As a matter of privilege, I should like to raise a point in connection with the Parliamentary grounds. I think it is an accepted practice that the Parliamentary grounds are under the direct control of Parliament itself, and not of the Government. We have noticed a number of persons outside who have done nothing wrong as far as one knows and as far as one can see. They are anxious to gain admission to the House, but they are being stopped at the gates. I just want to ask whether that instruction emanates from you, Mr. Speaker, or from the Government which has no control over the Parliamentary grounds. I raise this as a matter of privilege.

Mr. Speaker exercises control over the buildings and grounds of the House of Assembly.

May I ask whether it was an instruction given by you? I am not asking whether it will be given, but whether such an instruction has already been given.

Such an instruction was given by me.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

May one know on what grounds such a step was taken? We as members of the House of Assembly are in the dark as far as this is concerned. Not a single member here knows what is going on. May we know on what grounds and for what reasons the gates were closed?

It is my duty to take such precautions as I may consider necessary to prevent a demonstration in the vicinity of Parliament which might lead to disorder. The arrangements referred to by the hon. member were made under my authority.

But we are here as members of the House of Assembly and we do not know what is going on. We do not know what happened. May we ask on what grounds this step was taken?

In view of the fact that the Government is unreasonably persisting in its obstructive attitude, while the position in the country is such that at this moment there is a procession of women outside the Parliamentary gates who have come to ask for meat, I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—33 :

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. j.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Noes—83:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Bumside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Clause One put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 1st February.

We have very seldom in the history of South Africa looked upon a scene such as can be perceived outside the Houses of Parliament today. There must definitely by a reason for it. We know that the female population of South Africa is a very peaceful one, and when they appear outside this House with flags and tell us “Give us meat,” we must know that there is something radically wrong in the policy adopted by the Government. I can rermeber the year 1923, when the Prime Minister was also in power, and when there was a similar scene, where people chained themselves to the galleries in order to shout out in the House: “Give us work.” We know that shortly after that the Government fell. Today we saw what is happening outside the House, and it is a portent of the imminent fall of the Government. Having risen to take part in this debate, I wish to express the hope that the Prime Minister, who saw what was happening here, will give full opportunity to the House to discuss this motion until we want to put and end to the discussion. I also want to protest very strongly against the contempt shown to us by the Minister of Agriculture. This debate especially deals with matters which have reference to the Minister of Agriculture. On the previous occasion I moved the adjournment of the debate owing to the discourteous attitude of the Minister of Agriculture towards us, because while I was busy with the debate on this important motion he was having conversations on the other side. Today he has the rudeness—allow me to express it that way—not even to be present in Parliament. I wish to suggest to the Prime Minister that he should appoint a commission of enquiry in order to discover under which bed the Minister of Agriculture is today hiding from the women of South Africa. While so many commissions are being appointed it is perhaps necessary that we should also have an enquiry in this direction, in order to ascertain where the Minister of Agriculture is today. At this stage I also want to touch on another matter. The public always have the right to interview Ministers and speak to them, and these women who are today standing in the street before the Houses of Parliament, this morning went to various Ministers in order to try to lay their difficulties before the Ministers, in order to see whether assistance could not be given to them. They were sent from larboard to starboard. They could not see the Minister of Agriculture. He is today playing hide-and-seek. The other day he adopted a very supercilious manner here, but today he is playing hide-and-seek with these women. We can understand the position of those people. They have children after whom they have to look and feed, and we can imagine what those people have in their hearts when they cannot even gain admittance to the ministerial offices in order to lay their difficulties and objections before the relevant Ministers. It is understandable that they are now holding a demonstration before the Houses of Parliament. The Government must bear full responsibility for that. As I have said, the Minister of Agriculture is not present, but today I wish to accuse him of a few things, and I hope that his colleagues, who are in the House, will advise him of these. What has really emerged from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, which lasted almost two hours? I want to mention a few matters. The first is that the Minister of Agriculture has a swollen head and the second is that the Minister pats himself on the shoulder and tells us what wonderful things he has done. I want to express the hope that he will tell the people outside about those things. But first I want to deal with this phenomenon, namely that he has acquired a swollen head. He rose here and attacked the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. He said: “Yes, it was an afterthought to move this motion, and it is only a propaganda motion.” Well, if it is a propaganda motion, that propaganda is very effective, because we see the results of it outside. But why is the Government so afraid of this motion; why is it afraid to have the motion discussed on its merits if it is purely a propaganda measure? The Minister of Agriculture goes further and says: “You Should not have come along with that motion; we thought you would again propose a republican motion.” Let me tell the Minister of Agriculture that the Republican motion has been registered. A free republic is part of the blood and bone of the Nationalist. We want a free republic for South Africa and no single jingo, like the Minister of Agriculture, will get us to give up that free feeling of forming a free, independent republic in South Africa. But the Minister of Agriculture goes further and wants to prescribe, to prescribe for this party, and for this side of the House, what manner of motions we should propose in the House. He said: “I thought you would propose a motion about the Broederbond.” It seems to me as if the whole Government is on the run; as if the Freemasons are on the run; as if the Sons of England are on the run; as if the Jewish Board of Deputies are on the run, and also the whole congress of the United Party. The Prime Minister himself declared that there are only 2,500 members of the Broederbond, and yet the whole Government, with all its supporters, are on the run. What heoes we have on the other side! I do not think it is necessary for me to say a single word more about that matter. But the Minister of Agriculture is now raising objections to this motion. It seems to me as if this motion has pierced the dragon to the heart and that that is the reason why the Government is so afraid of this motion of the Leader of the Opposition. This motion demands that the things which are wrong in our country should be put right. Let me deal with a few of the things which were said by the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the motion. In the first place he said that we proposed the motion for purposes of propaganda. Let me ask members on the other side, who attacked the meat scheme so strongly, whether they also did that for purposes of propaganda. It may perhaps be just as well if I mention a few of the Government supporters and refer to what they said. It may be that those members easily forget what happened. The Minister of Agriculture accuses us of making propaganda, but he does not say that to his own people who criticise the Government on this point; he did not accuse them of making propaganda. I want to bring that to his attention. In the first place I come to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). What does that hon. member say in his newspaper “Barlow’s Weekly”?—

He goes still further. I am glad that that hon. member is present. I think that he will stand up for himself against the Minister of Agriculture in connection with these things which he wrote.

He is appearing before the Caucus next week.

I hope he will stand up for himself. Look at what he further tells the Prime Minister in an open letter—

That there is a crisis round the corner.

For six months now the Department of Agriculture under the leadership of Mr. Strauss has been endeavouring to “control” the food of the people.

Maize has been destroyed by rains; butter exported during the war; citrus buried; deciduous fruits buried; maize exported under subsidy during the war; and today what?

The people ask for good healthy meat of which there is an abundance in our country. The Government’s answer is:

Whale beef from the Indian Ocean.

Sausages out of a tin.

The Government have so interfered with the marketing and the distribution of food that in a country (which in the ordinary way of business has to export food under subsidy at the cost of the Consolidated Revenue Fund) the people of which country have to stand in queues for many hours in order to obtain food and not a sufficient quantity of food at that.

Had the Government let the food question alone there would have been enough and more than enough for all the people. But you wanted to be too clever and you allowed civil servants in various departments to try out a “planned economy of control.”

The result: An awful flop and a disgruntled people.

Now I ask: Is it only this side of the House that is making accusations against the Government for what it is doing in the country? Is it only this side who are pointing out that the nation strongly feels that there is something wrong? Allow me to quote the following passage—

Is that all you can say?

That hon. member will receive an opportunity to speak. He need not be afraid of speaking and now be rowdy and interrupt. I will not allow myself to be put off by that. I say that the Minister of Agriculture patted himself on the shoulder for all the good things he did. One of the good things he mentioned is this meat control. Allow me to say here that the weakness the Minister exhibited on the day he surrendered to the merchants and agreed to separate food control from the Department of Agriculture and to make a separate division of it, was of great detriment to the country. From that day onwards things went from bad to worse. Why? Because the Department of Agriculture has officials who are old hands, people who know the nature of the Afrikaner, and who would have been able to give the Minister correct advice in connection with these matters. But the Minister was so clever that he submitted to the merchants—the strong man of the Cabinet surrenders—and he cut the Department in two. I leave the matter there because it has reference to another motion which is before the House. I just want to add this, in connection with the meat scheme. The Minister said here that the nation outside was consulted and that the agricultural groups of the large parties in this House were consulted. I want to tell the Minister at once that that is an untruth. I am sorry that I cannot use a stronger word because the Speaker will not allow it. We never gave our support to this scheme. When the scheme was announced in this House the Leader of the Opposition moved the adjournment of the House and uttered a warning as to what would happen. His warning in fact came true. Now the Minister says that the agricultural groups of the two parties were consulted. Let me say this. Mr. Naudé, the Secretary of the Meat Board, was in Cape Town. He said that he had seen members of the United Party and that he would like also to explain the meat scheme to us in order to see whether we had any objections to it. We told him he could come. The members of the farmers’ group met Mr. Naudé. After he had explained the scheme to us we told him that in the first place we objected against the price they proposed to fix, because we wished to see to it that the farmer should receive a reasonable price and one on which he could live. Our second objection was that the Government did not have sufficient cold storage in the country to allow of such a scheme being put into effect. Our third objection was that the Government did not have enough people to grade the meat, and he himself confessed that that was so. He said that they did not have enough people but that they would train them. Grading is one of the greatest difficulties in connection with the meat scheme. Now the Minister says that he consulted us and that we agreed to the scheme. We did not. Furthermore we said this: “In schemes of this nature there should be proper control.” We did not want that sort of control where other people would have authority over us. The Chamber of Mines does not appoint a farmer to give it advice. The Chamber of Commerce does not go to a farmer to get advice from him as to how they should run their business. But the farmers must always appoint other people on their boards to control their products. We object to that. We are not opposed to control but we want fair and reasonable control, and we do not wish to permit outsiders to have authority over our produce. If we overstep the limits and ask too much for our produce, which we produced with difficulty, it is the duty of the Minister and he should have the power to convene the relevant board and to explain that we are doing wrong. Then he ought to intervene. But the Minister came and told us about the beautiful prices now being paid to farmers. It seems to me as if the Minister has not read his own agricultural report. I have in my hand the “Heropbou van Landbou.” I have been informed that the Prime Minister was so pleased with this report that he at once gave instructions for it to be published and executed. It was immediately put on the Table of the House. Permit me in this connection to read a few passages from that report—

And further—

Now the Minister tells us that the farmers are getting such high prices. He forgets about all the increases in production costs. His own agricultural department here says very clearly what the position is. I wish to point out that the Secretary for Agriculture is the chairman of this commission, and they go on to say—

The farmer wants a reasonable existence. He must support his wife and children and he must educate them, and the Secretary for Agriculture adopts the attitude that during all the years the farmer has not received the correct reward for his labour. He states further that many of the farmers’ products “could only be sold at ruinously low prices.” Then they suggest certain methods for improving the position. One of them is control. We on this side also favour control.

Which book are you reading from?

I am reading from the “Heropbou van Landbou.” Amongst the methods which are suggested we find—

1. (a) Assuring the income of farmers by fixing minimum prices.

