I move—

I should like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks in connection with the important memorandum about some aspects of the Government’s proposals as regards social security. Up till now this important memorandum which the Government submitted to the House for consideration did not enjoy the attention it should in this debate, and for that reason I want to take this opportunity to bring my humble opinion about this very important matter to the notice of the Government and of this House. Before I do that I should however like to pass a few remarks in connection with certain matters raised in the debate at the second reading. I am very sorry to say that the question I put to the Government was not replied to. It is in connection with something which was thoroughly discussed by this House and which received the support of both sides; something which is the point of view of at least 99 per cent. of the members of this House, as shown in this debate, namely the unsatisfactory position in which the country finds itself owing to the policy of the Government as put into practice by certain controllers, a practice contrary to the the declared policy of the Government. I then asked why the Government does not use the representatives of the nation who are sent here to help the Government and to assist with advice and deeds in all things affecting the life of the country. I asked that question of the Government, why it consistently ignores the voice of South Africa, the voice of the nation, as expressed by the representatives of all political parties in South Africa? All the problems with which the Government has to cope regarded by the nation as problems of the House, but hitherto the House as such has been consistently ignored. I ask the question why the Government, instead of making use of the representatives of the nation to assist it with advice and with deeds in connection with these difficult problems, consistently continues appointing people in the most important positions in South Africa, who consistently defy public sentiment and make it worse. Not a single member of the Cabinet expressed himself or gave a reply to this most important question, and I therefore wish to make use of this third reading once again to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that Parliament does not gather here like a lot of school children, and that they do not gather here to be treated as school children, but that each one here represents the point of view of the country and of his constituency, and that it is expected that the Government should take cognisance of this fact. But instead of doing that these matters are ignored and the House is slighted. On behalf of my Party as such we have repeatedly requested the Government to make use of the national representatives in this House. That question was not replied to and I again asked the Government: “Do you intend continuing in that manner, continuing consistently to ignore 150 representatives of the country, representing various parts of the Union of South Africa; will you continue to force down the throat of the nation scheme after scheme in this House, which does not approve of the schemes, schemes which do not receive the support of 10 per cent, of this House? I again appeal to the Government to restore the dignity of this House and especially under these difficult circumstances to recognise Parliament as such and to give Parliament that control over matters which is its due in this democratic country and which the nation outside expects. I will be sorry if the Government once more …

What are you complaining about? You are part of the Government.

I will be sorry if the Government, after all these repeated warnings and inspite of the fact that 99 per cent. of the members of the House are in sympathy with this view, is once more going to act as if it has no respect for public opinion.

Just vote correctly once. Do not only bark.

All those expressions of hon. members of the Opposition will not help at all. I still stand by the statement that our highest responsibility in these times is to see the war through. I still stand by the support we promised the Government in connection with it, but that does not for one moment derogate from the fact that it is also our duty to point out to the Government where it is ignoring the rights of the House. Those hon. members must not think that we will give them the opportunity to make political capital out of the precarious position in which the country is and that we will play to their hands. On the contrary, we will continue to criticise the Government. We will tell the Government what mistakes it is making because the Government must remember that as a result of those mistakes it is effectively playing into the hands of the Opposition. Tomorrow or the day after, when you have been defying your own supporters and have discouraged them, and they no longer see any chance of supporting you when better times come, you must not then lay the blame on your own members if they then want to force you to do certain things. You must realise that you yourself bear the blame in so far that you ignored your own supporters and consistently disregarded the rights of the nation.

Make the same speech you made last night.

I am prepared to stand by every word I said then and I hope that those hon. members will read that speech. I make no apology for pointing out its mistakes to the Government. If there is one party which has that right in the House, and also outside it, it is the Labour Party; and when we support the Government it does not mean that we will simply allow the Government to do what we think is contrary to the interests of the democratic people we represent here. We will not sit here silent when mistakes are made. It is the duty of every member of this House to do that. We are gathered here in the House to give voice to our opinions without being afraid, and I will not allow myself to be restricted by the members of the Opposition on the grounds that I may not criticise because I support the Government. I shall continue and shall not allow a single opportunity to pass if I can show the Government where they go wrong. Therefore I use the opportunity afforded by this third reading to point out to the Government that it is following the wrong road and is playing into the hands of the Opposition, that it is losing the confidence of the nation outside if it continues in the direction it is going. It is late but not yet too late for the Government to adopt a more sensible attitude. We are living in critical times which will become still worse, if the Government does not adopt a wiser attitude, if it does not recognise the House as such to the full extent of its rights. If the Government does that it will find that not only will it have close contact with the people, but it will be giving expression, in the sphere of control and internal politics to a point a view which will have the support of the majority of the nation from time to time. You cannot expect that a democratically inclined nation, which in essence and by tradition is democratic, will silently acquiesce in your continuing on the road you have adopted. Controllers are busy digging a deep ditch for you, and before you know where you are, you will be in that ditch and will be covered and buried by the controllers you are now appointing, in spite of the warning we in this House have given you. So much for that matter.

