—and I am convinced that the Prime Minister agrees with me—is the question of pensions of soldiers in the Union. One difficulty with which the Department is faced is that any measure which is adopted would have to apply to all members of the civil service. One appreciates that difficulty with which the Department is faced, but I feel that the civil service, if the Government makes such an attempt to improve the position, will not claim the same privileges but will realise that it is a special attempt to meet the returned soldier. I refer to Section 35 of Act No. 44 of 1942. There are two aspects of this case. I have here before me the case of a certain woman in Johannesburg. I discussed this matter with the official concerned at the time. This woman’s husband was comparatively old, but he had a good position. He gave up his position when an appeal was made for volunteers, and he did his duty. What happened? He was accepted, and he died on active service, and his wife received the following reply from the Commissioner of Pensions in connection with his case—

If a man has an ulcer in the stomach when he joins the army to go and fight, it is very difficult for a doctor to say without any doubt that the man’s conditions was not aggravated by the change of food, the change of water, the change of climatic conditions and the work which he is called upon to do. I feel that we must see that justice is done to the soldiers, and that we give the same facilities to those who were required to remain in this country. In connection with this matter I think hon. members have all received a circular from the African Legion of the British Empire Service League. I should like to read an extract from it to the House—

An important aspect of that is this, that many of the people who may not have been 100 per cent, physically fit, although they did not take part in active service in the sense that they fought with rifles, did enable other people who were physically fit to take part in the war. I want to make a strong plea in connection with this matter. If the department does not see its way clear to amend that portion of the Act, so as to include soldiers who serve inside the Union, and to treat them in the same way as soldiers who were up North, I want to make the alternative plea that that section of the Act which relates to the Special Grants Board, should empower this body under Section 35 of Act No. 44 of 1942 ….

The hon. member cannot suggest legislation.

No, I am not suggesting legislation. I am only pleading for a change in connection with this matter.

The hon. member cannot advocate legislation.

Our request is only that this Special Grants Board should be allowed to increase the amount from £120 tot £240. Cases arise where the Special Grants Board would like to provide relief to the family. A widow may have a number of children, and it is impossible for her to make ends meet on £120 per annum, but nevertheless the board finds that it cannot make a higher award. Then I want to raise this further point. There is a feeling in the country—as was stated here this afternoon—that there has been a slackening off as far as recruiting is concerned, and that there is an impression that the war is already over. That spirit prevails in the country. With all due respect, I want to say that I do not entirely blame the public for that. I do not want to hold it against the public that they are showing a lack of interest in the war effort, or that they do not take the war effort to heart. To a great extent that is due to the fact that we are too slow in giving our soldiers to understand what awaits them after the war. The other day when I asked the Minister of Demobilisation to make a statement, he advanced the excuse that this was not the appropriate time for such a statement. But we all expected the Minister concerned to make a full statement during the debate on this vote in the estimates. We are still waiting. We have now reached the Committee stage, and we want to express the hope that the Minister will find the necessary time to make such a statement on his Vote this afternoon. With all due respect, I want to say to our Leader the Prime Minister, that this is one of the matters in regard to which people feel very strongly. We must remember that we are not dealing with the soldiers, but also with the soldiers’ families who are interested in this matter. In conclusion I want to say that the war effort in South Africa will be considerably speeded up by a timeous, comprehensive statement in regard to our future plans as far as the returned soldiers are concerned.

