I move—

I regard it as my duty and also as necessary, seeing that the House is today assembled as such and not in Committee, and seeing that you are in the Chair, to refer to a matter that was broached yesterday in the Committee stage and discussed here. On account of the lateness of the hour and the desire of members to dispose of business we did not on that occasion go further into the matter. Apart from that, I that feel it is necessary to mention the matter today, because in the first place the honour of Parliament is affected by it, and in the second place it concerns the ethical standard of political life that we desire to protect in this country. The quesion that was mentioned—I am not going to go fully over the facts again, and I shall be as brief as possible—relates to a contract that was entered into by the Minister of Transport with his colleague the Minister of Lands for the provision of water and also of electric power at Hutchinson. The facts are recorded in Hansard; they have also appeared this morning in “Die Burger”, but there is no mention of them in the “Cape Times”, which in the circumstances can be understood. In the first place, I want to point out that an unpleasant aspect of the matter is this, when the question was first put in the House the South African Association was advanced as the contractor, although the Minister of Transport must have known and did know, that the water was provided by the Minister of Lands, and that the benefits from the contract went not to the South African Association but to the Minister of Lands. But the important facts that I wish to bring to the attention of the country in the whole House under you, Sir, as Speaker, touches on the following important points. As far as concerns the provision of water it appears that the amount that has been paid out was increased from £2,773 in 1938 to £4,680 in 1943. The answer given by the Minister to a second question as to why such a tremendous increase had occurred, was that the increase was due to the larger amount of water that was taken. I have shown that although there was an increase of 40 per cent. in disbursements the quantity of water provided had only risen by 22 per cent. But what is of special importance is this. It appears from the answer of the Minister that the contract originally entered into was on the basis of 1s. per 1,000 gallons, but this was later brought up to 1s. 3d. and later still to 1s. 6d. In other words there was a rise of 50 per cent. in the price of 1,000 gallons that the Minister of Transport paid to the Minister of Lands. Now I come to the second point and one that in my opinion is of an exceptionally serious nature. Yesterday evening I made the allegation that this contract, this improved contract was entered into with the Minister of Lands in spite of the fact that the Minister of Transport has an adequate and satisfactory water supply of his own for consumption there. I have already shown that although the Minister may maintain that the four or five boreholes that he has, two of which are equipped with machinery, may not suffice to provide a sufficient supply of water, there was no necessity to obtain this extra quantity of water that is covered by the additional £1,907 per year that is paid to his colleague, the Minister of Lands. That is the first point. There is enough water, and the Minister in replying to my allegation did not deny this. I spoke again and repeated that point, and again the Minister of Railways did not deny it. We must thus accept it that there is quite enough water for Hutchinson, and that this contract is not in the interests of the Railway Administration. Then there is the further fact—and this is the point on which the whole case rests—that after Senator Conroy assumed office as a Minister of the Crown, the Minister of Railways increased the rate from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons. Those are the two main points as regards the provision of water. The Minister has sufficient water there, and after Senator Conroy was appointed a Minister of the Crown the price was raised to 1s. 6d. The Minister of Railways has merely made the vague assertion that the costs of production have gone up. The Minister of Railways has not furnished us with proof that the costs of production, as he terms it, for the supply of water, have mounted to such a degree as to justify the enhanced price being paid. He still owes us that explanation. There is the fact that the increase took place after Senator Conroy became Minister of Lands. The main argument of the Minister of Railways was that this was a contract that had been entered into, first in the remote past with the Imperial Cold Storage, and later with Senator Conroy, and that it was merely a continuation of that contract. He has offered us no justification for the enhancement of the price that occurred after the person concerned became a Minister of the Crown. The position is exactly the same in reference to the supply of electric power. There, too, an increase occurred, an increase in the price that was paid, after Senator Conroy became Minister of Lands. It does not help matters for the Minister of Railways, as he did yesterday in the vague answer that he gave us, to read out to the House and to me the amount that is paid for electricity in Uitenhage and Stellenbosch and in Cape Town. That has nothing to do with the matter. We are concerned with the fact that an increase is granted, and that no justification exists for that increase. If he wants to employ that argument, I have indicated figures on the other side to show that in many villages and in my own town much less is paid for electric power. I maintain that what makes the matter of such importance is that by the conduct of the Minister of Railways disregard has been shown of an unwritten law that we have always observed in South Africa, namely, that a Minister of the Crown may not place himself in such a position that he will enter into contracts with the Government or obtain any benefits while he is occupying that position. The matter is of importance, because the Minister of Railways, by his action, is responsible for a disregard of those ethical standards which we have always accepted in South Africa. We know that when one is dealing with a big department such as the Railways, it is quite possible that the Minister of Railways is completely innocent in the matter, because we know that such matters are arranged by officials in his Department. But I offer this for consideration, the possibility that is created for a Minister of the Crown being placed in such a position that he may be able to use his influence on officials in order to obtain contracts. May I again read out the interpretation given in the British Parliament at the time of the Marconi affair. May I again, because it is especially applicable in this instance, read out the words used by Mr. Asquith? He said—

May I point out to the Minister of Railways that this is precisely the case here; seeing that he has entered into a contract with the Minister of Lands, where it was a question of a renewal of a contract, and that an increase took place, that this was really a case of—

I come to his second proposition—

Is this not exactly what happened here? In his answer to my question on the 21st April the Minister of Railways said that the contract was entered into with the South African Association. If I had not had other information, then it would have gone forth to the world that this contract was one with the South African Association. We have here to do with just what Mr. Asquith described as “an undisclosed private interest.” If there ever was a case of an “undisclosed private interest” then it is in this case. It is necessary that this matter should be discussed here again today, because the whole question of our ethical standards is involved, and because we believe that the Minister of Railways here entered into a contract which was not in the interests of the Railways, and because the Minister does not deny that there is really a satisfactory supply of water there, and in the second place because it is in conflict with those ethical standards which we have always safeguarded in South Africa. I maintain that the whole thing leaves a nasty taste behind.

The Cape Town public are greatly disturbed at the reply from the System Manager to the Amenities Committee of the City Council of Cape Town that the extension of the railways or the reconstruction of transport facilities to the beaches of False Bay and the general development of the Cape Flats by providing transport facilities is not being considered. I should like to appeal to the Minister to give this matter further consideration. He is aware, firstly, of the great congestion of the beaches of False Bay—the only beaches left to Cape Town since the beach at Woodstock has been appropriated. The beach at Woodstock was the playground particularly for the coloured community of Cape Town and now they have been deprived of that. It has become a great asset to the Railway Department; the land has been reclaimed and will no doubt be of great value and show good returns to the Department and I think it is only fair and right that the Railway Department should substitute this beach at Woodstock which has been developed, by facilities at False Bay. We have a wonderful beach all along False Bay, quite undeveloped and quite inaccessible owing to the want of railway facilities; and the congestion is very bad there, particularly during the holiday periods; we have had many complaints, not only from the local residents but from visitors as well. But apart from the facilities of the beaches, there is the question of developing the whole of the Cape Flats for industrial and residential purposes; the need for further facilities, more particularly for industrial development is very great and the Council feels that with proper transport provision through the Cape Flats, the demand which exists today for industrial sites would be met. I want, therefore, to appeal to the Minister at least to investigate the proposition during the recess and give the matter favourable consideration after he receives the report from his investigating officers.

This matter that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has mentioned has two aspects. There is the business aspect of the matter to which the hon. the Minister replied yesterday, when he made it clear to the Committee that the Railway Administration had not done bad business. It may be the case that they have not done bad business, if a comparison is made with the other places that the Minister has mentioned and the average price that they pay for water at these places is taken. But it would have been better if he had given us the general average figure for the charge, and not merely selected a group of places as he has done. That remark also applies in connection with electrical power. But there is another aspect of the matter, and that is that from 1938 the contract price was £2,773; in 1943 it was increased to £4,680, in other words an increase of £1,907 within five years. In his reply the Minister did not state that the same increases had been made at other centres. The whole case rests on this, that an enormous increase has taken place here, and the Minister seeks to justify it by saying that we pay this and that at other places. But he has not told the House that they have made the same increases in the price paid for water at other places. So while the Minister has dealt with the matter here, he did not put it fully. It is one of the complaints made by the hon. member for Beaufort West that a contract was here entered into for £1,907 a year for five years, and it is not right to say now “at other places we pay this and that.” Because the Minister could then come along next year or in a couple of years’ time and say “at Stellenbosch and Worcester we pay 2s. 6d., and now we are also going to increase this contract to 2s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons.” But there is another aspect of the matter, and I do not know whether it escaped the Minister, but one of the most important charges made by the hon. member for Beaufort West is that the Administration has sufficient water at Hutchinson. The Minister has not refuted that. The hon. member said that he had information that the Administration had sufficient water at Hutchinson, and that there are even pumps on boreholes belonging to the Administration, but that the water is not used. The hon. Minister has also stated that an increase in the consumption has occurred, but it appears that the increase is only 33,000 gallons. Was it not possible to take the additional water out of the Administration’s own supply? That is another question which the Minister has not answered. So when the matter is compared with the position at other centres one does not come to the conclusion that such a good stroke of business was done here, because why does the Minister go and buy something of which he already has a supply? But there is another aspect of the matter, and it is an ugly feature, namely that here is a Minister of the Crown who has entered into a contract with the Railway Administration involving an amount of £5,250 a year for the provision of water and electricity. What one comes across, especially under the English system, is that as soon as anyone is appointed as Minister he makes a declaration that he has cancelled all the contracts he has had with the Government, and that he has no further interest in any contract with the State. You will recall that this is what took place with Mr. Neville Chamberlain and also with Mr. Baldwin. Both these men, after they had become Ministers, stated that the contracts they had had with the State had been cancelled and ceded by them. But here you have a Minister of the Crown who after he becomes Minister receives an increase on the contract price, and today he is drawing in respect of the contract the sum of £5,250. What authority can the Minister exercise? If he travels about the country and tells the people what their duty is towards the State they can say to him: “You endorse the policy of the Government because you have an interest in the Government, as the Government was so well disposed as to give you contracts for £5,250 a year.” I must say that I was completely nonplussed when this matter came to my notice. I think that public life should be so regulated that if a Minister has any interest in any State enterprise or any contract he must cancel the contract if he becomes Minister. Here we have a Minister who is filling a most important office in the country and he is interested in the Government to the extent of £5,250 a year. We ought to keep our public life so pure that no one should be able to point a finger at a Minister. I know that it is difficult for the Minister of Railways to justify such a thing as this. Yesterday evening he tried to vindicate his colleague but I do not think that he was convincing. I think that this was rather an oversight. I imagine that he did not consider the logical consequences of this contract, and accordingly I hope that during the recess he will approach his colleague and ask him whether he can make some other plan so that he will have no further interest in these contracts.

I rise to intervene purely on the ethical question of the propriety of the contract which has been disclosed—the contract with the Minister of Lands. I know nothing of this matter apart from what I have heard about it here, and the arguments which I am going to put to this House are based on the facts given to this House by the Minister of Transport. In putting forward these views I am not in any way imputing any irregularity as far as the contract is concerned. I merely want to call the attention of the House, as I think it is my duty to do, to the irregularity as far as procedure is concerned. In other words, I am not concerned whether the Minister of Lands has made any undue profit out of this transaction or not. I am not concerned with that aspect at all. But coming to the ethical side of it, the reason for the rule which has been applied not only in regard to Cabinet Ministers, but also in regard to all people who are placed in some position of trust, the cardinal underlying principle is that a person in that position should not find himself in a situation where there is a likelihood.—even though it is only a remote likelihood—of a conflict between his duty as a man occupying that position of trust and his interest as an individual. That is the cardinal underlying principle of all these rules of propriety which have been from time to time laid down. Now I rise particularly to intervene because it seems to me that there is a grievous misconception as to the extent of that rule on the part of the Minister of Transport. If I understood his argument last night, it is this, that the fact that the Minister of Lands entered into this contract before he became a Minister takes this case out of the ordinary rule; that here is simply a continuation of a contract which was entered into with the Minister of Lands before he became a Minister of the Crown. Now I say that discloses a very grievous misconception of the true nature of the rule. I can give the House examples of contracts which have been entered into long before a man became a member of a municipal council, but on his becoming a member of the council, from that moment it was held to operate as a cause for disqualification. I think in the case which the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) quoted, Scholtz v. Labuschagne, the matter was one in which a firm of attorneys had for years hired certain stock pens for their monthly sales from the Municipality. I think they were paying a purely nominal rate for the use of these stock pens, but when one of the members of this form of auctioneers became a member of the Municipal Council, it was held by the Court that he was disqualified and that he had either to resign his position or get out of the contract. As far as that is concerned it is clear that the fact that the Minister had entered into this contract before he became a Minister, does not affect the principle one whit. I am surprised that it should be necessary to call the attention of the Minister of Transport to this aspect of the matter, because his own action is a very good example of the high ethical regard he had for this rule. The Minister of Transport, many years before he became Minister of of Transport, became a director of various companies. After he had become a director he became a Minister, but on becoming a Minister he resigned all these directorships. It is not directorships which anyone could say he acquired by virtue of being a Minister of the Crown; but he himself, and his instinct for what is right and proper led him correctly, felt that it was not the correct thing for him, as a Minister of the Crown, to continue holding these directorships once he became a Minister. As far as that aspect is concerned, the case which the Minister of Transport has put up seems to me to break down entirely on his own example, an example which, I am glad to say, has been followed by some of his colleagues. I understand the Minister of Agriculture relinquished certain directorships on becoming a member of the Cabinet.

Not certain ones, all of them.

I am glad to hear it. It is the correct procedure. But this matter goes further than that. The Minister has not enlightened us whether this is a contract for a fixed number of years or whether it is renewable.

The water is for a fixed period of years.

And the electricity contract?

That is subject to six months’ notice.

Even assuming for the moment—which I cannot accept—that it does make a difference in principle whether this contract was entered into when the Minister of Lands was still Senator Conroy; what do we find after he had become a Minister of the Crown? That contract which was entered into when he was still Senator Conroy has not continued in its old form; it has been changed to the interest of the Minister of Lands, and it was changed to the interest of the Minister of Lands after he had become Minister of Lands. So even assuming for the moment that the first point which was put up by the Minister of Transport is correct, he still has to face this position that there was a change in that contract, a change in the interests of the Minister after he became a Minister. Now the important matter in this is not the question of whether there is a profit or not to the Minister of Lands. Even if this contract was a contract which was continued at a loss to the Minister, it would not affect the principle to any extent, because the foundation of the principle is that people who engage in our public life should stand above suspicion. As one of the members of the House of Lords expressed it on an occasion: “It is even more important that the semblance should be given that nothing is wrong, than that everything is right.” It is more important, I may say, that the public shall not get the idea that people in public positions do anything wrong, than that anything should be wrong. It is not right, it is not fair to the Government to expose any of its members to even the faintest, the least conceivable charge of irregularity. The rule has been very wisely stated by Mr. Asquith, as quoted by the hon. member for Beaufort West, “any conceivable interest,” and that has been done because the framers of that principle were jealous of the public regard for our public institutions, and at the top of these public institutions there should stand the Parliament of the Union of South Africa. And it is in defence of that very high repute in which our public men in the past have been held that I rise to lodge my protest against the conception apparently of what is right and proper as put forward by the Minister of Transport. I do not want to apportion any blame. I have been arguing this case entirely on the facts as stated by the Minister of Transport. I am willing to accept that this was one of the things which unwittingly has crept in, but once the attention of the House has been drawn to it, and properly drawn to it by the hon. member for Beaufort West, I think once that has been done, the House and the Government would be ill-advised to pass this over as facilely as the Minister of Transport attempted to do last night. I think we owe it to ourselves, as a House—the Government owes it to themselves, not only as the Government of this country but as the guardians of the reputation of this House and the Public Service that this matter should not be allowed to rest where it stands at present.

