I understand that there is still a half hour available and I should like to have the privilege of availing myself of it. I want to revert to a question this morning which I raised in this House on a previous occasion, viz., the agreement between the Union Government and the British Government, which came into operation on the 1st October, 1943. I think the Prime Minister will admit that the amount involved here is a very large one. I believe that at the end of March, this year, that is to say in one week, the amount involved will altogether be £41,000,000, according to the information which has been supplied to us—£35,000,000 up to the 1st October …

Up to the end of September it is about £38,000,000.

So that the total will be £44,000,000.

No, £35,500,000 plus £3,000,000.

In any case it is a very large amount — it is close on £40,000,000 and I feel the House is not only entitled to have all the details in connection with this matter but that it is the duty of the House to insist on getting those details. The amount is not a bagatelle. In 1938-’39 the whole of the administrative expenses of this country practically amounted to that. When I last raised this question the Prime Minister was not so well prepared and he could not give the House much information. I hope the Prime Minister will have more details now, and I hope he will be more frank with us. The agreement is divided into two parts. The one part concerns the amount before the 1st October, 1943. It covers the period from June, 1940, to the 1st October, 1943, a period of three and a half years, and the other covers the period from 1st October 1943; that is in operation today, and also applies to the future. For the sake of convenience I want to deal with the agreement separately in its two parts. The first part concerns the period before the 1st October, 1943, and the amount involved is about £35,000,000. I believe that we started for the first time sending troops to East Africa in June, 1940. For that period we had no agreement. We simply sent troops and supplies for those troops, but it was subsequently found that everything was done on too loose a basis and an agreement was entered into with the British Government in January, 1941, and the basis of this agreement was that we were to be responsible for the pay and the allowances of our soldiers in East Africa. All the other expenses would go into a common pool. All the expenses in connection with food, clothing, the supply of ammunition, transport and everything, was to go into a common pool, and we were to pay half of that and the British Government was to pay half. I can only say that the House has never had an opportunity, either in this House or in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, to determine whether the basis was a reasonable one for us to work on, whether we had as many troops there as the British Government had; we were kept entirely in the dark and we were told it was a military secret, but that was the agreement which was arrived at. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) went a bit astray the other day when he said that the position at the time was about the same as it is today in regard to the £1,000,000. There is, however, a very big difference. In those days we did not only meet the pay and allowances but on our own account we sent an endless stream of supplies to East Africa; we sent these things over land and over sea to East Africa. The Select Committee on Public Accounts every year insisted on the accounts being regularly squared off. At the end of the year the Select Committee on Public Accounts invariably asks what the position is with regard to the agreement in East Africa, but we are always told by the Defence Department that there is something wrong somewhere, that it is impossible to prepare the account, and that is the end of it, and the Select Committee on Public Accounts always asks the Auditor-General to keep a careful watch over the position in East Africa. We have to pay half, and we send a continuous stream of supplies to East Africa. What is the position this year? When we asked the Auditor-General whether the accounts had been made up, and whether he had certified them, we were told that the whole work in connection with this matter had been stopped because the Government had made an agreement with the British Government and that this meant wiping the slate clean. The Auditor-General has no authority now to investigate the position in East Africa, and what is the position? On the 1st October we made an agreement with the British Government. We had been sending supplies up North for our troops. The British Government, of course, had also been sending supplies to East Africa. That was their contribution to the common pool. In order to do these things on a business basis an account should have been drawn up of what we had sent, and an account should have been drawn up of what England had sent, and if it was not fifty-fifty the one who was short should have made up the difference. Say, for instance, the operations in East Africa had cost £60,000,000. According to the agreement we had to pay £30,000,000 of that, and the British Government had to pay £30,000,000, but we had sent supplies as our contribution to the common pool. What was the valuation of that contribution? Was it £10,000,000, £20,000,000 or £25,000,000? If we had sent supplies to the value of £20,000,000 we would only have had to pay £10,000,000 to make up the fifty-fifty. As we know today the position is that no account of what we sent to East Africa was made up. The information at our disposal is that no account can be made up, and there is no certified account of what we sent to East Africa. When we talk of a certified account, it means an account made up by our Defence Department and certified as correct by our Auditor-General. If such a certified account is put in, England will accept it, and if England puts in an account certified by her Auditor-General we accept it. There is no certified account put in by us; there is no certified account of what England supplied, and I should like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to tell the House how it could possibly have been determined that we still had to pay £35,000,000? The information at our disposal is that there are no accounts, and that if things were squared up it must have been purely guess work.

And when it comes to guess work we always get the worst of it.

It is purely guess work and the Prime Minister told us the other day that £12,000,000 of that £35,000,000 has already been paid. I hope I understood him correctly. I want to ask this House to support me in telling the Prime Minister that we should not pay another penny of this £35,000,000 before a certified account, both from our side and from the British side, has been submitted to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) laughs.

He is not laughing, he is crying.

Surely that is the businesslike way of doing things? We have entered into a contract to work on a fifty-fifty basis. We have sent supplies up North—that is our contribution to the pool. How much have we sent? Nobody knows.

Tell us something about the 250,000 Italians who were up North?

We are dealing here with a matter of £35,000,000 of Government money.

And we are dealing with the safety of this country.

This Parliament is the Trustee of the interests of the people and all I ask is this; I have not the slightest objection to our paying this £35,000,000 if we have to pay it. I do not want the hon. member for Springs to misunderstand me. We have made a contract. If we have to pay £35,000,000 we are quite prepared to do so in accordance with the contracts, but put a certified account before us to show what we sent and what England sent and convince the Select Committee on Public Accounts that we have to pay £35,000,000 in accordance with the contract. I hope the House will support me if I say that that is the very least we can expect. An amount of £35,000,000 of public money is at stake and all we ask for is a certified account. Now, we come to the second part of the contract, the £1,000,000 per month. On this point we have had very little information from the Prime Minister. All the Prime Minister has told us is that we have soldiers there; Australia also has soldiers there. We pay a globular amount; Australia has decided not to pay a globular amount but to pay per capita, per soldier, per day. I thereupon asked the Prime Minister how many soldiers we have up North. The Prime Minister told us that there are between 50,000 and 60,000. I then tried to calculate what it worked out at per soldier per day. If we have 50,000 soldiers there it works out at 13s. 4d. per soldier per day. If we have 55,000 there it works out at 12s. 1d. and if we have 60,000 there, the maximum the Prime Minister has mentioned, then it works out at 11s. 1d. per soldier per day. I take it for granted that the figures the Prime Minister has given the House are correct. Being curious to know what the amount is per capita that Australia is paying, I went into that. The Prime Minister did not tell us how much it was, but because Australia was involved I had considerable trouble in getting the information, and eventually I succeeded in getting it in the report of the Auditor-General for Australia. I want to remind the House of the figures which I mentioned earlier on. I found in the report of the Auditor-General for Australia that they only pay 9s. per soldier per day.

Is that for the whole army?

They pay 9s. per soldier per day for all their soldiers there. We preferred to pay a globular amount but Australia perferred to pay per capita. I tried to work that out.

But you went to work in the wrong way.

I worked out a few figures and the hon. member for Springs can check up on them. If we have 50,000 men up North and if we pay the same as Australia pays, that is 9s. per day, we can easily calculate the amount which we should have paid.

But what do their accounts comprise?

They are also responsible for pay and allowances, just as we are, and England pays the balance. If we have 50,000 men there and we paid 9s. per man per day it would have worked out at £675,000 per month. Then on that basis we pay £325,000 per month too much. That means we are paying £3,900,000 per year too much in comparison with Australia. If we have 55,000 men there then on that basis we would not have paid £1,000,000 per month but £742,000 per month. That means that we pay £258,000 per month too much or about £3,000,000 per year. If we had the maximum there of 60,000, then 9s. per soldier per day works out at £810,000, which means that we are paying £2,080,000 per year too much. That is all the information which the Prime Minister has given this House, and on the basis of that information I have placed certain figures and details before the House. I call this House to testify to the fact that I have made out a prima facie case that the House is entitled to more information before we can say whether or not the position, so far as South Africa is concerned, is a favourable one. That is all I ask—whether I have not made out a prima facie case that the House is entitled to more information before we dare decide that this agreement is a favourable one for South Africa? On the maximum basis mentioned by the Prime Minister we are paying £2,500,000 more than Australia would have paid. Those are the figures which the Prime Minister has supplied to the House and on the basis of those figures I set to work. I repeat my request again—and I again ask the House to refuse permission to the Government to pay off another penny of this £12,000,000 or of the £35,000,000 until such time as this House, or the Select Committee on Public Accounts—which is the instrument of this House to get information which cannot be supplied on the floor of this House—has been convinced that this contract is on a business basis. That is all I ask. I think I have made out a prima facie case.

Yes; it only stops at prima facie.

Then we shall be very glad if the Prime Minister can give us more information. Then the numbers on which this whole calculation is based are incorrect. I have not got the opportunity now of going into all the details of the Auditor-General’s report, of going into the question of what transpires from that report in regard to the state of affairs in our Defence Force. I just want to draw attention to one point to show how critical the position is. On the building programme for defence alone we are spending an amount of about £40,000,000 — that was the amount spent up to the end of last year. If a building is erected half the cost goes into material and half into wages. They always work it out on the basis of fifty-fifty. So an amount of £40,000,000 has been spent. May I be allowed to show the House what the Auditor-General’s report says in regard to this matter? Let us first of all take the amount spent on wages. The Auditor-General in his report says that in regard to the amount spent on wages in connection with the building programme no control of any kind has been exercised, although the work has been carried out on the cost-plus system. The contractors have been allowed to make up their own pay sheets. Our officials certified those pay sheets and the Auditor-General now reports that our officials certified those pay sheets every week without their being present when the money was paid out, or without enquiring into whether those pay sheets were correct or not. It is said that so far as the wage part of the expenditure is concerned, viz., the £20,000,000, no control has been exercised. £20,000,000 of public money has been spent under the cost-plus system, without any control and without any supervision. It is found here and there now that the contractors have cooked their pay sheets, and an amount of £20,000,000 of public money is involved in this. We asked the Auditor-General whether this applied to one or two contracts, and his reply was: “No, that applies to fortifications generally.” £20,000,000 has been spent under the costplus system without the slightest control having been exercised over the money paid out every week. That is 50 per cent. of this £40,000,000. Now, let us stop for a moment and deal with the materials comprised in this expenditure of £40,000,000. Do hon. members know what we were told? That until the 1st April 1943, no proper books had been kept. It is impossible to create order from the books that have been kept, and the Auditor-General, and the Quartermaster-General, admit that the only thing to do was to “call it a day and write off the loss”.

Still, we have got the fortifications.

That is the answer we always get. I am willing to pay for the fortifications for which contracts have been entered into, but if they tell us that the building of the fortifications cost £40,000,000, of which £20,000,000 go for wages, and £20,000,000 for materials, and if they then come and tell us that the position in regard to the materials is such that everything spent up to the 31st March, 1943, so far as the bookkeeping is concerned, is such that it is best to call it a day and write off the loss, then I cannot allow it to pass. We find today that people are being tried in the courts for the theft of corrugated iron sheets. So far as wages are concerned £20,000,000 have been spent without any control having been exercised. I do not want to go into any details now. The whole thing is quite big enough. £40,000,000 have been spent on building contracts and now we find that the position in regard to the supplies is such that it was considered best to call it a day, and so far as the wages are concerned we find that there has been no control of any kind. The contractors could enter any figures they liked on their pay sheets. We simply signed the cheques. I need not say any more. I again want to say in regard to the agreement with Great Britain — convince the House that we have to pay £35,000,000 to make up our fifty-fifty share. If that is done I shall not complain because we have made an agreement, but place before this House, or before the Select Committee on Public Accounts — which is the instrument of this House — the certified accounts so that we can judge whether it is to the benefit of South Africa, yes or no. I think the Prime Minister owes that to this House. On the basis of the figures supplied I have shown that we pay from 11s. 1d. to 13s. 4d. per soldier per day — according to the number of men there — and I want to know why Australia only pays 9s. if it has an identical agreement?

Does that include the whole army?

No, that refers to our soldiers up North, and only to them. We prefer to pay a globular amount while Australia pays per capita. Our globular amount works out at an average of 12s. and 11s. if we take the maximum number of soldiers. In Australia’s case it is 9s. and I therefore say that the House is entitled to some more information.

The calculation of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is based on a total misunderstanding and on wrong figures. Let us take his last point first. While Australia does pay 9s. per soldier, we pay between 11s. and 13s. according to his calculation. Australia’s 9s. per day does not include aeroplanes. It has nothing to do with the air force. That is not included, and is a totally different matter which has been arranged in a different way. If we were to study closely what we are paying we would find that it is considerably less than 9s., if we base our calculations in the same way as Australia’s. Our payments include the air force, and we know that aeroplanes are the most expensive item. The losses are such that they almost monthly need renewal. I just mention this one fact. I am now speaking of the agreement for the future, and I say that the Australian agreement does not include aeroplanes, which changes the whole position. On the basis of the payment of soldiers only our payments are less than the 9s. which Australia pays. Now, let us come to the past. The hon. member asks two things. First he asks for certified accounts. These are not obtainable. So far as our side is concerned, we have kept accounts of everything that has been sent up North. On the other hand, no account has been kept on which we can act. That is admitted on both sides. The British War Office admits that it is not in a position to submit a certified account to us. What the hon. member asks for is beyond us.

So that the arrangement is based on guesswork?

No; I shall go into the figures more closely and then the hon. member will be able to see what the facts are. The certified form he asks for cannot be obtained. Now he says: “See how South Africa has the worst of it!” He says South Africa’s share is £35,000,000, and that it cannot possibly be correct, with all the large quantities of supplies which we have sent up North, that we still have to pay £35,000,000. What is the answer? The answer is even more effective than it is to the hon. member’s first question. For our forces we don’t pay £35,000,000 but only £10,000,000, and for the air force we pay £25,000.000. That is how we get the total of £35,000,000. For the army forces we pay £10,000,000 and of that amount £3,000,000 has come to the Union. We have included everything in order to arrive at a final figure with the British Treasury.

But why are we getting this information now in bits and pieces?

As I have said, the £10,000,000 refers to the army and £25,000,000 to the air force. I mention this to show how far the hon. member has missed the point. Where he thought that we had paid £35,000,000 to the army, we only paid £7,500,000 for the army up North. We suggested to the Select Committee on Public Accounts that we should place all the information as far as possible before it, but the hon. member said no, he had a bomb which he wanted to explode here.

That is not correct.

He speaks of having made out a prima facie case. Well, that is all it is. In regard to the payments made by Australia he did not take the air force into account, and his contentions are wrong to the extent of the difference between £7,500,000 and £35,000,000. No, everything the hon. member put before this House was prima facie, but it will always remain prima facie. The Select Committee has gone into this question. I have given the figures and we shall see what becomes of this prima facie case. Then the hon. member comes back to this further question of the building programme. I must say that I have not got the details in that connection. The £40,000,000 is for the total programme. He talks of £20,000,000 for wages, and £20,000,000 for materials. I cannot possibly deal with the accounts in that connection here, and nobody will expect me to do so. Let us wait for the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts— we shall then be able to judge. These are vague general charges, just like the prima facie case which the hon. member mentioned. Vague charges are put before me and I am supposed to give a reply to hook entries amounting to £40,000,000. These charges are vague and they are not clear, and in the long run they will be proved to be just as incorrect as the other charges which the hon. member made. Nor do I think that this is the right time for me to give a reply to a point which was raised here yesterday. I don’t want to enter into any controversial points: I feel that the task of this Committee is more particularly to go into facts and supply information. I am prepared to do so, and the various issues really don’t crop up to such an extent here. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) opened the debate by making an amendment. Now, what does that amendment amount to? The hon. member proposes to reduce the amount of the Vote to £10,000,000 and in his remarks the hon. member says that that amount would be enough for the war and for the defence of the Union.

No, I said it would be enough for the defence of the Union.

Yes, and what does that mean? It amounts to this, that the amendment proposed by the hon. member is the same amendment which we had from hon. members opposite during the past four years — get out of the war. It is the same proposal in a different form. That is what it means. Well, the public have given their verdict on that. They have decided whether we are to remain in the war or not, and it would be wasting the time of the House to go into that question again. Now the hon. member asks why so many troops are being used in the Union. He says that according to the figures I have given it appears that 70,000 of our men are here in the Union and he wants to know why they are not sent up North to fight.

Or why they are not discharged.

Yes; the reply to that is quite a simple one. Of the 70,000 the hon. member mentioned, no fewer than 45,000 constitute the women’s forces and also the Youth Brigade. The balance is made up of our naval forces and the other forces required for service in the Union. We have a large air force to guard our coasts because we are guarding the coasts from Angola to Mozambique. We have our forces in connection with the air schools, and we have a fairly large force for that purpose. We also have our coast defence forces. Then we have our administrative units in South Africa. Those 25,000 men who are left are required for war services in this country.

But you have already put aside 33,000 for the air schools.

A large number of those are included in these figures, a large proportion consist of staff which is used for the depots.

Your sums do not tally.

No; my sums do tally. Those 25,000 men are required in the Union for work which is absolutely essential — they are required for our coastal defence and for our air force — for our naval forces and for our training camps.

And are not there also troops on leave?

Yes, there are always a certain number of men on leave. That is why I said that our forces up North varied from 50,000 to 60,000. The troops who go up North are trained in the Union to a large extent; we need training camps and staff in connection with that training. It therefore amounts to this, that the charge which the hon. member made, that we are maintaining a tremendously big force in the Union, a force of 70,000 people who could go and fight up North, does not hold water at all. There is nothing left of it. The House can take it from me that we are continually combing out our forces in the Union in order to keep the numbers as low as possible. The number employed in the Union in connection with the army is the minimum number required to keep things going. That much for the charge made by the hon. member, that we have this large force in the Union.

During the elections they said that we should send them all up North to go and fight there.

Then the hon. member trots out his charges in regard to what is known as the Red Tab, and he says that we should abolish that. Let me tell the hon. member that the red tab is a sign of honour, not only in South Africa but throughout the world, wherever our troops go. Our army is proud of the red tab which is looked upon as a sign of honour, a sign which has made South Africa’s name great on all the battlefields of the world. Then the hon. member comes along and mentions other cases—he mentions the baker in Pretoria who is alleged to have made tremendous profits. Surely the hon. member knows that contracts for supplies have to go through the Tender Board and immediately we found that in that particular case the contract was not effective a change was introduced, as the hon. member himself said. Where is the waste? As soon as we found that the contract was wrong, the contract made by the Tender Board, it was changed.

That contract went on for 18 months and it gave the man a profit of £300 per day.

As soon as we got to know the truth we changed it. Then the hon. member spoke about the ineffective way in which Elastoplast was being stored. The hon. member perhaps does not know the tremendous difficulties we have to cope with in storing all the materials and all the supplies we have. If we have to put up buildings for the storage of all our supplies, of all the various kinds of supplies we have, we would have to tackle a building programme which would be entirely beyond us. We have to do the best we can with corrugated iron buildings, we have to use buck sails and tents, and similar places, to store our materials. Losses are suffered from time to time, it cannot be avoided, and nobody is to blame for it. The only way to avoid it would be by putting up buildings but it is beyond us to do so. The hon. member also asked me about mustard gas. I think this is the only Parliament in the world where such a question can be asked. He asked me what about the manufacture of mustard gas. That question, of course, was asked in order to get me and the Government into trouble.