I should like to bring a few matters to the notice of the Prime Minister. It came to our knowledge that there were large quantities of tyres at certain camps, and on close investigation it appeared that those tyres were still fit for use. The position is that the Prime Minister made an appeal to the farmers to produce. The farmer’s means of transport is the lorry of the private lorry owner. Owing to the shortage of tyres, that means of transport which the farmer used to have has completely disappeared. This causes great loss because the farmers cannot convey their grain to the station in time, and we hope that the Prime Minister will cause investigation to be made to ascertain whether that is so. We feel perturbed about it. If there is an accumulation of used tyres, it may be that after the war those tyres will fall into the hands of big speculators, whereas they could have been of service to the people in these days. Another matter is the consumption of petrol. It has been found that petrol is wasted in military camps. In the North-Eastern Free State we found that owing to the shortage of petrol alcohol was mixed with the petrol, resulting in great damage to certain parts of the motor car. We do hope the Prime Minister will give his attention to this matter. Then we feel that in view of the fact that the war is no longer being fought in Africa, that there is one unit which is no longer required. I refer to the home front. Those men are no longer needed. A great saving would be effected by demobilising them. In my constituency there is peace and quiet, and I cannot see any reason why those men should be retained in the army. The additional costs involved in retaining them could then be saved. Then I also want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact that we feel, since the war is no longer being fought in Africa, that it is desirable to demobilise the coloured and native soldiers. The contacts which they have made and the bad influences which have been brought to bear on them, have definitely had an undesirable effect on them. We have already experienced that in the past. There was an outcry from all the coloured people to be given aeroplanes and cannons. That was not to fight the Japanese. Whom did they want to fight, unless they wanted to fight the Europeans? We feel that that idea should not be entertained, and bv demobilising them and getting them away from weapons, that idea on their part can perhaps be dispelled, resulting in greater safety to the country. I say that the effect of those influences can be reduced by removing them from those places where they come into contact with these influences. We hone that the hon. Minister will give his attention to this matter as well. We also want to point out that there are ideal factories for the manufacture of cannons and bombs. In view of the appeal which has been made to the farmers to produce, cannot provision be made for workshops for the repair of implements? If it can be done we shall be able to prevent great losses in the future, as far as grain is concerned. If there is an efficient workshop for the repair of lorries, tractors, and threshing machines, it would help us very greatly.

I want to say a few words in regard to this debate. Notwithstanding the criticisms which have been levelled against the Department of Defence, I want to say that South Africa can never be grateful enough for what has been done for the country by the Department of Defence, and more especially by the Minister of Defence, in this short period. When we think what the position was in 1939, when an army had to be raised, we can never be grateful enough for what has been done since that time. We pay homage to our Prime Minister for what he has done for the protection of the freedom of South Africa. I just want to add one word, and that is that since there are many Boer sons in the army today, especially in the case of the Western Province, and since there are constituencies like mine where the people go in for deciduous fruit farming and intensive cultivation, and those boys are applying for discharge from the army or for agricultural leave so that they can assist with the farming operations, I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to see to what extent he can come to our assistance in those cases. During the past few days numerous cases of this nature have come to my notice, but I could not help them, and I want to make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister to see whether it is not possible to meet those boys when they apply for permission to undertake work which is absolute essential. Labour is a big problem in these days. The crops have to be gathered, and since the busy season is from January to June, and we have to do our work in trying circumstances. I want to make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister to assist the farmers in that respect.

I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that at the internment camp at Andalusia it is still the practice to use coloured soldiers as guards. That is an unpleasant state of affairs, and I want to remind the Prime Minister of the fact that here we are engaged in the same process that we had when coloured soldiers were sent to arrest Europeans in the days of Bezuidenhout. The farming community feels very strongly in regard to this point. That tradition is still very strong. Apart from that we feel that it is not necessary to have coloured guards there, because there are so many Europeans in uniform; why cannot they replace the coloured guards? Then I also want to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice a matter to which reference has already been made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), namely, the manufacture of mustard gas. One member on the other side asked what was scandalous about it. I should like to say this to the hon. member. Under international law the use of mustard gas is prohibited in war. This is a gas which has a very strong effect on the humanbody, causing almost incurable harm. We should like to know from the Minister whether it is really being manufactured near Pretoria. I also asked whether chlorine gas was being manufactured from salt. We know that chlorine gas, together with other gases, is being used in the war in Europe. I do not know whether the scarcity of salt in our country is due to the fact that gas is manufactured on a large scale. We should also like to know for what purpose this gas is being manufactured. We know that it is also used in connection with the purification of water, but we should like to have the assurance that it is not being manufactured for other purposes. Then I also want to point out that organisations like the S.A.W.AJS. and W.A.A.F.S. are being used for political purposes. I personally saw how they organised in Zoutpansberg. And we can expect the same thing in Wakkerstroom. During the last election they associated themselves with members on the other side. They are in uniform. Perhaps some of them are drawing pay. In any event, the State pays for their uniforms, and it is not right to allow those people to take part in politics during an election. These are the points which I wanted to raise. Then I should also like to put a question to the Prime Minister in regard to protection against fire at the Cavalcade. The other day we saw the fire brigade going there, and there is a rumour that the protection against fire is not what it should be. It might easily wreck such an undertaking. Many of us have received invitation cards, and one feels a little dubious about going. We should like to hear from the Prime Minister, therefore, what measures are being taken in this case with a view to affording protection against fire.