Let me in passing say something about the position of the potato farmer. The Minister told us that millions of bags of potatoes were washed away last year. I think he has exaggerated a bit. The fact is that farmers planted fewer potatoes because the position in connection with potatoes during the previous year was ruinous to them. We know that potatoes were sold at 1s. 6d. and 2s. per bag on the Cape Town market. The advice of the Minister of Agriculture was that people should feed their pigs and cattle with potatoes. We heard nothing then about minimum prices for potatoes. The Government is only too ready to fix maximum prices. Now we have the same thing again. Already there is a glut of potatoes on the market and what is the result? The farmer must be satisfied with uneconomic prices. The report proceeds—

The Minister told us what difficulty they had with regard to markets and he said: “In Pretoria we have now opened 17 different depôts but we have not the manpower to open depôts in other places. In Pretoria it is a success but we have to make further investigations.” May I just tell the Minister this. In times of emergency one usually adopts emergency measures. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, as Minister of Defence, probably has 100,000 soldiers in this country. Is it not possible under these circumstances to use military lorries and personnel to do this work? Does the Government want people to starve and die? I wish to refer to only one more passage in the report.

What did the farmers tell you in 1928?

Let the hon. member go and crow in the location instead of here.

Tell us what happened to you in your Caucus.

I read here that—

The Commission say that the responsibility vests in each country to see to it that its people have food and that they are healthy. What does the Minister of Agriculture tell us? When the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) asked him to tell us what he is doing, he said: “I will come to it.” But he never came to it; He only said that there was a factory in Natal, in Durban, which canned meat and which factory is now closed, and that the meat is being consumed in Durban. But I also have with me certain figures with reference to exports which I wish to give to the House. The Minister remained in default in giving us those figures. He told us how kind-hearted the neighbouring territories were in sending us meat. But they would not have sent it if they did not receive a good price for it. They received a good price and that is why they sent it here. It was nothing else but a business transaction. But in my hand I have the report of the Director-General of Supplies, Bulletin No. 7, page 10. I do hot think that the figures herein contained can be disputed because it is published by the Director-General of Supplies. He says—

That is for the year 1943—

The Minister therefore says: “Let the people be hungry and become sickly by exporting that necessary food out of the country.” But the Director of Supplies goes further and says the following with reference to the estimate for 1944—

Then we come to meat, which has been exported. It is now being said that meat was not exported. Here are the figures: 1939, 312 tons; 1942, 18,011 tons; 1943, 11,184 tons. The Minister spoke of supplies of butter he is keeping in the country. What does the Director-General of Supplies say? He says that in 1939 we exported 720 tons; in 1942, 14,500 tons and 1943, 10,280 tons. The following quantities of potatoes were exported: 720 tons in 1939, 14,500 tons in 1942, and 10,280 tons in 1943. Is it surprising that we are getting these demonstrations; is it surprising that there is a shortage of food in our own country? The Minister and the Government knew what the requirements of this country are, yet they allowed it. The Prime Minister especially knows that the population of South Africa has never yet gone hungry except once, and that was in the Anglo-Boer war when the women had to queue up to get a bit of food for themselves. We are unfamiliar with things like queueing up to obtain food in South Africa. I say that it was only on that one occasion that women had to queue up, and it is nothing less than a scandal that the women in South Africa must today queue up in the large towns to get meat where there is no meat; and why is there no meat? The Minister quoted figures in an attempt to show that there is no meat. Here I have the McDonald Report. The McDonald Report is quite clear. The Report says that there is an increase every year. They say that the increase is as follows—

Now they proceed—

That is quite clear. I am more inclined to accept this report than to accept the figures given by the Minister. The Minister gave figures of a census taken of cattle and sheep, but we as farmers know how those things are done. It was practically an estimate.

In the first place they did not have the officials and in the second place there was a shortage of police, and practically all they did was to ask the farmers how many cattle and sheep they had. Thus there are animals available for slaughter. The Minister took refuge in the drought. From June to November we had no drought. Therefore he cannot take refuge behind the drought. In that period the women also had to queue up for meat. That is a proof that the prices fixed by the Minister were too low, because in December when he gave a subsidy of 7s. 6d. per 100 lb. for cattle taken to market, there were sufficient animals for slaughter in all the nine controlled areas in the Union. That proves that the whole position is solely due to the fact that the Minister fixed the prices of cattle at too low a figure. The farmers are losing approximately £4 million per annum. The consumer receives not the least benefit from it. Who is receiving the benefit? The benefit of that money of which the farmers are being robbed is going into the hands of the cold storage companies and of the great “combines” who at present practically rule the large butcher. That is the position in South Africa. We as farmers would still have remained quiet if there were a state of emergency and our fellow beings needed help; we would then have accepted a reduced price. But when we see that the consumer is not paying a reduced price, I think that we on this side of the House have the right to register the strongest protest against the policy adopted by the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture has been weighed and found wanting. The Minister of Agriculture tried to be obstinate. I just want to tell him this. He is faced with an Opposition which can stand up for itself, and the Minister of Agriculture will still bump his head hard against this Opposition, which is strong, not only as an Opposition but because it has the support of the public outside, as will be demonstrated at the next election. Once again I wish to say that I hope it will be the last time that we in this House must protest against the fact that the Minister who should be present during a debate of this nature, has not the courtesy to be here. I want to give this advice to the Minister of Agriculture. He can take a lesson from the Minister of Finance. Although we differ from the Minister of Finance he has always tried to treat us with courtesy whenever there is a debate in this House which has reference to his Department. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will also do so in future. I hope he will see to it that that swelling of his head will diminish a little and that he will descend to a level where he can be in touch with his own people and where he will not be a fugitive amongst his own people. Today he has to run,

From the women.

It is surprising for a change, Mr. Speaker, to find the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) nursing the Communist menace to his bosom.

Do you say he is nursing you?

He is not nursing me to his bosom; God forbid! I understood during these last few Sessions that the hon. member considered the Communist Party one of the greatest dangers and Communist propaganda one of the biggest menaces to the country. This afternoon we have had a demonstration going on for hours now outside the House, and it is being addressed solely by leaders of the local Communist Party. They are being addressed by Mrs. Sacks, a member of the City Council. I find the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has agreed on behalf of the Nationalist Party to admit into the House these starving housewives of the Union of South Africa. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad, the ex-rebel the ex-Minister of Agriculture, the jointleader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, the sworn enemy of everything that has the taint of Communism, now merely to use it as a stick to beat the Government with, is prepared even to nurse this Communist viper to his bosom. That, I say, is very typical of the Nationalist Party as a whole. I want to say this that my colleague yesterday put forward the Labour point of view in reference to what has become known as the meat muddle which has been described as alarming. We did at least advocate a solution and give constructive proposals. I notice that the demonstrators outside number somewhere between 30 and 40, so I infer from that that the housewives, even the housewives of Cape Town, which is undoubtedly suffering from the severe meat shortage, have not come to the stage where they are prepared to come out and actively demonstrate. I believe that throughout the country the average housewife and the average individual who is prepared to see the war through, realises there is a definite meat shortage in the Union. They are prepared to make sacrifices, and they have indeed made sacrifices, but they are rapidly coming to the conclusion that there is maldistribution of the foodstuffs that are available. We do not say that has anything to do with various sins on the part of the Government, but it is due to inefficiency of the machinery the Government has set up to do this distribution; and that brings me to the motion—I want to develop that theme shortly. The motion of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a very cleverly worded motion; it is a very cleverly worded motion indeed, and if the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition had put it before us as cleverly as he worded it beforehand, then he might have indulged in a really first-class debate.

But, of course, economics are not the strong suit of the Leader of the Opposition and one could sense that he was blundering all the way, and when he proceeded to read out the Nationalist Party economic programme there was nobody more surprised than himself. There was a moment when he almost dropped it in digust or astonishment, I don’t know which; it was a mixture of both. The motion differs from the motions we have had in the last five war years from the hon. gentleman Previously we have had to listen to stories about Hitler winning the war.

It is time you dropped that.

No, I propose to carry on with this theme, and for some considerable time too. After more than five years of the kind of behaviour we have had from hon. members in the Opposition benches, they suddenly come to us and tell us to forget about it. Well, there are the dependants of those 1,500 South Africans who have been killed in this war, and it will take them a very very long time to forget and to forgive politicians of their description.

They will never forgive them.

After several years of this kind of stuff from the Opposition ….

What about the women and children? The Boer women and children in the Boer War?

Yes, you don’t mind bringing that up time and time again. We have listened to it many times. Now you will have to listen too. You will have to listen to a bit of your own stuff. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition comes along here and after five years of that kind of stuff [Interruptions]. I shall continue my speech in my own way and you can make your speech in your way. You are not going to shout me down. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along here with a face as bold as brass, with no sign of a contrite heart, no sign of a penitent sinner. He moves a motion which he says is a motion of censure of the Government for its laxity in various ways, and he has the political effrontery to suggest, after the five years record he has in this country, that he and his party are a possible alternative government. I say that this is complete political effrontery. In other words, he says in effect, “I have been a bad boy” …. The inference is there—“for the last five years I have been in at least tacit agreement with the effort to sabotage the Union’s war effort ….

Were you not one of the bad boys?

Oh no, I was one of those boys who had fair hair and blue eyes, even though the colour is not quite right.

You fancy your looks.

Well, at any rate I wouldn’t mind entering into competition with my hon. friend. In fact, I would not even mind putting my artificial leg into the competition.

Get on with the motion.

If you want me to get on with the motion, tell your friends behind here to make more intelligent interjections. After the kind of thing we have had from the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, he comes here and without the slightest vestige of regret of any description-having done his very best to see that South Africa was more or less conquered by the Hitler menace during the war years he comes here and he has the audacity to suggest that he knows better than the Government which has guided South Africa so successfully through those years, that he knows better how to run South Africa in the days of peace. That is the suggestion of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am quite sure it is not the suggestion which the people of South Africa are likely to accept; and this resolution was framed in order to embarrass those of us who, according to the Leader of the Opposition, have had the temerity to criticise this Government during the recess. I think the Minister of Demobilisation made the point very well, and it is a point which should be continuously rubbed in, when he told the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the Nationalist Party, and the Nationalist Party leaders particularly had been so busy doing other things during those war years, fighting, for instance with the Ossewabrandwag ….

And the Broederbond.

You don’t fight for the Broederbond. They have absorbed you. You take your order from the Broederbond. [Interruptions]. Yes, you take your orders from them, and you don’t know who they are. We know who they are, and if you knew who you were taking your orders from you would be disgusted. But as the hon. the Minister told the Leader of the Opposition the other day, the Nationalist Party has been so busy doing other things of that description, that they have had no time to fulfil their proper function as His Majesty’s Opposition. I thought that might have evoked something, but apparently not. So the job of the Opposition in this country has had to be undertaken by the members who support the Government, and I think we are to be congratulated—it is not often I metaphorically pat myself on the back but I think we ought to be congratulated on the fact that not only have we supplied the Government in those years, but we have supplied the Opposition as well, and our criticism has been useful and carfeul and constructive criticism, and it has in many cases resulted in defects being remedied, being applied where necessary in the future. The Labour Party, Mr. Speaker, is never satisfied with the speed of social progress. We would not be a Labour Party if we were satisfied. We would not be a Labour Party if we believed that social measures could not be brought into effect immediately, and it has always been our policy, our short-term policy in this House as a Parliamentary party, to press for any social measures we could gain from the Government of the day in the quickest possible time. We have continued to do that during the war, and our criticism of the Government—where we have criticised the Government—has been open and frank, and we have never been prohibited from voicing it. We criticise openly, and our criticism is mainly criticism of urgency. We disagree when it is said that social security will take ten or twenty or thirty years to achieve. We believe it can be brought into force in much less time than that. We disagree with the policy that says that houses must be built gradually; we believe they must be built now and in large numbers. We cannot disagree when it is stated there is a shortage of food in this country, and we are sensible enough to know why there is a shortage of food. But we have a feeling that the distribution of food has not been carried out in the best possible manner, and so we have pressed the Government from time to time to introduce a Ministry of Food which would relieve the Minister of Agriculture from having to meet the sabotaging Nationalist farmers on the one hand ….