Well, it would be an astounding thing if it were true that mustard gas was being manufactured.

I shall answer the hon. member and I shall give him the information. In the early stages of the war we did make experiments with mustard gas and that must be the information which has been communicated to the hon. member.

Why not?

Yes, that’s the kind of information the hon. member gets hold of. And we can have our own ideas how that information is got. In the early stages of the war we made experiments with mustard gas, it was in the interest of the country that we should do so. We were on the way to Abyssinia, and hon. members know how the first Abyssinian campaign was conducted, and how after Badoglio had taken over command there, Abyssinia was covered with gas and the war was ended in that way. Now, we had to go and fight there.

That is the same Badoglio who is your ally today.

It would have been a grave neglect of duty if we had failed to take precautions. We could not take any precautionary measures unless we had made experiments with the gas itself. It was necessary for us to make experiments to see how we could protect our people against the danger if necessary. The Abyssinian campaign is over and the experiments have been concluded, and that’s the end of the matter.

But they are still being made.

No; the experiments have been concluded—they are not going on. Then the hon. member makes a charge against the Chief of the General Staff. Let me say this, I would not have touched this at all because I think it is too ridiculous. A charge is made against the Chief of the General Staff, one of our outstanding Afrikaners, a brilliant figure of the last war, whose achievements have done great honour to South Africa, and now to try and cast a blot on his name and reputation in this House is something which merits an answer.

I said I felt constrained to bring the matter before this House because it seemed so peculiar.

The hon. member feels constrained to throw mud. I want to remove that mud from a clean figure, from a man who is doing his.duty with the greatest ability in the interests of the country. Sir Pierre van Ryneveld has a small farm near Sonderwater. It is a small bit of land, a small farm in the mountains, and the Wilge River runs through it. Our engineers had to be trained in the building of bridges over rivers and there was no more suitable place than that to train them. Sir Pierre van Ryneveld placed his farm at the disposal of the Department, free and without any reward, for the experiments. The experiments were made there and temporary structures were put up.

Buildings.

Everything can be broken down; these structures are wooden affairs with the exception of the conveniences, which is rather apt, bearing in mind the charges which the hon. member has made. For the rest they are all wooden structures which can be removed immediately after the war. Sir Pierre van Ryneveld sacrificed his bit of land for the sake of the country, and having been used in this way that land has depreciated in value, yet now the hon. member comes here and wants to represent the Chief of the General Staff as a man who is allowing the Government to use his private property for self gain.

Why didn’t you give us the detailed information which we asked for? I asked whether the land on which the buildings had been erected was only bought in 1941.

The hon. member is also mistaken there. The position is that that land was already in his possession in 1936 or 1937.

Why do you represent the position as though there are only a few small structures.

Everything there can be broken down after the war.

A church and other big buildings have been put up there.

There may be a few big buildings but they can all be taken away. The hon. member is now, by his questions, only trying to make the House believe that Sir Pierre van Ryneveld is going to benefit when the war is over. There is not a word of truth in it; it is only mud slinging, and he does not care where the mud strikes. The greater the Afrikaner, the greater his services, the more mud is thrown. Then the hon. member also discussed the question of our own fleet but I shall come to that later on because other members have also raised that point.

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) spoke in regard to the large proportion of natives who have dishonourable discharges against their names. Now, two questions are raised here which I want just briefly to refer to. One is the question of dishonourable discharge itself. There has been a great deal of argument about this here in this House; a number of members have raised the question, and I may say it has been raised a good deal outside of this House and in the Department itself. There is a great deal to be said that dishonourable discharges as they are used in the army, are not just and fair, and do not do justice to men who although their record may be poor in other respects, have rendered decent service in the army itself. There is a great deal of feeling against the dishonourable discharge, and the result is this, that this question has been submitted to the Directorate of Demobilisation in order to reform it and get rid of this apparent stigma, which is cast upon men who do not deserve it. All these cases are being gone into again, and I hope that the result will be that quite a satisfactory way of dealing with these cases will be found without the stigma of “dishonourable” against their name. That is the general issue. But more especially the hon. member raised this question of an apparent differential treatment of the native. Now I feel on this question because I do not think that our native troops, the native volunteers who joined our forces, deserve that there should be any stigma cast on them. They have done good service wherever they have been connected with our army, either here in South Africa, up North or with the British Army. They have found nothing but praise for their good work on the whole, and I should not like it to go forth that anything done by my department is calculated to throw a stigma on them. The hon. member raised this question with my department some time ago, and a deputaion from the Institute of Race Relations saw the Secretary for Defence, the matter was thrashed out there, and it was followed up by a letter which the Secretary for Defence wrote to the hon. member. I think I can do no better than to read this letter. I do not know whether the hon. member has already received it, but I do not think I can do better than read this letter, because it sets out the case from our departmental point of view. We want to avoid any appearance, even, of a slur or ungenerous treatment to a section of our troops who do not deserve it. The facts are stated here—

The letter makes it plain, and our practice is clear that we want to be just and fair, taking the record of a man as a whole. We are not merely going on his pre-enlistment record in saying whether his discharge shall be honourable or dishonourable, and I think that although for the period to which the figures relate there appears to be a considerable excess of native cases of dishonourable discharge, as the letter makes it plain, that may have been quite an exceptional period and should not be taken as the real proportion between Europeans and non-Europeans. The hon. member also asked why there is no dispersal depot for the natives and why they are not helped to re-employment like the European. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, there is a dispersal camp for the natives at Modder B, but the trouble is that the natives who are coming back from the Army are so keen on getting home that you cannot get them to a dispersal depôt. Anyone of them who wants to be assisted to employment can be assisted. Our machinery is there in order to help them, and we try to do our best for them; therefore there is essentially no distinction. But the trouble arises from the fact that the natives do not want to stay in the dispersal depot, they look upon it as a continuance of their confinement, they want to rush home as soon as possible.

*I shall now proceed to deal with another point which was raised by the other side of the House; that is the question of lorries for the cartage of mealies. It was my object to help our farmers as much as possible over the difficulties in which they find themselves lately in regard to the cartage of mealies and other produce. We have done our best to help them as much as possible, but I have not had many thanks in this House for what I have done. I admit, of course, that the production of food is one of our great problems today, and it is a matter which has to be encouraged in every possible way, and as far as was feasible I put my transport at the disposal of the farmers, and in certain parts it helped a great deal. Now we have complaints that that service has not been good. The native drivers who have been used have not been good. Their work is criticised, and I am asked whether I cannot send other people. If I want to help I have to send a unit. I cannot first train and prepare other personnel to assist the farmers. All I can do is send a unit as it exists today.

Would not it be better to let the farmers themselves buy the lorries?

This is war time and we cannot let these lorries go. All we can do is assist the farmers by placing the transport system at their disposal as far as possible. I fail to understand why there should be such complaints about native drivers, because in other instances the native drivers do pretty good work, and they give satisfaction. So much so, for instance, that there is a big demand by the British Army for native drivers. The High Commissioners in the adjoining territories cannot send us sufficient natives. These men are given a good training, and in order to get a licence they must have a good standard of ability. I hope we are not dealing with a lot of unfounded complaints here today. I hope a better spirit is going to be shown towards this service. Hon. members should realise that these people are volunteers. They joined up voluntarily; they did not join up to cart mealies for the farmers, and especially not for those farmers who decry them today. They joined up for military service, and they have been doing service all the time, but they are prepared today to cart mealies for the farmers. I hope some degree of appreciation will be shown and I trust that these men are not going to be run down, decried and scared away.

That is not the position. The farmers are not treating them badly.

But the representatives of the farmers in this House are running them down.

Nonsense.

That is where I have a bone to pick with the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn). I have not heard any complaints about these people outside, but hon. members come here and ventilate complaints here. Take another point. The hon. member spoke about corruption among the white drivers. The white drivers are also run down. Let me say this, if there are such cases, in heaven’s name let them be brought to my notice or to the notice of the Department of Defence.

But it has been done.

If those complaints are made immediately they can be enquired into and the responsible people can be punished. We do not want to encourage a system of corruption.

That is why we are bringing it to your notice.

I should like to see that letter.

You can have it.

Very well, then I shall be able to go further into it, but I hope that the farmers’ organisations and co-operative societies, if they notice anything of that kind, if they notice that there is unequal treatment of individual farmers, if there is suspicion of corruption, will immediately bring it to the notice of the Department so that we can take action. We don’t want corruption in the Defence Force.

I go on to another point made by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), that is the resignation of two women commanding officers in the W.A.A.F.S. during the last couple of years. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that in both these cases the resignations took place without any reasons being given and without any approach to the authorities. These officers simply resigned, a very unusual thing for an officer to resign without permission. They did not ask for permission or anything, simply resigned without giving any reason. That case seems now to be taken up by those who favour the women’s interest. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, we have not found it necessary, nor have we found it advisable even to appoint substitutes in those two cases. The system works perfectly well now. You see, Mr. Chairman, our women’s forces, the W.A.A.F.S., the Air Force women and the Women’s Auxiliary, do not work as a separate unit. They are dispersed over all the units, they work in the various offices, in the capacity of clerks or in typing, and all sorts of services distributed among the various units. They are in the same position, for instance, as are the women in the public services. We have women by the hundred. I would almost say thousand, in the public service, but we have not appointed a special Public Service Commission for them; they are integrated in the whole service and are looked after by the organisation as a whole; and that is exactly what takes place in the army now. They are dispersed over the whole Defence organisation and are looked after on an equal footing by the men in charge of that branch of the organisation. The system works perfectly well. I have taken a great interest in this movement, I thought it right that we should include our women in this great war effort, and they have done work on a magnificent scale. The service of our women has been beyond praise, and I shall not allow anything to be done which is an injustice to them, or which casts a slur on the work which they are doing. I shall not allow that, because I knew the system works well. I myself have three daughters in the army, in the medical and air services, and in the auxiliary service. Where it has been necessary I have taken special measures for their protection, so that they may emerge with flying colours from the very fine service they are doing now. The system works well now and as long as that is so I don’t want to make a change. I was very sorry because of these two resignations—they were both very good officers, both Mrs. Lugtenburg and Mrs. Dunning—and I was very sorry they took a step which I would never have tolerated in the case of a male officer, but they took that step and there it is. Now, the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) has raised this point, which has also been raised by a number of other members in regard to pensions which are refused in cases such as these—where a husband dies in the Union—where a man dies in the Union, not in the course of his duty. It is not a matter which really affects the Defence Department, it is a Pension Law which is settled on that basis. If a soldier dies up North on active service outside the country, it is presumed that he dies in the course of duty, and there is no further question about it. His wife and children get the pension to which they are entitled. If, however, he dies in the Union, it has to be shown whether he died in the course of his duty or not. It very often happens that here in the Union a soldier is killed—or a soldier suffers an accident—he may be on a joy ride or on his own private business; here he is at home, and therefore the Pension Law draws a distinction which I cannot overcome. If my hon. friend can move the Pension authorities to amend the law—the law which was made by this House —he can do so.

What about signing these exemption forms?

Yes; I do not really understand what that form is for, but I have made a note and I shall follow it up.

*The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) and other members have asked why farmers’ sons cannot be allowed to go home and help in the farming operations. That, of course, is a very big and difficult question. Hon. members do not realise what a large proportion of our young farmers are in the army today. A very considerable number of farmers’ sons have joined our forces and I can assure the House that if we were to let them go it would mean a tremendous blow to our participation in the war. The existing system works fairly well. I am not going to say that it works well in every case. We have Liaison Committees in the country and if it is considered necessary for a farmer to return to his farm, his family or his friends can put his case before the Liaison Committee. The Liaison Committee consists of farmers who are familiar with the circumstances and that Committee’s recommendations are sent to the Adjutant-General who gives his final decision. The instructions given to the Adjutant-General are that he should be as considerate as possible because I realise that the food question is a very important one. It carries a lot of weight with us, and wherever possible we meet these people, but if we open the floodgates and allow A and B to go then C and D will want to know why A and B have been given preferential treatment, and if we do that we won’t know where we are and the army will break up. I think we are following the right procedure. Application is made to the Liaison Committees, and their recommendations go to the Adjutant-General who has to decide finally and see to it that every body is treated alike and that no preference is given to certain districts. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) raised the question of the members of the police who had taken the declaration of general service— Africa service—the men who have taken the Red Oath as it is called, and who, when they received instructions to go North, refused to go. There were about 32 of them and they have been punished. In some cases they were punished very severely. There are two cases, specially, where they were punished severely. In the one case the man was given a year’s hard labour and in the other case two years’ hard labour. I have asked the Minister of Justice to go into those cases again. I know these things happened some time ago and possibly the position could be reviewed. These matters can be dealt with reasonably now. I only want to say this, that it is pretty serious when a policeman, who is in the service of the country and has to carry out his duties, takes it upon himself to desert—because technically that is what it amounts to. One can quite realise that in a case of that kind the authorities have to take action.

But the Government itself realised that it had made a mistake in getting the police to take the red oath.

No, I do not admit that a mistake was made. The Government did the right thing. But is it generally felt, and everybody feels, that circumstances have changed; A sentence which two years ago was necessary may perhaps be looked at in a different light today, and I have therefore asked the Hon. Minister of Justice to look into these questions and see what can be done. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) pleaded the cause of the Youth Brigade. So far as I am concerned it is unnecessary for him to plead their cause. I am heart and soul in favour of that brigade. It is one of the best social measures for our sons who have just come out of school, who are still too young to go to work, and who otherwise would be loafing about for a year or perhaps longer. It is in those years of these young men’s lives that many things happen and when they often get on the wrong track. What we have done is to take them up and give them training in the Youth Brigade, training which will be of use to them in their later life. We started years ago with the Special Service Battalion. That was the start of the movement; I have extended that, and it is having most beneficial effects in this country, and I do hope that many of our young men will get their post-school training in this way. It is a post-school course during which they learn a lot of things for their future life. They are taught things and they also learn trades. I have gone further and I have extended the system to the coloured population. We have a big problem with the young coloured population, especially in the Western Province—a lot of these young boys loaf about and they are turned Into skollies, with the result that they develop into an element which is dangerous to the community. We have a Brigade for them now and I hear from all sides that it is answering excellently. This is one of the means for social uplift which may have a very good effect on the whole population. The hon. member also put up a plea on behalf of the Essential Services Corps. The members of that Corps are well treated. The only difference between them and the soldiers is that they are not sent to any of our camps. They live near their homes and I understand that the pension arrangements in their case are to their benefit.

My friend, the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) referred to the case of prisoners-of-war in Zwitzerland, and he said, from all the information available, it appears that they are well treated. Well, that is so— all our official information is that they are well treated. Of course, the parcels which they receive are very welcome and I hope that these parcels sent through the Red Cross will continue to reach them. The only difficulty is the exchange question, and the Treasury is dealing with that. There is no doubt that the exchange which was arranged under the Convention does not work any more. The Italian lira has depreciated to such an extent that the old arrangement is out of date and the Treasury is working out something new which will give justice to our prisoners-of-war, so that they will get what they deserve. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) also raised the question of repayments of over-payments to soldiers. Of course, it hits the families very hard. The Paymaster is going into the matter and has instructions to ease off and give them long terms for repayment so that no injustice is done in their case.

*The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) raised the important question of war material which after the war might be useful to the farmers, and he wanted us to take steps to prevent such war material and equipment falling into the hands of speculators and afterwards being sold at high prices; he wanted the farmers to be assisted by prices being fixed at reasonable figures. I hope we shall be able to deal with the matter in that way. We shall take steps in that direction. At the end of the war we shall be left with a tremendous quantity of material which is being bought for war purposes, and which after the war can be used for civilian purposes. It will amount to millions and millions of pounds in value. What we propose doing is to establish organisations to handle this material in the best way possible. The farmers can be assisted. There are many articles which are in such a condition that they can only be sold by tender, but there is a lot of material which can be used at once, and wherever it is possible to assist the farmer we shall see that the necessary arrangements are made to supply the goods at reasonable prices to the farmers. The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) spoke about motor tyres which he said were lying about, which were useless and which were perishing. Wherever we can do so we collect those tyres, because tyres are a very valuable article in the country today. Rubber in any form can be processed at once. We have the necessary factories to do that work. The hon. member must not imagine, therefore, that that material is being wasted. It is all collected and used again. Then the hon. member also asked that after the war a factory should be established for the manufacture of farming implements. I hope that that is going to be one of the developments which will take place in this country. We have a number of factories which are being employed for war purposes and some of them can be converted for the manufacture of farming implements and articles for the engineering industry.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I had nearly concluded when business was suspended. I only want to refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink). He objected to the employment of coloured guards at the camps. The fact of the matter is that we have a tremendous number of camps in this country. We have Air Force Camps and all kinds of camps in the Union and if we did not use coloured men and natives as guards there we would require white men to do that work, and we simply have not got the white men available for that purpose. We are short of people in South Africa. Where we can get the coloured men and the natives to assist us in that way, by acting as guards, we are saving a lot of our white soldiers. That is why we have native guards at the camps, men armed with assegais. They are doing the work well and we are saving a lot of money and a lot of men that way. The hon. member also asked whether adequate precautions were being taken for the protection of the public at the Cavalcade. I can assure him that all the necessary steps are being taken. They are pretty wide awake in Cape Town, and I would invite the hon. member and his friends to go there. I shall go there, feeling quite at ease. If he and his friends go there they will see something worth while seeing. We have a display there of our national effort in connection with war supplies to make the public realise what is being done. There is no waste of money there, and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) can also go there with an easy mind.

They are giving the Prime Minister a very good advertisement there.

I don’t come into it at all. I count for less there than the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop).

Well, they have issued a pamphlet about you.

There may be something like that, but its only for advertising the Cavalcade. The Cavalcade was very interesting and my hon. friend need not be afraid that he will not be protected there from anything the war might inflict upon him.

I want to thank the Prime Minister for the little extra light he has cast on this agreement.

Do you want to withdraw now?

The more one hears about this matter the more one looks for information about it. The Prime Minister made an important admission. He admitted—and that is important—that in regard to what happened prior to 1st October, 1943, there are no certified accounts either on our side or on the side of the British Government. That is to say we do not know what South Africa has sent there by way of supplies, and we do not know what the British Government has sent. We cannot get to know that. The Prime Minister now gives us a different figure from what we were given in another place. We cannot get to know what we have sent and what the British Government have sent, and that is why we do not know whether the amount which we are paying is the correct amount—no matter whether it is £7,500,000, £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. The great point it that all this is based on guesswork. The Prime Minister says: “Very well…” it makes no difference to him whether we pay a couple of millions too much out of the coffers of the State. We have his admission that there are no certified accounts. If there are no certified accounts how do we know what We have to square up? That fact in itself goes to show that a thorough examination is necessary. Then we come to the second point, viz: the £1,000,000 per month. I just want to say that it is high time the Government was consistent. It’s a pity that we have to hear one thing from the Prime Minister today and something different in another place. I assume that what the Prime Minister says is correct, but then he should ask his officials to tell the Committee the true facts when they appear before the Committee. We have the right to demand that the Government talks through one mouth, and if it does not do so the House must know exactly what has happened. Now let me come to the third point. The Prime Minister simply shrugs his shoulders about the £40,000,000 which is being spent on the building programme, and he says that he could not be expected to know everything, that the Select Committee on Public Accounts would, when the time came, put in its report to the House. I am prepared to leave it at that, but I want to nut a very courteous request to the Prime Minister, and that is that when the Select Committee reports to this House the Prime Minister should be prepared to give the House the time to discuss that report with the Select Committee. In the past that Committee used to work mornings and afternoons to investigate matters in order to report to the House, but no opportunity was ever given to the House to discuss the report. This year the position has been brought to a point— this year we are able to report on the state of affairs up to the middle of 1943. Is the Prime Minister willing to give us the assurance that when the Committee reports to the House we shall be given the opportunity to discuss that report? If the Prime Minister gives us that opportunity then I am prepared not to go into the report of the Auditor-General any further at this stage, but we have the right to expect that what has happened in the past will not happen again now.