Are you in favour of control?

I will not reply to that question again. If my hon. friend has sat here and slept here for five years I am not prepared to wake him up now. Then I want to raise another important matter which came before the House spontaneously, and that is the contemptuous manner in which the Minister of Mines has treated this side of the House. Last Session he solemnly promised the House that early in this Session he would introduce a Bill amending the Miners’ Phthisis Act. We went to the trouble of asking him when he was going to do it and the only reply we received from him—and I say that it is nothing else but contempt to this House—was “The lawyers cannot lose any time”. That is the only reply we received. He is busy drawing up a Bill amending the Miners’ Phthisis Act. We had that promise during the previous Session but up till now the Minisster of Mines is not yet prepared to inform the House as to what kind of Bill he will introduce and when he will do it. On behalf of my colleagues I want to protest earnestly against these actions of the Minister of Mines in treating that most important matter in this manner. If he follows that road he is contributing not to doing the Government a favour but to damage it. I said that I have risen to discuss this memorandum of the Government. I wish to make a few points in connection with it. I am glad that the Government has taken the trouble at least to give us a memorandum about this important matter. The points I wish to raise are the following. In the last portion of the first paragraph we see the following—

I think we are glad to learn that the Government realises that providing work is the crux of the matter, the most important part, and we may say, the axis around which everything turns in connection with such security. I am glad that the Government realises that. But where the Government falls short in this memorandum is this. While the Government realises that such is the case, and makes this statement, it gives no guarantee that it will see to it that there will be provision for employment on a large scale. The Government is aware of the fact, but you will remember that during the previous Session and again in this Session, we insisted upon it that the Government should make a statement as to what the form of provision of employment will be; in other words, what industrial development there will be immediately after the war. Seeing that the Government realises that that is the crux of the matter, we should like to insist again very earnestly on a reply being given to that question: What large-scale provision for employment will be made by the Government? Give us something with which we can go to the people and tell them that the Government is prepared to do this or that; that this expansion will provide so much work for people, and the other will absorb so many. But up to now we have received no single indication as to what form of provision of employment there will be, and we are now justified, at the third reading of this measure, to ask the Government to tell the country, seeing that it realises that that is the crux of the matter, what provision will be made for employment over and above the normal provision for employment which already exists. You must not refer us to the protential expansion of the mining industry because the mining industry will not employ a single person unless it is in accordance with the quota and unless it is in its own interest to do so, as the position was in the past. Last year I put the question to the Minister of Mines whether the mining industry had at any time declared its willingness to make additional provision for employment after the war, and the reply of the Minister of Mines was: No. In other words, one of the most important industries, namely the mining industry, is not prepared to go out of its way to do this service to the Government and the country by providing employment after the war. It will only employ people when it suits them to do so, but not a single person more. Another important point for the Government is that referred to in Paragraph 6 on Page 4 of the memorandum. There I see that the Government has come to the conclusion that in the circumstances as a result of the interdepartmental report, it is not prepared to make a change in the basis of old-age pensions, namely that an old age pension will be acquired as of right at a determined age, and not in the manner it is done now, namely that it is paid at a determined age according to need. I think I should quote this part of the report—

that is in connection with the question whether the old age pension should be awarded as of right or whether it should be paid according to the need of the person—

What was the finding of the inter-departmental committee on which the Government founded its conclusions? You will find it at page 5 of the Report of the interdepartmental committee. From that it is clear that there were three different opinions about the matter. The first was this—

There you have people who think that we will not get full value for the old age pensions, whatever the expenditure might be. It is an inhuman opinion with which we can certainly not agree in this House. Then there is the second group—