Do you think that all farmers are Nationalists?

I know very well that all farmers are not Nationalists, but most of the Nationalists in this House are farmers. I do not consider it a term of opprobrium to call anyone a farmer. Whether the opprobrium lies in the term “Nationalist farmer” I don’t know. I am satisfied that the Minister of Agriculture was perfectly correct when he said that one of his difficulties as the Minister responsible for food control was that no matter what he did the large Nationalist farmers, I call them landowners, do their best to sabotage every scheme that the Minister introduces or is likely to introduce.

That is not so.

I am not prepared to take the hon. member’s word that that is not so. I know my country as well as he does, and I know it is so. The Minister is a responsible individual and he does not make accusations unless he is well posted. I have no ministerial responsibility, and I say here and now that a certain number of farmers with Nationalist feelings did their best in rhe early stages to sabotage the Government’s meat scheme, and I am satisfied they will do their best to sabotage every scheme introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. They are trying to foment discontent. Their view is that any stick is good enough to beat the Government with. We know that they have no constructive policy, and that they have a puerile, miserable cowardly war record to live down. That will take them years, so anything that they can get hold of is good enough to elaborate into wickedness perpetrated by the Government.

On a point of order, I have listened for a long time to insulting and personal accusations. Are we to sit here and listen to all this? May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the rules of the House allow and whether you allow a member like that to accuse members on this side of the House of being a lot of cowardly people, etc.? Are we to tolerate that?

The hon. member must not accuse other hon. members of cowardice.

I did not accuse any member of cowardliness. I said it was a cowardly policy.

You said “cowardly record.” You did not say “cowardly policy.”

I suggest that I am entitled in this House to refer to a policy as being cowardly or not.

It has been previously ruled that it is not in order to use offensive words against a political party which reflect upon members of the House.

I trust that that will be remembered when we hear some of the Nationalist Party’s words on other questions. I now want to deal for a moment or two with the alleged economic policy of the Nationalist Party. We are asked to support a motion which expresses disapproval of the laxness and incompetence shown by the Government in connection with the production of food, as well as the rejection of the fundamental principles of the National Health Commission, and generally with the state of unpreparedness for tackling the post-war problems, and contra we are given the Nationalist Party’s economic policy which we are asked to adopt. By inference, at least, we are asked to say that the Nationalist Party can solve these problems of the post-war world. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish here and now to challenge the sincerity of the Nationalist Party’s economic policy.

Tell us about your whiskey.

Is an hon. member allowed to make a remark like that about another hon. member? The hon. member is asking to tell us about his whiskey.

I don’t see anything unparliamentary about that.

There is definitely something unparliamentry about it and that is the scarcity of it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge the sincerity of the economic policy of the Nationalist Party as expounded in their printed document and the extracts read by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan), and I want to challenge it mainly from this point, namely that where it is alleged to be an economic policy it is only a policy which covers the European population of this country. It takes no cognisance of the Non-Europeans who form the majority of the population of this country. It still considers these people as servants, as perpetual hewers of wood and drawers of water, and when the Hon. Leader of the Opposition classifies the policy as Social Security I have another name for it. I want to quote two passages from Hansard to prove my point. Last year the hon. Minister of Finance introduced the Pensions Amendment Bill which contains provisions whereby old age pensions could be paid to natives, and finally to natives in the reserves, and during the debate on that Bill, we heard the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), who, I Understand, is the joint deputy-leader of the Nationalist Party, and may one day by the leader of the Party. We heard his statements to this effect, with reference to pensions paid to natives—

That is his statement and I do not want to enlarge on it, but in the Committee stage he went further and said what the policy of the Nationalist Party is. He did not mention that beautifully framed economic policy which was so tentatively read out by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition the other day, but he enunciated their policy nevertheless, and that is the policy which you have listened to in this House for many years—

The whole trend of the hon. member’s speech was to this effect, that if you pay the natives this old age pension, and they only get the pensions when they are 65, they will stop working. What is the Nationalist Party farmer going to do? But the age is 65, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Waterberg is still afraid that if natives are paid a pension at 65 they will stop working. That is precisely why the pension is being paid to them. The whole policy of the hon. member for Waterberg is, do not give the native, or the non-European, for that matter, anything at all. The whole policy of this party is: do not give them anything at all because if you give them anything in the line of social security they will become less amenable drawers of water and hewers of wood, which will suit this party. Having enunciated that policy time after time in this House, they have the audacity to bring before us a policy drawn up, I believe, by a crowd of university professors and to suggest to us that they are a possible alternative to the existing Government and that as an alternative Government they could give us a measure of social security which the present Government could not. But we know that this is nonsense. We know there is no possibility of any social security being given to us by the Nationalist Party. We have had the Leader of the Opposition in the Cabinet for many years. I have still to hear of any social security measures which he advocated. He was Minister of Public Health. I have still to hear that he took any steps to bring into effect something which in this resolution he is now crying for. I have still to hear of any social security measure which could be laid at the door of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He was a Cabinet Minister and the record of his party when he was a Cabinet Minister is one long record of retrogressive legislation.

That is not so.

I challenge you. There is the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, and above all the great iron and steel industry which has been such a salvation during this war. They all resulted from the Labour Party. There is no doubt about that. I will admit that the Prime Minister fought the iron and steel industry tooth and nail, but today I am satisfied that he is alive to the error of his ways.

For what was the Labour Party responsible?

We are not Responsible to you, thank God. You know what measures have been brought into the House because of the influence of the Labour Party. I need only quote the Rent Act.

And the Wage Act.

Quite apart from any Act introduced into this country the Minister of Agriculture showed clearly that one of the reasons why food is becoming scarce in this country is because of the increased income of the lower wage group, mainly the natives, which allows them to buy more of the essential foodstuffs. I understand that the consumption of sugar alone has gone up by 100,000 tons in the last year, and the increase is very considerable in the urban areas. How much it is per head I do not know. But all this has been caused by the Minister of Labour through the usual departmental machinery of his Department. But I want to make this point about the Nationalist Party and its economic policy. I think a few years ago the Nationalist Party was a purely rural Party, a Party which depended for its support almost exclusively on the country districts of the Union. It concentrated, I will not say on the backveld, because that has become almost a term of opprobrium, which should not be used, but I say that the Party depended primarily on support from the country districts. In those days there was no necessity for it to have an economic policy. It relied in those days on its racialism, pure and unalloyed. Since then there has been large migration of people from the country districts to the urban areas, and we now find that in the larger urban areas there are numerous thousands and thousands of Afrikaans-speaking workers in the factories, etc. The Nationalists have now decided that they can continue to survive only by getting a measure of support in the urban areas and so they have had to adopt what they are pleased to call an economic policy; and it is the queerest mixture in the world because they are trying to reconcile an economic policy which might catch the eye, or catch the ear, of the worker in the town, with another policy which is little less than feudalism, and which has been their standby in the country districts for so many years. In other words, they are trying to reconcile the interests of their rich farmers ….

Where are the rich farmers?

I am not talking about you. If you will just keep quiet a bit I will finish quicker. Mr. Speaker, they are trying to reconcile an economic policy designed to catch not so much the ear but the vote of the Afrikaansspeaking worker in the town, with another policy, which is designed to continue to keep the feudal landlords of the Nationalist Party on their farms, and to continue enabling them to bludgeon the Government into giving them subsidies; and as far as I can see these two things do not match. They are politically dishonest. The one contradicts the other because it is impossible to represent at one and the same time the poor workers in the factories of Johannesburg and Germiston and also the rich farmer who reaps a crop of 30 or 40 thousand bags.

Now where do you get that from?

I know that that does happen. The hon. member has always been intolerant. If he pretends that he is not poor he will probably become rich, but if he continues to say he is poor, one of these days someone will take him at his word and will not lend him any more money. So, Sir, the Nationalist Party is trying to square the circle and I want to say to the House, apart from any other consideration, that we should disallow this motion of the Leader of the Opposition and treat it with a certain amount of mild amusement, because there is no possibility of any measure of social security whatever emanating from a Party which has always been reactionary. It prides itself on being reactionary. This Party hates the very name of liberalism, and the very name of labour, and of socialism, and it hates anyone who is in the slightest degree Communistic. Radicalism they have not heard about yet, but someone will look it up for them one day and then they will hate that also. This Party is opposed to everything in the nature of an enlightened advance and fights it tooth and nail. They are determined to stand by their reaction. Look at the questions placed on the Order Paper by them. They want to put all the Jews out of the country. They agree with the Dominionites that the Indians should be chased Into the Sea. They hate the Britishers because they do not think they should be here at all. I have listened to the speeches very carefully and I have gathered the impression that the only terms on which the Nationalists are prepared to accept anyone who is a Britisher, as a South African in this country is if they are prepared to accept the Nationalist Party dogma itself, something very unlikely to happen in the case of any Britisher; so we can only assume that they do not want us to be here. They hate the colpureds and the native is looked upon as a perpetual drawer of water and hewer of wood. What can we expect? I do not think the country should be deluded by a resolution of this description. I do not think the country is going to be deluded by the self-spoken economic words of the Leader of the Nationalist Party.

What about the hungry people outside?

There were many poor and hungry people before. You are always talking about the “volk” but what did they ever do for the “wolk”? They will do anything to get the status increased but if the “volk” asks for bread, they only get a discourse on higher status and politics. I want to say that the Nationalist Party can do something, if they wish to assist this country in achieving some measure of social security, and that is by giving up the policy they have been pursuing for so many years. I doubt whether South Africa can ever come to what I may call full economic majority as long as we have this country divided; and as long as our own bloodstream is being poisoned by questions of racial differences so long will our progress be retarded and so long will South Africa be a country holding out so many promises which are never achieved. At one stage I gathered from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that he wanted to make peace with the Prime Minister. No, doubt the Nationalists are now becoming afraid of the Ossewa-Brandwag and are looking for friends.

Nonsense.

Oh yes, they are frightened of them. But they can make their contribution. When however we listen to the Leader of the Opposition on a discussion such as this and he tries to formulate an economic policy, we come to the conclusion that they have a complete lack of practice in dealing with the economics of South Africa. I want to say that there can be no full social security while we have to spend so much of our time in this country discussing and deciding these racial squabbles. I must say that it is going to take the Nationalist Party very many years to live down what they have done in the past five years. Their war record, their speeches, their motions, their actions even, will stick in the gullets of the loyal part of the population of the country for many years to come. They have to make up their minds, if they really desire some form of social security, and if they really mean even a half of what is stated in this particular resolution, to cooperate. In other words, if they want to see the people properly fed—and that is not merely a question of a temporary wartime shortage—if they want to see a full national health insurance scheme and an effective programme for the post-war world, they should play their part in attaining these things, but they cannot play their part in attaining these things by entering this House and moving a vote of censure in the existing Government whom for five years they have fought and whose every effort they tried to frustrate. But they can try to bring social security to this country when they discard once and for all this racial antagonism, this inculcation of racial hate, which is part and parcel of their policy.