Will that report be ready in good time?

Yes.

Then we shall give the House an opportunity to discuss it.

Very well, then I shall accept that assurance, and we need not go any further into that matter.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has just given us another example of complete irresponsibility. This mattter has been considered by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and on that committee the hon. member has never yet asked for the papers or evidence or a balance sheet that he talks about. As a matter of fact, the evidence that was given there was not a matter for a balance sheet, it was a matter for balanced judgment, and when balanced judgment was used even he was satisfied with the replies that he got. An offer was made to show the relevant documents.

Order. Is the hon. member referring to the proceedings of the Committee which is sitting now?

No, Sir, this has been referred to by the hon. member for George.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

You are making disclosures now.

The hon. member can only go into that when the report is brought up.

In this House in Committee, the hon. member for George and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) were told that these documents would be submitted; the hon. member for George has had an opportunity to see these documents, but he has not taken that opportunity, and he comes here to the Committee and makes statements not based on facts as he could have had them, but on facts as he would like them to be. That is the difficulty. Take this question of buildings that he asked the Prime Minister about this morning; he speaks about £40,000,000 having been spent on buildings on a cost-plus basis. Now, not all these contracts were on a cost-plus basis, many of them were on a tender basis. Then he goes on to say that we had no control over the wages paid. He reckons £10,000,000 has been spent on wages, and of course that is so. But the ordinary formula of the Public Works Department could not be used. On the costplus basis contract payments according to the usual Government regulation wages have to be witnessed, but we know that in large contracts of this kind that system was not possible. You could not have people witnessing 2,000 workers being paid on the job, whether the wages they got were right or not. The ordinary routine, in other words, Mr. Chairman, was absolutely useless in a case like this. We are at war, we had to get fortifications built. The job had to be got on with.

Ah, we were waiting for that.

Ten million pounds spent in wages should all have been duly witnessed according to the hon. member for George. Contractors could not be trusted. According to the hon. member there is only one honest firm of contractors in the whole of South Africa, its name is Messrs. Erasmus, Werth, Louw and Company; that is the only honest firm of contractors, but, here is the rub, that firm would have nothing to do with building fortifications or with the war effort at all, they would have nothing to do with it, Sir; but all the other firms in South Africa that contracted for the Government are suspect by these gentlemen. The ordinary proceedings are these: A builder goes on with his job, and whether he is working under tender or under cost-plus contract, he has a wages register and a wages clerk, and all the ordinary routine that he uses in his own business is used on these cost-plus contracts. I can assure you, Sir, that all contractors are not suspect. Our Garrison Engineers accepted these contractors’ registers. One of these contractors even found out that one of his foremen fraudulently drew £300 and got a signature for it on the ground that the £300 was for actual wages. When the employer found this out he goes to the Defence Department and gives them back the money. That incident, of course, raised the question if more of this kind of thing might not be going on in connection with these contracts, and means were taken, machinery was set up to see that no repetition of that sort of thing could happen. Yet the hon. member gets up in this House and says that £10,000,000 for wages have been drawn on these contracts without any supervision whatever. Well, Sir, that is a caricature of the position.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Every means possible was taken to check these payments. Behind this whole business the Committee should know and the country should know, that this cost-plus system has saved the country millions of pounds. This system, of course, we know, has many loopholes, and it can be abused; that we know from experience. But fundamentally, Sir, the system has saved this country millions of pounds.

That is an irresponsible statement.

I know what I am talking about. During this last year or two we have been devising ways and means to stop the abuse that has shown up through this system, and I think it will be agreed that we have evolved an organisation and machinery which keeps a tight grip of supervision on these contracts. No business house could do more than has been done by the respective Government Departments. An attack has been made upon the Government, and it is said that we are wasting money. But we insist on all our contracts upon the cost being given to us. Never before in the history of this country have we put contracts out on a system of this kind, and taking the big view, I am perfectly confident that if we have spent £100,000,000 on contracts on this basis, the country must have saved millions and millions of pounds. They talk about profiteers, Sir, but I would remind the Committee that last year alone £13,000,000 was taken in taxation under the excess profits tax, and under the trade levies tax over £4,000,000 was taken. So if these people got away with it at the first jump, at the second jump the Government got back any excess. During the whole period of the last war the total of excess profits paid amounted to something under £6,000,000. [Time limit.]

I just want to say a few words on the Prime Minister’s remarks about the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus); I think the Prime Minister was very unfair in ascribing motives to the hon. member for Moorreesburg in regard to a question which he asked, and a matter he raised here, about buildings which have been erected on the farm of the Chief of the General Staff. I think the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Defence, as a result of the reply he gave to a question, is perhaps himself the cause of this matter having been raised. The Rt. Hon. the Minister on that occasion did not speak about conveniences which had been erected, in the way he did this morning, but on that occasion he spoke about administrative offices, a recreation hall, a church, workshops, lavatories etc. He said that they would be used for military purposes after the war as well. This morning, however, he told the House that those structures could be pulled down quite easily. If a wrong impression was created the Prime Minister himself was the cause. But may I be allowed to quote from Hansard of the 12th March, 1943. On that occasion we asked the Minister of Defence a question which also dealt with buildings. We asked—

The Minister of Defence replied—

That is to say, De Beers, at Somerset Strand; and he went on to say—

Here we have an instance of buildings erected on a private company’s land and the House can see from the reply that there is no great serious insinuation involved in asking such a question. A few years ago already the Hon. the Minister admitted that buildings were erected on private land and in connection with this one instance £12,672 was spent, and that was not even the final amout. I think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was not fair to the hon. member for Moorreesburg. Now, I want to say a few words about another matter. Although this side of the House is strongly opposed to the war, although we believe that the people’s wellbeing would have been better served if the Union had remained neutral, there is not a single one of us who does not feel proud of a man who sacrifices his life for a cause in which he believes. In all the countries of the world people are proud of their armies and their soldiers. When I was studying overseas it was marvellous to see what pride the people felt when their own soldiers or their own sailors marched through the streets. There was not the slightest doubt whose soldiers or sailors they were—whether they were English, French or German. But in South Africa that is not the case. Let me say that 70 per cent. of the soldiers in the Union are Afrikaans-speaking, but when one walks about these places where soldiers are being trained it is only very rarely that one hears Afrikaans used. I have never heard it yet. I should like the Prime Minister to mention any place where men are being trained through the medium of Afrikaans. I should like him to mention a few of the camps. We have asked that question before but the Minister could not mention any instances. He replied that if people asked to be trained in Afrikaans they were trained in Afrikaans. Here in Cape Town and in Wynberg there are a large number of Afrikaans-speaking men in the army, but wherever one goes one finds—whether these men have to fall in either at the station or on parade—the orders are given in English. One never hears the Afrikaans language.

Here in Cape Town, but go to the Transvaal or the Free State.

I make bold to say that it is not much better there. But apart from that, here, too, a large proportion of these people are Afrikaansspeaking. With the Cavalcade we are again going to see lots of soldiers about. Why is only one language used when orders are given? I remember the late Gen. Beyers addressing defence force camps, and he thought it necessary in his speech to the men in the camps to emphasise that we were not English soldiers but soldiers of the Union.

Twenty-five years ago!

He thought it necessary, the Chief of the General Staff of those days, to remind us that we were not soldiers of another nation but soldiers of our own country, and I think I have good reason, and perhaps better reason than in those days, to bring this fact to the notice of the Minister of Defence. We see photographs in the newspapers to show what our Defence Force has done. These photographs must be genuine because otherwise the Censor would not have allowed them to be published. One sees photographs of places taken by South African soldiers, but nowhere does one see the South African Flag. It is only the Union Jack which one sees over conquered buildings. If one goes to the bioscope, and surely the pictures there cannot be untrue, you see how the Afrikaans Army has marched up in Northern Africa, but everywhere you see the Union Jack and the South African Flag is conspicuous by its absence. I saw a film which showed the Prime Minister getting out of an aeroplane up North. Perhaps the Prime Minister was too busy greeting people to notice it, but even when the Prime Minister of the Union arrived, the South African Flag was conspicuous by its absence. Even though we are against the war we are proud of the South Africans who are willing to sacrifice their lives in this way; we are proud of our soldiers, just like the French, the English or the Germans are; we want to feel they are our own people. Now I want to come to another matter. The Minister of Defence said that no money was being wasted except that here and there a little money was missing. Only yesterday there were a number of cases before the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court. I counted in a hurry but I noticed that there were cases in connection with about 5,000 sheets of corrugated iron which are so very scarce today, and the magistrate considered it necessary to fine five shopkeepers to the total amount of £455. He said that he blamed those people—and all those sheets of corrugated iron came from the Defence Force; in other words, they were stolen from the Defence Force. I quite realise that one can carry away a suit of clothes or a small parcel without being noticed, but if you touch corrugated iron sheets it makes a noise, and if you find that 5,000 sheets of corrugated iron have been removed and sold, it goes to show that there must be something wrong with the control over these goods. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the House has once again experienced criticism from the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He has had his annual event when he comes forward and gives us his amateur theatrical performance, which takes exactly the same form as it has taken over the course of the last few years while the war has been on. His main attack on this occasion contained three items. Two of them have been very successfully dealt with by the Prime Minister, and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committet. The Prime Minister has finally, I think, disposed of £35,000,000, and I think the hon. Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee will dispose of the cost-plus system. The gravamen of the hon. member’s attack is that we have not got a certified account of this expenditure. He does not come and tell the House just why that endless stream of supplies had to go forward in a hurry. He comes and treats the House as he does the people in his constituency who have sent him here, to a statement which does not contain the full details, and he tries to impress on them the scandalous waste of unrecorded supplies being sent to the North. But what is the true position? In 1940, overnight, this country found itself at war with Italy. Virtually on our borders was an enemy equipped far better than we were, an enemy which had been preparing for several years with a quarter of a million of armed men. What does the hon. member for George expect the defence authorities of this country to do; to employ a lot of tally clerks making out waybills and taking years and years to send the necessary war supplies up to that border? And because that has not been done everything today is scandalous. Overnight this country found itself at war and threatened by a quarter of a million trained men, and the defence authorities of this country would have been lacking in every form of efficiency and loyalty had they not rushed every available article of war supplies to that front as soon as possible, “oneindige stroom van voorrade na Oos-Afrika.” If we wanted tally clerks, they would have had to get into uniform and the hon. member and his friends would have run round insulting them as “khaki pests.”

We did not call them skunks.

That is the kind of thing he does not want us to think of. But the unintelligent individual on the platteland, where he comes from—

You are so intelligent.

If there is one example of intelligence in this House, it does not sit on that side of the House.

You are after all one of those poor unintelligent plattelanders.

In the extraordinary circumstances the country found itself in, there was no time to follow out the ordinary procedure, and the hon. member for George knows it. During four years all this has been explained to the hon. member in detail by all the officials of the Defence Department, and he knows it, and, Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in saying that he comes forward here once again with the same old theatrical display that he has given us before. That is the kind of thing that has been followed by the illiterate and unintelligent people who returned him to Parliament. It does not go down with the country, it does not go down with the Press, and it certainly does not go down with this side of the House. We here after four years of this theatrical entertainment would very much appreciate a change of financial criticism, we would like him to give us some economic proposals, something that would be entertaining from the point of view of its novelty. This old story of his, this old play is getting threadbare and worn out. In order to make himself more interesting, may I appeal to him that next time he should come forward with some new financial criticism that may be more interesting.

I have been listening to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Sutter) and I notice that the rural members round about him are congratulating him for having described the rural districts as illiterate and unintelligent. Let there be no doubt about that— those were the words he used. “The illiterate and unintelligent people who sent the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) to this House.” I only want to say that the hon. member should not refer to the rural districts in that unbecoming manner. It seems to me that since he has ceased being a plattelander his intelligence has greatly deteriorated. The hon. member comes from Warmbaths, in my constituency, and I want to tell him that the plattelanders who stopped behind are very much more intelligent than those hon. members who elected the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter).

I believe you come from somewhere near George.

Yes, and your father also came from there. I come from the same farm that your father came from— he came from my grandfather’s farm. Now I want to say this: It is a good thing sometimes for people to try and be funny in this House but there is not the slightest reason for anyone to be offensive. I don’t know whether the hon. member understands the expressions he used, but it is most reprehensible to insult a community in that way. He was offensive to the Nationalists of the platteland generally. Let me tell him that if the intelligence of the Nationalists on the platteland were weighed against the intelligence of the hon. member’s friends, the Nationalists would score very considerably. Now let me deal with this charge of money being wasted. The hon. member for George dealt with certain aspects of that question. Let me say that we are opposed to the war; we are still opposed to it, but even if the Government does continue the war, there is no reason why money should unnecessarily be wasted in connection with our war effort. I am dealing here with two factors in connection with the waste of money. The one is the employment of large numbers of natives and coloured people, the unnecessary employment of these people as lorry drivers or ordinary drivers, and, Mr. Chairman, the Government has not only wasted money in regard to the employment of native and coloured men on an unnecessarily large scale, but it has also wasted money on the employment of huge numbers of women. They have simply dislocated things in South Africa. Take the native and coloured drivers. This morning I drove to a place near Cape Town and I met a whole fleet of lorries, all full of white soldiers, and the drivers of those lorries, practically without exception, were natives.

Why not?

I am telling the House why not. If the hon. member will keep quiet he will get my answer. Why not? For this reason: In the military camps throughout the country there are thousands and thousands of soldiers. They are not fighting. Perhaps they are still going to fight, I don’t know. I am dealing with the situation as it is today, and I say there are tens of thousands of soldiers in our camps. There are more than enough white men who are able to drive these lorries and if troops have to be moved there are hundreds of those white soldiers who can drive these lorries; why then waste money by taking natives into the army to drive the lorries? If the reply is that there are not sufficient whites to drive the lorries then my question is: If those natives can be trained to drive the lorries—and we know they have all been trained to do it because they could not do it before—why cannot the white men be trained to do so?

Then we will want more whites.

I am talking of the whites who are already in the army and who are hanging about the camps today doing nothing. Why are not they trained to do that work, instead of training natives to do it? In the meantime the farms are being denuded of labour. The natives are being drawn into the army, they are attracted by high wages such as they have never earned before, and such as they will not earn when the war is over. They are being spoilt and the farmers are without labour. I say that there are ample white soldiers to drive those lorries, and it is a waste of money to employ the natives for that purpose, and it has the effect of dislocating conditions in this country.

Now we are listening to an expert on defence.

I am not an expert on defence, but still I have some common sense which the hon. member has apparently not got. This is not a question of military knowledge. It is not necessary to be a military expert to know that a white man can handle a lorry better than a native can. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) who used to take up the same attitude as we on this side of the House, got up here yesterday and cast a blot on the white people by saying that they do not do this work as well as the coloured people and the natives do it. I say it is a disgraceful waste of money and that it completely dislocates conditions in South Africa. Now I want to come to another aspect; that is the unnecessary number of women in the army, and apparently they have been taken on for the same reason. There are numbers of women in the army who have to drive these lorries. When soldiers have to be taken in a troop carrier one of these women soldiers has to drive that carrier, despite the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of soldiers who could do it themselves. Why have these women been taken into the army for this purpose? Why all this waste of money, and why should we get these women to do work which can quite easily be done by men in the army? And the same thing is going on in the offices. Apparently there are many more people in the offices in this country and in other concerns than there are men to do the fighting. It is a waste of money. Even if the Government wants to continue its war effort to the greatest possible extent, that still is no reason why money should be wasted. I have an article from the “Cape Argus” before me dealing with this question.

Now we are going to hear Satan quoting the Bible.

That paper apparently regards this matter as most important because it devotes a whole article to it. [Time limit.]

I do not propose replying to the hon. member for Water berg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) as his remarks are merely another example of the prejudice which he and his party have against the natives. But what I do want to speak about is first of all the question which I raised last year on the Prime Minister’s Vote of the co-ordination of all the activities dealing with soldiers, and returned soldiers particularly, under one department, and I want to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the organisation which asked me to take up the matter with the Government for the formation of the new Department of Demobilisation. At the same time there are certain objections, and the first objection is the choice of the name of that particular department, because I think without doubt it has been proved that that name has had a deleterious effect on recruiting. People have come to the conclusion that the establishment of a department with that name meant that the end of the war was very near and that has accounted to a large extent for the complacency which has existed and which does exist in South Africa today. I hope that other bodies associated with soldiers’ affairs will be brought eventually under the jurisdiction of one Minister, and, when dealing with this matter, I refer particularly to military pensions. It seems wrong that we should have the Minister of Finance at the same time Minister of Pensions, and particularly of war pensions, and, with all due respect to the present Minister of Finance, I would say it is like a man having two wives. It is the case of one wife pulling in one direction and the other in another—the one wife taking and the other giving. I do feel that the soldiers would be happier if they knew that their affairs were in the hands of one man divorced from the Ministry of Finance. Another matter which I want to refer to is in connection with the excellent report presented by the South African Nautical College Committee. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) referred to that report yesterday and I want to say that a word of tribute is due to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) for his generous gesture in offering a large sum of money for the foundation of a nautical college in this country. I think we should express our appreciation to him. I do hope that the. Government will tackle this matter of the formation of a nautical college with the greatest possible expediency. I should like to see this college established before the end of the war because there are men in our Naval Service who are anxious to remain there, and to make the Naval Service their future career. In the Army and Air Force also, numbers of serving soldiers desire to continue in the Army or Air Force when the war is over. In that connection I want to ask the Prime Minister when deciding what our future defence strength is likely to be and particularly what the strength of the Air Force is likely to be, to consider in how far present members of the South African Air Force in particular, and other defence units, will be kept on in a permanent capacity, when the war is over. I want to refer also to another organisation, the S.A.W.A.S. This organisation does not need any praise from me, it has already been highly praised by the Prime Minister himself, but I do feel that some tangible recognition should be given to them when the war is over. They should receive some decoration in the same way as soldiers—something in the nature of a victory medal. And finally, I wish to make an appeal to the Minister to take into consideration as his first step in the direction of social security the establishment of a free medical and dental service to serving soldiers and their dependents. A gesture of this kind would act as a fillip to recruiting and it would also be an experiment from which South Africa could see how a State Medical Service would function in the future.