That is the most just point of view. Then there is the third point of view—

That is a point of view which I certainly do not believe will be approved of by this House. But the point of view I want to support is this claim that a person should be entitled to certain benefits at a certain age. I think that is a just view. The reply of the Government, I suppose, is that many aged people do not require to be helped by the State. My reply is this: We cannot say that many old people are not entitled to State assistance because they are well-off. That is not logical. For example, you are paying the education subsidy in regard to the children of rich people as well as to those of poor people. It is therefore not something new in South Africa. The son of the millionaire goes to school with the son of the poor man and both enjoy free education. Therefore I say that if we pay old-age pensions we must do so to all old people, in which case we would only be acting on the same basis already accepted in connection with education. The same happens in connection with subsidies. We pay subsidies in regard to products to rich and privileged people as well as to the poor. Nobody objected and said that the rich man does not need the subsidy and therefore we must not pay him a subsidy. Why then the inconsequential policy that old people who have means should not be entitled to an old age pension, although they may perhaps have contributed to it? We are now speaking about the future because the opinions voiced here are voiced with an eye to the future. The State in this White Paper says that although they contributed to the future they will not be entitled to an old age pension. That is not logical. The children of the rich receive free education and the rich receive subsidies. There is no reason for treating the aged on a different basis. If we follow such a policy it can only contribute to confusing the position of old people further and to make it worse instead of better. In my opinion there should be no means test. It will be said that we then pay the pension to a small percentage of rich people who do not need it. Well, let us pay it. It is only a small percentage and it is so negligible that it will be better to pay everybody than to apply the means test we have today. A means test is a very defective instrument. A test like that can never assure equal treatment throughout the country. In some cases a person may perhaps, owing to insufficient investigation, be placed in a very favourable position as against another. We must try to do away with the means test and say that if the nation must be taxed to give pensions to the aged, there must be no means test but all the aged should receive it whether they need it or not. We now come to another aspect of the matter and I regret that the Government clings so much to the old undeveloped point of view in making the old age pension paid in the cities, in the great centra, higher than those paid on the platteland and in the villages. I simply cannot understand the reason for it. As the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said the other day, and as we have already said so often, that is a very unsound state of affairs. Because in the large centra they receive a higher old age pension and a higher cost of living allowance, the old people tried to go to the cities instead of remaining on the platteland. That is wrong. In the cities you find slums and house rents are high, and circumstances are entirely unsuitable for old people. We must rather try to keep the old people especially on the platteland and to encourage them to to go there by paying the same pension on the platteland as in the cities. On the platteland housing is not so miserable, they are near the church, and in every respect circumstances there are more suitable for them than in the big cities. I cannot see why the old people should be encouraged to go to the big cities and to be crowded together in the noise of the city. It is much nicer for them to live in the quiet surroundings of the platteland, but the Government through its policy is driving them to the cities where there is no room for them and where they must spend their last years in a little room. I simply cannot understand why the pension is higher in the big cities. They cannot rent a house in the large cities with that pension.

They live there.

Those who live there are perhaps in a more favourable position but you are also chasing many of the old people from the platteland to the cities. They would much prefer to live quietly on the platteland. On the platteland they can obtain a little house and live a much more dignified life. I want to plead in all earnestness that the Government should make a change and make the old age pension the same throughout the country, so that the old people are encouraged to remain on the platteland. I hope that I will have the support of the House as far as this is concerned, and that the Government will change its views on the point.

Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset invite the attention of whichever Minister is concerned with the matter to a change which has been made in connection with the amount of food natives may receive per month.

To which natives are you referring?