I do not wish this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to plead the merits of any particular party. I want to make my plea on behalf of the people in this country, eleven million people. I want to direct that plea to all parties in this House, and in particular to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of this country. The main theme in the motion proposed by the member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) is that the Government has been neglectful in its economic planning, in its social security plan, for this country. I think we should try, first of all, to get the right perspective in these matters. I believe members of this House will agree with me when I say that the main characteristic of the last Session of this Parliament was the attention given to social construction in this country. I have in mind the passing of the Housing Act, a magnificient instrument, if it were only used courageously. I have in mind also the Act sponsored by the Minister of Labour, the War Workers and Soldiers’ Employment Act. Then we have the Public Service (Military Service) Act. We had in addition to that valuable improvements in the Military Pensions Act. Then for the first time in the history of this country Old Age Pensions were provided for Natives and Indians. We must remember also that the school feeding scheme, and nutritional services, were greatly extended. These are all valuable social security measures. They are milestones on the road to social security. But I think the best thing that occurred in this Session last year was on the 6th February, when the Prime Minister of this country stood up in this House and gave, what in effect was a pledge, a promise, to our people that a social security programme was about to be implemented. It was a great joy to many of us. We felt that at last South Africa was going forward to a planned economy. These were the Prime Minister’s words, when he charged the Select Committee to go into what was the most important question raised in the last Session, namely social security for all our people: “This House has to be associated with this great reform, one of the greatest this country has ever embarked upon.” He added: “The principle is agreed to; the details now require to be worked out.” These were courageous words, full of great promise for our people. Now, Sir, what was the reform to which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister referred on that occasion? It was, in effect, the modified plan of social security as formulated by the Social and Economic Planning Council. Concerning that plan the Prime Minister used these words: “They (i.e. the Planning Council) bring forward a more limited programme which is to come into force a couple of years hence, in 1947, and which I think, ought to be within the capacity of this country to carry, and all that is wanted now is to formulate the details of this measure correctly and carefully so that we can start within a couple of years, as soon as the machinery has been created.” I, and other hon. members of this House, accepted that plan, as a pledge to the people of South Africa, as an irrevocable pledge. I believe, if my experience throughout the country is worth anything, that the vast masses of the people expect that this plan will be the basis of legislation during this Session. What is the plan, the modified plan of the Planning Council? Briefly it aimed at raising our expenditure on education (I give approximate figures) from £12½ million to £17½ million a year. It called for increased expenditure on our National Health Services from £4 million to £10 million a year. It recommended a social insurance programme involving £16,000,000 a year. This figure was raised to £19 odd millions in terms of the recommendations of the Select Committee. It visualised national nutritional services for the country to cost £8½ million. Summed up this means a programme of social security involving £52 millions a year. Now, as I have listened to this debate, to all sides of the House, I have grave doubts in my mind as to whether that programme is going to be implemented. A few days ago I asked the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister a question regarding the Government’s intentions; and the answer to the question was that a White Paper would be placed on the Table of the House dealing with the Government’s plans for social security. I accept that answer; but I accept it in the sense that in whatever programme the White Paper gives, the practical measures for the carrying out of the programme I have just outlined will be included. That would be a reasonable social security plan to start with. That, I believe, would satisfy the longings of the masses of our people. But I have my doubts, as I have said; and my doubts are based on the cool reception that the report, the magnificent report of the National Health Services Commission, has received. If the White Paper which is to be placed on the Table of the House is an anaemic document, then the country is going to be grievously disappointed; and it is going to declare that the Government has not kept its promised word to our people. Now, Sir, what do our people want? What do they mean when they say they want social security? In the first place they want a major advance in education, such an advance as will remove the volume of illiteracy and inefficiency which is making our full productivity impossible in South Africa. This extract I now wish to read summarises the necessary education programme. I quote now from the “Outlines of Reconstruction” a Government document issued towards the end of last year—

Then in regard to health, our people are asking for national health services, free or based on some form of national health insurance, so that the services of the doctor and the nurse and the hospital and the dentist and the chemist will be free to every family in the country. Here again I wish to quote from the same document—

Remember, Sir, that this is a Government document. So also do our people want adequate nutritional services. As the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) have both made clear to this House, they want planned production of the people’s food, so that adequate regular supplies will come into every home and at prices which will enable families to buy a sufficiency; and at the same time they want adequate security for the producers. Our people know there are a multitude of control boards. They realise that the great need is a co-ordinating authority; in effect, they want a food ministry. The Government’s Nutrition Council is in favour of a food ministry. The Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industry are in favour of it. Why, even the Social and Economic Planning Council has recommended a food ministry. That is the suggestion in one of their reports. I want to read an extract from Report No. 2—

Mr. Speaker, no government claiming to be democratic can continue to deny the will of the people for a food ministry. It should be borne in mind that the demand for a food ministry comes from the repression of more than 100,000 urban families; repression due (I say it deliberately) to lack of financial vision and financial courage in this country.

If we had had that vision we would have pegged our prices, our wages, our costs and our profits in the early days of the war. If there had been financial courage we would have stopped the making of colossal war profits, the one main cause of inflationary tendencies.

For that reason (because of inflation) the Government must take responsibility for the submergence of vast numbers of our people below the level of human decency. I quote here from a document, from the report of the commission appointed to enquire into the operation of bus services for non-Europeans on the Rand, to show how masses of our people have been driven below the line of decent human living. This report dealing with the effect of inflation on the family budgets, states—

Mealie meal 90 per cent.; meat 100 per cent.; sugar 88.8 per cent.; tea 126 per cent.; milk (used increasingly) 50 per cent.; an average increase of 91 per cent. This, as hon. members will have noted, is not imported inflation. The same report points out (and this is the gap, this is the inflationary gap, that has to be bridged) that the average income of a native worker on the Rand including the cost of living allowances, and the earnings of the wife, come to £10 a month, whereas the minimum amount required to maintain the family in decency is £13 a month. That is the position of the families of the majority of our nation. The solution of our post-war problems does not lie, as the hon. member for Fordsburg has well said, in reaction, represented as it is to a large extent, by the front benches in this House; does not lie in going back to the 1939 conditions and outlook. Nor does it lie in a smug amorphous liberalism with its soporific policy of “wait and see, watch and pray”! It lies in this, in acceding to the people’s will, in planning as New Zealand and Australia and Russia have planned, a full life of opportunity, of health and of well-paid work for the common man. In their social security plan our people want a system of social insurance. They want, from the humblest native to the richest man in the country, the right to contribute to a system of social insurance which will enable them to provide against the contingencies of life and to build up assets which will ensure them independence and comfort in old age. They want, in fact, a guaranteed family income. In 1944 a draft Social Insurance Bill appeared; it was sent to a Select Committee. The Select Committee on that draft Bill reported. Now we are to have a White Paper. In this matter of social insurance, legislation is desperately urgent. I would add further, to round off the national scheme, that in our planning for social security we should use, without delay and to capacity, the splendid instrument of the new Housing Act; that is, we should go in for a housing plan with the same urgency as a matter of national emergency, as we are conducting the war against the Nazis. I plead too for a speeding up, for more sympathetic administration, for more earnestness in the application of the splendid demobilisation plans which we have today, still mainly in memoranda. I have now outlined the social security plan our people want. That will supply their minimum needs. I appeal to the Prime Minister today to see that before this Session lifts, some very definite efforts will be made to make that plan a reality in economics and legislation. The people believe that a policy like that, an expansionist economic policy, will develop our markets to an amazing degree, comparable to the internal market we now have as a result of our war economy. They believe that if these markets are developed, if consuming power is maintained, if we do not allow our national income to fall because we want to balance our budget, we can secure productivity on a big scale; raise the standard of living; and promote human happiness amongst all sections of our people. I want to quote, if I may, some remarkable words by one of the most successsful Ministers in the British Commonwealth, the man who led England to success in regard to her food organisations, and in that way fitted her to carry the colossal war enterprise. I refer to Lord Woolton, the present Minister of Reconstruction in the British Cabinet. Speaking of the £650,000,000 social security plan accepted; in principle by the House of Commons, he said—

Alongside this I give a quotation from one of our own papers under the heading “Turning over offal”. It is a sorry story that can be repeated in all our urban centres—

And now, to indicate what can be, I conclude by quoting the noble words of our own Prime Minister when he said—

I now plead with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that this magnificent vision will be translated into economic, physical and administrative realities in this country. I assure him that, if he will do that and take the first really comprehensive steps towards social security for our people during this Session, he will get the support, the enthusiastic support, I am sure, of every man and women of goodwill in this House and in the country. Behind him then the masses of our people will stand.

I shall not say much in regard to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. I only want to ask him since when he has the right to throw any doubt on the Government’s intentions. After hearing the speeches of the various Ministers in this House, he chose to doubt their word, and I do not think he has the slightest right to do so. If he is in earnest in regard to the cause he pleads, he ought not to make enemies if he wants to win his case. What he has done here, has been to cast a doubt on the Government’s word, and that is certainly not the correct way of promoting his case. I should like to make a few remarks in regard to the speech of my hon. friend, the member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He made a few accusations against the Minister of Agriculture. He accused him of having disappeared and fled. Where is the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) today? Does the hon. member not know that there is an exhibition at Robertson? I am merely putting the question. If the Minister of Agriculture went to the exhibition, does it necessarily follow that he fled? I am only asking this. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad ought to have known of this. He got up, however, and tried to defend certain persons who held a demonstration outside. That reminds me that some years ago a certain woman, Mrs. Gool, was also defended by the Leader of the Opposition. We saw the demonstration outside and we saw who the leaders were. During the last election we heard a great deal from hon. members On the other side about Communism. They said the Government was giving the Communists a free hand, and now we find them defending those people. Nevertheless we know that during the election they said throughout the country that the Government was assisting the Communists with their propaganda.

Where did he defend Mrs. Gool?

He defended these people outside, and in doing so he admitted that they were right and that the Government was wrong. He is helping the people outside. But we have become accustomed to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad doing a certain thing today and doing exactly the opposite tomorrow. I remember that in 1939 when the House adjourned, he undertook a journey to his constituency, Wolmaransstad. There he told his constituents that the hon. member for Ermelo, at that time Col.-Commdt. Collins, has said that we had cause for anxiety in regard to our products. He was not concerned about the products of this country however. All he wanted was a Republic for South Africa. That was all the wanted. What did we hear from the same hon. member today?

I did not put it in that way.

Does the hon. member want to deny that he said that at Wolmaransstad?

Do not distort my remarks.

There was another member present as well, and we know what happened there. He has now forgotten all those things, and he tells us that the desire to establish a Republic is still in their blood and that we will never get it out. He forgets however what he said when he was a Minister of the Crown. He said that those were all things of the past.

That is not true.

He said very clearly that he had forgotten those things. He had forgotten that narrow-minded attitude in regard to a Republic; he had become an advocate of co-operation, a man who wanted the co-operation of the English-speaking section of the population to build up this country.

That is not true.