We on these benches listened this morning with the greatest interest to the statement of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister on this question of dishonourable discharges, particularly of native soldiers, and we were naturally gratified that the Prime Minister showed his own concern about this and his anxiety for the revision of the system which he himself was inclined to think had probably led to some injustice. Now, there are only one or two points in regard to the whole matter which were not quite clear from the Minister’s reply on which we would be glad to have a little more light. The Minister told the House that it was the intention of the Department of Defence to review this whole question of discharges and to reconsider the matter of discharging people without benefits. And he suggested that he was fairly well convinced that there might have been some miscarriage of justice in the past. Now, we would like to have some light on this. Are all of these who have been discharged without benefits to have reconsideration of their position? The Minister did say that individual cases brought to the notice of the Department by responsible persons would be given reconsideration but I venture to suggest that out of the large number of persons involved, I am thinking of Africans particularly who in the last six months have been thrown back on the community without any benefits—there are very few who will be in a position to know that the Department will be prepared to reconsider their case if it comes through reput able channels. Yet those people, of whom there have been over 4,000 in the last six months, are wandering about the country; those whose business it is to keep in touch with the African people are meeting them at every turn. I meet them throughout my constituency, and these people come to me and say: “I have served two or three years, I am back with nothing, not even a suit of civilian clothes, to start life again, having had to find my own way back from the dispersal depot to my home.” And there they are nursing their grievances in insolation from the sort of channels of representation which the Minister had in mind, and there they are becoming the centres of spreading discontent among the African people. It is not enough that the whole system of discharge should be reconsidered for the future. We feel that there is a very strong case for a thorough revision of this large number of discharges without benefits that have taken place in the last few months, if we are to counteract the effect which these people are undoubtedly having on the opinion of the African people throughout the country. Secondly, in the matter of revision of procedure in regard to discharges, the Minister did not give us any information as to what he thought would be the lines of such revision. He did say that it had been decided that the term “dishonourable discharge” should no longer be used, but I do feel that the words “discharge without benefit” are going to become the same thing in the end—it is only a change of words, it is not a change of implication, and I feel that unless there is a clear cut and very definite revision of the machinery by which discharges have been controlled in the past we have no guarantee except on the basis of general goodwill that the soldier is going to be any more secure from the danger of discharge without benefits than he has been in the past. It was significant that in reply to this deputation to which the Minister referred as having been received by Brigadier Blane, the question was asked whether there was any appeal by the dishonourably discharged soldier against his dishonourable discharge. The Brigadier replied, as the Minister knows—that in actual fact there is no appeal and that the man who is dishonourably discharged does not know until he is out of the Army that he is dishonourably discharged. He does not know until he is out of the Army that there is a possibility that his discharge sheet will be endorsed in this fashion. Brigadier Blane said that the man would not know until he had his discharge papers—that is until he was out of the Army—that he was being dishonourably discharged. So he did not think there could be an appeal. I suggest that if there is going to be an effective revision of the situation it is imperative that some machinery should be set up whereby in the first instance the man who is going to be discharged will know beforehand that there are charges against him, that he will be given the opportunity to defend himself against these charges and that he will have a right of appeal in the event of his being ultimately discharged without benefit. That, I think, is of the first importance if we are to counter the serious social effects that result from this system of discharge without benefits. Finally, on the question of re-employment, of discharged Africans, which was the other issue raised by my honourable colleague yesterday, I think in view of the Minister’s reply this morning there must be some misunderstanding about the position. The Minister suggested this morning that exactly the same machinery operates in respect of Africans discharged from the Army in the matter of finding employment as in respect of other sections. My information is not the same, and I have discussed this with the Chief Liaison Officer in Johannesburg. What I understand happens is that every African, as well as every European, is asked whether he wants work found for him by the Government before he is discharged. In the case of the African it is not laid down that he must have work found for him if he prefers to go home. If he decides to go home he is discharged; but even if he decides that he wants a job, he is not kept on in the way European and coloured soldiers are until work is found for them. That is exactly what we are concerned about. We feel that this is an injustice to the African. We feel that it is inevitable in the circumstances that it would be much more difficult for the African to get back into civil life, than for other sections for whom the Government takes direct responsibility. The Government has to carry every other member of the Force provided he is due an honourable discharge. Such a man has to get his pay and his allowances until such time as the Government can put him in a job. And I know that in many cases men have refused jobs and are kept on the establishment for months until they eventually agree to accept a job offered to them. But that is not the position with the African who goes out at once and who has to make his own way with as much charitable assistance as he can get from the Native Affairs Department and the Governor-General’s Fund. We feel that that should be revised. And there is an additional reason for revision implicit in this letter which the Prime Minister quoted from this morning. The ground on which the Department in the past has justified its policy not to carry a continuing-responsibility for the African soldier is that the bulk of the Africans come from the rural areas, and that they are automatically reabsorbed in those areas, so that there is no need to worry about them—there is no serious responsibility on the Government to find them jobs. Now, it is rather significant that in this letter the Secretary for Defence informs the Committee to which this letter was written that he is advised that on the whole it is thought that at least as many natives were recruited from urban as from rural areas. That is a new story from the Department of Defence. They told us the very opposite last year when we were endeavouring to get some revision of the pay of African soldiers to bring it more into line with the cost of living of the Africans. [Time limit.]

Arising out of the analysis of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) the Hon. the Minister of Defence waxed fairly sarcastic about the prima facie case. I do not know whether the hon. Minister has forgotten what the legal implication of a prima facie case is. It is a case which has been put in such a way that it is necessary for the other party to vouchsafe an explanation. In that sense the Prime Minister accepted it in that he attempted to give an explanation. He then went on ostensibly to disprove beyond any doubt the figures which the hon. member for George had given. And how did he do it? The hon. member for George based his proposition on the figure of £12,000,000 for the future, and in attempting to disprove that figure the Prime Minister spoke of the £35,500,000 which relates to the past. He tried to disprove it in that way amidst “hear, hears” from his side on the part of people who did not even realise what the whole thing was about. The hon. member for George bases his figures on the basis of £1,000,000 per month in respect of the future; the Minister of Defence bases his on £35,500,000 in respect of the past. When one analyses it, what sort of reply is that? Is that a logical way of disproving the hon. member’s figures There may be a reply to what the hon. member for George said. We find ourselves in this unfortunate position that we have not got the information, and the information we do get we have to get by bits and pieces from the Prime Minister. We have to drag it out of the Prime Minister. If there are other facts, let us hear them, but the Prime Minister must not try to satisfy us in the way he did in connection with the criticism which was levelled on this side, namely, to reply to an analysis as far as the future is concerned by analysing what happened in the past. Let us now come to the £1,000,000 per month in respect of the future. Let us take it that half of that sum is for the land force. I understand that that is the position. Then I should also like to know from the Prime Minister what the position will be if our troops in the North become less than 60,000. Will there be a pro rata reduction? If there is no such arrangement the Prime Minister will agree that if we reduce our troops by half, it means that our costs per month per unit will have doubled. So much as far as the future is concerned. Let us now go back to the past. The Minister of Defence says that the amount for the past is £35,500,000, and in some way or other he arrives at the conclusion that that means that £7,500,000 is for the land force. I want to ask him this. No books were kept by the British Government as to what was sent there. If the position is that no books were kept, how does the Minister arrive at an amount of £7,500,000 out of £35,500,000? I shall tell you how he arrives at that figure. He arrives at it by taking an arbitrary figure of £500,000 per month for fifteen months. That is an altogether arbitrary figure. I do not know why £500,000 was taken and not £1,000,000. In any event, £500,000 was taken as the figure for the land force for these fifteen months. That makes a total of £7,500,000. Then we come to the Air Force. Here he also takes £500,000 for fifteen months, and he adds £10,000,000 to that, which brings the total to £17,500,000. Then £10,500,000 is added in respect of goods which came to South Africa from England. I think that that is his argument. But how does the Minister of Defence arrive at £7,500,000 and why did he take £500,000 as the basis? Is there any method of testing how those amounts were arrived at? No, at the moment it is a completely arbitrary affair, and we say, therefore, that it is not good enough to come forward with such an arbitrary calculation. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) has, of course, a different philosophy in connection with public finances, which is tantamount to this, that we must simply abolish the post of Auditor-General and the Select Committee on Public Accounts, because in war time one does not keep books. That is apparently his attitude. But a further point which I want to mention is this, that we are not acquainted with all the figures. We are glad that the Prime Minister has given us a little more information. But let us get all these figures before the Select Committee, so that the Select Committee can judge how the Minister of Defence arrived at the figure of £7,500,000 out of a total of £35,500,000, and then determine whether there is any fixed basis. It may be that there is a sound basis, but the mere fact that he says that the expenditure in connection with the Land Force is £7,500,000 out of £35,500,000 does not reply to the criticism of the hon. member for George. His criticism was not based on this £35,500,000. It related only to the £12,000,000. It may be that it should be £1,000,000 per month. But why must we accept the basis of £500,000 for the Land Force and £500,000 for the Air Force; how do we arrive at the fifty-fifty basis? And if that division is made, does it remain constant, irrespective of the number of people who are up North, and irrespective of the services rendered? In this connection I want to put a pertinent question. Assuming that during the course of the next year we reduce our troops up North by 30,000, will we have to continue paying £500,000 per month? Assuming that we reduce our Air Force and that we no longer have the same number of aeroplanes up North, would we still have to contribute the same amount per month? Even if the strength of the Air Force is reduced, and even if there are no air operations in the future, must we still contribute the same amount? These are things we would like to know. We are entirely dependent on the Minister for data, and the figures which he gave us are the only figures on which we can go. If the figures which he gave us are not quite correct, we are not to be blamed if we draw certain conclusions. May I give another example? The Minister of Defence said here that the maximum, up North was 60,000 men and that there were 70,000 in the Union. That makes a total of 130,000. Are those the only European troops which we have in this war ? That is the figure which was given to us; or is there a third place where we have troops? Let us go a little further.

He says that of the 70,000 who are here 45,000 are women and children. That leaves 25,000. Yesterday he said that there were 33,000 in training schools in the country, air schools, etc. Must I take it that out of this 25,000 there are 33,000 in air schools; in other words, that the part is greater than the whole? At the moment it is a little difficult for me to understand that. Or is this perhaps a new form of Holism? I take it there must be something wrong with the figures. We should like to have the correct figures. We base our arguments on the figures we get from the other side, and if we do not get the right figures, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister must not hold it against us if our conclusions are not correct. All we ask is that the right figures shall be given to us, and we shall then be in a position to base our criticism on those figures. If we had had a clear statement from the Prime Minister at the beginning of this debate, saying how this money was being spent, it would have rendered a great deal of this criticism unnecessary. But because he withheld that from us, we had to base our criticism on the facts in our possession. It might have saved a great deal of time if we had had a clear statement from the Prime Minister at the beginning of this debate. When I said at the beginning of this week that included in this £35,500,000 were goods which were obtained from America through England under the lease-lend system, he said it was absolutely false. [Time limit.]

I suppose I shall continue to be disappointed at the approach which hon. members on the other side make to this question. One would imagine that this country was buying apples on a barrow or trying to sell something at the greatest possible advantage to the country. Surely hon. members on the other side know that one is fighting for freedom. Whether this fiftyfifty basis works out to the advantage of South Africa or to the advantage of Australia is not in question at all. What we are endeavouring to safeguard and to maintain for South Africa and the Allied world is the freedom of the Allied world. But these gentlemen are now arguing whether Australia’s contribution to the common effort is greater or smaller than our contribution. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) with his cheap logic stated here that it appeared from the figures in their possession that the part is greater than the whole. One expects a little better from the hon. member for Fauresmith.

You have not even got parts.

That hon. member is deficient in more than parts. Hon. members must not come here with their cheap logic. What one is endeavouring to do is to safeguard the freedom of humanity and the freedom of South Africa and we feel that £1,000,000 per month is a vital and a real contribution. We cannot make the contribution which Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and other parts of the Empire are making with our manpower, thanks to the attitude of hon. members on the other side, but we have got £ s. d. and I wish that South Africa could make a greater financial contribution to the common pool than she is making today. Let us understand that South Africa today is the most fortunate country in the whole of the Commonwealth of Nations, if not in the whole world. The measure of her taxation, judged by the taxation of which this country is capable, reveals that we are very fortunate in this country. Might I ask the hon. member for George and the hon. member for Fauresmith not to come to this debate in a state of mind as though we are trying to buy apples from a barrow.

We must not stop the waste?

Stop the waste of manpower and let us endeavour to give to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister the support which he needs in manpower. Let us ask hon. members on the other side in estimating the generosity merely to remember that at the end of the last war when the Imperial resources in this country was to be measured by millions there was no question of a quid pro quo. At the end of the last war when the Imperial resources in this country ran into millions, those resources were given to South Africa as a free gift at the end of the last war, and hon. members took it with both hands.

And paid £8,000,000.

I do not want to say that the contribution made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is worthy of consideration. One appreciates that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is going to have the whole question of honourable and dishonourable discharges looked into. Let me say that there has never been a discharge given to any man which bore on the face of it the words “honourable” or “dishonourable” discharge, and I hope there never will be. What they do bear on them is this sort of thing: “Cause or reason for discharge: Act 32 of 1917, para. 123, Sub-section (c)” and then follow the vital words: “In the interests of the service.” That is the thing that bears the stigma. No one with any self respect dare show the discharge certificate. It does not say “dishonourable discharge.” It does not say “with benefits” or “without benefits.” It says that his discharge is in the interest of the service. Any man who is discharged today is discharged without benefits. I am surprised that some hon. members on this side have seen fit to resign from the army due no doubt to the criticism which has been directed by hon. members opposite. I want to say here that I would like to see every member of this House making his contribution to the war effort—in uniform if need be. But might I ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to appreciate this fact. When a man is discharged with or without benefits, what does that mean? Who is giving those benefits? Is the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Defence giving those benefits; is the Government giving those benefits? No, when a man is discharged without benefits, he is deprived of benefits which the public citizen has subscribed. I subscribe something which I hope will make it possible for that man to rehabilitate himself. The Minister of Social Welfare pointed out this week in very trenchant terms that the cash allowance of £5 or whatever it is, was a benefit that accrued to the man as a result of the discharge he obtained from the Government. But let me remind the House that these benefits do not come out of the State Treasury, except to the extent that the funds are subsidised by the Government on a certain basis, and I do ask that the benefits which are to come and which were foreshadowed by the Minister of Social Welfare, and this gratuity which will be paid to ex-service men, will enable the men ultimately to rehabilitate themselves. Those benefits that the man claims today entitles him to throw off his uniform and to get into civilian clothes, that is, if he is fortunate enough to find someone who would give him a suit of civilian clothes; he goes to a labour bureau and he says: “I have spent the last four or five years in the army.” He is then asked for his discharge certificate. The man shows his discharge and it does not matter whether he is a European, a coloured person or a native, he is told by the official who looks at the discharge certificate: “I am sorry, this particular discharge of yours does not permit us, the Government, to do anything for you.” “We are not allowed by virtue of this discharge of yours which disentitles you from benefits to try to place you in employment.” He is thrown out of the army; he is deprived of any advantage coming to him through the Labour Bureau. The Labour Bureau then asks: “Were you employed before you enlisted?” The man replies that he was employed before his enlistment, that he used to work for some civilian employer … [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) is one of those good credulous souls who still believes that this war is being fought for the freedom of humanity. We leave him with that consolation. But he goes further and he is now prepared because this war is supposed to be fought for the freedom of humanity ….

And of Russia.

… and of Russia, of course —he is now prepared to spend and to waste, and as Lord Milner said: “Damn the consequences.” That is his attitude and also the attitude of other hon. members on the other side. Let me tell the hon. member and also the Prime Minister, that if he goes about in the country and even in the platteland, of which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) spoke so contemptuously and of which the Prime Minister spoke so contemptuously when he referred to his London speech, he will find that there is considerable dissatisfaction in connection with this big expenditure and this waste of money. I now come to the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet). I am very surprised at the hon. member. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) mentioned certain facts from the report of the Auditor-General. What does the hon. member for Vasco do? The hon. member gets up—it is true he does not actually refer to evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts—but he gets up and states the effect of that evidence. That is what he did. He gave the gist of certain evidence which was given before the Select Committee, and the hon. member as Chairman of that Committee knows that that is not done. Now the hon. member goes further and states that the speech of the hon. member for George was a caricature. If ever there was a caricature it was the speech of the hon. member for Vasco when he tried to give this House the impression that there was nothing wrong in the Department of Defence. That was the effect of the hon. member’s speech. It is stated that there are complaints in regard to this, that or the other, and then he gives the effect of the evidence and maintains that the position is not so bad.

Did you listen to my speech?

I did listen, and I want to say this to the hon. member for Vasco. Will he tell the House of the trouble in connection with Bellman Hangars in connection with which a sum of £260,000 is involved? Let him tell the House of the 5,000 tons of scaffolding which were imported and then tell the House that that too is nothing. And what about the galvanised iron scandal? According to the hon. member that too is nothing. Unfortunately I cannot go into that, because I would then have to reveal evidence which was given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. But the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) referred to facts which came out yesterday in a court case, and now we know what became of those galvanised iron sheets! But notwithstanding that the hon. member for Vasco comes here and says that all this is nothing. He adopts the same attitude which was adopted by the hon. member for Green Point: “There is a war on; a war for humanity, etc., etc., etc. Damn the consequences.” Let us go on wasting; it does not matter. There is a war on! It seems to me that in this House the hon. member for Vasco adopts an attitude which he does not adopt when he is Chairman of the Select Committee. There he adopts a different attitude in so far as the Department of Defence is concerned. The hon. member for Vasco knows very well—I am now saying what is stated in the Auditor-General’s report; I am not referring to evidence which was given before the Select Committee—that the Auditor-General states in his report that time and again he asked the Department of Defence for certain information. He writes, for example, in January to the Department of Defence, and in November he still has not had a reply to his letter. That is how the Department of Defence treats even the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General, an official of this House, an independent official who is appointed by this House, writes to the Department of Defence and they do not even reply to his letters. They do not even acknowledge the receipt of those letters. Unfortunately it seems to me that the spirit which we find here today, as in the case of the hon. member for Green Point and others, also prevails in the Department of Defence. It prevails with the Director of Fortifications, for example. Money can be wasted and spent in a reckless manner because there is a war on. No, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for George said. If we do not get an adequate opportunity to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in this House, we might just as well abolish the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We sit four days in the week and two evenings in the week, and then we do not even get an opportunity to discuss the report of the Select Committee in this House. The time has arrived for the Prime Minister to realise the seriousness of this position. We now demand that we be given a proper opportunity this year to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in this House.

Under the leadership of our hon. Leader we have this privilege today that we have thousands of prisoners-of-war on our farms who work there. They are very satisfied and we are also very satisfied. But the question I want to put is this: If we had followed the policy of the Opposition, is it not possible that those prisoners-of-war who work on our farms today might have been in this country as our conquerors? I have listened attentively to the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition. The Opposition is absolutely opposed to the spending of money to see this war through. The policy of the Opposition is this …

Are you in favour of waste?

They tell us that we must remain at home.

And you are doing what we tell you.

And if the enemy crosses our borders, we must charge them with those bush carts and drive them back. That is the attitude of the Opposition. That is why I put this question. I am afraid that if we had followed the advice of the Opposition and we had come up against the enemy with a force of more than 600,000 soldiers, there could only have been one result; we would have been defeated. I ask therefore whether these prisoners-of-war might not have been our conquerors today?

That is a very big question.

My second point is this: If Hitler or his representative had occupied the seat which the Prime Minister occupies today, would the Opposition have had the right to criticise in this way?

What would have happened if Stalin had occupied that seat?

No, we say this. Spend the money …

Waste it.

No, not waste it; spend the money as the Government is spending it today.

Do you know how the Government is spending it?

I do not know that, but what I do know is that that money is not being thrown into the water, as the Opposition says.

Read the Auditor-General’s report.