I want to deal briefly with the erection of the Central Training Institute at Kaalfontein. The total amount that will be expended on this institution is just a few thousands under a million pounds, and before the building and the institution have been completed, it will, I predict, have cost a million pounds. That is a large amount to invest and to lock up, because it is not reproductive, unless it is made reproductive by the training of good, capable, and well-equipped railway officials. That is the object of the institute, and we welcome and support it. We regard that as a praiseworthy idea. But the point around which everything revolves in connection with the institute is the appointment of a principal. This million pounds that we are investing in the institute can bear its fruit, can indeed yield good fruit for the nation, for the Administration, and for the country as a whole; it can have a very beneficial effect. But we want to express this view, and we hope that the Minister will imprint it in his memory when he finally deals with this matter of the appointment of a principal, that the success of the enterprise, and the wisdom of the investment, depends entirely on the first principal that he appoints. We do hope and trust that the first appointment of a principal will not be a political appointment, not an appointment on grounds that are subsidiary or from outside considerations, but one that is actuated by the prosperity, the advancement and the interest of the institute, and of the Railway Administration as a whole. I would not have sounded this word of warning had I not good reason for it. I want to feel confident that no mistake will be made in this matter. I wish to repeat that we are spending a million pounds on this new enterprise. It is by way of experiment that we are doing this. We have no precedent, no pattern, no prototype to guide us. The idea originally was that it would cost us a quarter of a million pounds. Now it has been swollen to a million pounds. Nor are we unwilling to pay the million pounds provided that we shall be able to obtain from that institution railway personnel who are thoroughly equipped and well trained. But it will be a disaster for the institute, a fatal blow to the enterprise, a tragedy for the institution, and detrimental to the Administration, if a principal who will not be able to achieve the object of the institution is appointed out of political considerations. With those few words I shall leave this matter. The second matter that I want to touch upon is a matter that we have already frequently referred to, though we have not yet seen any results from it. That is the appointment of a head for the Railway Police; He is an official who does not control many men, but still he is a necessary officer, and he must know his work. It is still more necessary that he should devote his attention to his work, and not poke his nose into other matters. It is the job of the chief of the Railway Police to take care that the property of the public is safely protected so long as it is in the charge of the Railways. We had a very unfortunate experience with the last chief that we had. His was also a political appointment, and instead of him confining his attention to police work in the service in order to protect the good name of the Administration, and not to shake the confidence of the public in the staff, we found that he devoted his attention in this war period to all sorts of other matters, and principally to political affairs. If the Government want to take steps to protect the country in the political sphere, in the military sphere, and also in other spheres, we have no objection to offer to that. But this man is appointed as chief of the Railway Police with the special object not of keeping the Government in power, but to take care that the property of the public which is under his charge, will be safe so long as it is in the hands of the Administration. Not only have we increased his salary far above that which is paid to such a police official, but we have paid him more for his political meddling than anything else. He has made the country pay dearly because he has not devoted his attention to the irregularities on the railways but to political matters which do not concern him in any way. I trust that when the Minister appoints a new chief it will be a man who will devote his attention to railway work. If he wants to appoint a political detective let that be a separate appointment, but let the head of the police be someone who will devote his attention to his work. We have paid dearly for the previous appointment, dearly on account of the fact that he did not bestow his attention on his work with the consequence that the claims soared, not by hundreds but by thousands until they became double what they were. I shall let the matter rest there, and I turn to another matter which is the most important of those that I want to touch upon. In the Railway service we have perhaps the most highly paid Government official in the country. He is the General Manager of Railways. In that post we require pre-eminently a man who will give his wholehearted attention to the running of the Railways, firstly, secondly and finally. That is his business and his duty. For that he has been given the appointment. He should devote himself to the interests of the Railways as a Railway official. If he has a special liking for politics and for military matters let that be a private matter. His first duty is to ensure that the affairs of the Railway Administration are looked after in such a way that the £200 millions that the country has invested in the Railways will be safeguarded. He is the first and only man who must see to the safety of that investment. Now it has been unfortunate that in the last few years we have had the experience that the General Manager of Railways has not been someone who has complied with those requirements. I shall be very careful in regard to what I say but still it is necessary that it should be said. The General Manager will have to retire from the service in October next. We trust that when October comes round he will receive his pension and will enjoy the rest that he deserves—that he will not be retained in the service any longer. But is appears that he is now playing his cards in such a way that it will be necessary to keep him on. In the first place we know that the Assistant General Manager who should have retired last year is still there. He is still Assistant General Manager and continues to draw his salary. What is the object of that? The Assistant General Manager is the logical successsor of the General Manager. Why cannot the Assistant General Manager leave his post, and why cannot another Assistant General Manager be appointed? This is the first time that it has been necessary for us to have an Assistant General Manager of Railways. Perhaps the Minister felt that the present General Manager of Railways had to have someone alongside him to support him. I do not know but possibly that is the case. But in any event the position is that he is there and we must assume that it is an important post. As the post has been created it is the second most important post in the service, and we want to ask the Minister why this official did not retire at the proper time and why he has been retained in the service. Is it that there is no one to take his place? If so it is a sad outlook for the Railways, and it is a reflection and an insult on the senior officials. In the long history of the Railways the General Manager has always retired when the time was due. It ought to be the policy that no senior official will be retained in his position after the time he is due to retire according to law. When he has reached the age for retirement he should go. Why is one kept on and not the other? If our senior officials are to be retained during the war let them all stay; but here fish is made of one and flesh of the other. The Government keeps on its supporters and lets the others go, while the others are retained at high salaries. I have stated on a previous occasion—it is a hard thing to say but it is true—that the whole of the Railway Administration from top to bottom is disheartened and disgruntled owing to a small group of people who have gathered around the present General Manager and the present Minister of Railways, a small clique who do not number more than a hunderd; and the inner circle do not amount to more than twenty-five. This clique is allowed to upset and disturb the whole Railway Administration with its 80,000 officials; if they were the most capable men we should not mind, but I say in the name of the overwhelming majority of the railway officials that the majority of them have arrived there not on account of their ability but by reason of their toadying and tale-bearing. That is why we ask that this matter should be kept above the level of party politics. We ask that senior officials who have reached the retiring age should be retired. If such an official vacates his post when he is due for retirement a new appointment can be made in the ordinary course, but failing that you block the normal course of promotions in the service. You will not take it amiss if we have a suspicion that you are retaining the assistant general manager there until you can push up someone from a lower post to take the place of the assistant general manager over the heads of men who are today his seniors. We shall be glad to learn that our suspicions are not well-founded but we trust that the Minister will not make a wrong appointment. It is one of the most important posts in our country. The holder of it has not only to control a large amount of capital but he has a tremendous power, and to place these powers in the hands of a stupid man, in the hands of an unscrupulous man, in the hands of a man with poor judgment, is very dangerous. He has authority which is unassailable in many cases by the court itself. His authority is absolute, and he has the weal and woe, and the livelihood, of thousands and thousands of people in his hands. What he says is final. In many instances his dictum cannot be overthrown even by the court itself. His authority is inviolable and accordingly it is necessary that we should have a man who is just, a man who is judicious, a man who is dignified, a man who will hold the balance equally, a man who can distinguish between good and bad and a man who will not be swayed by the spirit of the day, but who will be able amidst all circumstances and amidst all storms to keep his head in the first instance and in the last instance, a man who will be a good manager, not a good brigadier or a good politician, but who will first and last be a good general manager of one of the greatest undertakings in this country.

I should just like to say a few words on a matter which we must all regard as one of the utmost importance, and that is a matter that has been broached here in connection with the Hutchinson contracts by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw)). One thing over which I rejoice is the manner in which the matter was brought up by the hon. member. I think that no exception can be taken to the way in which he did this. It was a delicate matter, and he said nothing in his speeches here either yesterday or today that could in any way be interpreted as attributing dishonourable motives either to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Lands. He presented the matter as one of public importance. But after the debate which has taken place here, I think we must all admit that no defenece, no good defence, has been set up by the Minister who took part in the discussion. I think he has to admit that, apart from the merits of the contracts themselves from the point of view of the Railway interests, that action has been taken here in conflict with the high traditions of public administration. Action has been taken in conflict with the high traditions of public administration that are cherished, not only in other lands but also in our own country, and which have been given practical effect to by the Minister of Transport and other Ministers. I think it is in the interests of the country, in the interests of the confidence that the people have or should have in the Government that those high traditions shall be protected. It is from that angle that the matter was approached by the hon. member who brought the subject before Parliament, and I want to add a few words in the same spirit. We cannot allow the matter to rest there; we cannot leave the matter there with the discussion that has occurred, because if it is left with this discussion and nothing follows on it, an unfavourable precedent will be created to which recourse may be had in the future. A similar departure from those high traditions may occur in the future, and then it will be said: Well, there was a case that was brought before Parliament and the Government, and the matter got no further. On that account I think it is right that this should be, not only a matter for Parliament but also a matter in the first instance for the Cabinet, and for the Acting Prime Minister— unfortunately the Prime Minister who is responsible for the Cabinet is not here—but the Acting Prime Minister will have to ask, if he does not wish to take part in the debate himself and to voice his opinion on the matter, whether he will not bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. I know how he himself cherishes those high traditions in connection with the public administration; I do not know if there is anyone who stands higher than himself in this regard, but if he does not wish to take part in this debate, and we realise that it is difficult for him to do so, we want to know whether he will undertake to bring this matter pertinently to the attention of the Prime Minister when he returns.

Yes, I will do that, of course.

We would be glad to have the assurance that he will bring the matter pertinently to the notice of the Prime Minister.

I shall bring to his notice everything that has been stated here.

Then we can leave it in the hands of the Prime Minister to act as he thinks fit. We do not attribute any motives to anyone including the Minister of Lands. But we should like to know that in the public interests there will be no repetition of this.

I should like to mention certain things that have happened in our neighbourhood in connection with road motor services. As the hon. the Minister will be aware, great extension has occurred in our district of Marico as far as concerns road motor services. Things have occurred in connection with the conduct of the Administration that have made me depressed; the staff have to go out early in the morning, at 7 o’clock, from Zeerust station, and they must travel 140 miles there and back in sunshine and in rain, and they get no compensation for overtime. The roads are bad, and sometimes the buses break down and the people arrive at their destination late at night, or they may have to remain on the road to repair the vehicle. They sometimes return late at night, and they receive no compensation for the overtime that they have to work. I do not think it is fair to expect of them that they should sacrifice their health in this manner, and exert their energies to get these things in order, and that even when they return to the depot and arrive at Zeerust they should have to put their buses in order for the following day, or perhaps even to go out the same day in another direction. They are not paid overtime for this work that they do. I have been informed by a considerable number of people who are employed on the road motor service that they receive no compensation. They get nothing for overtime. I should like to know that the Minister will ensure that these people are treated in a proper manner. They ought to receive compensation for the overtime that they work. As hon. members have stated, we need our railway service and we need our road motor services, and we must give these people what is their due.

It has also been brought to my notice that they have to cover that long distance in a period of fourteen hours, and they get one hour to load and off-load. They receive no payment for overtime, and at the end of the month two hours of the fourteen are deducted for meal hours. They have I believe asked the departmental heads to give them the right to enjoy their meals whilst the bus is stationary. They leave early in the morning before breakfast and they have not got that right. The two hours are deducted from their time. They are not entitled to stop and have a meal; they must eat while they are working. I hope that the Minister of Railways will give his attention to this matter and see that the staff of the road motor services are compensated for the overtime that they work. We know that they do hard work, and accordingly I expect that the Minister will ensure that not only at Zeerust but also in respect of other places the people will be treated properly and that they will get the time required for meals etc. If they are unable to obtain a full hour let them then have half an hour. But they say that they have to eat their food while they are at work, and they are sick and tired of this treatment. Consequently I am anxious that these people should be accorded their rights.

I should like to preface the few remarks I want to make today by giving the House the assurance that I need no reminding or prompting as to the importance of the issues that were raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) yesterday, and I hope that nothing I said in reply indicated in any way that I was taking the issue lightly. Far from it. I was merely defending the Railway Administration for the action they have taken up to the present time, and I think that in this particular case, rather more is made of the situation than the facts warrant. I agree entirely with everything said as to the importance of Ministers being completely above suspicion in regard to anything they may have to do with the Government itself. It is important to remember, however, that as far as the Railways are concerned there is nothing secret or hidden about anything they do; the fullest publicity is given to all our contracts. There is no information which any member of this House cannot obtain, and therefore it is quite impossible for anyone, even a Minister, to do anything out of sight, anything hidden, anything improper without its being immediately exposed. Now in this particular case, to begin with I should like to tell the House that I personally knew nothing about any association that anyone had with this particular contract until the time when the hon. member first asked a question about it. That shows at any rate that my colleague has done nothing in regard to bringing any influence to bear on me or the Administration in regard to any interest he may have in the contract.

He didn’t disclose his interest.

When the hon. member quoted Mr. Asquith and others with regard to the probity of Ministers I do not know that Mr. Asquith meant that every contract which had been entered into before a Minister became a Minister with a corporation had to be automatically cancelled the moment a man became a Minister of the Crown.

Definitely.

There is nothing in these statements which indicates that.

The principles are very clearly laid down.

If a contract is entered into before the tenderer has become a Minister of the Crown, obviously he has not been able to use any influence in the fixing up of that contract. The contract is entered into and it would be extremely awkward if on the day a contractor to the Railways became a Minister we had automatically to cancel with him a contract for water supply, which it might take us another 12 months to replace.

What about subsequent alterations in the contract?

I am coming to that. Let us deal with it step by step. Therefore it is not a natural right that a contract shall automatically be cancelled.

No one is suggesting that.

No, but you have to make this clear in order to build up the next point. You do not automatically cancel a contract which is in existence merely because one of the contractors happens to become a Minister of the Crown. “Well now,” they say, and we admit that too, “You have altered that contract You have brought the basis up from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d.” Anyway let us say from 1s. to 1s. 6d. I have increased the price. Let me explain that when I say I have increased the price, I haven’t done it myself. These things do not come to the Minister, they are dealt with by the Railway Tender Board and by Railway officials, and we have increased literally scores of prices. I don’t think there is a single contract for the supply of water—for the supply of anything for that matter—which we have not increased. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) knows that we have increased the price for the amount of water at Koppies in his constituency from 10d. to 1s. 3d. and he wants more than that. That has happened in scores of cases. What is the alternative? What do they suggest? They suggest that instead of giving an increased price—because even a Cabinet Minister should not be out of pocket to keep the Railways going— rather than give an increased price we should do one or two things: we should cancel the contract and try and find another contractor, or bore holes of our own and put our own existing boreholes into commission. If we cancelled the contract which we have at Hutchinson for water, what would we have to do? There is no other supplier who can supply the amount of water we need. There are one or two other boreholes, but they are unsuitable and would need a purifying plant. These plants are not available in wartime. We have a borehole ourselves, which is not in a good position, and we have received expert advice which tells us that if we draw water ourselves, we must buy more land and bore— and from whom are we to buy the land?

You will have to buy my land.

Yes, we would have to buy land from my colleague Senator Conroy, and we should have to bore for water there, and then what have we to do? We have to get pumping plant, boring equipment, we have to get piping, we have to make new installations, and we have to get pumping engines at a time when we cannot get them, so obviously it would cost us a great deal more money if we decided to take that course rather than to allow the present contractor to carry on—and the present contractor is not Senator Conroy but the South African Association.

Come, come, don’t hedge.

Don’t say that. That is the worst slip you have made.

To use your own words you are wriggling.

I don’t press that point, but as far as the South African Railways are concerned—as far as the officials of the South African Railways are concerned, it is the South African Association.

You know that that is not so.

Now that is the position. Am I justified in the circumstances in making that change at this time? I say that to do that it would be going very far in upholding a principle which I do not think has really been violated in this case because the contract was properly entered into before. If it was properly entered into it can be properly amended in the light of our general practice. For these reasons I feel that the South African Railways Administration has done the right thing in agreeing to a relatively small increase not half as much as they have agreed to elsewhere—and I think they should continue to take their water supply which they cannot replace for lack of machinery apart from any other considerations. I don’t know that there is very much more. This agreement is an agreement for 15 years.

When did it commence?

It was started on the 1st February, 1938, so it will expire in 1953. It will require a definite act on the part of the South African Railways to cancel the agreement. If I cancel the agreement, it would cost the South African Railways a considerable sum of money and I don’t know whether the House would not criticise the Minister for taking such action. I have put the point as clearly as possible as far as the Railways are concerned, but let me again assure the House that I am well aware of the importance of the principle, and the matter will, when it comes up de novo, have the closest attention from me. Now I would just like to refer to one or two remarks made by other members. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) referred to the question of establishing a railway line for the Strandfontein serve. I personally have not been approached on this matter. I believe there has been some correspondence with the System Manager and no doubt, the matter will come to me in due course. But it is unlikely that the Railways will build a railway line if the only purpose of that line will be week-end holiday traffic.

No, that is not the only object.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT I have no details of what the possibilities are in the way of traffic. If the line will not pay its way, then it can only be built under some sort of guarantee from the Council of the City of Cape Town; anyhow when I am approached and have more information I shall be glad to go into it and have the necessary enquiries made. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) raised one or two questions. The question of a head for Kaalfontein is receiving attention. I hope to be able to finalise the appointment on my return to Pretoria; in the meantime the matter is held up pending consultation with the Committees.

Are you going to leave anything over to be dealt with next session?

I dare say there will be a great deal to deal with next session. We shall no doubt have something still left over. In regard to the Head of the Police I propose to place the present head on 12 months’ probation in order to see whether he will fill the bill or not. I hope the appointment will be a satisfactory one and that it may become a permanency. The remarks that fell from the hon. member in regard to the General Manager were similar to the remarks that were made in the earlier part of the session. I want to make it perfectly clear that a General Manager of Railways holds a definite army appointment. He is Director General of Transport in the Army, and as such has a great many other army functions to perform. I should like to say that in the carrying out of these very important duties, the General Manager not only has the unqualified support of the Prime Minister, of his own Minister and of all the members of the Cabinet, but of the majority of the members of this House. The General Manager’s record is one which can stand the closest examination and I want to assure the House that he is held in the highest estimation by the Government. The Deputy General Manager was of course retained beyond the time limit because of the necessity for retaining old and experienced officers in this type of war, and I think that there is none in this House who knows anything about the work that has been done by Mr. J D. Whyte during the past two years who will not feel that the Minister took a very wise step indeed when he retained his services. I think that deals with the different points that have been made, and I hope the Bill, will now be read a second time.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE :

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

HOUSE RESUMED :

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance has given an assurance to the Leader of the Opposition that in connection with this matter of the Hutchinson contract he would bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the full discussion which has taken place here, I feel that it is necessary for me to bring the record up to date and to reply to one or two of the points raised by the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport protested very strongly his adherence to the high principles which we have maintained in our political life and in our administration, and as I listened to the Minister I was reminded of the words of Russell Lowell—

And that was the impression which one got from the remarks of the Minister of Transport.

Yes, they were a bit hollow.

The Minister took up the attitude that the attitude taken up by us was not warranted by the facts. Well I venture to disagree. The Leader of the Opposition has stated very clearly that very important principles are raised by this whole question. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he did not impute any dishonourable motives to the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of Lands. The Minister says that there is nothing hidden or secret about the contracts entered into by the Railway Administration. Probably not. But we have the fact that this contract was entered into with the South African Association, and we have the significant admission by the Minister that until I put the question to him on the Order Paper a few weeks ago he himself had no idea as to what had transpired; he knew nothing about the contract nor did he know that this contract was with the Minister of Lands. Therefore we have here exactly what is referred to in that extract which I read from Mr. Asquith’s declaration, namely that we have here the case of an undisclosed interest, one of the things which Mr. Asquith said should in no circumstances be permitted. The Minister also makes the significant admission that these things such as the signing of contracts and the raising of prices do not come to the Minister—they are dealt with by officials. That is the crux of the whole attitude taken up by us. I have never imputed any improper motives to the Minister of Transport, and for the moment let us leave out of account the Minister of Lands—let us say someone else. A situation could arise that a Minister might use his influence improperly with some important departmental official, and it is exactly that sort of thing which we want to avoid. The Minister himself says—he admits that he knew nothing about what had happened. Are we entitled to deduce from that that if the Minister had known, that if he had been consulted about the matter, he might have felt, as one who had himself resigned his own directorships, that this was a most irregular matter? That is what we object to. The Minister also says: “What can I do?” He says: “We cannot automatically cancel a contract because the person with whom we happen to have a contract is a Cabinet Minister.” Well, he himself automatically resigned his directorships as other Ministers have done. There was nothing to prevent the Minister of Lands from selling this contract and he could, if he wished, have sold the contract at a profit. There would have been nothing improper in that. He could have divested himself of the contract. May I again remind the House of a statement of another British Prime Minister in which he says—

That I think is the rule which should be followed if we want to maintain these high standards in our public life. Senator Conroy, when he became Minister, should have divested himself of all private interests, and that could have been done by making over his contract to the South African Association, not purely as a matter of business, but he could have sold it. The Minister, from the exclamations of surprise from this side of the House could see that we did not hold with the argument that after all it was only a contract with the South African Association.