I am speaking about natives who may draw mealies from the Maize Control Board without permits. Hitherto, the Proclamation of 1944 has allowed them to receive two bags of mealies per month. Consternation has been caused in Natal amongst those who are most closely in touch with the supply of food to natives by a Food Control notice which was published to the effect that in future only one bag may be supplied. The changing of the limit of permit-free mealies—I am only speaking of permit-free mealies—from the former quantity must be taken into careful consideration when the position of the natives is taken into account. These people generally have no means of transport. Hitherto the time-honoured custom has been for the women to carry the mealies on their heads, although in some cases they use pack donkeys. The hardship of arranging for two trips is now going to double the transport difficulty that the natives have had in the past. I am accustomed, when bringing up a matter of this sort, to having only one Minister in the House. They so often engage themselves in occupations more pleasant to them and the present occasion is no exception; and when they are here I am accustomed to having them throw out their palms of their hands, saying that it is my duty to communicate with some other Minister or with some overbearing controller who is a law unto himself. That becomes somewhat tiresome and I wish to urge the Minister to ask whoever is responsible for this to give immediate attention to it. Personally I am very glad that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has been appointed as a member of the Maize Control Board. I have complete confidence of her care of and interest in the treatment of the natives. I have spoken about this matter to the hon. member and I am sure that she will give every attention to it, but at the same time I want to impress the seriousness of this matter upon the Minister concerned, and to express the hope that there will be no delay in providing sufficient stocks of maize. The question of the mealie supply is a very grave one. I have travelled a good deal in various parts of the Union and I have never seen a more unfavourable season for maize. I think the hon. members from the Free State and the Transvaal will bear me out when I say that we are faced with a most desperate situation in regard to maize supplies, and though the Minister replied to a question in the House he seemed merely to be putting off the evil question of the importation of maize. I saw in the paper this morning that there is some question of importing maize, but I hope that in the meantime there is not going to be a restriction which will affect the various classes and the people least able to look after themselves, and I want to read to the Minister a notice. He may not have seen it, which would not surprise me. The notice has been issued by the Food controller in these somewhat cryptic terms—

Now, Sir, that interesting Proclamation may have been issued without the knowledge of the Minister or his consent, but it has been issued and the effect, as I said before the Minister arrived, is causing great alarm amongst the people who know most about supply of food to the natives, and they say that this thing will not work, and the sooner it is withdrawn the better, and the sooner the natives are made to understand that they are not going to be the first to suffer because of the shortage of maize, the better. I shall deal with the maize question as a whole. I notice that the Minister, in the announcement which appears as emanating from Pretoria, indicates that the dairy farmers will have to limit their consumption of maize and also the poultry farmers. I wish to point out to the Minister that the dairy industry has been brought to its present sorry state by the Minister’s refusal to grant permits for ordinary dairy foods which have always been used to feed dairy stock. Through the determination of the Minister to continue with our present bread scheme, which does not please the consumer, but allows profiteers to make fortunes out of it, the Minister withholds bran, which is a most sustaining food for the dairy stock.

Do you want us to go back to white bread?

I have no objection at all. As far as I am concerned, I think the dairy industry or poultry industry as a whole has to be considered, and the Minister will have occasion to repent of the extent to which he is expecting us to produce bricks without straw or milk without bran. That is the position of the dairy industry today. I am a dairy farmer myself. We shall be reproached and browbeaten in this House because there are not enough dairy products to go round. In that case we shall lay the blame on the Minister for starving the cattle of milk producing food, and this further announcement in Pretoria that we are going to be restricted in regard to our consumption of maize, and also the poultry farmer, is a policy of despair, and the Minister could repair that by importing maize and dealing with the situation in a manner which will provide for the needs of everyone. My immediate plea is that the natives should not be made to suffer. I am sorry that the Minister of Native Affairs is not present, but he would probably have passed off the matter in a very light vein as if it does not concern him at all. Maize control and food control come under these tyrants who issue proclamations which no one can understand. Now I want to deal with some of the replies which Ministers have grown accustomed to deliver in this House. Only yesterday the Minister of the Interior was dealing with a very serious subject when he replied to a question of mine as to the number of interned civil servants who had been released. He gave the number. He stated that these men had been interned for subversive activities and he gave the number of these people who had been so unfaithful to the State as to result in their internment on so grave a charge. I am not going to attempt to describe the subversive activities mentioned by the hon. Minister, but I am aware of a case where the Maize Control Board was found to have a considerable quantity of explosives in their basement, I suppose for the orthodox purpose of blowing up a post office or buildings of like character. I raised the question in this House and I was told that the person concerned had been interned. So we can take it that that person was interned on something similar to a charge of having been in possession of explosives, but not something in connection with the control of maize.

For making popcorn.

The unfaithful public servants were interned and they were released. Everyone will want to know why they were released? In the language of the Minister they were released as an “act of clemency”. I wanted to be informed of the names of the people who had been released. The list should be laid upon the Table, but the Minister replied that no good purpose would be served by laying their names upon the Table. I am not raising points of order but I maintain that the faithful service of a servant of the State is a matter Parliament has the right to know about, and if I do not get these names laid upon the Table I shall continue to press for them until they are laid on the Table. There is no inherent or divine right on the part of any Minister to refuse requests in these terms. He can, it is true, refuse a request on the grounds that the disclosure of the information would be against public interest, but of course that would be ridiculous in this case. To say that Parliament has no right to know about its unfaithful servants is ridiculous. It is to hold up to contempt the interests of the people. I want the Minister to take notice that this list must be laid on the Table, or otherwise the public outside will know about it.