The money remains in circulation in this country. It is not being wasted. The soldiers’ pay comes back to our farmers. They buy our meat, our butter and our vegetables. If they do not buy it, their wives do.

What about the bush carts?

It is not we who made them; it is not this Government. We have never had as many factories in this country as we have today. Those factories are not going to be broken down after the war. They will remain here, and they will manufacture after this war and provide work for our people, and that is a great step in the direction of developing our industries. The position today is the same as it was in 1914-’18. The same arguments are being advanced here. When our great leaders, Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts, saw the war through, the same arguments we hear today were raised by the Opposition. What was the result? We saw the war through. Our two great Leaders took part in the peace conference and obtained these peace terms which we are enjoying today. We want to say this to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister: “Carry on and see the war through.”

Waste money.

And our Leader will represent South Africa at the peace conference in an honest and manly manner.

I think we have just listened to a speech which surely reflects deep wisdom, and I think that the electors of Losberg can really be congratulated on the effort of their member in this House. Just imagine the wisdom in the statement that if it were not for the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister we would not have had Italians to work on our farms. Surely, is that not a good reason for taking part in the war? And his second point was this, that if we had not had the Prime Minister we would have had Hitler in his place? Well, perhaps he will not remain in his seat very long, but it will not be Hitler who will occupy his place; it will apparently be Stalin who will sit in the Prime Minister’s place. That was his second statement which revealed wisdom. And the third statement which revealed wisdom was that the Government had never done a better thing than to spend money.

To waste money.

No, he did not say that, but they must spend as much money as they please, because, according to him, the more money they spend the more money gets into circulation and the more money finds its way into the pockets of the farmers. According to the hon. member, therefore, the Government cannot spend enough money. He says the same argument was advanced during the last war, and he asks: “What was the result?” Does he know what the result was? The result was Wakkerstroom, and there will be another Wakkerstroom as the result of the things which are being done today. [Interruptions.]

Order, order!

I do not mind. Then there is the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). He rose and held it against this side of the House that we had said that our expenditure must be on careful lines. But he holds that against this side. It is not only he who said that; his speech was typical of many of the speeches which came from hon. members on that side, namely, that hon. members on this side have no right to say that the money must be spent in a proper way, and that the taxpayers’ money must not be wasted. It would seem that the people in South Africa have completely lost their ethical views in connection with the expenditure of money. When hon. members on this side insist that this money should be spent properly, they are attacked by hon. members on that side. It is wrong to ask that this money should be spent in a proper manner. Hon. members on that side may have lost their monetary consciences to such an extent that they do not care, but I can give them the assurance that the people throughout the country do care, and care very much. The hon. member for Green Point, who is preparing to burst forth with one of his wise statements, said, that we pay very much less by way of taxation than other countries, and that therefore we have no right to speak of the money that is being wasted. The hon. member said that this money was being spent in order to retain the freedom of this country. But I want to tell the hon. member that one does not obtain freedom by wasting money. On the contrary, your chances of obtaining freedom are less if you waste money, and if you recklessly throw away the means at your disposal to obtain that freedom. What is his attitude? A certain sum of money has been voted for the army. That money can now be wasted recklessly. But if much more material could be bought for the same money in order to fight for the freedom of this country, would not that be a good thing? But the hon. member is not in favour of that; he is in favour of less material being bought as a result of this waste which is taking place. It seems to me that the hon. member does not understand the position at all. With the money which is available, more material can be made available for the army if we put a stop to waste. He does not understand that. Let me give an example. In my constituency there is a little town called Hankey. Some time ago a dove flew against the telegraph wires with fatal results. It was then noted that there was a ring on its leg. The dove was then taken to the police station. The police investigated and found that it was a military dove. They rang up Port Elizabeth and said: “We found a dove here which flew against the telegraph wires. We think it is a military dove; it has a ring on its leg which proves that fact. Must we send it off by train to Port Elizabeth today?” “No,” they said “our soldiers will come and fetch it.” Two or three hours later a large military lorry, a troop carrier, came to fetch the dove. It was apparently a dove of peace. They might have thought that this was the dove of peace, and that they must hide it as soon as possible before the world got to know of it. But that type of thing has the approval of the hon. member for Green Point. He says we must not complain. There is a certain place near our coast to which jam is sent, large cans of 40 lbs. The cook opens the cans and if he does not like the jam, he dumps it into the sea. Is it right to waste money in this way? These are a few of the smaller things. The Auditor-General has reported in regard to the more serious things. Is it right that money should be wasted in this manner? In the opinion of the hon. member for Green Point it does not matter whether the money is spent properly. According to him it is disloyal if one asks the Minister of Defence that the money of the taxpayer should be spent in a proper way. But let me put it from the point of view of the hon. member. Does he not want this money to be spent in such a way that as much material as possible can be obtained for the army with this money? We have to pay a great deal for the war. The Government is not as popular as it was in the past, and one of the reasons is the fact that the taxpayers’ money is being wasted. Even a person who supports the war says: “I do not mind paying taxes;

I know I have to pay taxes, but I want my money to be spent properly, so that I can get value for it. If this money is used to see the war through, I must know that the troops are getting value for the money, and that I, as a taxpayer, get value for my money.” There is an enormous amount of dissatisfaction throughout the country. Many people do not mind being taxed, but they do not want the money for which they may have worked very hard, to be wasted. They therefore object, and they are objecting more loudly every day. They are fully entitled to do so.

The hon. Minister for Defence did not reply to one of the questions I asked him yesterday. It may have been an oversight on his part. It was in connection with motor drivers. My question was why all of a sudden such an intensive recruiting for motor drivers, 1,200 of them, had to take place. What is the reason for the sudden recruiting for the Sixth Division which is taking place? I explained my reasons for asking that question and I hoped that we will get some more information. Then in regard to mustard gas, the Minister of Defence was very annoyed with me for asking the question. I am not worried about that, but he did not reply to my question. My question was not whether we had stopped the experiments, but whether we had stopped the manufacture of mustard gas. I should now like to know what his reply is to that. There is another minor matter I want to raise. The Minister of Defence is now also commander-in-chief of the troops of Southern Rhodesia. First of all this seems to me to be a remarkable and peculiar position. I do not believe there is another Prime Minister who is the commander-in-chief of his own troops, but our Prime Minister not only is the commander-in-chief of our own army but also of that of a neighbouring territory. I must admit I do not know what powers were delegated to the Prime Minister in connection with the command he has over the troops of Southern Rhodesia. One would have thought, however, that, seeing that he took over the office of commander-in-chief of the army of Southern Rhodesia nearly two years ago, he would have given some information to this House. As far as I can remember he has not yet given an explanation why he is commander-in-chief of our troops and also of those of a neighbouring country. In this connection there is an anomaly which I wish to point out to him. He is the commander-in-chief of the native soldiers of our country and they are not being armed, except for assegais. But at the same time he has the native troops of Southern Rhodesia under his command and they are being armed with infantry weapons. This creates a peculiar and anomalous position. Some of the native troops of Rhodesia are being used in the North and some of our native contingents are also made use of in the North. Those in the one army carry assegais only, whereas those in the other army, which is also under the command of our Minister of Defence, are armed with infantry weapons. The hon. Minister will perhaps be able to explain whether in his view the native troops of Southern Rhodesia which he also commands, should be armed with infantry weapons. If so, then it creates a dangerous position for South Africa itself. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a reassuring statement and that he will definitely state that although he is in command of the native troops of Southern Rhodesia, he will in no case tolerate our native troops being armed with anything but assegais. Apparently, however, the hon. Minister is not in principle against natives being armed with infantry weapons, for he commands the troops in Southern Rhodesia which are so armed. I want to repeat that I find it remarkable that the hon. Minister of Defence has accepted such a peculiar position without giving us here in this House any explanation or informing us that he accepted the offer of also being the commander-in-chief of the Southern Rhodesian army. Another matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s attention is the following. If he wants to recruit men, there are enough of them here. I cannot see why he should tear away children under 21 years from the hands of their elders and send them away? I nearly feel inclined to say, keep them in a dishonest manner until they are 21 years of age. Quite a number of such cases have come to our notice. It does not say much for the Department of Defence that they have to take refuge to such means in order to obtain recruits. It shows that they are short of volunteers and for that reason they grab boys under the age of 21 out of the hands of their parents and keep them until they reach the age of 21. Why don’t the nine recruiting agents of the Prime Minister pay a visit to the beaches of Muizenberg on a holiday? There they will find plenty of suitable recruits. I cannot understand why his Department should go out of its wav to do things which to my mind border on dishonesty. This morning a father called on me with tears in his eyes; his minor son was dragged away from his control. He cannot get him back. The Department then waits until the boy turns 21 and then they let him sign on. A number of such cases has come to my notice. I want to mention one glaring instance. This is the case of a father who in the end succeeded in receiving a promise that he would get his son back. On 6th November, 1943, he was promised that he would get his minor boy back. The child got into the army in an illegal manner. I have the letter here in front of me. They wrote to the father that they had gone into the matter and that the boy would be sent back as soon as there was an opportunity. That was on 6th November, 1943. On the 6th December the father wrote again and they thereupon again replied that he would be returned as soon as shipping accommodation from the North was available. In the meantime the boy became 21 years of age and 20th January, the father was informed by the same department—[Translation]—

After having promised him twice that his son would come back, they kept him until he became of age and then they made him sign the oath. If the hon. Minister for Defence is so hard up for recruits he should go one holiday to the beach of Muizenberg to fetch his recruits, and he should not in a more or less dishonest manner retain boys under 21 years until they reach that age and then sign the oath. There is one further matter I should like to mention. I should like to elicit some information from the hon. the Minister in regard to Saldanha Bay. I should like to know whether he is busy developing Saldanha Bay into a second Simonstown. I have no objection to it becoming a basis for the fleet, but are not perhaps arrangements being made with America for a quid pro quo? The Prime Minister owes the country an explanation in regard to this matter. Various rumours are circulating. I again want to say that I do not object to Saldanha Bay being developed, but serious rumours are going around that the United States are casting an eye on Saldanha Bay.

There is no such thing.

The hon. Minister should not resent us raising such matters, for as far as money matters are concerned his department is so tight-lipped that all sorts of rumours involuntarily arise.

There is absolutely no truth in it.

I then take it that there is no truth in the rumour that Saldanha Bay will be in the same position as Simonstown. I also assume that as far as England is concerned, no agreement in regard to Saldanha Bay has been concluded or that something of the sort is not being contemplated.

There is no question about it.

I should like to raise one or two points. The first one is in my opinion of rather great importance and that is whether the hon. the Minister of Defence is aware—I know that he is so aware—of the fact that many marriages are taking place and have for some time been taking place between soldiers of overseas units, members of the R.A.F., members of the American forces which happen to come here, etc. and South African girls. One knows that such a thing can hardly be avoided. I understand there is some regulation or other that they have to get permission. That is, however, not what is worrying me. I only hope that they will be happy. There are however cases where they are unhappy. We know of such cases. I can just mention that with one firm of attorneys in Cape Town no less than 5 cases are at present pending of girls who have been deserted by such men with whom they were married and there it not the slightest possibility for such girls to obtain a divorce. Unfortunately they do not come under the jurisdiction of our courts. A girl like that cannot have summons issued to obtain a divorce on the grounds of wilful desertion. She is left in the cold and is powerless. In two of the 5 cases to which I referred there are children. Our courts have no power whatsoever to intervene. Is it not possible that something be done in this respect? I do not know how, but I ask the hon. the Minister what he suggests. Isn’t it perhaps possible that on his wedding the husband signs a document to the effect that he consents that our courts will have the power to intervene in his case.

No, there is international legislation in existence in this respect.

I know, but by means of emergency regulations provision has for instance been made that in the case of serious rape by natives who assault European women overseas, such natives can be sentenced to death. That regulation has been applied. Is it not possible to do something in regard to these marriages. Warnings do not help. One will never fathom the mentality of women. Whether you warn them or not, they will marry. But this is a very difficult problem. The soldiers leave and the unhappily married girl remains behind and then she has to try, perhaps only after the end of the war, to find out where the husband is. He may be in China or America or anywhere else and she must now try to regain her freedom. I do not know any solution, but I feel that we should appeal to the Minister to protect our South African girls in such cases. Is it not possible to do something so that they may obtain divorce through our courts? I furthermore want to say that I am glad about the remarks of the hon. the Minister in connection with the Special Youth Brigade. We know the splendid work done a few years ago by the Special Service Battalion. I now should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether the Special Youth Brigade is open for every boy or whether a condition has been laid down that when they join the Youth Brigade they have to sign an undertaking that after having had their training, they will join the army. If that is the position, then a large number of boys who are equally entitled to the training will be excluded. We should like to see them get their training too, and I should like to hear what the position is. Can any boy in possession of the necessary certificate of good behaviour undergo that training without committing himself to join the army afterwards? There is one more question which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. It is more or less of a local importance, but it affects other centres just as much as it does Pietersburg. The point is that where one finds for instance an air school, an aerodrome with a training school, the supplies they require as far as they concern vegetables, eggs and meat, etc., can be obtained locally. I know that in the case of Pietersburg the meat is bought locally. Before I left, however, farmers who were members of the egg circle there asked that they should be entitled to supply eggs, of course at the fixed price. We find for instance that our Pietersburg farmers have first to send their eggs to the Pretoria or Johannesburg market and there they are being bought up and a firm in Johannesburg apparently has the contract to supply the aerodrome at Pietersburg. One feels that where there is such an airport, it is not more than fair that supplies which can be obtained locally should be so obtained at the fixed prices.

I should like to come back to a point which was not quite clear in the reply of the hon. the Minister. The hon. Minister of Defence is known as a person capable of using words, the meaning of which may not be quite clear to one. He has a way of saying something and thereby creating an impression, which rightly or wrongly, is not always clearly understood by the public. This morning for instance when he spoke about poison gas he used words, whether intentionally or otherwise, which gave the impression, also in this House, that if one wants to combat poison gas, one has to manufacture it oneself, before one can go in for experiments to combat it. He then said: “The experiments have now been completed.” The impression which he thus created, also amongst his own supporters with whom I had a discussion, is that poison gas is no longer being made.

It is no longer being made, the experiments have been completed.

Is it no longer being manufactured? I would not like to discuss military secrets, for that will be resented, but there is a factory not far from my residence which the people call the “hush-hush factory.” Are the people there doing nothing at all? They did manufacture poison gas. Either the people are under a wrong impression or the hon. Minister is not quite up to date with the position. I take it he is up to date and that the people do not know what they are manufacturing. Then I should like to say something in connection with the discharge of soldiers and in this regard discuss something which has not yet been raised in this House. There are people who went to work at the dynamite factory at Somerset West and because certain articles for the war effort were being manufactured there, they were told by their superiors that since they were doing war work, they had to subscribe to the oath of allegiance and they thereupon become “key-men.” The men signed that oath in order to obtain work. Then there were some employees who felt that they should continue their studies and that they no longer wanted to do the work, and they were dismissed. They went to see the authorities and asked what their position was in regard to the oath they had taken, and rightly or wrong, they were told “to forget about it.” In other words, it fell away and they were free. They had to take the oath in order to obtain work. After they had been away from the factory for some time and had taken up their studies again, they suddenly received letters to inform them that they had to be at the Castle on a certain date and that they now had to implement the oath of serving anywhere in Africa. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this is not fair. The people were brought under a wrong impression. They never had any thought of going to fight anywhere in the North or anywhere else, but they signed the oath in order to obtain work. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to meet these people and not to call them up for military service. I furthermore want to say something which we have raised here year after year and for which we have been abused again and again. This point was made use of at political meetings especially during the general election. I am referring to the travelling of soldiers on the trains. We are said to be against the soldiers, but our objection merely is against the unnecessary travelling about: The accusation levelled against us was that we objected because these people were in the army. That is not the case. Yesterday Mr. Bennie Hewat, chairman of the Cape Publicity Associattion—and I do not think that that association, composed mainly of English-speaking people, supporting the Government, can be accused of being prejudiced against the soldiers—at a public meeting said that is was impossible for his association to do its work owing to the soldiers monopolising the trains. If the hon. the Minister would look around somewhat, he would see that the trains are packed with soldiers and not only the express trains, not only the trains travelling long distances, for instance to Pretoria, not only the main line trains, but also the branch lines. They are packed with soldiers, going one way in the morning and going back the other way at night. If it were necessary for military purposes, we would understand it. But it is not always necessary. It is just as unnecessary for the soldiers to travel continually on the trains, as it is unnecessary for some civilians to travel so much. The Government, through the Minister of Railways, asks the public not to make use of the trains unneccessarily. The Minister should in that case tackle his own department first. It sometimes looks as if many of the military simply travel because it is cheap, there and back, eternally on the trains. Perhaps it is cheaper to travel by train than to remain in the town.

Even members of Parliament do that.

When members of Parliament do something wrong, it does not yet justify other people to do the same. The hon. member is perhaps referring to himself. He knows better than I do what is in his mind. Then there is a further question I want to draw attention to. When sports are being held overseas, when a football match takes place, etc., regulations are applicable which prohibit aeroplanes flying over the people below a certain height. Here in Cape Town and even in the towns in the vicinity, aeroplanes are flying scarcely higher than the tree tops. That happens in certain villages and in Cape Town. It seems to be customary to fly just above the roof tops and one finds that especially in coastal towns where they fly so low, sometimes not higher than about 200 feet. If an accident were to take place, if something were to go wrong with the aeroplane and that would happen above such a sports field, we can imagine what the results might be. It happens that an aeroplane flies over and over again above a sports field and this is definite danger. Is it not possible to take steps to prevent that happening, as otherwise disastrous accidents might take place? When complaints are lodged, one is told to take the number of the aeroplane, but when an aeroplane flies so fast, how can one take the number? The hon. member for Moorreesburg discussed the fact that the troops of Southern Rhodesia now also fall under the command of the Prime Minister. To obtain information I should like to put another question to the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Moorreesburg already discussed the matter. I want to ask once more when the troops of Southern Rhodesia were placed under the command of the Prime Minister, and whether that also applies to non-European and native contingents. The hon. member for Moorreesburg pointed out that our native troops are armed with assegais only, whereas the natives of Southern Rhodesia are armed with infantry weapons. In passing I want to say that it is rather peculiar that the native troops in Our country are being trained in the use of weapons, although they do not carry them. In this connection I also want to mention another matter which particularly concerns the hon. the Minister and myself because we are Afrikaans-speaking and because the people I want to refer to now are blood of our blood. In Southern Rhodesia one finds young Afrikaners, Union citizens, who did not want to participate in the war. I now want to point out to him, since he is the commander-in-chief of the Southern Rhodesian troops, that there are some of these men who have been interned in camps and are forced to work on the Southern Rhodesian roads, South Africans who were not prepared to take the oath to fight anywhere in Africa. Will the hon. the Minister see to it that these people are released? I do not know whether he can do so as the chief of the Southern Rhodesian troops, but I want to ask him in any case to use his influence with the government there so that these people may be released. Yesterday evening a mother of one of these people visited me, and she showed me a letter about six Afrikaners who are staying in a camp near Salisbury. I should like to bring this to the notice of the Minister. [Time limit.]