I want to reply to a reflection which the Leader of the Opposition cast on our Police Force this afternoon. He suggested that officers went round and put things to members of the Force in a dishonourable way. I want to assure the House that to the best of my knowledge these things do not happen—I have never come across any officer of the Police Force acting in a dishonourable manner, and I take strong exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Piketberg. I also want to say that I am not surprised at an hon. member of the Opposition asking that European soldiers should be employed to drive motor vehicles in the Free State to cart mealies. They are prepared to lower a European to the levelof natives, because they are dissatisfied with the natives and they think they can get more out of the Europeans by having them under their thumb. I think the natives driving these vehicles are doing excellent work. Now, the very people who are criticising the Minister of Defence are today coming for more vehicles to cart their products. So we must come to the conclusion that the Defence Force doing that work has done excellent work. We have every reason to be thankful for what the Prime Minister has done for the farmers—who are mostly on the. Opposition benches. I want to associate myself with the remarks made here about discharged soldiers, and I think we should be very careful about these words “dishonourably discharged.” Many of these men have done excellent service and through some misfortune they are classified in these terms, and I want to make a special appeal to the Prime Minister to give these men his special consideration.

The Prime Minister told the House the other day what the South African forces had done. The enemy has been expelled from North Africa, and inter alia he said that the time for demobilisation was approaching. On the other hand, we heard today and also a few days ago that a new offensive has to be launched to obtain recruits. We find that very remarkable. On the one hand hon. members are pleading for a new offensive to obtain volunteers, and on the other hand the Prime Minister speaks of demobilisation. I want to make this point that every time a new offensive is launched we have the remarkable phenomenon that there is increased unemployment. That has been my experience. The Prime Minister has always said that this war is being fought by volunteers, but every time a new offensive is launched we find increased unemployment in the cities. People are forced to enlist, or otherwise they have to leave their employment, because things are made impossible for them. Further evidence of that is the fact that the City Council of Johannesburg, which has a tremendous labour force, has adopted a resolution that no one can be taken into the employ of the City Council unless that person is medically unfit. Hundreds of young men are therefore being deprived of employment. They are on the labour market, they are physically fit, and because they are fit they cannot be employed because it is said that they ought to go and fight. I want to make this point, therefore, that every time an offensive is launched to obtain recruits, we find that there is increased unemployment. What we also find very remarkable in connection with this statement on the part of the Prime Minister is that we have an enormous home front in South Africa today. Although the Prime Minister himself states that the danger is past, we find that that great force is still being kept on today. Is it because they are not willing to take the oath to go overseas? If arrangements can be made for the demobilisation of these persons, and if they can be placed in proper employment as soon as possible, our burden of debt would be reduced. I agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that there cannot be the slightest doubt that money is being wasted in a reckless manner in connection with this war. We have had those cases to which reference has been made by the Auditor-General. In another case the wife of a highly placed official came to me and said that it had been discovered that her husband had been overpaid by more than £100, and that such a large sum was being deducted from his pay every month, that they find it difficult to make ends meet. The point I want to make here—and I think the Prime Minister will reply to it—is that such cases do occur, and that they take place on a large scale, because large numbers of cases have already been brought to my notice. When we criticise these things the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) makes a pathetic appeal to us to think of the lonely graves up North. But in the same breath he tells us that war is a good thing. No, we did not want this war. We disapproved of it, and if there are lonely graves today, the hon. member must not reproach us. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said that we must not leave the Allies in the lurch. He therefore makes a plea for a new offensive. He said that they assisted us and that we must now come to their assistance. I am convinced that if we take the casualties of the Allied nations in this war, we will find that proportionately South Africa has done as much, if not more, than anyone of those nations. We say that the time has arrived for the Prime Minister to put on the brakes somewhat. We cannot go on at this rate, and still spend £51,000,000 on the war on loan account, since we are approaching the end of the war and since the danger is over, and the Prime Minister has told us that demobilisation is approaching. Then I want to deal with another matter. The Prime Minister stated in this House at the outbreak of war that the coloured and native soldiers would not be armed. The Prime Minister adhered to that statement until the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) asked him in this House whether coloured soldiers were not being trained as gunners in the camp at Eshowe. The Prime Minister admitted it. Now it is no longer a secret. We on this side are still of the same opinion; we still adopt the attitude which the Prime Minister advocated during the Second War of Independence. Has the Prime Minister forgotten that he wrote a letter in which he protested against the fact that England was employing coloureds and natives and arming them to fight against the Boers? No, we in South Africa will still have to pay a high price for this contact which the coloureds and natives have made with arms. This will be a chapter in the history of the United Party in South Africa of which it will not be proud in the future. We took the Prime Minister’s word, and we have seen what happened. We have said constantly that the coloured people and the natives should not be armed because it is not in the interests of South Africa. We said that if that were done our country would have to reap the fruits which the Prime Minister himself prophesied in the Second War of Independence. In these circumstances I associate myself with the statement of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, and I most strongly support his motion that this amount should be reduced by £41,000,000.