That was in defence of my staff who would certainly not know what was behind it.

That we cannot accept. The Minister says he took up that attitude in defence of his staff. The Minister’s own reply to my question in which he gives full details as to what happened in connection with this contract, says, that this contract was originally made with the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Co., who later made the agreement over to Senator Conroy, who later made it over to the South African Association. That was his own reply given to him by his own officials. I am sorry the Minister made that remark. Does he really wish the House to believe that his own departmental officials were not fully acquainted with the position—that this contract was originally made with the Imperial Cold Storage, who then transferred to Senator Conroy, who then made it over to the South African Association? The Minister has apparently forgotten what he said last night. Last night the Minister said, in connection with the South African Association appearing on the scene, that the South African Association often did work for the Minister of Lands and that it was part of their work to arrange and carry out this contract. Let me also read out what was said by the Minister’s own paper, “Die Suiderstem.” These are the words— [Translation.]

It is clear that the Minister of Lands did not sell his contract to the South African Association. He is still drawing the profits from this contract today. The South African Association are merely his agents. Then, finally, I have to point out, to keep the record up to date, that the main point, and that is the point on which the Minister has not touched, is the question of the increased price. The Minister has not satisfactorily explained that. He has not satisfied this House that there was a justification for the increase of that price of water from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d. after Senator Conroy had become Minister of Lands. And that is the crux of the whole matter—that after he had become Minister of Lands the price was increased; and now we have the admission that that price was increased without the knowledge of the Minister of Transport himself—which is most important. The Minister says these things don’t come to the Minister, they are dealt with by officials. I am glad we have had these admissions because the Minister of Finance will realise that we are justified in raising these matters, and in the circumstances I hope he will carry out his promise to bring the full facts to the notice of the Prime Minister.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

There is one specific matter to which I think we should come back at this stage, although it has already been discussed earlier in the session. It is a matter of importance to the House and the country in general. But it also throws light on the discussions which have taken place in this House previously. I refer to the proceedings and the significance of the Imperial Conference which was recently held in London and in which our Prime Minister took part. We had a preliminary discussion in connection with this matter before the Conference was held. We can now look back to what happened, as far as we know, and it throws light on the various points of view which are held in this House with reference to foreign affairs. First of all, I want to say a few words in regard to the general character of the Imperial Conference which was held in London. It was made clear in various reports prior to the holding of the Imperial Conference, that it would not really be an Imperial Conference, but that it would be in the nature of a consultative meeting of the Prime Ministers of the various Dominions, together with the Prime Minister of England. It is not, therefore, an Imperial Conference in the ordinary sense of the word. The impression which was created was that an ordinary Imperial Conference was of greater significance as far as the relations between the various Dominions and England are concerned, but that this conference of Prime Ministers was only in the nature of a discussion amongst the Prime Ministers. I regard this matter in a different light. I regard a conference of this nature as more dangerous, from the point of view of the freedom of the various Dominions, than an ordinary Imperial Conference. The objection which we on this side of the House have had for a considerable time to Imperial Conference is that the Prime Ministers of the Dominions take part in them. I fully realise that on exceptional occasions, the Prime Ministers would want to take an active part in Imperial Conferences. Nor do I want to suggest that they should be prohibited in all circumstances from taking part in those conferences, but the danger attached to it is that the Prime Minister may compromise himself at the discussions, and if the Prime Minister compromises himself with reference to a definite point of view, he compromises his Cabinet, from the very nature of things, because constitutionally the country is governed by the Prime Minister. The other Ministers are only his councillors. The other Ministers are merely his assistants and his advisers; but the decision of the Cabinet is the decision of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister returns from London, having compromised himself with reference to a definite point of view, he thereby compromises his Cabinet, because he has already taken his decision, and under the party system, if the Cabinet is compromised, the party which is represented by that Cabinet is compromised; and if that party is in the majority and they follow the lead of the Cabinet, the country is compromised. That is the position, and therein lies the danger. It is much better with reference to consultations and decisions which are taken at Imperial Conferences, for the Cabinet to keep its hands free and for the party to keep its hands free, and that the country should have a free hand to give its verdict and to act as it deems best in its own interests. Great emphasis is laid on the fact that the Dominions are free today, that they have internal and external affairs under their own control. But if the Prime Minister binds himself at an Imperial Conference, or at such a discussion, he binds his Cabinet; he binds the party and he binds the country. In that case, it is a complete negation of what is usually understood by Dominion freedom; it is not an extension or a confirmation of that freedom. It is a negation of that freedom, and it is no less a negation because the bond which binds them happens to be an invisible bond. The conclusion which I am leading up to is this, that we feel that neither the Cabinet nor Parliament nor the country should be bound in this manner, and that whatever may be decided at such an Imperial Conference— in this case it was a secret; one does not know what matters were discussed there— we as an Opposition do not regard ourselves as bound in any respect or in the slightest degree, and even if it binds the Government, we do not regard the country as being bound; and, in the event of a change of Government we do not regard any future Government as being bound in any respect. I am not going to refer to cases of this nature which have already taken place; I am not going to refer to agreements which were entered into between the Imperial Government and the Dominions, and which were not approved of by the Dominion concerned, and where the attitude was adopted that no future Government could be bound by such an agreement. My view is that they are not bound. Unless Parliament attached its approval to it, no future Parliament is bound by it. I now come to the Imperial Conference, and I want to say a few words in regard to the outcome of it, as far as it is known to us, having regard to the scanty information which has been given. The impression which we got from reports which were issued after the holding of the conference and reports published during the session of the conference, was that the Imperial Conference—let us call it that— was an outstanding success. Not only did those who took part in it make one speech after another to emphasise what a great success it was, but we had propaganda in the newspapers throughout the whole British Commonwealth, and it was suggested that it was such a miracle that in these days, and it also applies to the future, there was greater unity in the British Commonwealth than ever before, and that it could apparently not be excelled by anything in the future. That is the impression which was created, that it was an outstanding success. When I read those reports, these words which occur in one of Shakespeare’s works occurred to me: “Methinks thou protesteth too much.” That is the manner in which propaganda is made in connection with this matter. That shows that it is merely propaganda, that it does not reflect the actual position. Because it does not reflect the actual position, so much emphasis is laid on the great success it was supposed to have been. I say this because even before the Imperial Conference was held, it was very clear that there were two opposite schools of thought in connection with the relation between the various parts of the British Empire and with reference to future policy. There is the one school of thought which is represented by Mr. Churchill, and he expressed himself very strongly on that point, and the same attitude was adopted by Mr. Eden the Minister of Foreign Affairs, by Mr. Curtin, the Prime Minister of Australia, by our own Prime Minister, and, as appeared from speeches which were made in Canada by Lord Halifax, the British Ambassador in the United States. That school of thought wants to regard the British Empire as a unit; in the first place as a political unit, a political unit in the sense that there must be unity as far as foreign relations are concerned— the relations of the British Empire towards other nations of the world. The British Empire, as a whole, must have a common foreign policy. That is the political unit which they want, but they go further; they want something else and Mr. Curtin was the mouthpiece of it. Now that England has passed through difficult times and since even more difficult times may threaten her in the future, that political unity is to be made even stronger; machinery must now be created to maintain that unity. Inter alia, there must be security for the Dominions; in other words a permanent body which will have to be responsible for the maintenance of the British Empire in that respect. If there is a League of Nations or if a new world organisation is called into being in the future amongst the nations of the world, the British Empire must stand as a group within the League of Nations’ organisation, a group which must come together and arrive at an agreement as the British Empire, before any State as a separate member of the League of Nations may adopt any particular standpoint. The six different States will have to act as a unit. That is the whole assumption of that school of thought, and there is the same tendency in the economic sphere. There are signs of that tendency even in the Atlantic Charter, and that is that the British Empire should be an economic unit as much as possible, that the basic principle of the Ottawa Agreement should remain of force, and that the members of the British Empire should show their unity by being exclusive as much as possible in the sphere of trade, by trading with one another, by diverting the trade from other countries to channels within the British Empire. In the economic sphere, too, this unity must be maintained therefore. The reasons given by Lord Halifax are these: It is not intended really in the interests of the separate Dominions, but in the interests of England. England is poor. England will be exhausted after this war; and in comparison with Russia on the one hand, which dominates Europe, and in comparison with America on the other hand, which has been given a tremendous fillip as far as the conquest of world trade is concerned, as far as investments in other countries are concerned, England will not be able to keep pace; England will lag behind as a great power, and in order to prevent that position from arising, the Dominions have to step in in the economic sphere—and in other spheres as well—and they have to carry England on their backs. He announced that in very clear terms in Canada. This is the Churchill-Smuts-Halifax-Curtin school of thought. With that thought in mind they went to the Imperial Conference, and so the world understood their attitude. But another point of view was revealed, and that is the point of view of the Prime Minister. Mr. McKenzie King. His attitude in his own Parliament in Canada, even before the Imperial Conference came together was very clearly this that Canada, as far as its foreign policy was concerned, did not want to be bound in any way, nor in the economic sphere. Canada does not want to accept the idea of an exclusive combination of the members of the British Commonwealth. For that reason it laid down a counter-policy, namely, a policy of more freedom of trade in the political and economic spheres. He also rejected the idea of world domination after this war by the Trinity, or by the four-powers. If China is added. He rejected the doctrine which was announced by our Prime Minister, first of all in London and later in this House, and he stated clearly that he favoured another idea. He stands for the “ small nation policy”; he stands for the idea of a world organisation after the war, but that the smaller nations of the world should be on an equal footing, that they should have the same say in the organisation as the great powers of the world. That is the view which is held by Mr. McKenzie King, a view which is directly opposed to the view of the other school of thought. As far as I can judge the position, according to the reports, according to the slender information which we have obtained in regard to the Imperial Conference, the point of view of Mr. McKenzie King triumphed. The unity was preserved. That unity, as revealed by the discussions, was advertised far and wide; propaganda was made on the strength of it; but how was this unity obtained? The members of the Imperial Conference fully realised that without McKenzie King, without the consent of the oldest and the biggest Dominion, namely Canada, they could not take any steps in the other direction which they advocated, because that would have broken up the unity of the British Empire. What happened then was that they decided to let well alone, and not to take steps in that direction, but to leave the matter as it was. And that principle of “ let well alone ” made it possible to obtain unity. From the point of view of Churchill and those who stood with him, it is no startling success. It is something which differs completely from their original intentions. From that point of view it is a hopeless failure. But if that is the case, I just want to add that we as an Opposition moved a motion in this House at the beginning of the session, and in view of what has happened, we need not be ashamed of the attitude which we adopted. The policy which we laid down clearly in this House is the same as the viewpoint which was advanced in Canada by Mr. McKenzie King. We are pleased, therefore, that the standpoint of Mr. McKenzie King, as far as this matter is concerned, triumphed in actual fact. There is only one feature in connection with this matter which is to be regretted. Where Imperial Conferences were held in the past, Canada and South Africa stood in the forefront alongside each other for many years in connection with the extension of Dominion freedom, and it is a pity that in this case Canada, if one excludes Ireland, unfortunately had to fight alone and take the lead, and that poor South Africa, as far as that is concerned, was taken in tow. It is a pity that that is the position, but that is what one gets when one’s own Prime Minister is known and described as the handyman of the Empire, or as the biggest British Imperialist of this century. That is the price that South Africa has to pay for it. In order to confirm what I have said, namely, that the standpoint of McKenzie King triumphed—to an even greater extent than I described here—I just want to read what came from America. According to a Sapa-Reuter message the “New York World Telegram” yesterday made a bitter attack on Churchill’s mock League of Nations—

That is the evidence from America in regard to the standpoint of McKenzie King, and how it triumphed, and that is also the standpoint of the United States. McKenzie King achieved a greater victory than we are inclined to think, because fortunately the United States, too, amongst the great powers, adopts the same attitude today. Let me quote another telegram which also confirms this, and which is even more authoritative. This is not what the newspapers say, but what the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United States said—

I just want to quote the following passage from his speech which I have here—

That is diametrically opposed to the attitude which our Prime Minister adopted, and it is the very same standpoint which we on this side of the House announced. For that reason we welcome the trend of events. I just want to conclude by saying that as far as the future or the present position is concerned, we have now come to the end of Dominion status, as some statesman interpreted it. We were faced with a view which our own Minister held for many years, and that is that the Crown, the common Crown, is not divisible. If the Crown of England is at war, then the Crown everywhere is involved in the war. There is therefore no such thing as the right of neutrality or secession or divisibility from the Crown. That is the attitude which our own Prime Minister adopted. I do not think, after the matter has taken this trend, and especially after this Parliament declared war—unfortunately—not on the same day as England but a few days later on its own, that the Prime Minister will still be able to maintain his former standpoint. I do not think, after this trend of events, that our Prime Minister or any politician in the country—I hope not the Dominion Party either—will ever again be able to adopt the attitude that South Africa has not got that right of neutrality, or be able to adopt the attitude that the Crown is not divisible or that we have not got the right of secession. I hope that once and for all there will be an end to the interpretation which some of our statesmen put on Dominion status. I also hope, in view of what has happened and in view of Canada’s attitude, that steps were taken and that further steps will be taken in the direction of independence of full independence, not only theoretically but also practical independence on the nart of the Dominions. I am glad that in that respect Ireland set an example to us which we want to follow as far as the question of neutrality at a time of war is concerned. Not only that, but during this session we had a discussion in regard to what happened in Ireland, namely, the fact that pressure was brought to bear on Ireland by America and England. When Ireland would not comply with the request of England and America to sever diplomatic relations with certain belligerent countries, pressure was brought to bear on Ireland by America and England; threats were used and a blockade was practically applied to Ireland. The opinion was expressed here that De Valera was an impossible man and that he did not represent the Irish people. Well there was an election in Ireland and it will be appreciated by everyone that what happened consequent upon De Valera’s action, played a role in that election; and what was the outcome? For the first time in the history of Ireland, or in the history of De Valera’s party, he obtained a decisive majority in Parliament. In other words, the Irish people confirmed and endorsed his standpoint. The people of Ireland are solidly behind him as far as that is concerned. I wish we in South Africa revealed such a national spirit as was revealed in Ireland—self-respect, a feeling for a nationhood of its own, for its own independence, away from that subservience which we so often reveal, which is revealed also by the various Dominions, but which we in South Africa especially reveal. As soon as we in South Africa fully recognise and develop our own Afrikaans nationhood, recognising the rights of both sections of the population, we shall build up unity in South Africa, and no longer be subject, as a nation, to racial division and racialism. The political division, the divided loyalty which we find amongst one section of the population is the cause of racial division and racialism. I welcome Ireland’s example, and I hope that South Africa will still follow that example. Then just one further point. I think the question of the loosening of the ties between the members of the British Commonwealth should be viewed in its own interests, not only in the interests of South Africa but also in the interests of the British Empire and of the world organisation of nations which may come into existence. That is absolutely essential. Russia took a page out of the book of England. She stated that she realised that there must be a world organisation; that we can no longer do without a controlling organisation in the world. But there are, I believe, seventeen states in Russia. They were practically provinces of the Russian Empire. But Russia announced that she would give the same rights and powers to all seventeen states as the British Empire gave her Dominions; and if a world organisation is to be formed, the British Empire would have six states, or five, if we leave out Ireland. That would be one group which would be linked up within such a League of Nations. Russia would have seventeen satellite States. I want to know what would become of the world organisation in those circumstances? If Russia is already developing into such a power on the Continent of Europe as our own Prime Minister predicted, and if it becomes a member of a world organisation, with seventeen States acting in unity, what would become of that world organisation, and what confidence could we have in it? Of what practical value would it be? If England wants to oppose it—if she does not oppose it, she will be doomed and the world organisation will be doomed—she should not set this example to Russia; she should not seek to form a combination with her own Dominions to act as a separate group, as a unit, within the world organisation; she should allow every one of her Dominions within that world organisation to act more freely than has been the case up to the present. They should take part in that organisation as members in the League of Nations and no more, and not as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. They should take their place in that organisation as small nations, just as any other small nation in the world—Poland, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Ireland. In that case she could effectively approach Russia and tell her that she would destroy the idea of a League of Nations, the idea of a world organisation, if she formed her satellites into one combination to act as a unit. It has become an absolute necessity to the future of the Dominions and to the future of the world organisation which will certainly have to come about, and also to the future of the British Empire—it has become an absolute necessity that we should take part as small nations not connected with any organisation and having more freedom in our relations with other nations of the world.