If you are so anxious to have a list you can have it. I am not trying to hide it.

The practice of inviting an hon. member to see the list privately is worn out. Every member of Parliament is entitled to equal treatment, and we are entitled, as the custodians of matters of this kind, to know the truth. We shall have the truth. There is another case of a somewhat similar nature. Questions were asked in this House in regard to a certain enemy firm which was being supplied by one of our lusty controllers with merchandise which is in short supply. This firm is at present under the administration of the Custodian of Enemy Property, and such firms are generally, and I think, quite rightly, expected to be given an opportunity to realise their stocks; but that does not mean that they should draw upon products in short supply and compete against loyal people of this country, many of whom have suffered through the war—in order to add to the benefits and profits of enemy aliens. Now, that is what the Minister has authorised. When I asked a question about this matter there was great secrecy and the attitude of the Minister was to admit frankly that the firm in question was an enemy firm and it had had goods known to be in short supply and it was competing in this manner. I want to voice the view of a very prominent office bearer of the Commercial Exchange in Johannesburg, who addressed the Minister in question, not I may say, at my suggestion, but entirely because of his own feelings in the matter. He said—

He was addressing the Minister—

Now, that voices the views of the man in the street. The man in the street holds that Ministers have no right to shelter either unfaithful servants of the State or enemy subjects who are benefiting by favours conferred on them by Ministers. Only yesterday I asked a Question about enemy subjects who are being allowed to manufacture chemical products and supply those products under permit to such persons. Under the rules of this House I was not permitted to mention particular names, and it was difficult—it has been exceedlingly difficult in the case of some Ministers to elicit any information. In the case of some Ministers they said that they could not answer questions as no names were supplied. They should know that names cannot be supplied in a question—but in the case of persons manufacturing chemical products for sale and having to obtain permits to do so, because one of the constituent parts is a drug, I was informed by the Minister yesterday of the firms to whom permits had been granted, Fernleigh Products being one of them. The Fernleigh products is a firm consisting of two enemy subjects who were interned and who are on parole at the present moment: Dr. Werner and Mr. Kurt Martin. The position of these people is that while connected with a firm of German origin they obtained priority on certain imports from the South African Government—through the controllers, of course—and these two gentlemen who had recently emerged from internment were awarded priority on goods they wished to import from America. The Government of the United States sent a cable to South Africa intimating that these two persons would have to be removed from the directorates they were then holding, or a permit would not be granted to the firm in question. At that time they were connected with a reconstructed German firm in this country, and the attitude of the United States Government resulted in their having to resign from that firm. They then started business on their own, and they were no sooner out of the internment camp than permits were granted to them to enable them to carry on this business, though they are persons of such notoriety that the United States Government cabled through our representative in Washington, indicating their wishes in regard to the grant of permits. These things are very grave, and I do ask the Deputy-Prime Minister to give them earnest consideration and to see that controllers are not going to be a law unto themselves, in regard to enemy subjects and in regard to unfaithful public servants and the abuse of power on the part of controllers. I describe this is an abuse of power, because I know it was an abuse of power on the part of the controller. No controller has the right to grant permits to enemy subjects who are merely out on parole, and who previously had their application for priority rejected on account of their bad record. Dr. Werner whom I have mentioned, was previously connected with a reconstructed German firm known as Bayers Limited, and the position of this firm was raised in this House by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). He expressed his views on that matter very vigorously. I supported him on that occasion. The position of that firm was a very preferential one at that time, but in consequence of the remonstrances that were made, it is now treated as a firm which cannot enjoy priority of import in regard to certain products needed by the country. There is another very serious matter that I want to refer to arising out of a reply that was given by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in connection with the Citrus Board. I asked him for certain information in regard to the Citrus Board. The Minister was called upon to reply firstly to a question as to what amount of subsidy had been paid to the Citrus Board each year since its establishment. Members of this House will rub their eyes when they see the reply—