I should like to ask the Prime Minister a few questions. I think there has been a fairly full discussion on this Vote and I should like to bring a few matters to his notice before he replies. I suppose that the first matter, viz. the terrible murders taking place in this country, has already come to his notice. When we ask the police what are the reasons that so many of these murders cannot be solved, that such murders can take place in the Free State, that a woman in Pretoria can be gagged and robbed, that burglaries take place every night in Pretoria and Johannesburg homes, they tell us that it is due to the fact that there is a shortage of police, because so many policemen are on active service. The war has now progressed to such a stage that we may well ask the Prime Minister to allow these policemen to return to their proper sphere of work in order to protect the people in our own country. If there should be vacancies which have not yet been filled, I would point out that there are numbers of returned soldiers finding it hard to obtain employment and they could be trained to do that work and fill the vacancies which may exist. In the large towns of the Transvaal the people are living in constant fear. A few days ago I returned from those parts and I want to assure the Prime Minister that our women folk are feeling very uneasy at night when their men have to be absent from home. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to take steps to provide for the return of these police officers. The second matter I want to raise is the following. The hon. the Prime Minister very much resented the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) and a few other hon. members declaring here that some of the lorry drivers did irresponsible things during the harvesting of the mealie crop last year. I want to tell the Prime Minister that we find irresponsible people among all classes of the people, and especially the natives are not without irresponsible elements in their ranks, particularly after they have drunk beer or have indulged in too much alcoholic beverage. We then experience trouble with them and we have to bring our troubles to the notice of the Government. The Prime Minister said that these people are volunteers and that, since they are volunteers, he will not be able to send those people if there is an agitation afoot. There is no agitation. I am glad the Prime Minister said that we should bring these cases to his notice. I want to give him the assurance that we shall do so. I want to express the hope at this stage seeing that there is such a shortage of farm labour for the harvesting of our mealies and since that is not the fault of the farmers, that further steps will still be taken by the establishment of Italian prisoner-of-war camps in order to assist in the harvesting of the crop. The Prime Minister told us that he needed these farm labourers as drivers and that he had to get these labourers for the reserves. I may tell him today there are labourers from my own farm in the army. We experience a shortage of labour and we shall find it extremely difficult to harvest our mealie crop this year. If the farm labourers cannot be discharged from the army, then the Prime Minister should do the second best thing by moving the camps of Italian prisoners-of-war to various districts, so that the crop can be harvested and that not again, as happened last year, millions of bags of mealies will be lost. Then there is a further question, viz. that of internments. I was very pleased to hear from the Prime Minister yesterday that they are releasing people in a very sympathetic manner. The Minister of Justice assisted me in quite a few cases. Now, however, I am confronted with a case which I did not yet bring to the notice of the Minister of Justice. I received the letter a few days ago. It is sent by one Mrs. Smit. Her husband was a Railway official and was interned, and notwithstanding the fact that she wrote a letter on 6th August, 1943 …

I think it will be better if the hon. member raises that question on the Vote of the Minister of Justice.

I raised this point because the Prime Minister replied to it yesterday.

Yes, but that was on the Vote of the Prime Minister.

Very well, I shall discuss the matter with the Minister of Justice. These are not questions I like to discuss on the floor of the House. I should, however, have liked to discuss this case of a Railway servant. The Minister of Justice met me in other cases, and I believe that he will also assist me in this case. Then there is a further point. I do not want to deal with the financial question on which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) have already spoken. What is, however, so remarkable to me is that in every Vote we find a detailed statement of all the heads of expenditure. In the case of the Defence Vote that is not the case. I can quite well understand that in some cases this cannot be done as they concern defence secrets. Here, however, we find an item like Defence force and cadets. Surely that is not a military secret about which the House cannot be informed. Why should we not be allowed to know whether £10,000 or £20,000 are being voted for this service? Then there is an item such as that of the rifle ranges. The fact is mentioned that money is being spent on it and why should we not be allowed to know whether £30,000 or £40,000 is being spent on it? Surely that is not a military secret. Then there are other items, such as that for physical culture. This cannot be a war secret either, and I cannot understand why matters of this nature cannot be specified unless the department or headquarters is unable to account for the money which is being spent on these items. Furthermore we find an item for the Boy Scouts and Voortrekker associations and the cadets. That of course is not a military secret, and why for heaven’s sake can it not be specified in the Estimates. We are being asked here to vote the globular amount of £51,250,000. It seems as if the department is of the opinion that it can ask any amount it wants to, because all these items are so-called military secrets and we are not allowed to know on what items the money is to be spent. Honestly, if the Prime Minister were to think the matter over seriously, he would admit that these things need not be hidden from us. Something must be wrong with his headquarters. If he has not enough people to do the work, he should not forget that there are many people walking the streets without employment. Give them the work to do so that this Vote can be properly drafted for us. I have put these few questions. I do not want to delay the House unduly but I reckon that we are entitled to this information.

Finally I just want to submit the following matter to the Prime Minister. In connection with Saldanha Bay I do not want to go outside the report of the Brink Committee, because the Prime Minister will otherwise be in a position to tell me that my remarks concern military secrets which may not be divulged. I should like to tell him that there is much activity around Saldanha Bay, and I reckon that he can take, this House into his confidence. He need not go beyond the matters reported by the Brink Committee. First of all I should like to ask whether the idea is that Saldanha Bay should develop and become a large centre to that it may answer two purposes, viz., first of all that it should become the centre of our air services in South Africa, and secondly whether he has already considered implementing the report in regard to the two training ships, the General Botha and the General Smuts, as proposed by the Committee? The Brink Committee does not make a secret of it that the activity around Saldanha Bay has a certain purpose. The report says that first of all, and this is well-known and does not disclose any military secrets, Saldanha Bay should develop into an important seaplane base in the Union. The harbour is most suitable for it. I do not know whether the Prime Minister can tell us whether a decision has already been reached on this matter. The report continues that one of the largest aerodromes of the Union is now being constructed near the harbour. If that is the case, then it is as clear as daylight that the Government is busy there with big projects. If we can have a large seaplane base there, which is going to be the largest in the Union, and are going to have the largest aerodrome there, then it means that the nucleus or concentration of South Africa’s air services will be there, both as regards seaplanes and other planes. Because so much money is being spent on it I believe that the hon. the Minister should take the public in his confidence. Has a decision been reached yet in regard to the two training ships? From the report of the Committee I understand that, if the Government should decide that the Naval training college which they recommended, could be established there with the two training ships, the General Botha and the General Smuts, training could be provided for one thousand boys per annum. The Committee considers that our Government navy and our mercantile marine will be able to absorb or rather will need 6,000 men personnel. Therefore we shall need the naval college in conjunction with these two ships. They recokn that the two ships should be anchored there and that the college should be established there for a two years’ training course and in that way the college will be able to provide the needs of our mercantile and Government marine. I should like to urge upon the Prime Minister not to keep this matter pending. Since the public has been taken into confidence to such a degree, he should go somewhat further. Large works are being constructed at Saldanha Bay and I take it that this is taking place in view of the two important matters I mentioned: The training of our boys in naval matters and the establishment of a large seaplane base as well as a base for other aircraft. As the Prime Minister knows better than we do—I only came near it in touring my constituency—the harbour itself is the best sheltered in the southern hemisphere. If in former years there had been water in sufficient quantities, as there is at present, Cape Town would not have been here, but at Saldanha Bay. It is also generally accepted that it is the best naturally protected harbour in the southern hemisphere. It is not only well sheltered, but lately it has also been provided with quays and piers, and other facilities have also been provided. As far as the harbour is concerned, it is one of the largest. It is even larger than Durban as far as surface is concerned and it is naturally sheltered. The Government has now brought water there by means of a pipe line from the Berg River. There is a certain measure of uneasiness about the pipes beginning to rust. It is said that the pipe line was constructed at the cost of one million pounds and that the pipes are beginning to rust now. The public is also beginning to complain that these enormous costs were indulged in and that only the military people obtain water but not the public. I mention this matter because expenditure has already been made in regard to the aerodrome, works, in connection with the quays and all the other matters. Many buildings have been erected. So much money has been spent there that it is no longer a military secret what is going on there, and I think that the hon. the Minister should take us into his confidence. I understand that there is even a scheme in existence—seeing that Saldanha Bay is one hundred miles north of Cape Town—to build a direct coastal road between the two. I want to conclude with this. I was glad to hear, and I accept the word of honour of the hon. the Minister, that no scheme is in existence for making Saldanha Bay a second Simonstown, i.e. that no agreement will be entered into with Great Britain, America or any other country in regard to Saldanha Bay.

I think it is our duty, as members of this House, if we notice that there are malpractices going on, to bring those malpractices to the notice of the Minister. I was flabbergasted when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister turned on members because they had brought certain malpractices to his notice. The Prime Minister did so to the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn).

No; I criticised him for not having brought it to my notice. I criticised him for having waited until he came to Parliament.

I can assure the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that I know of a special case where the complaint was sent to Pretoria by telegram—it was a case in connection with the cartage of mealies after hours, and it was stopped after that. Complaints were made.

Yes, and they put it right at once.

But my point is that when we see that there are such malpractices it is our duty to bring those malpractices to the Prime Minister’s notice because he cannot be conversant with everything that is going on in every part of the country, and if the Prime Minister then discourages us and accuses us of only wanting to cause bad blood, then we do not enjoy that sort of thing. To my mind it is our duty to bring these matters to the Government’s notice. I spoke on the same subject as the hon. member for Kroonstad spoke about on a previous occasion, and I want to repeat that what the hon. member for Kroonstad said is an actual fact. I think the Prime Minister should welcome our bringing such malpractices to his notice. We cannot hold him responsible for these things because he does not know about them. The position today is that private lorries, and lorries belonging to professional cartage contractors, are disappearing from the road on account of old age. The farmers are stuck with their mealies and cannot get transport. That is why we appreciated the action of the Prime Minister in using military lorries to cart our mealies. If he had not done so, a large quantity of mealies would have gone bad, but we feel that some change should be made in the way this work is done, and that is why we are raising the subject here. I only want to place on record the fact that I am convinced that the Hoopstad District is this year going to be one of the districts which will produce most of the mealies in the country, and I want to ask the Prime Minister in anticipation to make preparations on a large scale to send lorries to that area. I have received letters from my constituency asking me to make representations to the Government for Railway buses. If the Railway buses are not available we would welcome military lorries, and I hope the Minister will supply those lorries on a large scale. I was in Pretoria at the end of last year in connection with this matter, and I called on various departments. They promised that the scheme would be extended and as a matter of fact that was done, but the position in that constituency, in Odendaalsrust, Wesselsbron and Bothaville, was such that thousands of bags of mealies went bad owing to the lack of military lorries, and we want to express the hope that that will not happen again. As I have just asked, is it not possible for the farmers to buy more lorries? The military lorries can only be used between hours. They can only do transport work between 8 o’clock after they have taken the Italians to their work, and 5 o’clock, when they have to go back. The result is that the military lorries can only take two or three loads over a distance of 19 miles, but if the farmer could get a lorry he could perhaps take seven or eight loads per day over the same distance. It was not a case of there being too few lorries, but they did not have sufficient time to carry the mealies. The result was that the mealies could not be got away in time, and certain quantities still had to be transported towards Christmas time. Then there is another consideration. Owing to native drivers been used, the lorries had to travel in convoys. That means that the first lorry which was loaded up had to wait unitl the last had been loaded before the convoy would leave, and the same thing happened when they off-load. There has been this delay; it has been due to the fact that the native drivers are not sufficiently responsible to drive the lorries on their own. If there are white drivers each lorry can go and offload and come back to load up again, so that the same number of lorries can cart larger quantities of mealies. Even if we have the same number of lorries, with a different sort of administration, larger quantities of mealies can be transported. I only want to repeat again that there have been malpractices, and I hope it will not happen again. Now there, is another point I want to refer to and that is the question of grain elevators.

The hon. member can raise that question on the Agricultural Vote.

As the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that large quantities of mealies are grown in that area, I want to ask him to give his early attention to these matters, and to make provision for transport so that our mealies will not be allowed to go bad again.

When we are waging war we need food. It is often more important to have food than to have ammunition. Now I want to bring something to the Minister’s notice which I look upon as alarming. It is the question of supplying meat to the convoys. It was found in the past that a system had been introduced of selling the meat by weight and according to grade. The farmers found that they got a better price if they sold the same animal on the open market instead of selling it by weight and grade. Now that there is a question of introducing the same system again, representations have come from all parts of my constituency asking me to bring this matter to the Government’s attention and to make it clear that while the farmers are not opposed to control of the meat market, they are anxious to have the Government carefully consider the whole position before introducing this system.

The hon. member should raise that question on the Agricultural Vote.

This is a matter which concerns the war position. I just want to mention that this whole system should be carefully examined before it is put into operation—I am referring to the system of cattle being sold by weight and grade. It may have a curtailing effect on the production of meat and on the supply of meat to the convoys and the military. I would also like to point out that if this system is introduced it may have the effect of the farmers’ market being detrimentally affected. We also want the Government to consider the question after the war of keeping the system of control in force so that the meat markets may be protected. We feel that a long term plan should be considered and not merely a plan for the duration of the war.

I should like to conclude my remarks which I was making earlier on. I was discussing the way in which the Government was unnecessarily employing women soldiers, the way it was wasting money, and the way it was dislocating everything in this country. I said I had an article here which appeared in one of the Government’s own papers, namely the “Cape Argus.” This article casts an unpleasant light on the position, on the unnecessary number of women in the army, women who are doing work which in most cases could be done by male soldiers, soldiers who hang about the camps and who will never go and fight because they are either too old or do not come up to the physical requirements.

Soldiers who hang about the camps?

Yes, they hang about the camps and do nothing.

When do they travel on the trains?

When they go visiting, just as the hon. member unnecessarily comes to the Cape. This article is published under the heading of “Reconstruction of Home Life,” and I want to read the following quotation from it—

Not this baby!” The matter would not have troubled me so greatly if I had not gathered that that was the general attitude of young married women on active service. It seems that they no longer look upon it as a woman’s destiny and privilege to rear children and build up the home life that is the backbone of every civilised and happy nation. The things that count are pleasure, independence, so-called freedom….

Women who have taken jobs in business to replace men on active service protest strongly at the idea of giving them up again when the men come back ….”

These are the remarks of a woman social worker and she says that what alarms her is the fact that these are not just a few exceptional cases but that it is the general position among the large number of women in the army. These are not exceptions mentioned by this side of the House but these are simply facts recorded by this social worker. I assume that what she says is correct. And this unfortunate condition would have been avoided if the Government had confined itself to its real war effort, if it had only taken into the army those people Who were really needed for the war effort. On the one hand there is an unnecessary waste of money, and on the other hand the whole of our social life is being dislocated. That also applies in respect of the large number of coloured men and natives who are in the army. There, too, there is a waste of money and dislocation of social life. They are paid wages which are much higher than what is required to provide for their needs and they do work which primarily is white men’s work. If they have to do the same work after the war they will necessarily be taking the bread out of the mouths of the whites. Those are the things we object to. And every right-minded citizen in this country, no matter whether he holds our political views, or the Government’s political views, should object. I want the Prime Minister to reply and tell us why natives and coloured men are used as lorry drivers when It is not necessary to use them for that purpose, because in his army in this country — I am not talking now of up North — there are sufficient whites who can drive these lorries. Then there is another question which I want to raise with the hon. Minister. I have been begging the Minister for the past few years to lift the unnecessary prohibition on the drilling exercises of the Voortrekkers. For some reason or another—I hope he will not resent it if I say the only reason I can find is stubbornness —he refuses to lift that ban. Does the hon. the Minister want the country to believe that this crowd of school children in the Voortrekker Movement are a danger to the country’s safety if they are allowed, as they were before the war, to indulge in drilling? It is a general prohibition right throughout the country, laying it down that these Voortrekkers, boys and girls, are not allowed to drill in South Africa, although one can walk past any English school any day of the week and see the English children being drilled two or three times a week, and the same applies to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. Now, the Minister’s excuse is that the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides do not drill but only hold parades. It is merely splitting hairs. The one holds parades and the others drill, and the drilling is dangerous! I should like to know what is the difference between drilling and parading? Why is drilling dangerous, and parades not dangerous? Now let me ask another question. Why are the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides not dangerous, while these poor little Voortrekkers are dangerous? We in this country have repeatedly made ourselves ridiculous in regard to the war; we have had this ridiculous incident in connection with Noel Coward. Are we to make ourselves more ridiculous by saying that a crowd of school children are dangerous to the security of the country? Further, let me point out that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is a patron of the Voortrekkers, and the Governor-General is also a patron of that movement. Now I ask, in heaven’s name, whether this movement, of which he is a patron and of which the Governor-General is a patron, is really a movement which can be dangerous to this country? Those poor children are not allowed to drill. The Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts are allowed to hold parades.

And the Wayfarers too.

Yes, and the Brownies, and I don’t know how many others, but not the little Voortrekkers. Surely the Government should not make itself ridiculous in regard to its war effort. Can the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister get up here and produce any sound reason why these little Voortrekkers should not be allowed to drill? All he can say is that according to the Commisioner of Police it is not advisable. I should like to cross-examine the Commissioner of Police to find out how his intelligence works and how he can report that it is dangerous to the country to allow these little Voortrekkers to drill. [Time limit.]

I want to associate myself with the opinion expressed here by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), that if we have no option now and we have to spend money on the war, at any rate let us get the maximum value for our money, especially in view of the huge sums which are being spent. A large number of instances have already been mentioned where money is being wasted. They may be small affairs, but still they are important. I know of a definite case of a soldier who has been out of the war for three years already, who has overdrawn his account and who has never yet been asked to repay the money. I know of many similar cases. We are told now that at the start these accounts were badly mixed up. The war has been going on now for more than four years and surely we have the right to expect the accounts now to be in order. If the soldiers have to be paid more, well, pay them a higher salary, but don’t pay them on the basis that the man who overdraws most is going to be better off than anybody else. Another question of extravagance which comes to my mind is the scheme of providing soldiers with various types of equipment when they leave the army. I had a case brought to my notice in Pretoria recently where a soldier was provided with equipment to the value of about £50 to enable him to settle down again in civilian life. The very same day he went to a second-hand shop, pawned all the stuff, and that same night the stuff was sold to a third person. Cannot a better system be introduced to help these people, so that the soldier will not be able to get rid of the equipment—whatever it may be—the same day again. Then there is the question of the Blue Oath. We were told that this oath was to be a voluntary affair, but I have a letter here from a man who did not want to take that oath. People who refuse to take the Blue Oath are not granted leave; they get no increase of pay, and what is more, they are actually reduced in rank. There are quite a number of cases of that kind, and in some instances their reductions in rank are very considerable. Now, what is the position? We would appreciate it if the Minister would explain how this system of this voluntary oath operates in view of the fact that people are definitely victimised if they do not take the oath. I have a letter here in which I am told that a soldier when he was asked to take the Blue Oath pointed out that his domestic conditions were such that he was not in a position at that stage to take the oath. He made it clear, however, that when his domestic circumstances changed—it was a matter of illness—he would be willing to take the oath. In spite of that the man was reduced in rank, considerably reduced. His domestic circumstances improved and he went back and told the authorities that he was now in a position to take the oath. They refused to restore him to the higher rank. That man is there today. He is a married man, he has bought furniture and his pay today is so much lower that he cannot possibly come out on it. We would appreciate it if the Minister would give us a little information because we are continually getting people who come to us and say: “Cannot something be done, we are up against a brick wall.”