I want to associate myself with what has just been said by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, especially in connection with the plans which have been formulated to make a political and economic unit of the British Empire. I discussed this aspect of an economic unit yesterday, and I do not want to say much in that connection today, because there are other aspects of the recent Imperial Conference with which I should like to deal today. In the first place, I want to refer to a speech which Mr. Churchill made on the 22nd April last, even before the meeting of the Prime Ministers in London; because in that speech he very clearly stated what his intentions were in that connection. He went out of his way to signify his approval of the statement which was made in that debate by Mr. Hore-Belisha, in which he advanced the old Lionel Curtis idea of a joint council for the Empire. Mr. Churchill also went out of his way to say that when England was at war, it was unthinkable that any part of the Empire should not take part in it. We had a full discussion in the House yesterday in regard to the economic aspect, and I do not propose to discuss that aspect again, except to say, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has already stated, that as far as economic and political questions are concerned, we do not regard ourselves as bound by any undertaking which the Prime Minister gave at the recent conference. I want to confine myself to a particular aspect of the report of the Imperial Conference. The statement which was issued was typical of the type of statement one gets nowadays. It is an insignificant statement which contains nothing definite. In the opening paragraphs the usual emphasis is laid on the importance of unity, and the determination to prosecute the war. I find it remarkable that Mr. Churchill, President Roosevelt and others should assure the world from time to time of the unity of the Allied States. One wonders why it is necessary to emphasise at regular intervals that there is unity and a determination to stand together in this war. One wonders why that should be necessary. Then we come to the other part of the statement that no one who marches with them in this war, will be left in the lurch. These are beautiful words, but they sound empty when we notice what happened in the present war in May, 1940, for example, in connection with France; and they sound even more empty when we remember what is happening in China at the moment, where the position is particularly serious. It was necessary for President Roosevelt to send the Vice-President of America to China to pour oil on the troubled waters. It would seem that China is also complaining that she is being left in the lurch. But I come now to the only point which is of importance in this whole statement, and that is a statement which is hidden towards the end, namely: “We are determined to create a world organisation at the conclusion of the war to ensure peace, an organisation which will be armed with the necessary power and authority to prevent aggression.” It seems to me that that is the most important part of the statement. Moreover, it was regarded in that light, because shortly afterwards Mr. Churchill made a statement in that connection in the British House of Commons, in which he stated, inter alia, that a world organisation would be created after this war under the control of the Allied States, or, as he put it: “There must be a control board consisting of the biggest States which emerge from this war as victors.” But Mr. Churchill was not yet satisfied with that. Shortly afterwards, in the same debate, Mr. Anthony Eden also made a statement. He said—

This idea that the world organisation should be based on the idea of power, is reflected in all the statements—the statement of Mr. Churchill, the statement of Mr. Anthony Eden as well as the other statements. In other words, we know now that the old League of Nations is to be revived, but in a much worse form than it was in the past. The trouble with the old League of Nations was, in fact, that only certain great powers had all the say; the great powers had the majority on the Council of the League of Nations, and what they said became the law of the League of Nations. But now the Imperial Conference goes further; Mr. Churchill goes further, and Mr. Anthony Eden goes further, and today we get this idea of the new world organisation, which is to be based on the idea of power. We get the idea of power politics in its worst form. We might have expected that, because the Prime Minister made a speech in this House earlier in the year, also in regard to this question—it was in pursuance of the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition—in which there was some reference to a future world organisation. The Prime Minister’s attitude was that an international police force should be created. He cannot deny it. Now we know what the position is; we know what faces us; we know that the whole future international policy of the Allies, if they win the war, is going to be based on the idea of power politics. We have Mr. Churchill’s words of “ a world controlling council, consisting of the biggest States which will emerge as victors from this war”; we have the statement of the Imperial Conference that there should be created an organisation which will be equipped with new power and authority to prevent aggression. What we find particularly disquieting is the statement of Mr. Anthony Eden in which he says that these great powers which are to control the world, should consist of the United States of America, Russia, China, and then he mentions not Great Britain but the British Commonwealth of Nations; in other words, the British Commonwealth of Nations is regarded by them as a political, military and diplomatic unit, more especially a military unit, because the “ Commonwealth ” is mentioned as one of “ the four great powers ” which will maintain the position of power in the world. I think it is necessary that this great danger which is going to be created should be pointed out to the country. South Africa will be dragged in as part of the British Commonwealth, which is to be one of the four powers which will have to maintain world peace by means of an organisation based on power politics. In other words, if the Prime Minister’s idea of an international police force is carried out South Africa, as in the past, will have to contribute in manpower and in blood and money, but this time not only in the interests of England but also to maintain the power politics of the Allies. The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the reaction in the United States of America. The hon. Leader of the Opposition read out a passage that appeared in the “New York World Telegram,” and he read it in order to indicate what the feelings were in America. I want to point out that in this quotation from the “New York World Telegram” there is a very clear reference to a somewhat disguised system of balance of power—exactly what I said a moment ago. May I just point out that the “World Telegram” is not one of the smaller newspapers of America. The “New York World Telegram” ranks with the “Herald-Tribune”’ and the “Times’ as one of the three big newspapers in America. The “World Telegram” is perhaps bigger than the “Herald-Tribune” and the “Times” in this sense that the “World Telegram” has its connections throughout the whole country. Whatever news or views appear in the “World Telegram” is re-printed in twenty or thirty other newspapers. Here we have a clear statement from the “World Telegram” which represents a clear section of American opinion, that this plan is regarded as a slightly disguised system of balance of power, and on the same day, on the 29th May, another statement was made which is also of great importance, because it emanates from one of the smaller countries. We had a Reuter message from Lisbon in regard to a statement which was issued by the Unio Nacional, the only political party in Portugal, of which Salazar is the leader. What does this statement say? It relates to the decision of the Imperial Conference, and it is stated here—

On the one hand we have this expression of opinion from one of the biggest countries in the world, a country which holds itself out as the greatest democratic country in the world. On the other hand we have this expression from a small country which regards the matter from the point of view of a smaller country, and on both sides an attack is made on this idea of an organisation of power which is to be called into being at the conclusion of the war. I just want to say in passing that neither of these important statements appeared in the “Cape Times.” It is remarkable to find time and again, also in connection with the statements of Mr. MacKinnon, the Minister of Trade in Canada, in which he expresses himself strongly in regard to the economic position of Canada, that there is no reference to it in the “Cape Times.” If time permits, I propose this afternoon to discuss the whole question of the suppression of news by the “Cape Times.” We had this reaction to the statement of the Imperial Conference in America and in Portugal, and to a certain extent in Canada. We also had a similar statement from Van Kleffens in Holland. Let us express the hope that this will be a warning to Mr. Churchill and other people who still cherish the idea of a world organisation; and let us repeat the assurance which was given by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that the Nationalist Party will not regard itself as bound by any undertakings which may be given by the Prime Minister, and that we will oppose any such plans tooth and nail.

I am sorry I have to go on to deal with another subiect and so have to depart from the interesting speeches delivered by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). No doubt some other hon. member on this side will take up that subject again this afternoon. I want to bring a matter of more local importance to the notice of the House, but it is a matter of such a nature that it affects a large part of our poulation, especially the younger generation, and it is a subject which, so far, has always been considered as falling outside politics. I want to talk about the unfortunate position which has developed in the rugby world, and I want to refer to the change in the attitude of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in regard to the Broadcasting Corporation. I do not want to go into the matter of war propaganda, or into the Imperialist propaganda which is daily given out over the wireless. I want to discuss only one aspect of the matter, and that is in connection with the breaking of the promise made by the Minister about the broadcasting of football matches, and football results over the wireless. Let me explain briefly what the position was when this unfortunate split occurred. When the Western Province Union decided to make a contribution to war funds, and when this unfortunate split occurred, the Broadcasting Corporation broadcast only the results of matches which were played under the aegis of the South African Rugby Board. I put a question to the Minister at the time. The reply to that question was put off from week to week, until Parliament eventually prorogued and some four or five months afterwards I received a letter from the Minister in which he stated that the Broadcasting Corporation broadcast only the results of clubs falling under the South African Rugby Board. This year again we put a question to the Minister in this connection. On the second of June I put these questions to the Minister—

1. (1) Whether the Board of the Broadcasting Corporation has now decided not to broadcast rugby commentaries in future; if so,
2. (2) whether he has approved of the change in policy, and why; if not,
3. (3) whether he will make representations to the Board to broadcast such commentaries as well as the results of rugby matches in accordance with the undertaking and previous decision of the Board as furnished by him to the House ;
4. (4) whether representations were recently made to the Board by the Western Province Rugby Union that rugby commentaries on and the results of its matches be not broadcast;
5. (5) whether similar representations were made by the Cape Western Union and Boland in connection with their own matches; if not, why are commentaries on and the results of their matches not broadcast at present; and
6. (6) whether he will request the Board to revert to its practice of broadcasting commentaries on matches of all rugby clubs; if not, why not.

The Minister answered all these six questions under one heading, and it is rather striking that, when the Minister combines a whole lot of questions in one reply, he gives an evasive answer as a rule. And that was so in this instance too. The Minister replied—

Now I want to read the question which I asked the Minister on the 4th April, and also his reply. My question was—

1. (1) Whether he will ascertain and inform the House if news and results of sporting events, including rugby-football matches will be broadcast during the winter season;
2. (2) whether all sports clubs, including the Cape Western Union, will be accorded the same treatment; and, if not,
3. (3) whether any clubs or unions will be excluded; if so, which and why.

To which the Minister replied—

1. (1), (2) and (3) The South African Broadcasting Corporation will broadcast all rugby-football results and news supplied in the ordinary course by the South African Press Association to all newspapers and the Corporation.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended I was pointing out that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had not carried out the promises which he had made to the House. I was pointing out that the Minister had given a reply to the effect that all results and reports of football matches would be broadcast over the wireless, that all would be treated alike, and that there would be no differentiation between the various clubs. The Minister of Justice replied on behalf of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and said: “The Broadcasting Corporation adheres to the reply given to the hon. member on the 4th April.” I do not know whether the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was responsible for the reply which was given by the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is the responsible Minister and I must, therefore, speak to him. On the 4th April, the Minister gave me a reply which I do not want to read because I want to save the time of the House, but he definitely said that the results and commentaries on matches would be broadcast.

The reply didn’t satisfy me, and the Minister will not deny that when I came to see him privately, and when I saw his secretary, I was assured that that would be the policy of the Broadcasting Corporation. Today these results are not broadcast. Now let me tell you why I am discussing this matter and why I have raised it. I should like the House to listen to me in an impartial spirit.

Do you say that the results of the matches are not announced?

The description of matches is not broadcast in spite of the Minister’s assurance. When I was told that certain influences were at work with the Minister to influence the Broadcasting Corporation, I went to see the Minister, and he gave me the definite impression, and he also gave the assurance that the description and the results of matches would be broadcast. He said that he did not wish to interfere in the dispute which had unfortunately arisen in the football world. I am not raising this question here with the object of making it appear a political matter, but the Minister’s attitude forces me to raise it. The Minister has, so far, looked at the whole matter from one side only. Whenever influence was brought to bear on him from one side he always gave in. The Minister cannot deny that what is happening today is happening at the request of the Western Province Union. The Minister gave in to the request of the Western Province Union in spite of his promises. Every time pressure is brought to bear from that side the Minister gives in. I should like hon. members to listen like sportsmen, impartially, not as politicians, to what happened behind the scenes. I want to be fair to all these sporting bodies, no matter how we feel about the war. We should put that in the background for the moment, and deal with the matter on its merits. I have before me a report from which I want to quote to show what the position is and the manner in which the Minister has acted. One can hardly think of football without clubs like Gardens and places like Stellenbosch, Paarl, Wellington, Malmesbury, and all these other places. All these places today belong to one union. That union, the people who are not satisfied with the present position, comprises a thousand players, while between four and five hundred members belong to the other union.

The others are on the battlefield. There is a greater game of football going on.

I hope the hon. member is not going to obscure the issue. Let us judge from what has actually happened. A certain number of these players are on the battlefields, but a very large percentage of those who play football do not belong to the Western Province Union. Let us leave the war out of it. The South African Rugby Union has appointed a committee to try and settle these difficulties, and the names of the members of the committee show that they are not concerned with politics, they are Messrs. R. P. Fitzgerald, H. Drew, H. W. Carolin, W. A. Millar and R. M. Scholtz. Those people have been appointed to try and solve the difficulties. Now let me read the report in English so that the Minister can follow it easily. Its terms of reference were—

1. (a) To enquire into the possibility of finding a solution and settlement of the difficulties experienced in the Western Province and other unions due to unions contributing to war funds or other charities;
2. (b) if possible, to suggest a solution acceptable to parties holding different views and thereby to restore unity.

The committee thereupon sent a circular letter to every union and to every club, and these were the points put forward—

1. (a) Whether it has experienced any difficulty due to proposed contributions to war funds or due to some other form of identifying itself with the war effort;
2. (b) if so, what suggestion it has to offer in order to solve that difficulty;
3. (c) generally to state its views on the matter;
4. (d) how the organisations which have become disaffected may be able to put their views before the Committee. Your Committee should state if it desires to amplify its memorandum by means of oral evidence before the Committee.

They received a reply from all the Unions and three of them made contributions, namely, Western Province, Eastern Province and Griqualand West. And then it goes on—

Of all the Unions there is only one which supports Western Province—

I am reading only parts so as not to detain the House too long. This Committee which must be impartial and which is not composed of politicians goes on to say—

Hear, hear!

Yes, it may be a good thing from those hon. members’ point of view, but we are not talking about the war effort now, we are talking about this unfortunate split and the attempt to restore this sport to its former status. The Committee goes on to say this in its report—

And then we come to an important point in the report—

I should like to bring to the notice of the House that the South African Rugby Board appointed this committee in order to overcome this difficulty. Even before the committee had met, the Western Province Union passed that resolution. In the past, the contribution was for one year only, but they now decided to pay the contribution for the duration of the war. In other words there was no effort whatsoever to meet this committee. Now what was the attitude of the other people? What was the attitude of the Wes-Kaapland. Let me quote from this report to show what the committee said—

Whether we approve or disapprove of what they did, if the House is impartial it has to admit that Wes-Kaapland tried to eliminate the trouble. The Committee goes on and says this in its report—

And then they go on to talk about the method of voting—I don’t want to go into that now. And then we get this—this is the proposal of Wes-Kaapland—

In other words it is a fair proposal that every club which is anxious to do so can contribute to war funds but the Union’s money must be used only for the game of rugby. And then we get the important point in the Committee’s report—

What did the Western Province reply to these proposals of the Committee? I should like the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman), who may be able to judge impartiality, to listen—

Western Province refuses to compromise. In the first place it refused to consider the proposal of Wes-Kaapland which had been accepted by the Committee, and in the second place it refused to compromise on the basis of the proposal of the Committee itself. They thereupon drafted the following resolution—

That with a veiw to eliminating entirely all differences of opinion which had arisen between Western Province Rugby Football Union and certain clubs affiliated to it, as a result of the said Union’s decisions to contribute from its funds to the Ouma Gifts and Comforts Fund for South African soldiers at the front, it is hereby agreed: (a) That each of the senior clubs affiliated to the W.P.R. Union at the time of the breach or subsequent thereto, undertakes (i) for the duration of the war to open a collection list for P.O.W. funds for South African soldiers to afford their members and supporters who wish to do so, an opportunity of subscribing voluntarily from time to time to such fund, and (ii) to pay over the full amounts so collected from time to time to such fund. (b) That the Western Province Union discontinue its contributions to the said funds and pass the necessary resolutions therefor.

Now what was the Western Province’s reply to that? They rejected it again without any compromise and they said that they were going to continue with their contributions to the war funds for the duration of the war, while, on the other hand the Wes-Kaapland met again, and again accepted the proposal of this impartial committee, which Western Province would not accept. I want to emphasise that this committee had been appointed by the South African Rugby Board, and I hope the House will realise from that what the position is. But I have here the terms in which the Western Province rejected this proposal—

It is no longer a local matter. They are now approaching the English Rugby Union. And then they go on—

I mention this to show the Minister that his decision about the Broadcasting is unfair to those people who have done all in their power to bring about unity in the rugby world—

May I be allowed to read the impartial Committee’s resolution to the House. I should like you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as Speaker to remember what it says. After that I shall come to the Minister—

Not Wes-Kaapland, but the Western Province Union, the people who have so much influence with the Minister—

I should like the Minister and hon. members to listen and hear what the attitude is of the Wes-Kaapland Bond in regard to contributions to war funds—

Here is the report of an impartial committee which had been specially appointed. Why did the Minister depart from the promise made in this House that the results and commentaries on matches would be broadcast? I want hon. members to remember that he, personally, assured us that he would not under any condition change the policy which he had laid down, and I asked him, thereupon : “Does that also include the broadcasting of comments on matches”? And his reply was: “Yes, everything as it used to be.” Now why has the Minister suddenly adopted a different attitude? It is because a telegram was sent to the Broadcasting Corporation by the Western Province Rugby Union. They wrote first to certain members of Parliament and asked them not to allow the football results of the Wes-Kaaplandse Bond to be broadcast over the wireless. Let me quote how they concluded their request. In their telegram to the Broadcasting Corporation they said this—

Hear, hear.

An hon. member opposite says hear, hear. He is the very last to talk. He is eaten up with Imperialism. He is the man who didn’t want Afrikaners to join Kelvin Grove.

What has that to do with football?

If you want to keep Afrikaners out of a club like Kelvin Grove, you shouldn’t sit where you are sitting now, alongside an Afrikaans-speaking person—or at any rate he used to be an Afrikaansspeaking person (Dr. L. P. Bosman). The Minister created the impression that he was going to be impartial in this matter and he also assured us that he would be impartial. But what happened after that? An agitation was started by the Western Province Rugby Union and the Minister gave in. If the attempt on their part to get money for war funds had been an honest one, one could have understood it. But that was not the main object. The man who started the trouble was Mr. De Villiers, the Provincial Secretary. At that time there was no Administrator in the Cape. The Administrator had not yet been appointed, and that gentleman hoped that by acting in the way he did he would attract the Prime Minister’s attention and he hoped thus to become Administrator. That, as a matter of fact, was why he signed his name as “The Honourable …” I want to appeal to those members in the House who are impartial and to ask them what they think of it. What I have quoted here comes from an impartial body. If the Broadcasting Corporation sees the facts, as I have stated them, it may perhaps come to a different conclusion. If the Western Province Rugby Union does not want to broadcast, that is its own business. But if the other clubs ask for their results to be broadcast, and if they also want commentaries broadcast, they are entitled to it. What right has the Western Province Union to say that these matches should not be broadcast? The Minister should be impartial. He should look after my interests just as much as after the interests of those who support his side of the House, and if the Minister takes up the attitude that he regards this matter as one which concerns the clubs themselves and that he is not going to take any notice of it, and that he will see to it that the results are broadcast from the news point of view only, there will not be half as much trouble as we have now. The Western Province Rugby Union asks the Minister not to make propaganda on behalf of people who do not contribute to war funds. It is clear from what I have read that they do give money, but they do not want to drag politics into this affair.

Hear, hear.

Yes, there are some hon. members opposite whom one should ignore. May I, in conclusion, appeal to the Minister to consider both sides of the case and to broadcast the results and the commentary in exactly the same way as was done in the past.

I am very disappointed and at the same time very surprised that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) should choose this day of all days to discuss the question whether or not the Western Province Rugby Union is entitled to send gifts and comforts to the men who are at the front.

Don’t talk nonsense; that is not what he said.

It apparently touches the hon. member so I shall continue. This day when people throughout the whole Commonwealth of Nations are asking the Almighty for His blessings for the wonderful thing which is taking place in Europe. This is the day taken by the hon. member to decry the fact that some people have seen fit to send a few packets of cigarettes, some razor blades and shaving cream to our boys in the desert or in Italy, or in prison camps. I quite appreciate what the hon. member for Mossel Bay has said and I respect his feelings, but he has chosen a very bad time.