He forgets those things. But as the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) said these are things which the public will not forget. Then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad savs that the Government is taking to flight! The hon. member has so often seen people fleeing that one can hardly understand how his judgment can be so wrong! I will remember the year 1940 when the hon. member and his friends opposite told us that we were resorting to flight. They spoke about Dunkirk and said that we were fleeing. Have they also forgotten that?

There we have the war drum again.

Yes, the members opposite would like to forget it, but we shall rub it in as long as we can.

Why do you confuse the position with war sentiment?

The hon. member feels jumpy, but let him listen for a while because he is still going to hear a great deal about it.

Yes, but it is becoming a little monotonous.

We on this side of the House have a duty to discharge, and that is to show how the so-called leaders on the other side constantly change their policy, only to abandon it again, so that the public can realise that they are bound to depart from the policy which they are announcing at present. The hon. member wants to get out of it now, but he will not succeed. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that they were not against control boards. Let him tell me which control board he has not attacked as yet; let him mention a single control board which he has not violently attacked. He complained of the position in connection with eggs, in connection with butter, in connection with mealies, meat etc., etc. I do not know whether he complained about wheat, but I think so. If he has the interests of agriculture at heart he should not do so, because I happen to know that at first he also adopted that policy.

I did not complain about the Tobacco Board and the K.W.V.

That would be two then, and I concede it. Let me go back to 1940. If we look at the Hansard report we will see what the speech of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was. He now says that the Minister of Agriculture should have known that there were shortages and that he should not have allowed mealies, meat and all those things to be exported. But in that year he complained that the Government was not doing what it is doing now. This is nothing but a complete somersault in connection with serious matters of policy in this country. No, the members of the Opposition are engaged in exploiting agriculture for political purposes on a bigger scale than we have ever known in this country. Politics are dragged into it throughout the country and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is one of the greatest sinners in that respect. I want to mention an example of that. We are trying to keep politics out of these boards.

Say that again.

And what about all the people whom you kicked out?

The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) should be the last person to doubt my word. He must know what happened to the boards and co-operative societies in his district. What happened at Ventersdorp when there was an election of members for the Board of the co-operative society? What advice did the hon. member give the people? Vote Nationalist !

You took off the gloves.

That is what he did. Let me ask those hon. members how many members of this side they retained on the boards.

Must you have the sole right to do these things?

The public should have the full right to elect the people.

When you do it, then it is in order.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said the Minister of Agriculture should conserve the surpluses so that there would be food in the country in times of shortages. In this connection I want to put a question to any member on the other side who is a member of a co-operative society. I am putting this to the farmers on the other side, and not to the other members, whether it has not always been the policy of the co-operative societies that we should export our surpluses. We have always said that we ought to dispose of our surpluses, so that we could start the year with a clean sheet with a view to getting better prices. The hon. member says he is fighting for the farmers. Which co-operative society has ever adopted the policy that surpluses should be conserved?

We are not living in normal times.

I am not speaking about normal times, but of the policy I want to ask the hon. member which cooperative society has ever adopted the policy that surpluses should be conserved? We must remember that after the war we shall again have to export. There are people oversea who were our friends, and who normally took our products. We cannot leave those people in the lurch now, if at some future date we want them to take our products again. We should do our best to supply them, as we did last year, for example, in the case of Rhodesia, because the time will come when we shall need them again. The hon. member complained that we were exporting to help other people, and he said we were leaving our own people without food. On whose behalf did we allow that food to be exported—beef, fruit, condensed milk and all those other things?

Not only for the soldiers.

Not only for the soldiers. But there is also such a thing as exchange. Our soldiers sometimes got food from other parts and we had to contribute our share in providing them with food. Who has the greater right to the food of South Africa than the soldiers of South Africa?

Why then is the Minister ashamed to tell the public that?

I am not ashamed to say it. The hon. member will not deny that our people oversea were fed. We cannot expect to get food for them from other countries. Our food was required for our soldiers who contributed to the victories at places like El Alamein, and who were able to do so because they obtained wholesome food.

That is your excuse.

Does the hon. member want to ridicule El Alamein, just as he ridiculed the soldier who ran away like a kaffir? He ought to be ashamed of himself and keep quiet. That would be very much better for him. I say that the food question is being exploited for political purposes as never before. We find throughout the country that people who are represented by hon. members on the other side are doing their best to get everything out of the war—the highest prices and everything else. They avail themselves of the services of every Italian prisoner of war whom they can get hold of. They want all the profits, but they do not want to make any sacrifices.

Why then did you not go and fight?

I have explained to them on a previous occasion that I think I was one of the very first to offer my services to go and fight, and I am still prepared to do so. I did not take shelter behind the excuse that I am opposed to the war. If the country calls me, whatever government may be in power in this country, if the country requires my services in the event of war, I shall answer that call.

You ought to know it yourself; why wait until there is an appeal?

We are discussing all these things of which members on the other side have accused us. Listening to hon. members on the other side one would say that this Government has done nothing at all for our farmers.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members say “Hear, hear!” I suppose there are no farmers in their districts. I want to put this question to hon. members on the other side: When last were the farmers in this country as prosperous as they are are today ? I am not speaking of the drought, but of today?

Are you speaking of the labour question?

When were the farmers as well-to-do as they are today?

Add something to the water you are drinking.

The hon. member will not get me to say what I would like to say, water or no water. I say we can take all these years, and we will find that the farmers, generally speaking, are more prosperous today than they have ever been. Is that simply because the Opposition brought them that prosperity? Did the Opposition bring it to them?

Of course.

Mock prosperity.

Has this Government never helped the farmers? Take the prices which were fixed for butter, cheese, potatoes. Did those prices cause the farmers to become insolvent?

What did you fix—minimum prices or maximum prices?

The hon. member reminds me again of the man who profiteers out of Italian prisoners of war. He asks whether we fixed minimum or maximum prices. The hon. member should take the advice of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He ought to think of the public; he should not only think of filling his own pockets. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad spoke on behalf of his whole Party. He says they are not there to profiteer; they are prepared to take the public into consideration. After 1939 those hon. members were the first to tell us that they wanted the Government to take steps to ensure that no one profiteered. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) was the strongest advocate of that action. And today?

Who is profiteering today?

Only the farmers.

You are getting a double salary today which you did not get previously. Who is profiteering?

Are you accusing the farmers of profiteering?

I did not say that.

Who is profiteering then?

Apparently the hon. member does not know what profiteering is. I say this Government has taken certain steps against those who profiteer, and especially those who profiteer in foodstuffs. I do hot say that the farmers as such have profiteered—not all of them—but I say that if some of them were allowed to do what they would have liked to do, there would have been profiteering on an unprecedented scale.

The farmers will make mince meat of you.

The hon. member complained about everything; he complained of the canned tinned food and all those things. He went on to say that certain people were dying of hunger as a result of the food scarcity in this country. He says a number of children have already succumbed to hunger.

Do you deny that there is a food scarcity?

They are undernourished.

You admit that, at any rate?

I do not dispute that there is undernourishment. But I wonder whether this slight shortage which exists today has brought the people more suffering than in 1929 when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister. The position was so serious that everyone wanted to chase him out of the country, and the farmers retrogressed more in those days than in our whole history. Where was the hon. member for Wolmaransstad?

Why do you not speak the truth? I was Minister from 1924 to 1939. It seems to me you are dreaming.

I am speaking of the time when the hon. member gave the farmers 3s. 6d. for their mealies and told them to be satisfied with it. I am speaking of that time, if the hon. member wants me to be more specific. The hon. member accuses the Minister of Agriculture of untruthfulness, he says that the cattle are not being sent to the market because there was a terrible drought from June to August.

There was no drought at that time.

But my hon. friend knows that in Pongola where he farms, no farmer could drive his cattle to the market; every blade of grass had been devoured.

That is untrue.

I was there, and let me tell you this. The hon. member may possibly be an exception.

I think you are an exception.

The grass on the hon. member’s farm may have been short.

I think you are an exception.

If I were to be an exception in any community in which that hon. member moves, I would be pleased. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad says that was not the position. I am speaking of that whole area—the whole Transvaal. There the grass position was such that there was no suitable grass for the cattle. Ask the officials of the Department of Agriculture; ask anyone with some knowledge of the matter and you will ascertain what the position was. I am not speaking of exceptions where the grass was not devoured to the roots.

That is untrue.

It is easy to say it is untrue. I know what I am talking about. I bought cattle on a farm adjoining the hon: member’s farm.

Did you not see me there?

The hon. member was there on holiday.

I was farming on my farm.

I bought cattle there for myself. I also have a farm there and I know what the position is.

Did you speculate and profiteer?

Are you a speculator?

Complaints have been made here that the Minister of Agriculture found it necessary to grant a permit for cattle to be brought to the market in December. I am sorry the hon. Minister is not here at the moment. In my turn I want to ask him to adopt the same policy again. I feel it is absolutely essential for us to build up a reserve of meat for the coming winter.

That is exactly what we say.

He should adopt a policy of giving permits for meat; that will result in the meat being brought to the market, not because the cattle are fat, but the position is that if it does not rain in the Transvaal within a few days, there will be no meat to bring to the market. We must build up a reserve before the position becomes more serious in the winter months. There is only one further point to which the hon. member referred, and that is the establishment of a separate Ministry of Food. I hope this Government will never adopt the course of creating a separate Ministry of Food. On the contrary I hope the Government will appoint a Minister of Distribution, a Minister who can see to it, once the farmer has brought his products to the market, that those products are delivered to the consumer. That might be done perhaps. That work of distribution could be handed over to a Minister. Moreover the farmers will be satisfied with that. I think I have now replied to all the points which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad raised. I just want to say this to him. He could render the country a very much greater service than by having a picnic at the expense of the Minister of Agriculture at a time when we find ourselves in critical circumstances which no one can control, namely the drought which afflicts the country. Hon. members on the other side are making capital out of the drought because they are making political progress ….

Disgraceful.

Shame on you.

I do not say all of them but there are some members on the other side who are rejoicing at the drought which prevails.

Disgraceful.

They are rejoicing at the fact that there is a drought, because the bigger the drought the greater the difficulties, and I want to ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad not to be so petty.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) has definitely not made any very considerable contribution to this debate. I am sorry that the hon. member has made himself guilty of one or two things to which I shall refer. In the first instance, he attacked the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) because he was supposed to have defended the Communists who demonstrated outside the House this afternoon. Well, I do not believe that any one of us who heard the hon. member for Wolmaransstad thought that he was defending Communism. It is very bad for the hon. member for Potchefstroom to talk about the defence of Communists while the Communists are their allies.

Who told you that?

That is a fact. It is interesting to learn from the hon. member for Potchefstroom that he is now tired of his allies and afraid of them.

He says that they are not the allies of the Communists.

The hon. member went further; he made a very reprehensible attack on the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He charged the Leader of the Opposition with having defended a certain Mrs. Gool, a so-called Communist. The hon. member knows that is untrue.

Order, order!

I ask the hon. member whether he does not know that that is an untruth. I want to ask the hon. member to make sure of his facts before he makes such a statement in the House. What are the facts? There was a time when certain persons were prosecuted on account of lesemajeste. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister were summoned to give evidence in connection with that matter. The Prime Minister pleaded at that time that because he was Prime Minister it would not be in the public interest to give evidence, and that apology was accepted and accordingly he was not required to give evidence. But the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition could not plead such an excuse, and he had to give evidence otherwise he could have been prosecuted for contempt of court, and the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition therefore gave evidence not in order to defend certain persons, but because he was summoned: The questions that were put to him were a couple of simple questions; for instance, whether his Party stood for a republic, whether they stood for the abolition of the Crown, and to those questions the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied in the affirmative. That was all. How can the hon. member for Potchefstroom say now that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition defended Mrs. Gool?