There are a few points I want to reply to. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) raised the question of the treatment of native soldiers on demobilisation. I have generally dealt with the matter, but my hon. friend will understand that it does not fall under me. The whole system of demobilisation, both of European and African troops, has gone over to another Department, which is working out details and the application of the new system to cases already disposed of in the past. I do not want to make any statement which may be found to be not correct, and I ask my hon. friend to raise this question when the estimates of the Minister come before us.

*Quite a number of members who have raised questions here are not present. I would advise the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), where he comes across cases of airmen flying low over towns or other places, immediately to lodge a complaint because it is in conflict with the regulations and should not be done. If complaints are made we can take action immediately.

We are told that we must give their numbers.

Yes, we must get some assistance, because otherwise we do not know who these people are who do these things. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) touched on a few important points. The one point was in regard to Saldanha Bay. He asked what the future of Saldanha Bay is. Great improvements have been effected there but all these are in connection with the present war. Saldanha Bay is used in connection with the present war for a number of purposes and money is spent there to effect improvements. There is also a plan to establish a large central air training school there.

During this war?

It is going on now. From many points of view it is a very suitable place for coastal reconnaissance and we need a central place for the training of airmen for that purpose. Saldanha Bay is most suitable for that purpose. In regard to the Nautical College, no decision has as yet been taken. The report has been received but I have not yet had the time to give it my attention. In regard to the hon. member’s fears that Saldanha Bay may be handed over to some other Power, there is no question of that.

Will it be available to all nations on the same basis, just the same as our other harbours?

That I cannot say.

It will not be available only for a particular nation?

In no circumstances. The hon. member also asked some questions about my being General Officer Commanding in Chief of the Southern Rhodesian Army. He has forgotten that this matter was discussed here last year, and on that occasion I explained the position. I am not General Commanding Officer in Chief of the Southern Rhcdesian Army in the sense that I have anything to do with the organisation of it. My function as such will come into effect if certain eventualities arise in regard to joint operations of the Union and Southern Rhodesia. The question arose whether Southern Rhodesia would join up under a Northern Command or a Southern Command, and Southern Rhodesia preferred in the event of difficulties arising which would make combined operations necessary, to come under the Union Command.

Does that relationship still exist?

It still exists, and it will continue for the duration of the war. If certain eventualities should arise I shall have supreme command over the Southern Rhodesian troops for operational purposes. For the rest I do not interfere and I have no say over the allocation, the training or arming of the troops which Southern Rhodesia has in the field.

What about the recruiting of motor car drivers?

We need them; we have to prepare for eventualities and we have to have reserves, even if we do not at the moment need them up North.

This recruiting has come very suddenly.

It has been going on for a long time, but from time to time we try to recruit people for a specific purpose, sometimes for one purpose and sometimes for another.

Was there any special reason to announce that the death penalty would be applied for rape?

The point is this, that that applied to other armies but it did not apply to our troops, and we made the necessary changes. In regard to the other armies who are fighting on our side the authorities have the power to apply the death penalty.

You have been working together for a long time up North.

A few serious cases have happened and it would be wrong if our men were not punished in the same way as they are in other armies. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) asked what the position of the meat trade would be after the war. I have taken notice of the hon. member’s question about the needs that are experienced today. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) spoke about the crimes committed now-a-days and the shortage of police and he asked that we should allow the police who are in the army today to return. I wish I could do so, but they are in Germany. They were in the Brigade which was captured at Tobruk, but the hon. the Minister of Justice will tell him what other steps we have taken to supplement the shortage and to ensure police protection.

What about the Voortrekker Movement and the ban on drilling?

I am only acting on police reports. I said so on previous occasions, and I am bound by those reports, as I have explained.

But surely you can make an enquiry.

One sometimes finds a schoolmaster or an official who is in charge of the management and control of these things and who is a totally undesirable person—the type of person who would even be regarded as undesirable by the hon. member himself. In other cases, again, the police say that it is just a military affair. I cannot go into all these matters, I have to act in accordance with police reports.

Do you really think these school children constitute a danger to the safety of the State?

Well, they start pretty young and it is quite possible that bad influences are brought to bear on them.

It is only these little Voortrekkers who are stopped.

In some cases they are allowed to do their drilling —in many cases. It is only when the police advise against it that it is not allowed.

I am sorry the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has not answered my question.

The hon. member asked a question about the provisions of the law regarding marriages between Afrikaans girls and soldiers of other Powers. The hon. member, who knows the provisions of International Law, knows that International Law determines the jurisdiction for divorce where the parties belong to different nationalities. South Africa cannot adopt a one sided attitude; whether the person involved is an American citizen or a British subject we cannot alter the law. It is an unfortunate position which has arisen in connection with certain girls who have married soldiers and who afterwards found themselves in difficulties—who have afterwards been left in the lurch. Ministers of Religion and others have to do all they can to guard against that sort of thing, but we have no power to act in these matters.

I raised a point yesterday. I asked that the Minister should go into the question of soldiers who were detained for a certain period of time.

I am sorry that I omitted to deal with that. The hon. member asked me why in certain cases we keep on men who are beyond the age limit. Let me say that we adhere very strictly to the age limit. We do not want an army full of old men. If one allows people to stay on over the age limit they stand in the way of the promotion of others, and in the end one has a large number of incompetent people in one’s service. A definite rule has been laid down, but certain exceptions are made where people are almost indispensable and cannot easily be replaced. For instance we have a shortage of Ministers of Religion and we often keep them on after they have reached the age limit. Their religion does not become less valuable; on the contrary. We have a shortage of doctors, a great shortage. In such cases where we cannot fill their places we allow a small number of people to stay on beyond the age limit.

Guards at internment camps?

I don’t know what the position is. I am only talking of the permanent force.

Will the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister be kind enough to tell us what the general disciplinary rule is in regard to people who refuse to take the Blue Oath?

There are no disciplinary rules.

I want to read the question which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) asked the Minister of Defence in regard to the drilling of members of the Voortrekker Movement. We want to conclude this debate, but after the reply given by the Minister of Defence I want to read out the question to show how unfair the Minister’s reply is. I shall read it in English so that all hon. members can understand it. The question was—

1. (1) Whether the ban placed on drilling exercises by members of the Voortrekker Movement has been lifted; if not, why not.
2. (2) whether the ban was of a general nature;
3. (3) in which cases was permission to hold drilling exercises refused and why; and
4. (4) whether a similar ban was at any time placed upon drilling exercises by members of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides; if so, in which cases was permission to hold drilling exercises refused and why; if not, why not.

The answer was—

1. (1) and (2) All unauthorised drilling is prohibited by National Security Regulation No. 10 and the ban has not been lifted.
2. (3) Pietersburg, Louis Trichardt, Waterval Boven, Bethal, Naboomspruit, Pretoria Oos, Pretoria Sentraal, Pretoria Wes, Pretoria Moot, Pretoria Noord, Graaff-Reinet, Steytlerville, Prieska, Christiana and Potchefstroom. Permission was refused because after investigation the Commissioner of Police was unable to recommend the granting of exemption certificates.
3. (4) Yes, in terms of (1) and (2) above. The Boy Scouts and Girl Guides do not normally hold drilling exercises and have not applied for permission to hold such exercises, though they have applied for permission to hold parades and gatherings of their members. All applications are treated on their merits.

I now want to ask whether it is only Afrikaans-speaking youngsters who constitute a danger?

That’s pure nonsense.

Can the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister mention a single instance where Boy Scouts or Girl Guides have been stopped? Is it not a fact that the Voortrekker Movement consists almost entirely of Afrikaans-speaking children? Only their exercises are stopped. To tell us that the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides do no drilling but only hold parades is farcical. We drill in the same way as the Boy Scouts, only we do it in Afrikaans. We have been asking the Minister now for two years to lift this ban. As the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said, if it is a Rebel movement or a movement which is dangerous to the State, then why does not the Minister put a stop to the whole of the Voortrekker movement? It is most extraordinary that the Boy Scouts are not dangerous but that only the movement to which Afrikaans-speaking children belong is dangerous. The reason simply seems to be, “Catch them young”. The Boy Scout movement has to be protected, to catch them young, but the Voortrekkers have to be stopped.

But surely that is Hitler’s doctrine—“Catch them young.”

Does the Hon. the Minister say that we are applying Hitler’s doctrines? Is the danger which the Minister is afraid of, that we are going to make German soldiers of them if we put them into uniform? Why pretend here that the Boy Scouts do not do any drilling?

The Voortrekkers get leave to drill in many instances; this prohibition only applies to certain places.

If I were to read out all the places where this prohibition applies the Prime Minister would be surprised.

I read out the list a few days ago.

I shall read it again, because I want hon. members opposite to hear it. This prohibition applies to the following places: Pietersburg, Louis Trichardt, Waterval Boven, Naboomspruit, Pretoria East, Pretoria Central, Pretoria West, Pretoria North, Graaff-Reinet, Steytlerville, Prieska, Christiana and Potchefstroom. [Interjection.] I don’t want to be personal, but if that hon. member makes any remarks about Afrikaners I will tell him what he is. It hurts one to find that a Boer General, a former Boer General, is against a movement like the Voortrekker Movement. The children are greatly improved in this Voortrekker Movement. Some of them come from homes where they cannot get the education which they get in the Voortrekker Movement; the young Afrikaner boys and girls are prevented from drilling, but the coloured children in the Wayfarers are allowed to drill. I say it is a disgrace; it is going too far.

I can quite understand that the chorus which we have just listened to is a chorus of approval of the idea of “catch them young,” so long as it only means catching them young for that side of the House. If they catch them young for their own side it means catching them young for Joseph Stalin’s army; you are allowed to catch the young for Joseph Stalin’s army but not for anything else. I want to protest against the Prime Minister’s reply this afternoon. His reply amounts to this, that he does not know what the circumstances are. In other words ….

I have not the time to go into such matters.

The Prime Minister, as a patron of the Voortrekker Movement, has not got the time to interfere when their interests are affected! I think this is a question which deserves the attention of every true Afrikaner. If an Afrikaner movement indulges in subversive activities the Prime Minister can have that movement investigated, otherwise he will come here tomorrow or the day after to add to the list of Voortrekker activities which are interfered with. He can go further and say: “I am now stopping the whole of this Voortrekker Movement,” and he can also say that he cannot adduce any reasons for having stopped it. He has simply stopped it, and that’s the end of it. These are not Hitler’s methods but Joseph Stalin’s methods, to oppress Afrikaners in this country. The Voortrekker Movement in South Africa arose in South Africa at a time when there was the greatest need for it, and throughout all those years the Voortrekker Movement has been doing excellent work. Through all those years there has never been any complaint of the Voortrekker Movement. Even today there is no reason given why it should be stopped, but the patron of the movement tells us that he wants to stop it because it is a movement engendered by this side of the House to “catch them young.” I hope this will not be allowed to continue, and I hope the Prime Minister, if he cannot give the information himself, will give instructions to the Minister of Justice to have an investigation made and to tell the House why we have this scandalous position of the Voortrekker Movement being interfered with.

There is only one point which I should like to bring to the notice of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I learned to my surprise that Pietersburg, an innocent place like Pietersburg, also falls under this ban. I just want to put this question to the Prime Minister. I should like to know whether these places, under the changed circumstances prevailing today, can again apply for permission.

Yes.

I want to come back to the remark which the Prime Minister made here, namely, that these drilling exercises were prohibited because, according to him, some of the teachers who are in charge of the exercises, are dangerous persons who may poison the minds of these Afrikaner boys and girls. I should like to have the Prime Minister’s attention in connection with this matter. The Voortrekker Movement, as such, has not been prohibited. Those Voortrekker boys and girls come into contact with the teachers at school every day. If it is feared that those teachers may poison their minds, why is nothing done to prevent the teachers from doing so? These teachers come into daily contact with the children; that is in order. But all of a sudden there is danger of their poisoning the minds of the children at these drilling exercises, and for that reason they have to be prohibited. I should like to know from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister how he argues. Does he think that the teachers can exercise this bad influence at the drilling exercises, but that they do not influence the children at school, where they come into contact with them every day? One must surely use one’s common sense. They are not doing anything to control the activities of the teachers, which is sufficient proof that the teachers are not doing anything wrong. Only the drilling exercises are not allowed to take place. Why must this friction be caused? Why put the Afrikaner child in the background in comparison with the English-speaking child? Why only the Vortrekkers? The English children, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, the little kaffirs, the hottentots, the coolies, the half-castes, are all allowed to drill, but the Voortrekker boys and girls are prohibited.

They do not apply for permission to drill.

How can the Prime Minister say that? Every day I pass the St. George’s Grammar School, and I see those children drilling. I see them at Sea Point. I see it every day with my own eyes. Why tell me that those children have not applied for permission to drill? They do drill. We have a large army of 150,000 men, with its aeroplanes, tanks, armoured cars, and that army is now being put to flight by a handful of children who drill. And then the Prime Minister says that he is going to Italy to fetch our prisoners-of-war who were captured at Tobruk. Our army is going to fetch the prisoners-of-war in Italy, but they are afraid of this handful of young South Africans. If that is the case, the sooner the Prime Minister gets rid of all those generals, major-generals and other highly placed officials, the better it will be. They have a whole army of tanks and aeroplanes and they are afraid of a handful of children who drill. We must not make ourselves ridiculous, and that is what we are doing if we prohibit these school children from drilling. I should very much like to show respect for the Prime Minister’s great brain, because he has got a great brain, and I should like to pay him that respect which his intellect deserves, but this is surely far-reaching.

I am surprised to hear from the lips of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that the Voortrekker Movement has become such a danger to South Africa simply because it means “catching them young.” I should like to know what the Prime Minister means. Is it such a great sin to make a good Afrikaner citizen out of an Afrikaner boy? These young boys and girls are now prohibited from drilling, because if you allow it you are engaged in “catching them young.” The Prime Minister has only one object in taking this step, and that is that he wants to make Englishmen of the Boer nation, and I want to give him the assurance that that will not happen. It has been stated here by previous speakers that natives are being allowed to drill; coloured people are being allowed to drill, but the Voortrekker boys are not allowed to do so. Not a single Voortrekker boy or girl has ever committed a crime in this country. But what happened in my constituency? A native became so impudent that he committed murder. The police force arrived on the scene, and it cost the life of one of those men to take the native into custody. Our people’s rifles have been taken away from them; firearms have been given to the natives and they have been allowed to drill, and what is the result? They are becoming more impudent every day. This is a scandalous state of affairs, and one does not expect this of a Boer general like the Prime Minister.

When we discussed the estimates this afternoon, we pointed out that even when the Prime Minister went to the North where Union citizens were fighting, there was no sign of the Union flag. We asked why that was so, and we received no reply from the Prime Minister. We also asked why the Voortrekker boys were not allowed to camp out, and there again the Prime Minister could advance no reasons. We also want to know why, when the Prime Minister is photographed by Press representatives in the North while he is in the act of alighting form an aeroplane, the Union flag is conspicuous by its absence? The only reason why the Voortrekker Movement has to be killed is because we refuse to make Jingo’s of our Voortrekker boys and girls. For that reason the Voortrekker Movement must be suppressed. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister as patron of the Voortrekker Movement to take more notice of that movement. I want to ask him whether he can point to a single case where they did anything they should not have done, and which would have justified the Prime Minister in destroying this movement. We may be talking a little heatedly, but we feel very concerned about this matter. This movement is one of the few things which has never been dragged into the political arena. It cannot be said that this movement is in any way harmful. There are members on the other side of the House whose sons are in the Voortrekker Movement. Does the Prime Minister want to tell me that it is a dangerous movement? If it were, would those members have allowed their children to join this movement? No, there is another motive. The opinion is generally held in South Africa, one which is gaining more and more ground, that when you are an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner, you are entitled to fewer rights than others. Others are allowed to do as they please; they can drill and camp out, but nothing is said of it. At Somerset West the coloured people are doing as they please. They parade up and down the streets with drums, and make a dreadful noise—but that is nothing. But when the European boy takes physical exercises to make him healthy, then all of a sudden it is a danger. I say that there is a motive behind this, and the motive is that this movement is out and out an Afrikaans movement which is teaching our boys to become good Afrikaners, and now an ex-Boer general comes along and prohibits this. He says he has no time to concern himself about this matter. May I ask him for the sake of the Voortrekker Movement, to leave this organisation alone in the future, and to allow it to continue until such time as it can be proved that they did something which they should not have done. It would save the Prime Minister a great deal of time if he adopted this suggestion. If the Minister does this, it will cause much less trouble. Can he give us the assurance that in the future he will not allow his officials, the police or anyone else, to prohibit the Voortrekkers from camping out. We as Afrikaansspeaking people are more than proud of the Voortrekker Movement. We at once feel at home amongst them. There is a fine spirit amongst the boys when they camp out. There is an absence of party politics. They learn to do their duty; they learn discipline, and now the Prime Minister wants to suppress this movement. We are all human; we can all make mistakes. All we ask is that the Prime Minister should give us the assurance that in the future he will leave the Voortrekker movement alone, as he leaves the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides alone. We are marching along the path of South Africa as we see the light, without any politics, and this movement is only intended to make good citizens of our Afrikaners, and I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider this matter.

I also want to make an appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to reconsider this matter. If the Voortrekker Movement were in any way harmful to the country, we could still see a certain amount of sense in this measure, but to single out certain places and to say that those children who number no more than 40 or 50 are a danger to the community—surely as reasonable people we cannot accept that. But this ought to convince the Prime Minister of the unreasonable attitude which is adopted by certain of his officials. I do believe that if the Prime Minister had personally dealt with these matters, he would not have decided as was decided in this case, but this is the action of officials who want to win the war at the home front, who want to wreak their fury on the children. I believe that if the Prime Minister had personally decided this matter, there would have been no ban of any nature. I think it is a blot on South Africa’s good name to prohibit the Voortrekker Movement. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, before this goes too far, to reconsider the whole matter, in the light of the information which he got here this afternoon, and we want to ask him to allow the Voortrekker boys and girls unconditionally to do exercises within the rules of the movement. There is nothing harmful in this movement, and every other race in our fatherland has the right to do exercises, we also have the right to exercise and our children have the right to exercise. We demand that right for our children, and we shall continue to fight until that right is granted to our children. There was one case where the Voortrekker Movement was forced to take part in the Empire Day function, and a Voortrekker was called upon to hoist the Union Jack. We feel that as citizens of this country we are entitled to allow our children in this country to do exercises as Voortrekkers, and we ask and demand that right.

I also want to add a few words and voice my protest against this ban on the Voortrekker Movement. For many years I was a commandant in that move ment, and I can give hon. members the assurance that it is a harmless body, and if ever there has been a body which teaches our children discipline it is this body. I also want to refer to another matter, and that is in connection with jukskei. Before the war everyone was allowed to play this game, but since the war broke out jukskei has been forbidden in the army. I do not think the soldiers are allowed to play jukskei. Is this another case where something which is of an Afrikaner character has to be suppressed?

One involuntarily asks oneself what the motive can be of those officials who placed a ban on the Voortrekker Movement in those places which were referred to by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). We have seen such phenomena on previous occasions. This is nothing but an attack on the Boer soul of the Boer child. We found that after the Second War of Independence an attack was also made on the Boer soul of the Boer child, and that attempt failed. I want to say that the Voortrekker movement is a movement which essentially belongs to the whole nation, and if an attack is made on it—and an attack has been made here—I want to assure them that they will again fail. At that time when an attack was made on the Boer children who were left in the concentration camps, when they even went so far as to import English governesses to uproot those children from their own nation, those children were victorious; they refused to sacrifice their Boer soul. The Prime Minister made a remark here in connection with the teachers. If those teachers are guilty of contraventions, surely steps can be taken against them. The department could be approached to make investigations; and we want to assure the Prime Minister that we would welcome an investigation. We would like to know whether it can be determined with certainty that there are teachers who mislead the children. We want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister as one of the oldest and one of the last Boer generals to withdraw these restrictions. It is an insult; and I do not think that he himself, in the depth of his heart, is satisfied with it. I believe that he still has a feeling for those children of his people, and I want therefore to make this appeal to him.