Can you mention another day when I could have raised it?

I agree with him on one point only and that is his attack on the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and like him I think the Minister has not dealt fairly with the Western Province Rugby Union Clubs. The fact of the matter is that the Western Province Rugby Union Clubs have not made this breach. The breach has been caused by those who would not play rugby if the proceeds of the games were to be devoted to war funds. They caused the breach. But we have not asked those who do not agree with us to play with us; we haven’t asked them to come back to us. They are doing their utmost to force us to come back to them.

Why drag politics into football?

Politics have caused this breach. It was because some decent-minded people decided to send some small comforts to their fellowmen that this breach was caused. It was because the followers of hon. members on that side refused to make any contributions to these war funds. Now I respect the feelings of the hon. member for Mossel Bay and of others like him, but I think they are very ill-advised to choose this day to discuss it. In the past 18 months we have sent three miserable hundred pounds to our friends up North. We have sent very small sums to buy them comforts and gifts—but we wanted to send them these little tokens of our appreciation for the wonderful sacrifices they are making. We have also in the past made contributions to other bodies, even to the Reddingsdaad Fund.

You haven’t sent anything.

In years gone by Stellenbosch and other centres agreed, with the sanction of the Western Province Union, to play matches the proceeds of which went to the Reddingsdaad—but that body has since been declared a political organisation.

Who declared it?

The Nationalist Party did. Now the hon. member for Mossel Bay has put up a plea for a broadcast of the matches of the Wes-Kaapland. They say Wes-Kaapland has offered to make certain contributions. We stand for a principle—either they are with us or against us—we have had a hard time keeping this Union together and it has proved a great success and today we are going from strength to strength—but we stand for a principle, and if members dissent from us we do not decry them in public.

You threaten them with a court case!

We didn’t do anything of the sort. We were told that they were prepared to give money to the prisoner-of-war funds but not to Ouma’s Fund. Now what happened? Three or four people came forward ánd offered to give money for the prisoner-of-war fund which was supposed to come from the Wes-Kaapland Union. In actual fact that money had come out of private pockets. It was a very subtle try. The money wouldn’t have come from the Wes-Kaapland at all. I submit fairly that this breach has come for political reasons.

Hear, hear!

Yes, it started with my old club—the Tuine Club, assisted by certain politicians.

It started with De Villiers.

It started with my own club. Well, we went to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and the Minister said that he didn’t know where to start and where to finish—if he broadcast the one he had to broadcast the other. Wes-Kaapland is definitely anti-war and in the circumstances it was agreed that neither should be broadcast. I close where I commenced when I say that this movement of Wes-Kaapland is nothing but a political one. We have nothing to do with their attitude. We wash our hands of it. It is our pleasure to subscribe something to those who are fighting for us and who are today in Itally and in the prison camps. And I say it is through their efforts that rugby can still be played in this country and that we enjoy the comforts and the freedom which we have.

I would like to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down (Dr. L. P. Bosman) on one point. I want to point out that the hon. member knows, as well as I do, that in South Africa the whole question of the war is a political one, and as soon as football is used for war purposes it becomes a political issue. Our advice was to leave politics out. I would like to add this, that I am sorry to hear that those loyalists over that long period contributed only £300 for war purposes. They should be ashamed of themselves. I want to deal with another subject, however, and I am glad the Minister of Agriculture is present. I want to ask him even at this eleventh hour to make a statement on our meat market. We get telegrams and resolutions from all over the country. There is considerable dissatisfaction and I should be glad if the Minister will avail himself of this opportunity to tell us what is going to happen. As far as Cape Town is concerned we find that hardly any sheep arrive at the abattoirs nowadays—you get a few hundred instead of a few thousand today. As far as I understand only about 200 are being killed today instead of a couple of thousand, and we have to fall back on frozen meat which is still available but will not be of course for long. It is only a question of time. The position in regard to mutton is serious, not only here but in other parts of the country too. The Minister’s intentions may have been of the best but the steps he has taken so far have proved a failure. The producers are undoubtedly disappointed and thoroughly dissatisfied and rightly so. The producer is getting a lower price compared with what he has been getting for a long time. While the price had already dropped considerably the Minister has fixed it at an even lower level, but what is worse is that one would expect the consumer to get his meat more cheaply when the producer gets less. In spite of this the consumer is paying the same price, and, as a result he is just as dissatisfied as the farmer is. I wish to ask the Minister to take the country into his confidence. I am asking this because I should like both consumers and producers to be satisfied. Let the Minister tell us what everyone may expect. Start with the farmer. Take the farmer’s price, add to that what the agent takes for his commission—I believe it is 2½ per cent. Then we come to the wholesaler, who is allowed his percentage, I believe 2½ per cent. also; then we come to the retailer and that is where I believe the big fault lies. People believe that it is there that the big profits are made. In view of the fact that the wholesaler’s profit has been fixed at a percentage, I should like to know what the Minister’s advisers consider the retailer should be allowed to get. People suspect that the big profits are made in the retail trade, and I should like the Minister to tell us to how much profit the retailers are entitled. I should like to point out why it is stated that abnormal profits are made by the retailer. I don’t know how much of this is true, but it is stated that while the Imperial Cold Storage as a wholesaler gets just as much as other wholesalers—namely, a fair and reasonable amount of 2½ per cent., the Imperial Cold Storage in the Peninsula for instance, controls 80 per cent. of the retail firms—and perhaps the position on the Rand is the same, and the Imperial Cold Storage may be making abnormal profits there as well. What does the Minister consider a reasonable profit for the retail trade? I should also like to know whether it is correct that the people who have been appointed to the higher posts in connection with the control of meat are mostly officials of the Imperial Cold Storage or at any rate, people who used to be in the employ of the Imperial Cold Storage. I should like to have that information. The farmer is dissatisfied and so is the consumer. But I also want to know what the intention is in regard to control of prices in the rural districts, the areas outside the towns. Are matters to be left uncontrolled there? The consumer there pays exorbitant prices. We in Pietersburg pay even more than the consumers in Cape Town and Johannesburg, and the butchers also complain. They say that they cannot afford to pay the prices which they are expected to pay for the meat. What does the Minister suggest in regard to these farmers in the rural districts? What is the farmer to do with his slaughter stock? Is he to keep on struggling in the old way and take his cattle and his stock to the sales? We know what has been happening there. At these sales you have the representatives of the big concerns from the Rand, or from Cape Town or some other place, and the slaughter stock is sent from there to the towns. That is now becoming impossible. What is the farmer to do? Is he to send his sheep and his cattle direct to Cape Town or Johannesburg, or must he try to sell locally, and what is going to be the effect on the scheme. Auction sales used to take place in the rural districts, and there used to be competition, rightly or wrongly, and the farmers used to get fairly good prices; but now I understand that all these sales are going to stop. The big buyers do not want to buy there any more because, if they do, they have to refer and report to the Controller appointed by the Minister, and they have to pay the fixed price. I would like to know what has to be done. When this question was discussed here on the last occasion, no reference was made to the prices of pigs, because, apparently, there was a misapprehension in that regard. All the farmers thought that the prices which had been announced would be live weight prices whereas afterwards it appeared that the prices were for dead weight. Pigs are usually sold alive, but the price has now been fixed for dead weight. This means that the price is now considerably lower than was expected and that is why there is serious discontent. Pigs have to be fed from the day they are born until they are put on the market, and the price of pork has gone up tremendously. I have no personal knowledge of this subject, but a progressive young farmer who is making a special study of these matters has quoted all these prices and he has told me that no pig farmer can make a living at these prices. The result is that what has been built up over a long period of years is now going to be destroyed. They cannot make a living under these conditions. I wish again to draw the Minister’s attention to the position on the platteland. Take Pietersburg, where there is a cold storage. Everything, practically, is sold locally. The Pietersburg Cold Storage buys up everything. Their price is considerably below the Johannesburg price, but the farmers, generally, have to sell there for two reasons. In the first place the railage from Pietersburg to Johannesburg is very heavy—it makes a difference of almost 1d. per pound—and in the second place they get nothing for measly pork slaughtered in Pietersburg. According to what the Minister has told us provision will now be made in that respect in the big towns. The prevalence of measles has created a serious position and the people át Pietersburg, in particular, are suffering as a result. They get nothing for measly animals and the farmer or the butcher has to stand the loss. There is no insurance, as far as they are concerned, whereas, according to the Minister’s statement, there will be insurances in the towns as a result of which those losses will be eliminated. And the farmers will get a reasonable price. People who know what they are talking about assure me that if measly animals are slaughtered, the butchers do not lose a penny because if the pig is slaughtered and it is found to have measles, the meat is frozen for three weeks, and after that it is sold at the same grade without any loss. Here, however, provision is made as a result of which the farmer will lose 25 per cent. The farmer gets 25 per cent. less but the butcher loses nothing, and the public buys the meat as healthy meat. I should like to know, therefore, what the position on the Platteland is and what the Minister is going to do about it. I have said before that the pig farmers have to pay high prices for forage, and at Pietersburg the price is 7¼d. and in Johannesburg 8d. They cannot rear pigs at those prices, with the result that pig farming will disappear. The farmers will use the forage for other purposes. I should like to have a general statement from the Minister. Those farmers who are not forced to sell do not send their cattle and their sheep to market, because they feel they are not being fairly treated. I should like the Minister to make a comprehensive statement regarding the profits that are made between the farmer and the consumer. If the farmer realises that no profits, or that reasonable profits are made, he will perhaps be more satisfied.

May I reply at once to the points which were raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Ñaudé). As he stated, there is unfortunately a shortage of mutton, but there is no shortage as far as Cape Town is concerned. At this time of the year there is usually a shortage of mutton to a certain extent, and I do not think we can blame the scheme for that shortage. Unfortunately, we had a political agitation when this scheme was introduced. It was made a party question.

By whom?

An agitation on a politi cal basis was set in motion, which had a certain effect on the farmers. Nor was this scheme fully understood by the farmers. An example of that is the congress of the National Wool Growers’ Association at Bloemfontein, which strongly condemned this scheme and the prices, but after a deputation had had a lengthy discussion with me in Cape Town as a result of which the position was better appreciated, the same members—Messrs. Lotz and Visser for example—went back and convened a meeting of the Executive Committee of the organisation in the Free State, which then issued a statement in which an appeal was made to the farmers to supply the market. The same was done by Mr. van Wyk of Fraserburg, who was also a member of the deputation. In addition to that there is the fact that this schme, to a large extent, eliminates speculators of all types, and they are doing whatever they can to let this scheme suffer shipwreck. I regret that certain people were motivated by political considerations; that speculators acted in this deplorable fashion, and that they prejudiced the scheme to a certain extent. In spite of all these difficulties which were created and the stumbling blocks which were placed in the way of this scheme, I am glad to be able to say that this scheme is functioning better every day, and although a certain amount of diffculty was caused owing to the dislocation which took place, also as a result of the washaways of the railway line in the Eastern Province, we have sufficient reserves of meat in this country to supply the country. I have been in touch with the Food Controller every day, and up to the present it has not been necessary for anyone to be without meat. Steps are taken daily to ensure that no one will go short of meat during the coming weeks. Those who have read the report of the Meat Commission, will have noticed that July is usually a particularly difficult month. As far as the meat position is concerned, it has been found in the past that there is usually a small supply during this month. The Commission advances one reason to account for that, namely, that the farmers, for the sake of their income tax returns, do not offer many cattle for sale during the last month of the financial year. That is one of the factors which has an effect on the supplies of meat which go to the market. Notwithstanding that, I am convinced that the steps which have been taken and the supplies we have will be sufficient to see the country through the month of June, and even if there is a slight shortage of mutton there will be sufficient meat for the market so that no one need go short. The hon. member lightly spoke of prices which have fallen to a low level, and he stated that I proceeded to fix the prices on an even lower basis. During the course of the debate at the time, I gave the percentages in respect of cattle prices, and in the case of sheep especially the prices were at a particularly high level. The prices practically got out of hand. The prices which I fixed, as far as sheep are concerned, were the prices which were given to me by the Meat Board. The prices which they recommended were the index prices which had been worked out by the Food Controller. These prices were submitted at the time to organised agriculture, and they agreed with them. My hon. friend again made the point which was previously raised, and which is now advanced as one of the main reasons why this scheme should not be supported, namely, the story which was, spread in the country that this scheme deprived the producer of millions of pounds, while the price to the consumers, on the other hand, was not reduced, and it was asked to whom these millions of pounds would go. It was stated that it would go into the pockets of the middleman. That is a total misrepresentation of the position. I asked the Price Controller to work out what the actual position was in connection with mutton, and I should like to give these figures to the House. A sheep of 40 lbs., prime, at the Witwatersrand, was taken as a basis. There are small differences between the various places; on the basis of 9¼d. per lb. at the Witwatersrand the amount which the farmer receives works out at 30s. 10d. plus 3s. 4d. for the skin and the offal. That gives the farmer 34s. 2d. The Food Controller does not get 2½ per cent. but 2½d. for the services he renders. That is intended to cover the expenditure of his organisation, which includes the receipt of payments, the paying out, the disposal of the animals, supervising the slaughter, the disposal of the meat to the wholesalers, the collection of the moneys, the paying out, and the various other services. In respect of all those services he gets 2½d. per sheep. I do not think it can be said that he is taking too much. It has been stated in certain places that by means of the organisation of the Food Controller the Government is going to take large sums of money. I think these figures refute that allegation. Then we come to the wholesale trade. The wholesale trade pays for such a prime sheep on the basis of 9-5/16d. per lb. It is not based on a percentage. The wholesaler gets a gross profit of 63d. per lb. He gets that for the refrigeration, the collection, the cutting up and the delivery of the meat, including wages, salaries, office expenses, depreciation, the maintenance of his equipment, motor transport, etc., etc. It means that he gets a gross profit of 2s. 1¼d. per sheep. That is not a colossal profit either, as alleged by the persons who are opposed to this scheme. I do not want to suggest that my hon. friend should be counted amongst those people. Then we come to the retailer. I need not enlarge on the nature of his services. He gets a profit of 1.83d. per lb. He therefore gets 5s. 11 1/4d. for the sale of the meat. The position is that the farmer gets 34s. 2d. and the consumer pays 39s. 1d. for the meat. Of course, the consumer does not get the benefit of the skin and the offal. The difference between these prices is not a big one. The Food Controller gets 2½d., the wholesale butcher 2s. l¼d., the retail butcher 5s. 11¼d. It amount to 8s. 4d. I also had the position worked out in connection with beef. Let us again take Grade 2 beef on the Witwatersrand, on the basis of an animal which weighs 500 lbs. slaughtered. The Food Controller gets 5s. The wholesaler gets a smaller profit than he does on sheep, namely, 634d. per lb. The retailer gets a profit, not a net profit but a gross profit of 1.83d. For the hide and the offal the farmer gets 25s. and 230s. for the meat, a total of 255s. The consumer pays 324s. 2d. Of course, he does not pay for the hide and the offal. I think my hon. friend will appreciate, according to these prices, that the charge that the traders are making big profits is not justified. Then I also want to say this. I stated explicitly in my statement that I had given instructions to the Food Controller and the Price Controller to keep a close check on the position in order to see how it works in practice, and whether any savings could be effected in the profit of the traders, both wholesalers and retailers. I undertook that if the margin was too big, it would be reduced and the benefit of that reduction would go to the consumer and the producer equally. That promise which I made still stands. The position will be watched, and if it is found that the margin is too big, an improvement will be effected and the benefit will go to the consumers and the producers, who will share equally. My hon. friend also referred to pork. I have not yet worked out the position to enable me to give the same figures which I gave in connection with other meat. I shall have it done, and if my hon. friend is still interested, I shall send the figures to him. As far as pig breeders are concerned, I did not have the objection which I had in regard to other meat; I did not have the objection which I had in connection with mutton and beef. Unfortunately I have not got the telegram here, but I remember receiving a telegram from the chairman of the Pig Breeders’ Association of South Africa, in which he states that he supports the prices and that his Association is satisfied.

But that relates to live weight.

If they had sent such a telegram to me under the impression that the prices referred to live weight, one would have expected them to send a telegram subsequently, drawing my attention to the fact that the first telegram was sent under a misapprehension. But they did not do so. I shall show the telegram to my hon. friend, because my memory may not serve me quite correctly. I remember that I received a further telegram from them just a short while ago in regard to a matter concerning the scheme itself. In the subsequent telegram he again stated that he supported the scheme. I must take it therefore that at that date he knew that the prices were based on dead weight. I cannot accept that the proposed prices for pork are not reasonable, and I cannot therefore undertake to increase the price unless it can be proved that the price is uneconomical and that the farmers are not getting a fair profit out of it. That is what I told the National Wool Growers’ Association in Bloemfontein. I said that if it were proved that these prices are uneconomical, I would give further consideration to the matter. Up to the present no one has been able to prove to me that the prices are unreasonable. In my opinion the prices are reasonable, and I think the farmers would not be acting in their own interests if they paid any attention to the agitation against this scheme. They will be left with their cattle if they pay any attention to it; they will suffer damage, and the speculators who encouraged them to withhold their cattle from the market will not be able to help them. I hope, therefore, that the farmers will understand that it will be in their interests to send their cattle to the market, since they are getting a fair price, in my opinion. As far as beef is concerned, I just want to repeat what I said when this scheme was first announced on the 9th May, that I would announce improvements in respect of the winter months. I am attending to that now. The improved prices will be announced in the near future, and it will take into consideration the cost of feeding cattle in the winter months, when there is not sufficient grazing. I shall make that announcement as soon as possible. My hon. friend also spoke of auction sales on the platteland. As I said in the first statement, this scheme does not embrace a plan to discontinue those auction sales, but if it is proved that the position is getting out of hand, and that the prices are going too high, as my hon. friend says is happening in Pietersburg, I shall take steps to make the scheme applicable to the rural districts as well. He asked me what my advice was to the farmers in the rural districts. My advice is that they should send their cattle to the market, to the Food Controller, where they will get the prices which have been laid down under the scheme. They will get the fixed prices, and they will know just what they are going to get and they can then be certain of the grading of their cattle. I think these cattle sales will go on to a certain extent. I do not think they will completely collapse. It is still too early to say what the position will be, but I do not expect the auction sales on the platteland to discontinue altogether. I think I have now replied to all the points which my hon. friend raised.