I find it remarkable that hon. members on the other side are already beginning to take pride in the casualties up North.

Who did so?

The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) has already started to take pride in the casualties of South Africa, and he does so without any sacrifice having been made on their part at the time when we were asked to make sacrifices.

What did you do?

I did at least offer my services.

In order to draw a double salary.

When the time came I offered my services. But I want to ask hon. members on the other side what they have ever done for the defence of South Africa.

We paid for your loyalty.

The hon. member for Westdene is very concerned about the arming of natives.

I said coloureds.

Not natives? What are the facts in connection with this matter? We did not arm natives, nor did coloured troops come into the fighting line. At the beginning of the war there were hundreds of thousands of native troops, armed and ready to march. The hon. member knows that. They were armed in the North of Africa, and it may happen in the future that native troops from Central or North Africa march against us. If that were to happen would we not be allowed to use natives?

Native against native.

These natives are under the command of European officers, and it may be necessary for us to use natives.

Are you in favour of arming natives?

The hon. member will not get me to say what he wants me to say. I say that in the future it may become necessary to use natives. Today we have natives in the police service, in responsible positions. One of the great historians of South Africa, at the time when Gen. Hertzog was Prime Minister, said that our native troops must be used for the defence of South Africa. He was not a supporter of this side of the House.

Who was he?

I have his name in my diary. An article appeared in “Die Vaderland” to the effect. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) and the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) complained bitterly this morning of the fact that poison gas was perhaps being manufactured in our country. We started this war without weapons, with a few bush carts. I do not say that poison gas is being manufactured in our country, but if other nations use gas, as they have done on previous occasions, must we sit here unarmed with a few bush carts? Must we wait and do no research work in this connection? This is an abominable way of waging war, but if the enemy uses poison gas, I say we must also do so. I shall not sit still and allow myself to be smacked on both cheeks without defending myself. This is so typical of the neutrality policy of the Opposition. They want to allow themselves to be trodden on until they are dead, without doing anything about it.

Who first declared war?

The hon. member still does not know that today. But I want to address a few words to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in connection with our fleet. I have visited our fleet on a number of occasions, and I think that even when one comes from the heart of the interior of South Africa one rejoices at the possibility of extending our fleet. I have been told that Afrikaans-speaking persons who come from the heart of the interior are doing excellent work in the fleet. I also know the great prestige which our small fleet acquired up North and along our own coasts. I believe and every Afrikaner hopes that the extension of our fleet will be much more rapid in the future that it has been in the past. I also agree with the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) that it would be better to make the fleet independent of the military institution which we have. The fleet may be under the same Minister as the army, but it must be independent. Our fleet already consists of 5,000 or 6,000 men, and I think we all look forward eagerly to a strengthening of our fleet. If that takes place, the people would be able to get proper promotion. They are entitled to it. I do not think hon. members on the other side will have any objection to our strengthening our fleet in the future. Hon. members complain about our war expenditure. I cannot emphasise enough that if the Opposition complain that they are not being furnished with any details with regard to the war expenditure, it is no more than they deserve. I do not say that that is actually the position, but if that were the case they would deserve it. I may be wrong in my views, but I feel that the criticism which is expressed on the other side against our war expenditure does not arise from a desire to save money, but to undermine the war effort. That is what is at the back of it. If it were sound criticism which aims at effecting savings here and there, it would be a different matter. But this attitude on their part arises only from the desire to undermine the war effort. I can understand, to a certain extent, that in 1939 there were people who said that the Government had no right to declare war, but after the last election which gave the Government such a surprising majority, any person who does not abide by the judgment of the people, is a disloyal citizen of his country.

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 23rd March.