There is one thing which is crystal clear, and that is that the debate which is being conducted in this House today will have repercussions throughout South Africa. I wonder whether the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has ever thought how the memory of an N. J. van der Merwe is being-trodden on as a result of this action—one of those great and worthy figures who, one might almost say, sacrificed his life in the Voortrekker Movement. The sons of South Africa came to love him. He was a popular figure in this House and also in the country. We on this side of the House have often emphasised that we do not want to do anything which will lead to racial strife in this country. But here the Prime Minister is engaged in driving in a wedge between the Afrikaans-speaking people and the English-speaking people in this country, and he will drive that wedge in so deeply that he may keep the two races apart for ever. That is the danger. Does the Prime Minister not realise that there are many people, members of his own Party, supporters of the war effort, whose children are also Voortrekkers? I personally have attended many of the Voortrekker functions, and I challenge anyone in South Africa to point to a single instance where the Voortrekkers did anything to retard the war effort, or which conflicts with the interests of this country. Reference has been made here to the slogan “catch them young.” That period is past as far as the Afrikaner is concerned, the Prime Minister can take it that as far as that is concerned the youth of South Africa is right, it is national minded. This is an act which will have far-reaching consequences. We are proud of the Voortrekker Movement. I would not do anything in the world to boycott the Boy Scouts Movement for example. The English-speaking parents see the welfare and the happiness of their children in that movement, but I want to ask the other side to keep their hands off the Afrikaans-speaking child. This movement has been built up over a period of years after a hard struggle, and I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that the Voortrekker Movement has come, not temporarily, but it has come to stay, and we shall see to that.

As one who some time ago was a commandant in the Voortrekker Movement, I regard it as my duty to break a lance for that movement. This is a movement which has undoubtedly done a great deal of good, and is still doing a great deal of good for the youth of our nation. The people who devote their time to this movement are principally teachers, people who are occupied the whole day in teaching and who sacrifice their spare time in the interests of our Afrikaner boys and girls. They make big sacrifices for the sake of the training and education of those children, and when anything is done by the Government with a view to suppressing such a movement, we feel bitterly disappointed and we feel that a great injustice is being done to our people. The Prime Minister will appreciate why a movement like the Voortrekker Movement came into existence. Since the Second War of Independence there has never been a feeling of hearty co-operation between the two races, and the Afrikaner boys felt that they could not join the Boy Scouts. Everybody felt that something should be done in this country to teach the youth a little discipline, because that is something which we as a nation lack; and we on this side of the House felt that a movement like the Voortrekker Movement would teach our youth the necessary discipline. There is a feeling—we cannot get away from it—that the Afrikaansspeaking children do not want to join the cadets and similar organisations. Whether that is right or wrong, it is nevertheless a fact; and the result was that the Afrikaansspeaking youth practically grew up without proper disciplinary training. The Voortrekker Movement then came into existence.

Order, order! May I remind the hon. member of Rule 90 of the Standing Rules and Orders. He must not repeat the same arguments ad nauseam.

I come to another point, and it.is this. We feel that when a stain is placed on such a movement, it is going to cause a feeling of injustice towards the teachers who have devoted their time to this movement. Our boys and girls are going to suffer because, as I have already said, the Afrikaans-speaking section of our youth does not join the cadets, but mainly this movement. If that movement is prejudiced, our sons and daughters will be prejudiced, and that is why we are so sorry that this educational work amongst our sons and daughters is being impaired. We still hope that the Prime Minister will see his way clear to encourage this movement instead of opposing it. If the movement exceeds its limits, the Prime Minister has £100,000,000 at his disposal, and he can use a small portion of that sum to put the persons concerned in their places. But, by attacking this movement or by putting a stain on it, he is going to do an injustice to our youth.

I should like to associate myself with what has just been said in connection with this matter. The course recently followed by the Government in connection with the Voortrekkers has come as a great shock to every decent person. It was a smack in the face for the Afrikaner; a humiliation of the Afrikaner of the worst sort. We have had these instances in Pretoria, and I have had the opportunity to gain contact with the position there. I have come into touch with the people, and I challenge the Government to produce any proof showing that these people have misbehaved themselves, or that any impartial person can produce any proof of that. I assume that reports have been brought to the Government. But we must not forget that of late reports of all sorts have reached the Government, and the Government must have already learned that the majority of these reports can be brushed aside. We-must not forget as far as affects the conduct of the teachers that the Transvaal Education Department takes a strong line in these matters, and does not allow the teachers to work against the Government—not in the slightest degree. We have had the case of a teacher who went for a drive with a party organiser who at college was a bosom friend of his, and after being with him a few miles in his car he returned to his home. The sequel was that the Education Department immediately took up the matter and appointed a commission to investigate—-so conscientious is the surveillance of teachers by the department in order that they shall not be in any way guilty of activities against the Government. And now we have this accusation that these teachers have behaved badly in connection with the Voortrekker Movement. I say that that is an unjustifiable accusation unless the names have been mentioned and the facts communicated to the people. This movement lies very close to the heart of the Afrikaner, and just as the English-speaking people have a soft spot for the Boy Scout movement, so has every Afrikaner a soft spot for this movement. If offences are committed, then it is the duty of the Government to institute an enquiry. But as regards the cases in Pretoria, I want to repeat that I challenge the Government to specify any instance of misconduct. On the contrary, this is a movement for the moral uplift of young Afrikaners, and one that seeks to raise our youth to higher standards. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister to immediately ceace interfering with the movement. At the moment it is the cause of engendering embitterment and hatred. There are children who have taken me to the town location at Pretoria to show me how the natives and hottentots are allowed to do drill though this is denied the young Afrikaners. Young children have taken me along to show me that. That is the state of affairs in South Africa; we do not enjoy those privileges, but coloured people and natives may do what we are not allowed to do. A feeling of bitterness is fomented in the heart of young Afrikaners and where once bitterness is implanted in the heart of youth it is not very easily eradicated. I do not hold with bitterness, but the Government is actively implanting a feeling of bitter hatred in the hearts of those children. Seeing that the Prime Minister has stated here that he wants to promote co-operation and mutual trust in the country it is his duty to intervene and to see that the rights to which they are entitled are restored to the Voortrekker Movement in Pretoria and at other places.

I hope that this debate in the House as well as the unsympathetic attitude of the Prime Minister will have as its first fruits the reinforcement of the Voortrekker Movement in South Africa by at least 20,000 to 30,000 new members. I have no doubt that that will be the sequel. Now I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he knows anything about the Voortrekker Movement. He is a patron of it and so am I. I do not know whether he has ever been in touch with it. If he had really been in touch with it and had taken the trouble to ascertain what the movement stands for, what its real purpose and character is, then I do not think he would have taken up that unsympathetic attitude. This Voortrekker movement is an organisation which has as its objective in the first instance moulding the character of our boys and girls. It teaches them to work together for good ends. It is a thing that goes hand in hand with the building of character that one should learn to co-operate with others for a fine and noble objective. That is what the organisation teaches our sons and daughters. Its whole basis is not only moral but religious. The character of the whole movement is of a high standard when regarded from that viewpoint. Not only that, but if there is one thing that is taught the boys and girls in the organisation, it is to be unselfish and not to live only in one’s own little circle, nor to live only for one’s own little interest, but to act unselfishly, to serve others and eventually to serve the nation. That provides the whole foundation and character of the movement. What danger is there in that? There can only be good in it, and no danger at all. To go and represent it as a danger and a military danger is ridiculous to a degree. It is not only ridiculous, but crazy. I will tell you the offence this movement has committed, and that has given rise to the whole of this unsympathetic attitude towards it. They honour only the flag of their country. They fly only the national flag of the Union, and honour it alone. They decline to accept the Union Jack as their flag in the way the Boy Scouts do in the first instance. That is their offence, the fact that the movement is Afrikaner in character and foundation. That accounts for the unsympathetic attitude of the authorities towards it. On that account enmity has been displayed towards it from its inception. It must grow and has grown mightily in the face of opposition. I repeat that the unsympathetic attitude of the Prime Minister in connection with this movement will, I hope, result not in him having his own way—he will never get that— but that the movement will gain a tremendous impetus and that at least 20,000 to 30,000 little Voortrekkers will now join.

The Prime Minister maintained yesterday in the House, and also made an appeal to the House and the country, that we should so comport ourselves towards each other that when the war is over we should be able to live together again on a friendly footing. That was the theme of his speech yesterday. Is this then the manner in which he wants to set to work to achieve peace and co-operation in the country? Are these the methods that he is applying to eliminate the causes of hate and envy from our national life? The Prime Minister knows very well—it does not matter a jot what either of us say—that that side of the House cannot go on governing the country. Just as in the past, the Nationalist Party will again govern the land, and I want to put this question to him, and I should also like to put it to hon. members on the other side of the House who support his viewpoint: If we adopted the same line towards the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, the Pathfinders and the Brownies as they are adopting towards the Voortrekker Movement, what would they have to say about that?

It is necessary during time of war.

Do you imagine that the hon. member is afraid of the little Voortrekkers in time of war. In times of peace he is not scared of them. Let me tell the hon. member that he does not need to be scared of them now. They do not go about with cudgels in their hands and they will not attack him or do him any harm.

You do not need to tell me that.

Why is the hon. member afraid. I again put my question to the Prime Minister. He knows that his Government and his party will not go on governing the land. Other governments will come into power and when people are in office who hold our views, does the Prime Minister expect that we should adopt the same course towards the Girl Guides, the Boy Scouts and similar organisations as he is now adopting? Will that bring peace and quiet to the country? No, the Prime Minister must realise in what a ridiculous position he has placed himself. What is more, he must realise what a terrible injustice he has committed towards the Afrikaner. I want to make an appeal to him for the last time. Do not let a stupid official—I can find no other term but “a stupid official” for such a person—come and tell you that the Voortrekker Movement is a dangerous movement. It does not behove you to go and follow his advice. I want to put this further question to the Prime Minister. He admits that he is a patron of the Voortrekkers. As a patron it is his duty to have the interests of the Voortrekkers at heart. If certain reports are brought to him that are damaging to the Voortrekkers, is it not his duty then as patron to institute an enquiry? But the Prime Minister rises in his seat and tells us that although he is a patron he has never taken the trouble to institute an enquiry? Is that reasonable? Does it behove him as a patron not to have taken the trouble to have first made an investigation and simply to have taken the advice of a stupid official that this innocent movement constitutes a danger to the country? As Prime Minister he has also a duty to the country in this regard. In that capacity it is incumbent on him that he should not just accept the advice of an official and act upon it. I want to make this appeal to the Prime Minister: Because one official has been silly enough to make a recommendation do not simply close your eyes and carry out every stupid recommendation; you are not the slave of an official even if he is the head of the Police Force. The Prime Minister has a status far superior to that of any official, so why does he allow these officials to govern the country? The Prime Minister accepts this standpoint: I have no discretion in such matters; I follow the course which I am advised to take by the Commissioner of Police. Have we then reached this position that the Commissioner of Police is ruling the land; that it is in the hands of the Commissioner of Police to instruct the Government what it should do and what it should not do? Where are we going to land the country if we allow that sort of thing? I want to point out that the Commissioner of Police is a comparatively subordinate official. Who is the Commissioner of Police in South Africa? He fills a comparatively subordinate post, and it is not his duty to say what movements may hold drill parades or not. If the Prime Minister permits the Commissioner of Police to dictate to him in connection with such matters, then he is not doing justice to himself or his post. He is a man who has achieved world fame, and here he is doing something which does him a great injustice. He will realise in what an impossible position he is placing this House and also himself, as well as the Government of the country as a whole when he comes here and tells us that the Commissioner of Police has the power to dictate to him.

I hope that the Prime Minister having heard the speeches that have been made here on the Voortrekker Movement will deal with the matter in the spirit that he outlined to us yesterday. He said that we in this country must cultivate a spirit of forgiveness and that we should so act that in the future we may live together. He stated that we have had a great deal of bitterness in our country through the years, and by dealing leniently we eventually removed those difficulties from cur path. Here it is not a question of lenient action. Here we are pleading for the rights of the Afrikaner; for his right to live in the country. We on this side of the House represent 350,000 voters, and those people desire that the Voortrekker Movement should exist and continue to exist. As the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has stated here, it does not redound to the credit of the Prime Minister to be afraid that a group of school boys and school girls may constitute a menace to the peace of the world. Have we ever heard of anything quite so ridiculous as that these boys and girls will imperil the peace of South Africa. No, I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to be broadminded and to remove those restrictions that have been imposed on the Voortrekkers so that these children can carry on. They are learning discipline and obedience, and those are two things that they ought to learn. Now the argument is employed that one teacher or another may have overstepped the mark. If anyone has done that then such person can be dealt with. The Prime Minister has already put 600 citizens of the Union into custody, and if there is anyone who oversteps the mark, and uses the Voortrekker Movement for his own ends, let him face the music. It is no excuse for this step that the Government has taken. I appeal to the Prime Minister to remove this ban that has been placed on the Voortrekker Movement. I think that it is simply scandalous to place that ban on an honourable movement that is making good citizens of our children.

Yesterday we heard from the Prime Minister that he does not desire to leave a heritage of hate and envy in the country. I listened with attention to that, and I admired the psychological insight of the Prime Minister when he used those words. We are now in a period of war when feelings sometimes run high, and in a period when we are strongly opposed to one another on matters of principle. It is only natural that some people may lose their balance, people who are not able to think so soberly as in other circumstances. But those who have vision, and who reflect on what lies beyond the war, will not act in such a way as to make that heritage of hate and envy greater and more aggravated for the generation that follows. We must always bear in mind that there are two races in the country and that they have to live together here. Seeing that the Prime Minister voiced those views, I should now like to ask him this: Why cannot he try to achieve national unity by giving equal rights to both sections? Every step we have had here in the last five years has represented an injustice to the one section. Have arms been taken away from the English citizens; have English-speaking citizens been interned without the elementary right to a hearing; has any attack been delivered on the mother tongue of those people? Here he has laid hands on the weapon of the Boers while the English-speaking people have gone unmolested; he has struck at the heart of the Afrikaansspeaking people through their mother tongue. Now he comes and he lays his hands on the child. I feel that it is unworthy of the Prime Minister. I feel that I must ask him on this occasion not to be small but to be big. He can make a great contribution, a positive contribution, towards that national unity for which he says he stands, and which he so passionately desires. But he will not make any such contribution if he takes action such as this, and prohibits people who have had no proper hearing, poor innocent children — little urchins — bloedjies as he called them a short time ago — from exercising those privileges which other children in the neignbourhood enjoy. Does not the Prime Minister feel that this is a case when he must take a long view, and look far beyond the horizons of today? Does he not feel that he must look to the future, that future when he will no longer be with us? Humanly speaking there are not many years remaining to the Prime Minister. We do not want, if it is at all possible, that he should be gathered to his fathers with this attack on the children of his people resting on his conscience. I appeal with all the earnestness at my command, to the Prime Minister. On his side he is known as a great man, and on our side we know that in many respects we have admiration for him. It is in that spirit that I want to appeal to him in the words of an English poet—

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided.

AYES—79:

Abrahamson, H.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

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.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

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.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

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.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

NOES—32:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludiek, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

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.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus put.

Before you appoint tellers, I should like to bring up a point of order, namely, whether certain hon. members who are present in the House are entitled to take part in the division on which we are now engaged. I want to refer to Standing Order No. 122 of the Rules of Order and also Section 11 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. Standing Order No. 122 reads as follows—

It goes on to say to whom this section really applies and to whom it does not apply—

In other words where pecuniary advantage is obtained or may be obtained. That is the second section of Standing Order No. 122. Then we come to Section 3 of the Standing Order, and it sets out who will be exempt from the provisions of Section 1—

“In their capacity as such.” That is to say they may vote on the Vote “House of Assembly” under which their salaries are approved. It goes on—

That is the Order, and my question is whether three hon. members of this House, the hon. members for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer), Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) and Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) who have received a military salary, and who have benefited by that salary, are entitled to take part in this discussion, seeing that they are voting here for something which is of pecuniary interest to them, while the Order makes it very clear that a member may not vote for anything in which he has a pecuniary interest, except in the case where he votes for his own salary as a member of Parliament, and the other case where it is a question of public policy. Accordingly, I ask for your ruling in connection with these three members, because I maintain that they cannot take part in this division because they have a direct pecuniary interest and do not fall within the exemptions.

I find that Speaker Jansen, on the 28th March, 1934, gave a ruling on this matter that the hon. member has now brought up. After he had given careful consideration to the circumstances, he gave the following ruling—

Sir, may I point out to you that I think that ruling confirms my statement because in this case these hon. members are going to obtain a direct pecuniary gain.

Not a loss, not a disadvantage.

I may also point out to you, Sir, that that ruling was given with regard to certain taxation proposals which were before the House and not on a direct vote.

No, the hon. member is quite incorrect, this ruling was given in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Bill, which was then before the House.

The hon. member’s facts are not quite correct. The hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) receives no pay for his work.

That is not a point of order.

May I just refer to the ruling that you have just given. Your ruling has reference to anyone who votes on a matter that gives him pecuniary gain, but here we have not to do with a measure that bestows pecuniary advantage. With submission, it is not a precedent, it is not a case on all fours with that which is now before the House. The other matter was supposedly a question of taxation, and the Speaker then gave a ruling on the question whether members could vote in connection with it. But here we have something relating to what gives members an actual gain, not a loss, and in my judgment the ruling to which you have referred affords no precedent for the decision that you have now announced.

May I point out to hon. members that Speaker Jansen took into consideration all the points in connection with direct pecuniary interest—gain as well as loss, and it is clear to me that the hon. members concerned are entitled to have their votes recorded in the division.

May I point out that that decision only applies to instances in which members are involved in loss. In this case it implies gain and not a loss.

No, the decision was in connection with pecuniary gain and loss.

This matter is of great interest, and I would like to ask you to allow us to ask the decision of the Speaker in this connection. We feel that the matter on which Speaker Jansen gave a ruling does not correspond with this instance. Accordingly I ask that we should obtain the decision of Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry, but the Committee is in the middle of a division and cannot now ask for the decision of the Speaker.

May I suggest that the vote before the Committee is one involving a question of public policy, and if it involves a question of public policy, the whole of this Standing Order does not apply, and that disposes of the point made.

That was also a point which Speaker Jansen considered when he gave this ruling.

The Committee divided:

AYES—32:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Ddhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan. D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

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.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

NOES—79:

Abrahamson, H.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

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.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

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.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

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.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 5.—“Defence,” as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—75:

Abrahamson, H.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C,

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

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.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

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.

Steytler, L. J.

Sullivan, J. R.

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.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

NOES—32:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer. K.

Brink, W. D.

Dödhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouche, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

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.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens. J.

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

Vote No. 5.—“Defence,” as printed, accordingly agreed to.

It being 7 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (4), 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 24th March.