Will the meatless day be abolished?

My hon. friend will not expect us to abolish the meatless day while we do not get excessive supplies on the market. At this stage I cannot undertake that, but if the scheme works smoothly and if the farmers realise that this scheme is in their interests, if they realise that it is a long term scheme, that it is a scheme which aims at stabilisation for the consumer as well as the producer, that it is intended to prevent a collapse of the market, as happened after the last war, the matter can be considered. Until the time arrives when supplies come to the market in excessive quantities, I cannot undertake to abolish the meatless day.

I should like to say a few words about the matter dealt with by the Minister. He tried to intimate that an agitation had been started against the scheme. Let me tell him that there has been no political agitation against this scheme, no agitation whatsoever. The Minister knows that the organised farmers, especially the farmers of the Central Cape, have asked for such a scheme. There has never been any agitation against the scheme, but there has been dissatisfaction about the prices fixed.

That is exactly what I meant to convey.

That is not what the Minister said. He said that an agitation had been started against the scheme. The Minister calls it a political agitation. The scheme was announced on the morning of the 7th May. I was in my constituency at that time and I did not know anything about this fixing of prices. The people in my constituency approached me and wanted to know what the prices were, and I replied that I did not yet know then. After that I left and I visited De Aar the next day. When I arrived there, I heard that a meeting of farmers had been convened.

You are mistaken about the date. The scheme was announced on the 9th May.

Yes, it was on the 9th. I was mistaken. Anyhow, I left there on the Friday morning and I arrived at De Aar on the Saturday morning, when I found that a big protest meeting had been convened by farmers of all political parties. I was a stranger at De Aar, they didn’t know me, but a strong protest came from the farmers. They said that they were not going to supply the market. I was told afterwards who the people were who were so annoyed with the Government, and I found out that they were Government supporters.

Surely it wasn’t Van der Heever?

It was Van der Heever. There were members of the Kaapse Sentrale and the Chairman was strongly in favour of the scheme.

They were in favour of the scheme and the Chairman advised them to send their cattle and stock to the market.

That is what I said. They were satisfied, but the people who agitated against the prices were the Government supporters. The Chairman of the Midlands Cape Farmers’ Association told the farmers that he was opposed to the prices. This agitation was spontaneous throughout the country and the Opposition did not come from supporters of this side of the House, but from Government supporters, who for the most part are “pocket patriots.” When they found that this scheme meant reduced prices, they were suddenly dissatisfied. We read in the paper today that in Durban, immediately beyond the controlled areas, slaughtering is done in the backyards, and the meat is then taken from the uncontrolled areas to the controlled areas where unprecedented prices are paid for it. It has come to my notice that that is also happening on the boundaries of Cape Town. I hope the Minister will give this his attention. There is another question, however, which I wish to bring to the notice of the House and that is the position which has been created in regard to the dehydration of fruit. The Government has lent the Deciduous Fruit Board £280,000 for machinery for the dehydration of fruit. The dehydrating process has been going on for a couple of years. When the fruit was dehydrated last year it was sent to the Dried Fruit Board and that Board handled it and graded it. The dehydrated fruit was handed over to the registered packers— I believe there are about 20 of them. It appears now that something else happened recently. It was on the 27th April, 1944. May I be allowed to quote from a memorandum which was sent to me about the dried pear crop for 1944. This is a memorandum about the Deciduous Fruit Board and this is what it says—

A Jewish combination—

I wish, therefore, to ask the Minister of Agriculture to give this his attention and to go into the whole question of the dehydration of fruit.

It has already been done.

The Minister should have told the House what he has done. He invariably gets up too soon. A number of other matters are going to be raised about this vote, but he is always anxious to answer the first speaker. Let me continue to quote—

And then we get this extraordinary resolution, and we get this favouritism extended to one company, the Standard Fruit Company—

The packer thus favoured, was again the Worcester Standard Fruit Company.

The Minister says that he has done something, and I hope he will give us the assurance that he has broken the monopoly—

If these things are true it means that we have a body here which has been created to exercise control over the farmers’ products, and that concern is giving one company a monopoly. I should like to know from the Minister how far that monopoly has progressed and whether he is going to break it. The position is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I have put up the case to show what those interested feel about it, and I have put it in the words in which it has been communicated to me. I hope the Minister will give the matter his attention.

I have no intention of indulging in a controversy in connection with football. I believe there is a football match taking place for the liberation of Europe in which Berlin is the goal and it would be very nice to think that South Africa is completely united in that regard. I want to say a few words to the Minister of Agriculture on the meat scheme. I have suggested to him on several occasions that it was advisable to postpone the scheme until the end of June, and I think that events have proved that, had the Minister been guided by people who understand something of the industry, we would not have had the chaos which we have in South Africa today. In spite of the Deputy Food Controller trying, through the controlled press, to persuade the public of South Africa that all is well with the meat scheme and that it will not be long before it is a perfect scheme, things are really in a chaotic condition. Even the controlled press in spite of themselves have had to admit that as far as East London, Maritzburg, Durban and all controlled areas are concerned there has been nothing but chaos since the Food Controller took over on the 15th of last month. That could have been obviated if the Minister had not been influenced by people who are not in a position to give the right advice in regard to a scheme of such magnitude as the meat scheme. You cannot expect people who have had no experience of a highly intricate and skilled trade such as the meat trade to revolutionise it in a few days. We bring in a number of officials who tell the Minister that they will eliminate everyone and they will put up a wonderful scheme which will put money into the pockets of both the farmers and the consumers. All they want is carte blanche to do as they like, irrespective of what it may cost the people who have invested large sums of money in this industry. The Minister is following in the footsteps of his predecessor. We told him that we need some measure of simple control. He would not listen. This scheme will result in greater chaos than you have ever had. You only have to open your controlled papers to find the terrible conditions prevailing today. I was called to the telephone this morning— there is no mutton in Durban.

Did you send them a few sheep?

You have the same position in all the controlled areas.

No mutton.

I was in Durban when the meat scheme was launched and a more pitiful thing it was difficult to imagine. Officials worked throughout the night to try and introduce some semblance of business methods. One wouldn’t mind if all this trouble could not have been avoided—it could have been avoided. Why didn’t the Government get business men, men who understood what they were doing, to help them? Your scheme could have been a perfect success. The Deputy Food Controller says everything will be all right in a few weeks.

Well, he is a business man.

Yes, but you have given him too big a job and he has not got the right people to help him. You have given him a job which would have taken anyone six months to put into operation. The business of the country has to be dealt with ruthlessly. You have to ride over it roughshod and this is the sort of thing that happens. The Government do not want any one who knows something about the job to help them. Is it any wonder that there is a feeling in the country that it would be a good job if all the controls were shot at dawn? It is regrettable that we are to have all these blunders in anything the Government undertakes. One cannot blame the Ministers—they have to be guided by people who should be in a position to guide them, but I do say that all is not well with the country, and I have yet to find a single controller with whom the people outside are perfectly satisfied. People do not mind going short of things which are necessary for the war effort, but it is these silly little pinpricks and inconveniences they object to. There is nothing South Africa will not put up with provided they are sure that the particular matters which are controlled are in the hands of efficient people. I think I am justified in using strong language. The Government should realise that people outside this House must have some say and will have some say in the future, they certainly will have some say in regard to the question of whether the Government is to come back or not. The Minister in reply to a question said that the present shortage of meat was a seasonal one. You don’t get seasonal shortages in May and June—unless farmers hold back their stock from the markets, because they do not want to show their returns for income tax purposes. But I do not believe they do that. At any rate I believe that the Minister has dealt with that in his income tax proposals. I may be mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken.

The Minister certainly mentioned it in his budget speech and said that he was going to take it into consideration. Well, if I am wrong I am wrong. If the Minister tells me that they are holding their stock from the 20th June till the end of June, then there may be something in it. I do not think farmers are holding back their stock at present to avoid paying income tax. The Minister also said that this was a political issue. There is no political feeling in Natal against the Government. It would do a spot of good if there were. Is it a political issue in Maritzburg or Durban that frozen beef is foisted on the public? Is it a political issue at East London or Port Elizabeth? I say that this scheme has been grossly mismanaged, whereas it should be working with success. And when I make these remarks I don’t want to criticise the scheme.

Certainly not!

I thought you were praising it.

Oh, I could criticise it. If the Government had allowed people who understand the position to handle the scheme it would have slipped into position like a ship which is launched.

That’s very good.

It means nothing to the Government that people are ruined by this scheme. The Government said that there were people in the industry who could be eliminated, so they started off by bringing in another expensive control board which will prove more costly than the channels which the Government wants to do away with. Why is it not possible for the Government to understand that you cannot train people in a matter of weeks, where it takes generations to understand the intricacies of this very difficult trade? It is not right for the Minister to say that this is a political issue. I believe everyone should help the Government to make this scheme a success. I don’t want the Government afterwards to say: “If you had done your share and pulled your weight it would have been a success.” Well, now people are being forced out of business and the scheme is a failure. People will be forced into bankruptcy and ruin and to force these people out is not going to be for the good of the scheme. The co-operation of these people could have been had, had the scheme been properly managed. There are people who are against the scheme—of course we know that. Will this scheme satisfy the farmers? Certainly not. Will the distributive trade be satisfied? I doubt it. Will consumers welcome the scheme? Definitely not; because this scheme will not reduce the price of meat to the consuming public by one penny per pound. And today you are compelling people in South Africa to pay about 3½d. per lb. to the farmer for what is 75 per cent. bone and only 25 per cent. meat.

Nonsense.

What is your compound but 75 per cent. bone?

Have you read the scheme? Where does compound meat go?

Oh, don’t imagine that all the compound meat goes to the mines. A lot of it comes here, bones and all, and the public are forced to eat that meat because you cannot give them cheaper meat.

Get them to prepare the meat properly.

If you can prepare bones and eat them you will be very welcome in the trade. In conclusion let me say this. I am perfectly aware that my advice to the Government was ignored. My forecast about the scheme has been proved correct. But in spite of that I am very anxious that this scheme should be a success.

You are repaying evil with good.

You may eventually bring about stability in the country which will be beneficial to everyone coneerned. But let me say that at present no one will welcome the scheme. Had the scheme not been hurried, had it been introduced gradually no one would have known it was there and there would have been no unnecessary trouble. If the Government is anxious to get cheap meat for the public there is only one way to do it and that is by internal subsidisation.

What does that mean?

Let them see to it that all sections of the community can get meat of a quality which has been kept away from the poor for a very long time. Farmers will pay very dearly in the future for this tampering that has taken place with the meat industry. We are only getting 50 per cent. of the normal supply, and the poorer people cannot buy meat today. If you get the figures I believe you will find that the supply is only 30 per cent. of the pre-war figures. The meat is not there to be had. You are doing everything you possibly can to get the people from eating meat and getting them on to fish and other things, and that is not going to do the country any good. Now let me get away from meat and address a few words to the Minister of Finance. I know you must not say anthing in this House about the poor starving farmers.

Let’s get back to Natal.

You will require a permit to get into Natal; we are particular whom we let in there but we might make a special concession in your case. I would be prepared to use my influence in that direction. I was disappointed with the Minister of Finance in regard to one or two matters, especially old age pensions, I really did think the Minister would have given our old people £8 per month instead of the £6 they are getting. I am perfectly certain the whole country would welcome that. We don’t mind taxation, we don’t mind undertaking hardships, although there would be no hardship felt in the matter. Let us hope that next year it will be possible to bring the pension up to £8 because it is difficult for these old people to live under present conditions, and with the pension they are receiving today. There is not a man or woman in the country who would not welcome an increase in the old age pension. The other question is in regard to the War Pensions Bill. I do feel we ought to be able to copy Great Britain in regard to that matter. When a man has experienced anything that has been detrimental to his health, either inside or outside the country, the State should make reasonable provision for him. I know several cases of volunteers who have been unfortunate enough to contract some disease up North. They have returned to the Union; they have not died of that particular disease but it has undoubtedly expedited their death. I hope the Government will shoulder that responsibility and see that the dependants of these men are looked after.

We know from experience that important decisions are usually taken during war years. We know also that, when there is a war on, the public and Parliament know very little about the decisions that are taken. It is only years after peace has been declared that the public are informed about the obligations imposed upon them during the war period. I am afraid that that is happening now in regard to the war in which we are involved. I am afraid things are being done, obligations are being placed on us, and we, as a Parliament, as representatives of the people, are not kept informed of what is going on. Recently an important conference of Prime Ministers was held; a brief report has been published, but one can hardly imagine that that report in any way includes all that was discussed at that conference, because if that is a true reflection, it means that it was not worth the Prime Ministers’ trouble to go all that distance to pass such a simple little resolution. That conference has been over for some considerable time. The Acting Prime Minister has had ample opportunity to take the House and the country into his confidence and to tell us about the resolutions which have been passed—to tell us whether the Prime Minister has undertaken any commitments on behalf of South Africa. We, on this side of the House, are not prepared to agree that any commitments made there by the Prime Minister, without consultation with this House, are binding on South Africa. Afterwards they preach to us about honour and duty. We shall be told that the Prime Minister has given these undertakings and, although we had not given our approval to them at the time, it would be in accordance with our honour and our duty to back up the Prime Minister’s promise. That doesn’t apply to South Africa only. Other countries too are in the same position. Only recently a very important agreement was entered into between Churchill and Stalin regarding Poland’s future. We know that Russia; under that agreement is to get part of Poland, and that Poland is to be compensated by getting part of Germany. That agreement was entered into and England is apparently bound by it, but is was made by Churchill without any Parliamentary discussion; and responsible British opinion is very much upset about it. They feel it is not right to take such a decision about such an important matter, a matter which, as one paper expressed it, carried the germs of World War No. 3. They felt that such a resolution should not have been taken on the responsibility of one man and without consultation with the British Parliament. An important journal like the “Economist” expressed itself very strongly about this agreement. Let me read a few extracts. This is what that paper says about this agreement—

It goes on and says—

That is the position in England. Here we have a representative of responsible British opinion who is greatly upset about this news, and the paper goes on to draw attention to the two things which have apparently been done; the one is an accomplished fact, and the other is a mere rumour. The accomplished fact is the agreement with Stalin and the rumour is the Allies’ plan to split up Germany into a number of independent States and on this matter the “Economist” expressed itself as follows. It says that it is opposed to both these proposals—