I do not think it has ever been suggested that those subsidies were for the particular benefit of the Board, but the subsidies were certainly paid to the Citrus Board, and for the House to be informed in those terms on this matter is certainly most misleading. It is really almost an insult to the intelligence of members of the House who are Interested in the subject of the Citrus Board. After stating that no subsidies were paid, in the very next paragraph of the reply to my Question No. 2: “whether payments are made on estimated quantities of the crop, or the quantity actually sold” the Minister replied—

When we read on we find that in 1943 a sum of £117,000 was paid and there are still some claims outstanding. That is a considerable amount for one year, and I think we are entitled to have a full answer to Question No. I as to the amounts paid each year. The next question was whether payment was made on estimated quantities of the crop or the quantities actually sold. That is an important question. We represent the public and we want to know whether these moneys are being honestly administered or not. We want to know whether these moneys are paid out on an estimate or whether they are paid only for value received, and the reply which the Minister gave to me was under (2)—

That is no answer to my question. I wanted to know whether it was paid on estimated quantities, or whether it was paid on actual delivery. Yet that is the answer which the Minister handed out to the public. A subsidy was paid to individual growers of export fruit in respect of the 1943 crop, and payments were based on the quantity of fruit as determined by the Citrus Board.

That might be taken either way.

I think that was the intention of the framer of this answer. I should like to know who framed the reply to my question in the Department. I want to show what an entirely false, misleading and unwarrantable statement has been made in that reply. I asked for estimated quantities, and they went on to say—

(I did not ask about the rate of payment)—

We are entitled to know whether the growers are paid on an imaginary figure, an estimated figure, or whether they are paid on actual delivery, and we have no answer to that. I want to draw attention to the fact that when the Citrus Board prepared a memorandum on the marketing of citrus fruit for a Government Commission in this country in February, 1944, they made a totally different admission. They then said—

That is more like the truth, and the truth was not given to us in the Minister’s reply. Whatever evasions were made there was no truth in the Minister’s reply. I wanted to know whether the payments were on estimated quantities, on the quantities actually sold, and we find from the Board’s memorandum that the payments are made on estimated quantities, and on the whole crop whether exported, sold in the Union, or wasted. There is abundant evidence about the destruction or burial of citrus fruit in various centres in South Africa. The people who expect to be supplied with citrus fruit are entitled to know how this money is being spent. It is a so-called subsidy to help the growers of citrus fruit, but not a subsidy for fruit that can be thrown away or buried. But that is the fact; to quite a considerable extent we pay that subsidy for fruit that is buried, and whether the estimate is true or not does not affect this aspect of the matter. It is an estimate that is made, and which is entirely within the competence of certain people to manipulate. Those people happen, in the main, the majority of them, to be interested in the citrus plantations of South Africa. We are entitled to know how the Minister’s misleading answers came to be delivered in this House. The person who provided those statements is a man who has not the truth in him. He is asked to say whether payment is made on an estimated crop, or whether it is made on the actual crop, and this is the sort of reply we get—

My information is that the agents of the Citrus Board go round and they say to a grower: “What is your crop?” If you belong to a certain group, if you are within a certain favoured influence, your estimates are not questioned, but the smaller man has his estimate revised, and in many cases reduced. I have not heard of any case where the bigger growers have had an estimate revised to their disadvantage. But this is a most unhealthy system. The Minister of Finance, who is an orthodox keeper of the purse, should surely see how a leakage is taking place. The estimated quantities are paid for, whether they are wasted or whether they are sold in the Union or anywhere else. The chairman of the Citrus Board is an employee of Mr. Schlesinger. I can scarcely avoid the conclusion that he thought out this ingenious scheme, a very subtle scheme in regard to the paying of the subsidy for estimated quantities, so subtle that it dare not be given the light of day in this House. It was only in a memorandum for a Government Commission, where there was no publication of evidence, that they made the statement that distribution was made on estimated quantities. I hope the Minister will prevail upon the Board to put a stop to any such payments in future. In working on estimated crops we have to bear in mind that the chairman of the Citrus Board is an employee of Mr. Schlesinger, and that the Schlesinger Group are certainly financially interested in the method by which the distribution of the subsidy is made. The Minister’s reply in regard to the quantities sold was that in 1942 the sales locally and overseas were 11,656,000 pockets and in 1943 11,128,000 pockets.

How did that compare with the estimate?

The estimate applies to individual growers.

But how do the totals compare?