It is a shame.

He ought to apologise.

Before the hon. member makes such loose accusations, he ought to make himself conversant with matters. The hon. member furthermore accuses hon. members in this House of wanting to make political propaganda for their Party and against the Government by exploiting agriculture. I only want to say this to the hon. member. If this side of the House wanted to take advantage of an opportunity to embarrass the Government in connection with agriculture, their opportunities were legion. When the Minister took over the portfolio this side of the House told him that we would do anything to help him to promote agricultural interests. We also said we would help him to carry out the policy of control, but we cannot possibly help the Minister if he controls as he has done in the past. We on this side of the House are not against control, but we criticise the way in which the Government has applied it. He says that we want to exploit agriculture. I, in turn, say that it is the supporters of the Government who do anything to drag politics into agriculture. Does the hon. member know about a circular letter that was drafted by his Party in which instructions were given to the supportérs of their Party to see to it that all organisations were purified? There should only be Government supporters. Did they not in that way drag politics into everything? Does the hon. member not know that when appointments are now made on control boards, only members on that side of the House were appointed, and not members on this side of the House. Are they not thereby dragging agriculture into politics?

He himself was appointed to the Native Affairs Commission.

Does the hon. member not know that his Government refused to meet the Advisory Committee of the Agricultural Union if a member of this side of the House was sitting on that Advisory Committee.

A member of Parliament.

The hon. member says a member of Parliament. Is he afraid then of a member of Parliament? That shows us how that side of the House and that Government have gone to extreme lengths to drag politics into agriculture. It therefore ill-behoves that hon. member to charge this side of the House with dragging politics into agriculture. Then the hon. member has come with this queer accusation, or defence, of the Government, namely that the farmers in the country would not have got good prices if it was not for price fixation.

I did not say that.

You did say it.

He has stated that agriculture is in such a flourishing state today because there is price fixation.

On a point of order, what I said was that in spite of the fixing of prices for the products of farmers they are today more prosperous than ever before.

That is the same thing.

It is well that the hon. member has now changed it.

Does the hon. member doubt my word?

Now the hon. member says that he hopes the Government will not listen to the proposal that has come from the Labour Party to appoint a Ministry of Food. I will endorse that; there I want to support him. I hope that the Government will not do that, but I only want to tell the hon. member this, that the Government has gone very far in that direction. It is his Government that has divorced price fixation from the Agricultural Department. It is his Government that has placed price fixation in the hands of the merchants. Does he know what happened? Perhaps he recalls that last year a deputation of wool growers called on the Minister to discuss the fixation of prices with him. The Minister saw that they had taken a resolution and that the deputation had received instructions to call a boycott on the part of the farmers unless an improvement was made in the position. What happened then? The hon. Minister refused to meet them and to discuss prices with them until they had rescinded the boycott or withdrawn the threat. They then rescinded the boycott and the Minister met them, and he said that he could not discuss the prices with them; it was not in his power; he left the farmers to the mercy of a trader price controller. Here he therefore accepted the principle of separating the prices of the products from the Agricultural Department. That was just in preparation for this separate Ministry of Food that the Labour Party are pleading for today. I am glad that the hon. member has now come to his senses. I hope that he will succeed also in bringing the Government to its senses. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) also levelled a charge this afternoon against the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, that he was now defending the Communists, and he said in a sneering or jesting manner that there was a demonstration of Communists outside, and that there were only about 32 people in that demonstration. But while the hon. member referred in such a sneering manner to this so-called Communist demonstration, his deputy-leader, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) was engaged in addressing those so-called Communists in the street.

And the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) brought in a message.

Before he sends his allies, the Communists, to our side of the House, he should first commend them to his leader. We know the hon. member for Fordsburg already. We know that he also blustered a lot here today, but he did not really make any great contribution to the debate. What he said was typical of him. He wanted to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. He feels that the Government is culpable in connection with the ugly position into which the country has drifted, but he feels at the same time that he must defend the Government. He has to defend the Government because he is jointly responsible. If we make a charge today against this Government we make it also against the United Party and the Labour Party, for they also represent the Government, and the hon. member knows that. He cannot plead innocence when accusations are brought against the Government party. But there is another reason, and perhaps it is the principal reason why the hon. member did not criticise the Government so strongly. He is one of the people who must give support or loyalty to the Government, because that Government looks after them well. The Government looks after its Labour friends well. Not one of them but has drawn a double salary. And a man who draws a double salary should not talk about starvation. Such people should remain silent about that, and the people who are now marching and protesting in the streets remember that these hon. members draw double salaries, and they will very certainly not support the Labour Party. When I listened to the Minister of Agriculture, certain things occurred to me. I only want to say this in connection with the Minister of Agriculture. We cannot do anything less than express our dissatisfaction that the Minister of Agriculture should have at one stage participated in the debate when he in reality had no reason to take part in it. The Leader of the Opposition introduced this motion, and it was a comprehensive motion. In that motion complaint is made against the Government in connection with food, housing, social security, health and other things, and it would be quite impossible for the hon. Leader of the Opposition thoroughly to elucidate every sub-division of his motion. The Minister of Agriculture availed himself of the first opportunity to reply to the debate, before hon. members had had sufficient opportunity to criticise his administration. Why did he do that? Was he afraid to reply to the criticism that was to come.

Yes, he was afraid.

No, the Minister of Agriculture showed definitely by his early participation in the debate, that he was afraid of the criticism that was to follow. He was afraid that if he waited he would not be in a position to answer the criticism. In regard to his absence, I did not believe there can be any excuse for his absence. His first duty is to be in the House. We know that the Minister of Agriculture remains very indifferent towards the starving public. We have gathered that he sleeps restfully while the public is starving. We see him going gaily round the country addressing meetings while we have this state of affairs, and I say it is reprehensible on the part of the Minister that he is not present here when he ought to be. What has struck one about the Minister of Agriculture is this, that he let it be known that he was very disappointed over the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because he had expected, nay, had hoped that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would introduce a motion about the Broederbond. That is what he would like to have had, and because it did not come he was disappointed. But that reveals something. It reveals what this Government had in mind when it banned the Broederbond. It used the Broederbond as a lightning rod. They realised that the people are dissatisfied over the food position, and so they decided to lead off the lightning of criticism by putting up something new, namely, the Broederbond, which was supposed to have committed sabotage. Another feature of the address of the Minister of Agriculture was the nervousness that he revealed. I have never seen the Minister of Agriculture so nervous. That was to me a clear proof that a guilty conscience was lurking behind that nervousness, and he has reason to be nervous. The Minister cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the charge that is made from this side of the House. What is the charge? We make the definite charge against the Government, and it stands convicted, of having failed to provide the people with enough food, and we want to substantiate that by pointing out that that food is not obtainable because the Government has not encouraged production. It has not encouraged it as it should be encouraged, but on the other hand it has in many respects impeded production. In thé second place, we say the Government has shouldered tremendous responsibilities in connection with the war, whereby it has made the food shortage very acute and in the third place we say that the Government is guilty of reckless waste of our food. That it has not encouraged food production but has hampered it is well known. We have seen what other countries are doing to obtain their supplies of foodstuffs. In a time of war you must see to it that not only is there a good well-equipped army in the field, but you also have to see to it that your people on the home front do not suffer want. That is what is done in other countries. We have mentioned what, for instance, has been done in England. In England you have the position, as has already been stated, that agricultural production has increased by not less than 70 per cent. In defence of the present position of affairs, the Minister of Agriculture said a few days ago: “Do you then want us to take steps such as the Government in England has taken and that we should tell the farmers what they should grow and what they should not grow, and where they should grow, and where they should not grow.” No, it is not necessary to go so far as to tell the farmers what they must produce in order to obtain increased production. But there are certain things that the Government certainly ought not to do. In the first instance it ought not to have cut down labour. What has the Government done? It has put farm labour into uniform. It has taken farm labourers away from the farms. I want to ask the hon. Minister: Was that calculated to increase production in South Africa? The Minister has himself two days ago stated here that there was a shortage of farm labour even when the war broke out and that makes his blame for having taken the farm labourers away still much the heavier. But there are certain things that the Government certainly should not have done. It should not, in the first place, have reduced the labour supply. That is what the Government did. All available farm labourers were put into Uniform and taken away from the farms. Was that calculated to increase production in South Africa? The Minister himself said the other day that there was a scarcity before the war, a shortage of farm labour, and that makes the blame that he must bear in taking farm labour away from the farms so much the greater. So bad has it become, so much farm labour have they taken from the farms, that the farmers throughout the country have agitated against it, and later the Prime Minister—I think it was in answer to a question that was put to him—announced that the Government had decided not to recruit farm labourers any more in respect of certain districts. In spite of that promise the Government continued to recruit farm labourers and today the position is that in the Western Province you find farms where not a single one of the original farm labourers is still there. As a result of that the Government had later to let loose Italian prisoners-of-war on the farms. You find farms today where there are only Italian prisoners-of-war and no other labourers. I ask the Government what is going to happen when the Italians go back. They will go back, and apparently it will be comparatively soon. What is going to happen then? What is going to be the position in the Western Province when those farm labourers are withdrawn? There too the Government has made itself guilty of impeding production. Instead of encouraging production the Government has embarrassed it. What has happened in other countries? What did Australia and New Zealand do? They recalled their soldiers in order to increase their production. Our Government put into uniform every available labourer that they could lay their hands on, and we shall have to pay for a long time for the consequences of that policy. A further charge that I want to make in connection with the hampering of production is that the Government did not take adequate steps to ensure that the farmers would be provided with sufficient implements and fertiliser on their farms. The Minister has indeed said that they tried to import as much fertiliser as possible to supply the farmers, but for a long period before the occupation of North Africa there was the opportunity to obtain fertiliser from there. The Government, however, remained indifferent and did not import in good time; and take the case of the importation of farm implements into South Africa. There are certain requisites which are indispensable on a farm, but which today you cannot obtain, and while these things have not arrived in the country we have seen how great quantities of whisky have been imported.

Where is it?

I think that the hon. member must put the question to members on his side of the House. It was imported instead of agricultural implements. Another thing that the Government did whereby agricultural production was obstructed is that it closed down the agricultural schools. That, too, is a serious offence. The agricultural schools are the power-houses of agriculture. From them guidance must go to the farmers to help them to produce. Instead of the Government maintaining and strengthening these power-houses of the farmers, it closed down agricultural schools. As the result of that we are suffering today infinite damage, but the damage we are going to suffer in the future will be very much greater. We hear about agricultural reconstruction, and we hope that we shall have a government after the war—it is to be hoped not the present Government—that will present a proper programme of reconstruction. But if you want to carry such a scheme into effect, then you need qualified experts, and where will you get them if they do not come from the agricultural schools. Where will you get these trained men if the training schools are closed. Here the Government has made itself culpable of something that has hindered production and for which we shall yet have to pay dearly in the future. The second charge that we make against the Government is that it has entered into tremendous obligations in connection with supplies of foodstuffs for exporting them overseas. We have already learned what the Government has undertaken to do. We heard how agreements were entered into with the British Ministry of Food to provide the soldiers of Britain and of other Allies in the North with food, and we learned further how the Government undertook to export considerable quantities of foodstuffs to neighbouring States in Africa. These things are all causes of the shortage that exists today. Permit me, Sir, to mention a few figures in connection with exports in 1942-’43

May we not export to neighbouring countries if they are in need?