That is what they think. And I should like to say that, in regard to South Africa, Poland should be a danger signal to us. Peace terms in regard to Poland after the last war carried the germs of a future world war. The Prime Minister very wisely foresaw that at the time. He warned against it and his words were ignored, but the provisions in regard to Poland have proved to be the cause of World War No. 2. That happened in 1919. In 1939, Poland again was the country which brought us into danger. It was Neville Chamberlain’s irresponsible guarantee to Poland, given without consultation with the Commonwealth, without consultation with South Africa, even without notice to us, which started this World War. Again it is Poland’s future which is the subject of the agreement between Churchill and Stalin. It is this very agreement which the “Economist” describes as containing the germs of World War No. 3. That is why I say that Poland should be the danger signal to the whole world and to South Africa. That much about England’s position. But what is South Africa’s position? How far has our Government been consulted about the agreement between Churchill and Stalin? The Prime Minister was asked the question and he stated in this House that he had not been consulted about it. But if it is a fact that he has not been consulted on such an important point, then I should like to know how one can possibly expect South Africa to agree that on international matters, on foreign affairs, he should speak in the same voice as other members of the British Empire. If South Africa is not even consulted on such important points, and war breaks out tomorrow, will South Africa automatically be involved in that war? If South Africa is not consulted about it, and if there is a danger of her being dragged into the war afterwards, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, then it is essential for South Africa to have the opportunity of expressing its opinion about this agreement. And I should like to put this question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does our Government support that agreement which Churchill has made with Stalin? Is the Government prepared to subscribe to it? We want to know this; we want the world to know what our position is in regard to that agreement. It has never been submitted to the British Parliament. But we want a clear statement, either repudiating that agreement on behalf of South Africa or accepting it. We on this side of the House want it to be clearly understood that we are not only opposed to that agreement, but that we wish to express our opposition to it in very definite terms, and we wish to state that, if, in consequence of that agreement another war breaks out, a war born out of this agreement, then we should like to be able to say that we are not responsible for it, and we want to be able to say that we are not in any way bound to take part in that war. We can clear the course today and say that no argument of honour and duty can be raised against us, and we want the Government of South Africa to be in the same fortunate position as the Opposition will be in, namely, that when they had the opportunity to do so, they expressed themselves clearly and emphatically against this agreement and against anything which might arise out of that agreement. We do not want to be under a moral obligation afterwards. The Acting Prime Minister has had the opportunity of making a statement about what has happened. I do not know whether this question was discussed by the Conference of Prime Ministers, but I do think that in the private correspondence which the Acting Prime Minister has had from the Prime Minister in London, there will have been some reference to it—and we would like him to lift the veil of secrecy for our benefit. These matters were discussed there and they are matters which deeply affect the interests of South Africa. We shall be very glad if the Acting Prime Minister will tell us a little more about what has happened there and to what extent South Africa has been compromised by what the Prime Minister has done overseas. The Prime Minister has had ample time to return and to attend this Session to make a statement in regard to what has happened. But if, for some reason or another, he has not found it possible to do so, he could have given the necessary information to the Acting Prime Minister to submit to the House. Parliament is being pushed into the background far too much. Matters are decided in private conclave and this House is never given the opportunity to discuss them. We very rarely get the opportunity of doing so before such matters have become an accomplished fact. Here we have had an important conference, attended by the Prime Minister, a conference which had to deal with matters of public importance and this Parliament should be given the opportunity of discussing these matters. Parliament in England is in session almost continuously, so that the Government can keep in touch with Parliament. That is not so in South Africa. Here, after the last election, the Government allowed six months to pass before calling Parliament together. In that interim period, the Government simply had no contact with the people through their parliamentary representatives. Now that we have the opportunity, while Parliament is still in session, to discuss such matters on behalf of the people, I think the Acting Prime Minister should have availed himself of the opportunity to make a complete statement on the very meagre report about the results of the Conference of Prime Ministers. There is another matter which I should like to impress on the Minister of Finance—the dangerous position caused by our increasing cost of living. We find that the cost of living has gone up by 3 per cent. during the last three months. It amounts to an increase of 1 per cent. per month. That, more or less is the increase which has taken place lately, and I hold that it discloses a dangerous position. It seems that the Government’s efforts to pin down the increase to a certain figure has so far failed. We know that it is costing the country a tremendous amount of money to pay these cost of living allowances. The Minister of Transport has told us that the railways are paying out about £5,000,000 per year in cost of living allowances. I do not know what they are costing the country as a whole. Estimates vary from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000 a year in regard to cost of living allowances to cope with increasing costs. It is not a fixed amount because it is an ever-rising amount— and it will continue to be so unless we make a deliberate attempt to peg down these rising costs. In America a decision was taken some time ago in this regard—a decision known as the hold-the-line decision. I have shown before that in Canada they have almost achieved stability since 1941. The alternative of course is—and that is what the Government has to consider very carefully, if it finds it impossible to stop the rising costs in a specific manner—to do so by means of consumers’ subsidies for the cost of food. Under the system of paying cost of living allowances we are making many difficulties, because to a great many people these cost of living allowances mean nothing. It is only the wage-earners who benefit by these allowances. But hundreds and thousands of people who get a small pension or an annunity, or the widow who has been left a certain amount of money by her husband, on which she draws interest—those people do not benefit from the cost of living allowances. They are hit hard by these increased costs of living, increases which are almost 30 per cent. now, according to the official figures. But I do think that anyone who has any knowledge of housekeeping will tell us that the official figures are not correct and that the cost of living of the ordinary average family has not gone up by more than 30 per cent. We are getting into a very dangerous position, and the danger will increase unless a deliberate attempt is made by tht Minister of Finance to peg down the increase to the figure where it is now, and, at any rate, to see to it that no further increases are allowed. This question, of course, is linked with the question of inflation. I know the Minister is very optimistic about the inflation position, but there are a great many people who are deeply concerned about it. I should like to appeal to him not to imagine, in a self-satisfied way, that he has succeeded in putting a stop to the inflationary tendency or the inflationary spiral in South Africa. I contend that it demands his serious attention. Even now we have the example of sums of money being released for expenditure on war pensions and so on, to coloured and native soldiers. I do not want to say that they should not have such pensions, but what I do say is this—give it in a form in which it will be of value to them and not in a form which means simply that they are going to spend the money on radios, gramophones and things of that kind which they do not need. Rather give it to them in the form of compulsory savings so that the money will be there for them after the war when they can use it more beneficially in a more permanent form, at a time when they will need it more than they do now. The same applies to non-European old age pensions. We find today that many of those people are enjoying unprecedented luxuries and the extra money they get is not used to raise their standard of living, or to provide them with better food or better housing. It is simply wasted. The extra money is simply wasted on unnecessary luxuries, because these people have not yet learned how to spend their money beneficially. We contend that all these things co-operate in increasing the danger of inflation and raising the inflation spiral. We are approaching breaking point and I am making this final appeal, therefore, the final appeal of this Session—or perhaps the one but final appeal—in which I ask the Minister of Finance to make a serious attempt to see to it that the inflationary tendency is stopped and that the increase in cost of living is pegged down, at the very least to the figure at which it stands now.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to keep the House very long. I shall not go into all the points raised in this debate, especially those which do not affect my Department. I know there is a general desire to bring this, discussion to an end, but apart from that I know that at this time the thoughts of many here, and of many throughout the country, are going out to events which are taking place on the coast of France. About those events I have no information to communicate to the House which is not generally available, but I think there is one thing I can say. We have differed, we still differ, about matters of policy in regard to the war, but I believe that I can say, on behalf of everyone here present, that it is the earnest desire and prayer of us all that we are now indeed entering into the last phase of this terrible struggle, that soon this present tyranny of war will be overpast and that the amount of human suffering which must still be endured before that happy issue is reached will, in fact, be kept at the lowest possible level. This, Mr. Speaker, is probably the last occasion on which I shall have to speak in this House during this Session, and, as in this Bill we are also providing for the services of Parliament, I think it is appropriate that I should say a word or two about the Session which is drawing to its close. It has been a long Session, it has been a burdensome Session, and I think we can claim a considerable measure of achievement. We have put on to the Statute Book a large number of Acts, some of them very important Acts, and we shall have no reason to be ashamed of our legislative record. We have also done a good deal of work in Select Committee and otherwise in the way of preparation for the future in regard to Social Security, in regard to demobilisation, in regard to housing, and in regard to other matters. It has meant hard work, both inside and outside the House. I would like to express appreciation of all who have helped towards that achievement, perhaps I may express special appreciation of those who have endured until the end of the Session. Although it has been a long Session. I think on the whole it has been a happy Session, there has been a great deal of goodwill between members of differing political opinions, outside the House, and there has been less bitterness and less asperity than usual inside the House. It seems to me there have been many evidences of the consciousness amongst members of the fact that we are not just party politicians, that we are also Parliamentarians charged with the high responsibility for the maintenance of a great institution. I think that has been one of the things one has noticed during this Session. In that regard I think it is appropriate to say that what has happened in this House during this first Session of a new Parliament does encourage us to view the future with hope. There have been new members on both sides of the House who have already proved themselves, who have shown great promise, who have made their mark, and I think we can look forward to a continuance of that great Parliamentary tradition to which I have referred. May I also say, I am sure it would be the wish of everybody here, that we all appreciate the high dignity and impartiality with which you, Sir, have presided over this House, and with that we would associate the Chairman of Committees and his deputy. May I also add to that the appreciation which I am sure we all feel for all sections of the staff of Parliament who have worked long hours with cheerfulness, helpfulness and efficiency. I have said, Sir, that our relations inside the House have been less characterised than in previous years by the note of bitterness and asperity. That has been due to the substantial removal of what has during the last two years been the chief rock of offence between us. In recent years we have been acutely divided on the war issue; we are less acutely divided on that issue today. I am not going to say that we see eye to eye on that issue yet. I am not going to say that our opponents find it possible to co-operate with us in the furtherance of the war effort, but at least I think, Sir, they have reconciled themselves to the fact that the Allies are winning the war, that Berlin and Toklo will fall just as Rome has fallen, and that at last, Sir, the soldiers, voters as they are, are receiving fair treatment.

That does not justify a declaration of war.

You are coming to know Stalin, to know him better.

Well, perhaps my hon. friend is sharing with me that increasing knowledge. But, Sir, because of the removal of the war issue we have found our differences this Session on ordinary matters of domestic politics. We on this side have our policy, and hon. friends opposite have their policy, and although we differ we can still co-operate for the ultimate welfare of South Africa. One line of cleavage, however, there is, which goes beyond the ordinary issues of domestic policy, and that has been revealed again in this debate. We started this Session practically with a Republican debate, and we have been ending it today with a discussion on matters affecting South Africa’s position as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In that regard there is a very real cleavage between hon. members opposite and ourselves. The Opposition stands for a fundamental change in our constitution, and it is well that we should realise that fact.

As you stood many years ago.

We have an Opposition which if it came into power would not just change domestic policies but would bring about a radical constitutional change. Of course, Mr. Speaker the difference is not just a matter of constitutional theory, not just a matter that they are Republicans as we are Monarchists.

You are sinners.

Or sinners, if you like. It is just simply this that we stand for South Africa’s continued association with the British Commonwealth of Nations on the basis of freedom, and because we believe that to be in the interests of South Africa. The Opposition do not accept that view and there is the difference.

Not if it is against our interests.

We believe it is in our interests, we believe in the continued co-operation of which the Imperial Conference recently held has been the outward and visible sign. We believe that that co-operation has been of value to South Africa in the war; we believe that South Africa has also been able to render a valuable contribution in this war. I have little doubt that when the history of this war comes to be written, South Africa’s participation against Germany, Italy and Japan, will be found to have been one of the determining factors. We believe that co-operation has been worth while in the war, we believe it will also be worth while and fruitful in the time of peace. That, Mr. Speaker, does not mean that we desire any form of organic unity, it does not mean that we would consent to any impairment of our freedom, but it does mean that we believe that our continued association with the British Commonwealth of Nations on the lines laid down in 1926 at the Imperial Conference, at which our former Prime Minister played a distinguished part, will be in the interests of South Africa and will enable us to play our proper part on the stage of world affairs. That, Sir, is where we stand.

*Several questions have been put here, and several statements have been made in connection with the recent Imperial Conference. As far as I am concerned I am not in a position to communicate particulars over what has taken place. I have not the information available that will enable me to do that. But I can give the assurance to hon. members opposite that no engagements have been entered into, and that no action has been taken to develop the organised union, or to create a permanent secretariat, or to formulate trade agreements. The object, as the Leader of the Opposition has rightly stated, was not to hold an Empire Conference, but to enable an exchange of personal opinions to be made between the leading representatives of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Such an exchange of views has taken place. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that seeing that we have taken part in such a conference of Prime Ministers it is possible that a bias has been given to our national policy. I think that he has exaggerated the danger of that. Eventually decisions must be taken by the Government as a whole. But apart from that South Africa is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and seeing there is such a Commonwealth consultation must occur. That such consultation as has occurred will promote co-operation is self-evident, but I have no apology to offer for that. We consider that it is indeed in the interests of South Africa that there should be such co-operation in the future as there has been in the past. We regard co-operation within the British Commonwealth of Nations as being in the interests of South Africa as well as being a means by which we can make our contributions to the world. I emphasise the last point. I consider that South Africa cannot separate itself from the world. The days of possible isolation are past. What the form of postwar co-operation between the various nations will be is a matter that is still under consideration. Although opinions have been expressed on this, no finality has been reached in connection with it. There can be no question of South Africa being more closely bound in this connection without the fullest consultation and discussion. But I have no doubt that whatever form post-war organisation assumes, it will be in the best interests of South Africa to co-operate as far as practicable with the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is all that I can say in connection with the general matter that has been mentioned here. There remains only one point to which I have to refer, and that is the point with which the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) concluded, namely, the matter of the rising cost of living. I do not want to go into the general question now. I have done that on previous occasions. The hon. member is correct in stating that during the last three months a considerable increase has occurred. He should, however, not forget that this is the period of the year when even in peace time a rise occurs in the cost of living. This is the period when certain articles of food in particular rise in price. The rise that has occurred in the past three months has been only in respect of articles of food. In regard to other elements in connection with the cost of living, the position has indeed been kept stable. I have reason to hope that in the following few months we shall be able to stop the rise. In any event, I may give hon. members the assurance that there is no thought of complacency in connection with the whole subject, but that the matter will enjoy my attention continuously.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE :

The Clauses Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I wish to associate myself on behalf of this side of the House with what has been said by the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister, in expressing his appreciation of the dignity and fairness with which you, Sir, have presided during this Session, and also of the dignity and fairness with which the Chairman of Committees has presided during this Session. At the same time I would, on behalf of this side of the House, and I am sure on behalf of hon. members opposite, say that we deeply appreciate the assistance given to us by the Clerk and his Assistants and other officials of this House. I do not wish to enter into any of the matters mentioned by the Minister of Finance, except to say that in regard to what he said about the cleavage between that side and this side of the House with regard to the war issue, he must not run away with the idea that because the war issue has not been so prominently before the House this Session, that we on this side have in any way altered our attitude, or feel in any way different about it. We stand on the war issue exactly where we stood on the 4th September, 1939.

Even more so.

On the other hand I am glad that the Minister of Finance has at last realised that there is a very fundamental difference between that side of the House and this side of the House with regard to the future constitutional development of the country, and that we stand, and will continue to stand for the establishment of a republic.

Hear, hear.

I regret having to raise another matter at this late stage, but unfortunately I have not had the opportunity before, and this will be the only opportunity I shall have. It is a matter of public interest, and as such, a matter of concern to this House and to Parliament. I refer to the part and the role played by the press of this country. I think the House will be in general agreement that the press is an important element in the national life of any civilised country. Its functions are twofold—firstly, the dissemination of news, and secondly, the guiding of public opinion in regard to public matters, and also in regard to political matters. Both these matters are matters of public interest, and therefore also a matter of interest to Parliament. Furthermore the press receives certain facilities from the Government in regard to the transmission of messages etc. There have been certain matters mentioned during the course of this Session which compel me to raise this subject. First the Minister of Agriculture, who at that time was an ordinary member of the House, raised this subject appropos of nothing, when he discussed the defamation suit of the Editor of the “Transvaler.” He also went out of his way to raise the same matter when he took part in the Wakkerstroom election. I am not going to embark on a defence of the “Transvaler”. Anyone who wishes to read the editorial which appeared in the “Transvaler” after judgment was given, will find there a complete defence of its action. I think, however, it is necessary briefly to mention the circumstances which gave rise to that action. The Editor of the “Transvaler” had asked the Information Office of the Government to supply him with a certain radio transmission from Zeesen, which the paper wished to publish for certain reasons, and the Information Officer, in sending that despatch included in it comments of his own. The “Transvaler” was only interested in the message, and did not publish the political comment of the information officer. That was what gave rise to the whole trouble. I followed the evidence very carefully and it was in my opinion, and in the opinion of others a most extraordinary judgment, having regard to the evidence led before the court.

If it was so surprising why was there no appeal?

And no one was more surprised at the judgment than the defendants themselves and their attorneys.

Why didn’t you prosecute your appeal?

The second time this matter of the press was raised during this Session was in connection with myself when in the course of a debate, certain allegations were made by the hon. member for Troyeville. The “Cape Times” the following day in its Notes in the House, while mentioning the allegations, did not state that I had risen to deny the truth of the allegations. When discussing that omission later on I said that this was not the first time this sort of thing had occurred, and that the suppression of news was a habit of the “Cape Times.” The “Cape Times” had expressed itself as very much shocked when the judgment was given against the “Transvaler,” in the same way as the Minister of Agriculture was shocked, but I would submit that the indignation of the “Cape Times” was very much misplaced—that “holier than thou” attitude was out of place—because of its own record. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. What I intend doing today is to show that the “Cape Times” has consistenly made a practice of withholding important items of news, especially items of news relating to the present war.

Will the hon. member explain how he can discuss that matter on this Bill?

I submit as I said at the beginning of my speech that the dissimination of news, especially in wartime, is a matter of public interest, and as such, a matter of concern to this House. I may say that I have not raked the files; I noticed these instances, and many were simply taken at random. Most of these cases are in connection with the war. There are special circumstances during wartime, and I am prepared to admit that when a country is engaged in a war, whether you are in favour of the war or not, the newspapers cannot be allowed to publish news which might give information to the enemy. For that reason there is a censorship imposed. That is provided for by the Government in this country and also by the Governments in Great Britain and in the United States. I would point out that all Reuter or United Press messages which arrive here have already been censored at the source. Therefore a newspaper is relieved of responsibility on that score. The sub-editor needn’t worry as to whether such news will give information to the enemy. I think I am stating the position correctly. Hon. members opposite will agree when I say that members of all parties, whatever their attitude may be towards the war, are anxious to receive accurate news. Hon. members opposite and on this side are anxious to know that news is not being withheld from the public, whether the news be good, bad, or indifferent. Members on the other side will remember the unfavourable reaction which was occasioned in England because of the attitude of the Minister of Information which resulted in Mr. Duff Cooper being obliged to take another job. And the same thing happened in regard to the O.W.I.—Office of War Information— in the United States. I wish to quote examples to show how the “Cape Times” has consistently been withholding important items from the public. These are not isolated cases. Therefore a practice is indicated. These are all cases where news had already been censored on the other side; they all refer to important items, and as I Will show, in none of these cases was there any question of lack of space. I will first deal with two cases not connected with the war; both dealing with events in this country. The first deals with the Smith reprieve. There was a wave of indignation all over the country in connection with the reprieve in the Smith murder case. I have here a clipping from “Die Burger” of the 14th April reporting a letter written by the father of the murdered child, in which he expresses himself very strongly about the reprieve of the murderer. In the same clipping there appears a report, a SAPA report from Bloemfontein, as follows—

I think I am stating the position correctly when I say that in the past the Governor-General of the country has never made a statement on any matter, however unimportant, which has not been duly reported in the “Cape Times.” The most unimportant statements have been reported. One is entitled to ask why this particular item did not appear? They published the other dispatch— the father’s letter— but the Governor-General’s statement which clearly was intended to show that he washed his hands of the whole affair, that he was not to be regarded as being responsible—in other words he placed the responsibility for the reprieve on the Cabinet and the Minister of Justice—that was omitted by the “Cape Times”. Why? It was omitted for only one reason—in order to protect the Cabinet and the Minister of Justice. The other case is also concerning a matter which is of much interest to the public, and that is the question of dual-medium schools. On the 21st January, the “Cape Times” published a full report of a speech made by Professor Haarhoff at the University Club. So much importance did the “Cape Times” attach to it that there was a special announcement of the report printed on the front page, referring the reader to a full report on the back page. There was also a sub-leader dealing with the speech. Always in the past—and I am a regular reader of the “Cape Times”—the “Cape Times” has published the proceedings of the University Club. But what happened here? Dr. Haarhoff’s speech was reported in full. On the 16th February, Professor Burger was also invited by the University Club to give his views on the same subject. Having heard Professor Haarhoff, the University Club wanted to hear the other side. Not one single word appeared in the “Cape Times” of Professor Burger’s address—probably the first time that the proceedings of the University Club have not been reported in the “Cape Times”. Now I come to foreign news, and I will deal first with a very recent case, the one to which I referred this morning in the course of another debate. Unfavourable comment on the declaration issued by the Empire Prime Ministers, was contained in two reports pub lished in “Die Burger” on the 21st May. One of them mentions strong criticism by the “New York World Telegram” of the statement issued by the recent Conference of Prime Ministers on the matter of a post-war organisation. At the same time there was a fairly lengthy SAPA dispatch from Lisbon, containing a statement issued by the only political party in Portugal, of which Dr. Salazar is the leader, in which this statement of the Imperial Conference is also criticised. Neither of these two reports appeared in the “Cape Times,” but there was other unimportant news in the paper, which showed that there was no lack of space. There was news about the British princesses winning prizes at a horse show; there was a report about a man with 55 wives; a long report, one-third of a column about a whisky tax case and a dispatch about the death of some obscure former Governor of the Gold Coast. But both these SAPA dispatches— important dispatches—did not appear. They were omitted. Now I come to January. There were many cases of supression of news in January. On the 18th January I find in “Die Burger” a long report— one column concerning a sensational Pravda report that secret negotiations had taken place between Von Ribbentrop and two British envoys in Spain. This report, better known as the Cairo Story, created a sensation all over the world. This dispatch did not appear in the “Cape Times,” but in the afternoon the “Cape Argus” published the report. The next day a short report, giving the British denial, appeared on the back page of the “Cape Times”—but this news was considered to be sufficiently important to merit a sub-leader in the issue of the 19th January! Surely other readers of the “Cape Times” are just as anxious as I am that news should not be withheld! On the 7th January “Die Burger” published a report about a sharp attack by “Pravda” on Mr. Wendell Willkie, which it was stated, was regarded in Washington as a warning to Britain and the Allies to keep their hands off Poland and other neighbouring states. The report further stated—