Yes, but before you give another man’s wife food you must first look after your own wife. When there is a surplus let us export the surplus, but do not let us give to neighbours at the expense of our own people. What do the figures show. In 1942-’43 the Union exported 65,000,000 lbs. of meat, 3½ million lbs. butter, 550,000 lbs. cheese and 55½ million lbs. potatoes. That does not include the provisions that have been exported for military purposes, and which were even larger, namely, 80,000,000 lbs. meat, 13¼ million lbs. butter, 94,000,000 lbs. potatoes and about 4½ million dozen eggs. Those were exported for military purposes. If we convert the meat exported in terms of sheep then in 1942-’43 we exported about 2,000,000 sheep and still more for military purposes, namely about 2½ million sheep. If the military requirements were so large, if the Government knew that the military demands would reach such proportions then it should have thought twice before it accepted such great obligations. The exports are the cause of the shortage in our country and the cause of our people suffering from lack of food. What is the result? That our people are today exposed to under-nourishment.

That is not the reason.

If our country was blessed with abundance it might be possible to justify this exportation by the Government, but before the Government exported these quantities there was already under-nourishment. In 1938 the Department of Public Health instituted an enquiry. What was the finding? That our European children in South Africa are nourished defectively. That was before the export took place. It was even then found that in Natal 16.4 per cent. of white lads were under-nourished; in the Cape Province 31.5 per cent., in the Free State 43.6 per cent. and in the Transvaal 47.6 per cent. That was the position in normal times. There was under-nourishment even then, but our Government proceeded to export in this excessive manner. Is it to be wondered at that there is a food shortage today and that our people are suffering? Is it a matter for surprise that there are demonstrations to ask the Government to provide people with the requisite food? Another disadvantage of these gigantic obligations that the Government has assumed is that in South Africa we have now been driven to live on our capital. We are slaughtering cattle and sheep that we would not otherwise have slaughtered, but which are being slaughtered as a result of these agreements. We are living on our capital not in the interests of South Africa, but for the sake of other countries. There, too, South Africa will have to pay dearly for the policy of the Government. It is not necessary for me to refer to the waste that has occured. If you want to see how the Government administrates and makes itself culpable for waste of foodstuffs, just accompany me, and look at what is going on in the military camps, go with me to the military camp at Kimberley, to the camp at Oudtshoorn or at Koffiefontein; then you will see how lorry-loads of bread and butter are carted off to the pigs. The pigs in the military camps are provided with food, but the citizens of South Africa have to suffer hunger.

That story is very old now.

Not only the pigs but even the sea and the fish in the waters round South Africa find profit in this maladministration, for thousands of cases of oranges have been dumped into the sea because this Government of ours do not know how to market them, as we have seen in this picture that was exhibited, mealies and wheat are rotting. We have seen how potatoes lie and rot here in the Cape Town market and elsewhere, because the Government does not follow an efficient policy. One moment the Government encourages the potato growers to produce. It sent its officials to my district to say that there was a good market for potatoes and that the people should plant potatoes. They did so. Then there was over-production, and when these people sent their potatoes to Cape Town they lay there and rotted on the market. The moment that the Government is in need the farmers are asked to help, but as soon as a farmer produces he is left in the lurch by the Government and his produce rots. The danger exists that it may happen again. The Johannesburg market is again overstocked and also other places are overstocked with potatoes; and what is the Government doing to relieve this overstocked market? Does it use the potatoes to feed the hungry people and to make provision that there should be no shortage in the future? The Government stands convicted of allowing these things and its defence is very weak. We have now seen what this defence is. The Minister and two of the members on the other side have endeavoured to defend the Government, and they have only one string to harp on, and that is the sentimental string, “There is a war on.” They seek refuge behind the war for their mismanagement in connection with production in South Africa, but the general public who see these things can no longer be soothed in this way. They know that there is a war on, but they also know that the Government has hopelessly neglected its duty on the home front, and the Government is held responsible. Another excuse that the Government brings forward is the drought, the weather conditions. If there ever was a government that should thank a merciful Providence for good weather conditions it is this Government. Never in the history of South Africa has there been such a number of consecutive good years as the last four or five years. In spite of that, and in spite of the good years, we now have to learn that the Government tries to shelter behind weather conditions, and they say this is the cause of the country not having enough food. We do not hold the Government responsible for the drought that has now gripped the country, but we do hold it responsible that it has permitted the drought to catch our country in the critical condition in which it now is. It has done nothing to anticipate possible bad times. It has not followed Joseph’s policy of filling up the granaries against the lean years that might come, but like the prodigalson it has taken its wealth to far and foreign lands, and bartered it away there, and now that our people are suffering hunger as a result of this defective policy, we hold them responsible for that—not for the drought that has now come. In South Africa if we had a prudent government and especially a prudent Minister of Agriculture the Government would always take into account periodic droughts, because we always get these in South Africa. So we would have expected that the Government in the series of good years that it had, would have made provision for the droughts which might come. Where are the fodder banks, where are the cooling chambers, where are the dehydration factories which could have helped us to fight the droughts that come? We do not blame the Government because there is a drought, but we do blame them for not having fodder banks in the country, and because provision has not been made on the part of the Government for refrigerating facilities for the farmers, for places where the surpluses could have been stored in order to make provision for the lean years when they arrive. We accuse the Government of allowing potatoes to rot on the market, and because there are no dehydration factories for the dehydrating of potatoes and other vegetables, so that when there is a shortage they can be thrown on the market. But I go further. I say that the Government even in a time of drought such as has now occurred still encourages the farmers to produce. You may find it difficult to believe but even during the drought the Government is reducing the price of our products. Did you read that in November when the drought was acute, when the dairy farmers had to begin to turn the cows with the calves out into the veld because they could no longer afford to feed the animals, that the Government at that time cut down the price of dairy produce. Those are the things that have brought about a shortage in the country. Visit the leading dairy districts and you will find that production has dwindled to one-fourth of the normal production. The Government does not take that to heart at all. It will still take no steps to improve the position and to render assistance. We charge the Government, and these are not just vague charges, but charges that we can prove. We had thought that the Government would stand up and show some penitence for its sins, and that it would tell us what it is going to do. We do not know whether the Minister is repentant; we hear that he is still sleeping restfully, apparently his conscience doesn’t prick him. But the general public is greatly concerned and the Minister can give no reassuring answer; he cannot say what he is going to do to improve the position. He has told us that he is going to retain the meatless Wednesday. That is about the only solution that he can offer us. In other words, he wants the people to eat less. This reminds me of the person who was an economist and who argued that it cost him a great deal to feed his horse. He thought he could reduce the costs by giving his horse a little less fodder every day. He did this succesfully for some time, and the horse remained alive. But later the horse died. If the Minister continues with the meatless days—officially we have one meatless day, but actually we have six unofficial meatless days—the people, like the horse, will eventually die.

Mr. Speaker, strange as it may appear, I believe that the public outside this House is interested in this debate. When I say that, I do not mean that the public is interested in the political arguments that are being put up in the debate. I don’t believe they are interested in charge and counter-charge such as we have heard in this discussion; but I think they are very much interested in the issues which have been raised, which are raised by the terms of the motion of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They are deeply concerned about questions of food, housing, health, and possibly less consciously, but equally deeply, they are concerned about questions of postwar employment. In other words, they are concerned about conditions of living and working in this country in the years after the war. Now all these issues have been becoming a source of increasing anxiety in this country in the last two to three years. In fact they have been working up to crisis points in recent months, with the result that the country has awaited the meeting of this Session of Parliament with more interest than it usually takes in a meeting of this House. It has been interested to see and to find out to what extent its anxieties and its fears are going to be reflected in this House, appreciated and considered by it. Now when the Hon. Leader of the Opposition introduced this motion it brought these issues right to the forefront of the Session with the result that attention has been fixed on the debates in Parliament at once. I think I may say without fear of contradiction that already the country is probably deeply disappointed in what has transpired here. Undoubtedly the Opposition has given us very little to bite on in the matter of constructive policy of their own or a serious attempt from their side to force the Government, which holds the power to fill those gaps in its policy which have caused great anxiety in the country. They have given us little reason to believe that they could do any better in the numerous fields in which they have introduced only familiar criticisms of the Government. On the question of a long-term policy they have offered us nothing better than the very general policy which they did not succeed in convincing us about during the last Session of Parliament. In short, they have given the Government very little to reply to. But I think it was incumbent upon the Government to remember that any debate on this motion does not merely imply replying to the arguments used by a more or less efficient Opposition; it should remember that it is in fact replying to the arguments used by the public outside. They are replying to their critics there as much as to their critics here. Now, Sir, it is a fact that the Government has made a fairly comprehensive reply to the attacks that have been made here. They have replied at considerable length. And they have placed a considerable array of goods in the shop window. The trouble about it is that the array is already a familiar one and one which the country has already rejected as inadequate to its needs. The replies of the Government have already been set out in this White Paper, Outlines of Post-War Reconstruction, which was released a few months ago. Their reply here, in many instances, has not been as comprehensive as the reply contained in this White Paper. But I would remind the House and remind the Government, or tell them, if they do not know, that far from the publication of this White Paper allaying the anxieties of the people it has been followed by a steady increase in the dissatisfaction and the discontent of the people. Now, Sir, there are some obvious explanations for this increase in discontent and anxiety. It is a fact that the food situation has become progressively worse, at least for a good many people if not for all; and as it has become progressively worse for a good many people it has become more and more evident that, throughout the war, there have been people who have been able, always, to get anything they wanted, that the black market has continued to flourish, and that profiteers have continued to make undue profits. Secondly, the health of the country has, if our public health statistics mean anything, and if personal experience means anything, continued to deteriorate. I think I may safely say, without fear of contradiction, that our health record this last year has been worse than it has ever been before in the recollection of most members of this House, with the exception of the very low point reached in 1918. In this year we have had typhus steadily spreading. We hear less about it today but I heard a good deal about it and saw a good deal more of it than I wanted to see two or three months ago in my constituency. We have had typhus, infantile paralysis, smallpox, and a variety of other diseases reaching epidemic proportions which have seriously alarmed the people of this country, diseases many of which are due, if the doctors are right, to the low physique of the community, the undernourishment and the generally low standard of health of the community.

Not infantile paralysis.