This is a most important dispatch dealing with American views as to certain Russian actions. It also contains criticism of Russia. Not a word about it in the “Cape Times,” but there was ample space for other matters—more than a column about a mock commanda raid on Cape Town on the front page—as if we are not getting enough news about overseas commando raids! And another news dispatch about some film shown in London. So there could be no question of lack of space. The next day, 8th January, a report appeared in “Die Burger” again dealing with the Polish question, which at that time was a most important issue, in which everyone had been taking a keen interest. The report is one in which the “New York Times” strongly criticises the Russian attitude towards Poland, and issues a warning that if Russia persists in its attitude and employs force, it will discourage American participation in any post-war settlement. The “Cape Times” had nothing about that. On the 20th January, in the same month, there is a long Sapa report in “Die Burger” of Russian press attacks on defeatists in Allied countries. There is also a report dealing with comment on the “secret negotiations” story. Not a word of this appeared in the “Cape Times” of that date, but the “Cape Times” is careful to publish a report of an article in some unknown Russian newspaper. This dispatch is placed under the heading “Allied Unity” in order to impress upon its readers that there is Allied unity. That report is published in the “Cape Times” but the other reports are omitted. On 21st January three interesting dispatches (Sapa) appeared in “Die Burger.” The first was a report of a sharp attack on the Allies by the Russian paper “War and the Working Classes” suggesting that Britain and the United States were using the Unrra organisation for political purposes. Also there was a criticism of Unrra, a matter we were discussing in this House only yesterday. Secondly, there was a complaint by Reuter’s correspondent that the British denial of the secret negotiations’ story was published without any comment in Russian newspapers, asking why there had been no official denial by the Russian Government. There was also a sharp attack by “War and the Working Classes” (a paper which has often been quoted with apparent approval by the “Cape Times”), a sharp attack on the “Herald-Tribune” of New York in regard to its attitude in the matter of the Polish question. None of these reports dealing with most important matters were published in the “Cape Times” on that date. On the 19th January—this is an interesting case—there is a Sapa report in “Die Burger” of a question put to the Minister of War, in the British House of Commons, Sir James Grigg, in which he is asked whether he would allow the Communist paper, “The Daily Worker,” to have a war correspondent at the front. Sir James Grigg, according to a Sapa report, published in “Die Burger,” said that “in view of the importance of security measures, the Government was not prepared to accord facilities to this paper which is the mouthpiece of the Communist Party in Great Britain.” Now, Sir, because Communism has become a political issue in South Africa and because probably of the attitude taken up by this side of the House on the Communistic issue, this important report showing the attitude of the British Government towards the Communist Party in Great Britain, is not published by the “Cape Times” in spite of the fact that the statement is made by the British Minister of War, and not by some obscure politician. On the 6th March there appears a long report in “Die Burger” from which it appears that Gen. George Marshall, the head of the United States Army, asked the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee to postpone its resolution in favour of Jewish immigration into Palestine. The fear was expressed, according to this report, that U.S.A. relations with the Arabs might be disturbed. It was also stated in that report that Gen. Marshall’s attitude was being supported by Mr. Henry Stimson, the Secretary of State, i.e. the U.S.A. Foreign Minister. There also appeared in “Die Burger” of the same date another Sapa dispatch stating that the Iraq Government had sent a note to the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the effect that a resolution in favour of Jewish immigration into Palestine would be unfavourably regarded by the Arabs. What happened, Sir? This item from Iraq, a country of small account, is published in the “Cape Times,” but the two dispatches setting out Gen. Marshall’s and Mr. Stimson’s attitude on the question of Jewish immigration, are omitted. On the 29th November of last year—this is also an interesting case—a Reuter report appeared in “Die Burger” of a statement made by Dr. Cyril Garbett, Archbishop of York, who said that the Communist Party in the Soviet State was still strongly athestic. The Archbishop went on to say it might be that Stalin made a political move when he acknowledged the Orthodox Church. The “Cape Times” has always been very ready to publish anything said by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by the Archbishop of York, but this particular statement dir not appear in the “Cape Times” at all, not a word about it! Why? Because little value was attached to Stalin’s recognition of the Church by this side of the House, and because the “Cape Times” itself, as far as I can remember, published very prominently the report that Stalin had agreed to recognise the Orthodox Church. What is interesting is this, that shortly afterwards, on the 8th January, the same Archbishop of York made a statement on the question of the punishment of those responsible for war crimes. That statement by the Archbishop was given particular prominence by the “Cape Times.” On the 5th April there was a similar case. There appeared in “Die Burger” a Sapa dispatch of an attack by the paper “War and the Working Class,” alleging that the British and American and German Cartel interests were secretly negotiating in Switzerland, and it further alleged that they were protecting the interests of international owners of certain monopolies. That, too, a most important item of news, showing the attitude of Russia towards her Allies, did not appear in the “Cape Times,” not a word of it, although there was published a report about the affairs of Mr. Charles Chaplin, and his latest love story. On the 30th May “Die Burger” published a report of Severe Criticism by Polish Americans on Russia in regard to the Polish question. This attack was made at a Congress representing 5,000,000 Americans of Polish descent. Not a word of that appeared in the “Cape Times.” I referred yesterday to two other cases of news suppression by the “Cape Times.” First, a statement made by Col. H. Mitchell, Vice-Chairman of the Conservatives in England, on the question of the Economic Unity of the Empire, and in the second place a most important statement by Sir James Grigg in which he warned that England would either have to issue paper money without the necessary gold coverage or would have to resort to inflation. These dispatches do not appear in the “Cape Times.” I have here a number of other instances on the same lines. This one is interesting. Hon. members will remember that some time ago some United States Senators made a tour of the Allied countries, and after their return to America, they made statements which caused a sensation. The question does not arise as to whether those statements were justified or not, but the fact remains that the five Senators who were sent out officially by the United States Government, made certain statements. There was a fairly long report in “Die Burger” regarding these statements, but it did not appear in the “Cape Times.” But, Sir, on each of these occasions it will be seen that plenty of space was available for news of an unimportant nature. In February “Die Burger” published a long SAPA dispatch on the improbability of Turkey entering the war on the side of Allies. Members on the other side of the House are, I am sure, interested in this question; indeed everybody has been very much interested to know whether Turkey is going to enter the war or not. There was a most important SAPA dispatch dealing with that question, but not a word of it was in the “Cape Times,” probably because the report was not favourable to Great Britain or the Allies. I mentioned this morning that the SAPA report of a statement made by Mr. McKinnon, the Canadian Minister of Commerce, a most important statement dealing with the whole question of economic settlement after the war, and with Canada’s attitude towards the policy announced by Lord Halifax and others. Not a word of that appeared in the “Cape Times.” So I could continue, but I do not wish to detain the House. I have a number of other cases, but I think I have quoted sufficient to show that the “Cape Times” is the last paper to take up the attitude which it took up at the time of the “Transvaler” case. I have showed that the “Cape Times” has consistently, as a matter of practice, omitted important items of news. As I said in the beginning of my speech, this is a matter of public concern, and as such is a matter also of concern to this House. When I first mentioned this matter, the “Cape Times” in a leading article accused me of lying, and then came the usual story that if I repeated what I had said “outside the House” I would see what would happen. The “Cape Times” knows perfecly well why the privilege of Parliament has been created, namely to allow members of the House to disclose matters of this kind in the public interest. The “Cape Times” knows perfectly well that there is an old legal maxim—“the greater the truth the greater the libel,” and an experienced Parliamentarian is not going to be caught by chaff of that nature. The “Cape Times” stated I was lying; it took up that “holier than thou” attitude in the “Transvaler” case. I have proved conclusively that the “Cape Times” is living in a glass house, and should be the last one to throw stones.

We have reached the end of a long and arduous session, and I will just say that it has never happened in my long parliamentary career—there are only eight members who have been in Parliament longer than I have—that the shares of the Government have dropped so rapidly after an election as in the case of the present Government. We were hardly here at the commencement of the session, on the first occasion that the Government had to appear before Parliament, when there was observed a tremendous dissatisfaction amongst its own supporters in the country. Even the Minister of Commerce and Industries said in a recent speech here in Cape Town that they knew that there was a large measure of dissatisfaction amongst their own supporters. We have seen how the country has reacted in two by-elections that have occurred, namely the Provincial by-election at Zoutpansberg and the Parliamenetary by-election at Wakkerstroom. Both were lost by the Government. And amongst its own members in this House there is also considerable dissatisfaction over the manner in which the Government does its work and the policy that it follows. There is dissatisfaction over the inconsistency of the Government in regard to what it says one day and the next. There is the case that we have frequently referred to during this session of the lip service that the Government pays to bilingualism. Bilingualism is supposed to be its principle, but it does not carry it out in practice. That principle is frequently violated by the Government itself, and the people are right ly dissatisfied that the Government should give merely lip service in connection with such an important matter and refuse to confirm it by legislation. There is dissatisfaction because this Government is a “slow-motion” Government. The Government machinery is too antiquated.

We hear it creaking in its work. It is always making faults and blunders and it cannot do anything right. Someone once wrote something that is very true of the present Government—

They perpetrate one blunder after another. They decide and act precipitately and then the Opposition have to fight here for days to convince the Government that it is wrong, in order that it may put things right again. I can mention a large number of things where the Government has acted wrongly and has irritated and dissatisfied the people with precipitate action they have taken, and in regard to which they have had to yield ground. The Minister of Agriculture’s department fixed threshing machine charges precipitately. We had to point out its fault to the Government, and then it changed things. The Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice precipitately banned the book: “The Roman Catholic System.” Later they had to go back on this and rectify the matter. We have seen that the Minister of Economic Welfare allowed a cheap kind of petrol to be sold in the Free State, and later on he had to retract. I mention these two instances to show the precipitate way in which the Government does things. We have the case of the reprieve of the murderer Smith, which made the whole country dissatisfied and almost infuriated, not only in all the various provinces but particularly in the Province of Natal. We have seen that the policy of allowing Indians in hotels and to enjoy drinking privileges has caused great dissatisfaction; we have seen that the Government has suspended the Pegging Act so that it will no longer be applicable to Indians, because a so-called agreement has been arrived at with the Indians. The only reason is that the Indians of Natal and also of India have objected to it, and now we daily receive pamphlets and telegrams from people in Natal protesting against this. We have seen how the Government itself has surrendered to big capital with legislation in connection with the fishing industry. I only mention these few cases to show that we have a Government “that never seems to do right by mistake.” There are other important problems of great interest to the country which the Government has simply ignored. I do not want to mention a long list here. I only mention one of outstanding importance, namely the shortage of labour on the farms. The farmers are finding it impossible to continue their farming properly. We do not know whether our country will be confronted with famine. Our mealie harvest is much less than what we thought it would be. There will be a shortage of wheat and we know what the meat position is, and we have only to go into the interior to hear on all sides the complaints from farmers that owing to the shortage of labour they are finding it almost impossible to carry on with their farming. One member of Parliament had to return home because he had no labour on his farm, and his wife had to look after the animals. The Government has simply left the matter to one side, and has done nothing about it. It has, on the contrary, in fact, been engaged in making the position worse. I could mention a number of other things, but I will not take up the time of the House any longer. I only want to say this, that the people are afraid of the future when they look at the tendency of the present Government’s policy. We have, for instance, the liberalism of the Government in respect of the colour problem. The people are afraid in the future the Government is going to do things in this respect which will not only deeply hurt the people but which will place them in danger. We have heard a member on the opposite benches say that he is now in favour of the franchise for coloured women and native women, and not a single voice was raised on the benches opposite to speak against him. There is anxiety over the attitude of the Government in connection with the colour question. There is anxiety over another matter of great importance, namely, social security, that it again is only going to be a cry or a catch phrase of the Government, and that nothing further will come of it, but it is merely an opiate to soothe the people. That fear also exists amongst members opposite who are supporting the Government. There is anxiety over the post-war position, whether the Government, as it is now constituted, will be in a position, when chaos arises after the war, to combat it in an efficient manner. The Government is comprised of warring elements, and the people feel concerned about whether the Government will be able to act when difficult times come. We know that the Government will not be able to do that. There is a great fear that the Government will not be able to carry out its promises. This Session has not inspired us with any hope that the Government will be able to do this. The Government has made promises like a nice budding rose in the garden. The people are afraid that it will develop like a khaki weed in the mealie lands, luxuriant enough, but containing nothing substantial for man or animal. For our part we must say that we have done our best to restrain the Government from the errors that they have committed, and to rectify those matters that the Government have made a mess of. In a few cases we have been able to set them right, and to bring the Government to its senses. I should like to mention one other matter, and I do this with all respect. I say that we have an antiquated system of government; our parliamentary machine creaks from old age, it is time that a new system made its appearance in Parliament to do away with all the old medieval formalities, with all unnecessary delaying of matters, and that we should put an end to all the troublesome routine in connection with the adoption of legislation.

And all the waste of time.

Our parliamentary machine does not function properly, and I think that the Acting Prime Minister will agree with me that it is time the Government appointed a commission or a committee of both sides of the House to review our whole system of procedure, of the Standing Rules and Orders, with the object of evolving smoother and more modern machinery relieved of all the unnecessary formalities and cumbersome procedure, and with the elimination of all the difficult processes in connection with business and the adoption of legislation, with preservation of the right of members to discuss matters thoroughly. Then it will not be necessary to have the guillotine and night sittings, as we have had in the past. We ought to evolve a system in co-operation with all sections of the House to modernise our parliamentary machine so that Parliament will be, in fact, an instrument of the people, so that everyone will have the opportunity to state their position, but without all these laborious processes. I trust that the Acting Prime Minister will give this matter thought, and that before long we shall have a commission or a committee to go into the matter thoroughly.

I shall only take a minute to reply to a matter that has been mentioned in connection with pears. As soon as I was acquainted with the position I went into the matter in consultation with the Deciduous Fruit Board, and suggested that as regards dried pears they should get into touch with the Dried Fruit Board and act in accordance with the findings of that Board. That has been done. They got into touch with the Dried Fruit Board, and they are going to act in accordance with the decisions that are laid down by the Dried Fruit Board. This is happening on a fair and reasonable basis, so that in regard to dried pears there will be no question of a monopoly. In regard to other pears, namely, dehydrated pears and peeled pears, the idea of the Deciduous Fruit Board was to place them on the market as their own product with their own name and their own mark. I have suggested that tenders should be invited for the packing, and we can assume that that will be done. It will then be decided which firms will pack the fruit, and I think that covers the point that has been mentioned.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

1. (1) in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 131 A of the Gold Law (Act No. 35 of 1908, Transvaal), as amended by Section 5 of the Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure Amendment Act, 1936 (Act No. 30 of 1936) the exemption from the provisions of Sections 130 and 131 of the Gold Law of the Transvaal read with Section 5 of Act No. 35 of 1932 of that portion of the land, described in the schedule and the plan referred to, which was deproclaimed before the first day of May, 1930, in so far as such provisions prohibit a coloured person from residing upon or otherwise occupying any such land or in so far as they prohibit any person from letting any such land to a coloured person or from permitting such letting or from permitting a coloured person to reside upon or otherwise occupy any such land;

such exemption being absolute and per manent in terms of paragraph (a) of Subsection (3) of Section 131 A:

1. (2)
   1. (a) in terms of Article 2 (d) of Law 3 of 1885 (Transvaal) as amended by Section 1 of Act No. 30 of 1936, the assignment of the remaining portion of the land described in the schedule and the plan, and the land which was granted to the Municipality of Barberton by Crown Grant No. 304 of 1927; and
   2. (b) in terms of Sub-section (1) bis of Section 10 of the Municipal Amending Ordinance No. 17 of 1905 (Transvaal) as amended by Section 2 of Act No. 30 of 1936, the alienation and transfer to Asiatics of any of the land referred to in paragraph (2) (a) above.

I move that this House concurs in the message that came from the Senate. The object of this is to enable the municipalities of Krugersdorp and Barberton to set aside areas for Indian occupation, and Indian ownership. Under the Feetham Commission, it was provided that such and such areas should be available. Krugersdorp is subject to the Gold Law of 1905 and has to receive the consent of the Minister of Mines and also the consent of the sub-committee that was brought into existence as the result of the Feetham Commission’s Report, and the Act passed in 1936, after a Select Committee had unanimously agreed that should be done. In 1941 a resolution was passed on all fours with the one I am dealing with as far as Krugersdorp is concerned, setting aside certain areas in that town, and for years we waited in order that Krugersdorp might, of its own volition, make provision for Asiatic occupation. They have done so, they have set an example in the Transvaal, an area has been acquired, the particulars have been lying on the Table for some time of the manner in which they are laying out these areas for Indian occupation and providing them with the usual amenities that should be provided in a township, like sports grounds, halls, and things of that description. It is necessary to obtain the approval of this House before that can be given effect to, and I move, as far as Krugersdorp is concerned, that effect be given to that. As far as Barberton is concerned, the Gold Law is not involved. It deals with the bazaar that was established there under the Transvaal law of 1885. Areas were set aside by the old Republic in various towns for Indian occupation, but not for Indian ownership. The object of this resolution is to enable Barberton to confer ownership in the areas set aside very many years ago. The object of these resolutions is to enable both Krugersdorp and Barberton to set aside areas for Indian occupation and ownership. I hope the example of these two Transvaal towns will be followed by the City of Johannesburg and other towns where the proper effort will be made to see that provision is made for the ownership and occupation by Indians of land in those areas.

I second.

I should like to give my support to this proposal that is before the House. I was surprised to see in what way the affair was disposed of in 1911. The Town Council of Barberton has now asked for the question of housing and slums to be solved, and I hope that the House will give its support to this proposal.

Motion put and agreed to.

Business was succesively suspended at 5.45 p.m. and 6.51 p.m.