No, I was careful not to include that; I said certain of these diseases. Furthermore, we had a housing programme put to us but that the programme continues to hang fire. Yet, in spite of these facts, the Government still refuses to grant a separate Ministry of Food which has been widely demanded. And as far as I can see, it has continued to refuse that demand because it fears the reaction, any extensive reaction of the type which the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) showed to that proposition today; the farmers would not like it. The farmers object to having any interference in what they regard as their department. I am not referring to farmers in the House. I have heard that phraseology used by farmers outside the House. Secondly, in the matter of public health, the Government has announced its intention not to implement the National Health Service scheme because it is not prepared to challenge the authority of the Provincial Councils. And the matter of housing, the housing programme remains in abeyance, with an unresolved conflict between employers and labour on the question of the means of implementing that programme. Now, Sir, it is inevitable, I think, in view of all these circumstances, that the public should gain the idea that in fact the approach of the Government to this whole question of what it calls post-war reconstruction is a piecemeal approach, depending upon the pressure which is exerted by the public itself upon the Government, the extent of the public’s own interest in the matter. It is inevitable that they should see the policy of the Government as a piecemeal policy; that they should feel that it is not an integrated policy inspired by the courage and the intention of the Government sponsoring it to challenge vested interests in pursuit of a national plan for progress, in these cases the vested interests of farmers, Provincial Councils and of organised labour. That conclusion is easily drawn from the circumstances. Indeed the facts of these cases foster the conclusion, that in fact the Government has no national programme for progress, that what it has is the natural desire of any government and of any political party to accommodate those interests which are strong enough to gather behind them any considerable body of people in the country. For myself I think that those conclusions are very well founded. I think there are strong grounds for believing that the Government in fact has no integrated policy, no integrated programme for progress for this country in the post-war years. I think that this is so in spite of the quite impressive efforts that have been made by the Government to meet particular problems. And I feel that without an integrated programme, the claim of the Government that our problems are temporary and will disppear, that we can overcome our difficulties with patience and good will, is misleading. Behind the agitation about all the immediate difficulties with which this country is faced lies, I believe, a basic anxiety. This is the anxiety of the people as to how they are going to live after the war is over, how they are going to maintain themselves when the resources of war-time employment have dried up and they are left as they are going to be left—with the inflated prices and inflated costs which are the result in war time of the free action of pressure groups supported by scarcity values, a situation which, as the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) pointed out, was allowed to develop over far too long a period before being controlled. That is their anxiety, how they are going to live, where they are going to earn the means to maintain themselves on the new levels of costs and expectations which have been established during the war time period. Nor, may I say, are they reassured by declared policies of food subsidies, of free hospital service, and even of social insurance on the proposed level which is all we can afford to promise as far as I can see on the present resources of the country. All these proposals, admirable as they are as part of a general programme, are in themselves merely policies of subsidised poverty; and the general public, even though it knows nothing about economics, has a strong sense of that fact, and of the basic insecurity of a national policy which is satisfied with that sort of programme. They know instinctively that there is a limit to the security that they can establish on the basis of a policy of that type. And behind that sense of insecurity is the demand (it is the one I thought the hon. member for Berea was going to put forward; I hoped it was. I know it is one he supports) not for the series of services which he proposed, but for employment and for guaranteed employment. That is the basic demand of the people. Little as it has found its voice yet, and much as if has been overshadowed by the demand for very essential and much-needed services to meet the insecurities of existing conditions, basically that is the demand of the people; and it is the demand, in my opinion, that the Government has not yet begun to approach. It is a programme to meet this demand, a programme of opportunity to work and the guarantee of work which, in my opinion, is conspicuously absent from this White Paper. That absence is, in fact, the essential weakness of this White Paper. It is the absence of that programme from the White Paper that is responsible for this Paper itself having stimulated less confidence than the Government had hoped. It is the absence of a programme of this kind which is, to my mind, providing the continuous unrest which exists in this country, an unrest which really evolves from the determination of established groups with pressure behind them, to cling to what they can get out of the present situation and to hold on to it at all costs so long as they have no guarantee of better things. That explains the demand of the farmer to get established prices at as high a level as possible and to hold them, as it explains the demand of labour to set a desirable wage standard and to hold it against all comers. Those are the inevitable results, the inevitable outcome, in my opinion, of the absence of any programme that will guarantee employment and secure a standard of living on the basis of secure employment.

John Bull said that twenty years ago.

He may have said it twenty years ago but that does not make it any the less necessary for me to repeat it now. In fact, it has to be repeated now because the crash, if we do not meet the situation, is much nearer than it was twenty years ago. It is true the White Paper tells us, it begins by telling us, that the Government aims at “employment on a productive basis of the greatest possible percentage of the nation.” It ends by telling us that “the guiding, the overriding factor in the Government’s long-term policy is the maintenance of a high level of productive expenditure both public and private.” And if I may digress for a moment, I notice that it adds that “By the establishment of a suitable Central Organisation an effort will be made to forecast intelligently what lies in the future, and the Government will ensure that the policies and procedure of different Government Departments do not conflict with one another.” This is a new organisation to me. I have not heard of this Central Organisation before, and I am hoping that the Government will tell us something about it. To return to my argument, the White Paper begins and ends with the statement that the policy of the Government is to maintain a high level of employment, and to stabilise it. But what proposals does it make to that end? So far as I can see they are only two. One is a considerable programme of public works, “an improved system of national roads, a planned programme for the erection of public offices, etc. for carrying the above objects into effect.” and it tells us that these works will place a considerable number of people in employment and create a considerable demand. I have no doubt it will, but I venture to suggest we shall never stabilise the population of this country on a public works programme, even if it includes the assumption of responsibility by the Government of housing all the people who need to be housed. Beyond that there is no proposal at all, except that the Social and Economic Planning Council has urged the Government to discuss with industry the type of industries that ought to be developed, and to help developing new industries with technical advice—“consultation with industrial interests, the Board of Trade and the Industrial Development Corporation, in order to determine which further industrial possibilities should be examined.” That is also urged by the Comicil. But we are not told, in effect, whether those discussions are taking place. But if they are I suggest that in the whole of that programme there is one obvious gap which is bound to condemn to failure any programme for the development of a stable economy in this country, and that is a programme for expanding consumption on which to base industrial development. That has been shown by all our experts to be the only basis on which we can peg any effective employment programme and any effective employment standard, as well as any effective living standard. Older countries than we are, with a much smaller problem of poverty than ours, with a much smaller proportion of their population down below the bread line, are stating with the greatest urgency the essentiality of developing that expanding demand as the primary and basic condition of achieving that post-war provision of employment to which we have committed ourselves as the ideal. If ever there was a country with a possibility of expanding demands, and with the need for an expanding demand, it is this country. If ever there was a standard of living that was insecure, it is the standard of living of a small section of the Europeran population of this country. I say that advisedly, because in view of the fact that I am trying to establish the case that there should be an employment programme, nine-tenths of the people in this country will believe that I am disguising a claim on behalf of the Non-European population of this country. The issue does affect the Non-European population of the country, and I am coming to that. It is not a disguised claim—it is an open claim. But it is not only the claim of the Non-European section that I am putting forward. The poverty line in this country is no longer a colour line. It has long since moved up into the reaches of European society. That is why I say there is no country in my experience, or to my knowledge, in which a standard of living that is worth while defending is based on such insecure foundations as that of a section of the Europeans of this country. In this country we have practically five-sixths of our population who constitute an ineffective demand, and for whom, so far as I can see, we have no programme to encourage development of that demand. And in the meantime, we are held up with our housing policy because organised labour is not going to take the chance of the contraction in the labour market that is bound to happen unless we get a widening of the foundations of our economic life. And we are not going to resolve the quite definitely existing conflict between producers and consumers in this country until we have an effective demand on which to base the standard of living the producer is claiming, and which I am prepared to support. We have no hope of resolving any of these conflicts unless we now embark on a policy of expanding consumption. That is why this document has failed to induce any sort of confidence in the public. The public feels that we are establishing various interests and new levels of expectation in this country, but beneath them we are laying no foundations on which they can rest safely, so that in the long run all we can hope for, all they can foresee is continued conflict. Now if I wished to point my argument I can with these two facts (1) in the absence of any reference in this White Paper and of any Government Statement in the House during this Session indicating any plan for the development of our Non-European population, any proposal other than the very limited one of developing education—which needless to say we welcome—we cannot claim to be building these foundations. Incidentally, the reference to education and that a brief one, is the only reference in this White Paper to the Native population. There is a passing reference to the fact that we should attempt to establish industries in proximity to native locations with the object of drawing in female labour, a proposition which I hope will not go forward without a lot of discussion. I am not at all sure about that proposal. I think it has distinct dangers. Now I consider this absencé of any statement in regard to the development of the Native population a very serious gap in the statement of the policy of the Government. I know the Minister of Native Affairs, whom I see taking notes and who will no doubt enter this debate in due course, has a twelve-year plan for the development of native reserves. But I contend that that is not anything like a comprehensive statement of Native policy, such as we are looking for. Beyond that statement of policy we have had nothing as to the type of society that is to be developed in the Native Reserves. I propose to deal with that more fully on a later occasion. But so far as the genuine economic development by the native population is concerned, the character it is going to assume and the opportunities that will be provided, we have heard nothing at all as yet. (2) The second gap in the programmeras I see it is that we have not had presented to us this year what I should have expected to be part of a programme aiming at post-war development—that is a general programme for improving wage conditions over the large field of lowpaid labour in this country. Again, this is not merely a question of Non-Europeans; a large number of Europeans are living below the breadline. There are large areas of the employment market involving not only Coloureds and Natives, but also Europeans, where wage conditions are lamentable and where the situation cannot be improved unless we provide ourselves with some machinery that will enable us rapidly to regulate the conditions of employment in such a way that these exploitive wages will be abolished. That need is urgent. We have not even met it by cost of living allowances, because as I have no doubt my hon. friend the member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) will tell you, from his own experience—in many areas where the cost of living allowance has been applied, the wage itself has tended to fade away and workers are working for the cost of living allowance alone; that is where wage rates have not been guaranteed by Wage Determination. In my opinion these are two obvious gaps in our programme which point to the weakness of our planning machinery. Now I ask why these gaps have been left, because we have been told by every recent commission concerned with social and economic matters and every responsible authority since the war began, and for many years before that, that the whole future of this country depends on releasing the productive powers of the great mass of our people who are today frustrated and prevented from using their powers and their skills. Without that development we cannot develop the other resources of the country, we cannot increase the wealth of this country and we cannot achieve anything in the nature of social security. We have been told this time and again; every report—(except the White Paper)—has got it laid down in black and white; and yet it has been left out of this report. Why? I ask why has this gap been left? Is it because again a policy of this kind is going to challenge interests which the Government is not prepared to challenge? Is it because a developing wage policy which would increase the opportunities for the native population, create a rising standard of living for them and lift them in the social scale, would cut at the roots of the present pattern of labour in the mining industry? Is it because, much more, it would cut at the root of the present labour pattern on the farms, and that neither farmers nor the mines are prepared to consider a change in that pattern? Is it because an improved native labour policy must affect immediately those two big interests? Possibly it is so. Of course, for myself I always feel that if we could lift the colour-bar on the mines, the mining industry would be prepared to abandon some of its cheap labour policy, but I accept the fact, as it is implicit in everything I have said, that European labour is going to hold on to every sort of colour-bar until it has the guarantee of an expanding market. So the responsibility comes back again on the community. The question I am asking is this. Since labour will hold on to its present position so long as it fears a contraction of the labour market, which is bound to come if we do not have a policy of expanding consumption, are we likely to have a lead from the Government to the farmer and to the mines to loosen the foundation of their exploitive policy and give us the possibility of developing our human resources before it is too late? That is the challenge, as I see it, before the Government and before these vested interests. I am absolutely certain that if we do not meet it, and that if we do not meet it soon, it will not matter whether the Government has any programme or not, because we will have had our opportunity and we will have lost it.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 1st February.