It is hard to say. If the hon. member will allow me I shall deal with that later. For the moment, the comparison is between the reply the Minister gave to the House, the figures he gave, and the figures given in the memorandum of February, 1944, for the Government Commission. The memorandum shows that in 1942 the sales were only 6,298,000 pockets, whereas in this House the Minister told us they were 11,000,000. There is a slight difference between 6,000,000 and 11,000,000. The Minister also says that in 1943 the amount sold was 11,128,000. The figure given before the Government Commission supplied by the same Board was 7,357,000; a slight difference compared with 11,000,000. In reply to a question as to whether any citrus fruit was withheld from the market, and if so how much and on whose instructions or authority, the Minister stated that no fruit was withheld from the market. This is the type of reply we get from the Department of Agriculture. This is a department concerned with the administration of the citrus industry, and this is wat they tell us—

The question I asked and what I wanted to know was whether this fruit was being wasted. There is not a single phrase in the reply which corresponds with the story published in the “Natal Witness”, and adhered to in spite of contradictions, that enormous quantities of fruit were buried wilfully. [Time limit.]

The House listened with cynical amusement to the outburst of the Parliamentary Leader of the so-called Labour Party in this House, in which he barked vociferously against the Government. I wonder whether that is an omen that the rodents are preparing to leave the sinking ship. But this House and the Government need not be afraid. The Government need not be afraid of that action on his part. We are accustomed to loud barking on the part of the Labour Party, but they cannot bite. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said: “I shall no longer allow myself to be kept in check.” But no one is keeping him in check; he himself is doing it. Like a lap dog he climbs on the lap of the Government and then he says that the Government is keeping him under restraint. While I am speaking of a lap dog, it is interesting to note that the hon. member referred to the Government as “she”. The Government is no longer masculine; the Government has now suddenly become feminine. We are accustomed to lap dogs sitting on the laps of women.

In Netherlands it is feminine.

Yes, but surely in this country we have always had a masculine Government in the past, and now according to the hon. member for Krugersdorp it is a feminine Government and he is sitting on the lap of a feminine Government. It will not avail the hon. member to make such an outburst; it will not avail him to evade the responsibility. His Leader is in the Cabinet, and as long as his Leader is in the Cabinet, the hon. member and his whole party are just as responsible for the misdeeds of the Government as the Government itself.

Do you not want us to say what is wrong?

I have no objection to the hon. member saying what is wrong but in that case he should also do something. It is no use telling us in the lobby that they wholeheartedly agree with us; it is no use addressing meetings in Sea Point and breathing fire there and then just to come and bark in this House. No one is intimidated by this barking; the people are only amused.

I suppose you want us to vote with you.

No, one thing the hon. member can do is to withdraw his Leader from the Cabinet. The hon. member for Krugersdorp says numerous things have been done which have not got the support of 10 per cent, of the members of this House, and yet when it is put to the vote, he votes for the Government, and his Minister occupies a seat in the Cabinet. No, the hon. member should be consistent. He spoke a great deal of consistency. Let him be consistent. How can he try to make the country believe that the Labour Party is all of a sudden adopting a certain attitude while his Leader bears full responsibility? No, he is trying to revive the defunct Labour Party, to blow some life into that skeleton, a skeleton whose tail is firmly caught in the springtrap of the Government. I say these things because we have become tired of these stories of the defunct Labour Party. They have a great deal to say in this House and when they are called upon to do something they run away. I say they must also bear the responsibility for the misdeeds of the Government. They cannot evade that responsibility.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) has already said so.

Yes, the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) has already pointed out that if one votes with the Government and one’s Minister is in the Cabinet, one cannot hold up one’s hands in indignation and say that the Government is the culprit. The hon. member distrusts his Leader. That is what it amounts to. So much for the defunct Labour Party and its so-called Parliamentary Leader. I want to raise a matter today which I experienced on my recent visit to the Free State in connection with the position of our farmers. I had the opportunity of going into my constituency and meeting farmers’ associations and discussing matters with them; and I want to assure the hon. Minister of Agriculture and also the hon. Minister of Finance, that the position is becoming serious, and very serious, especially for our crop farmers. The crop farmers have had one failure after another. There was a failure of the wheat crop; there was a failure of the mealie crop; there was another failure of the wheat crop and now the farmers are again faced with a failure of the mealie crop. The position is serious and the farmers are perturbed. They say the Government should not wait until things become too serious; the Government should do something now. I want to suggest what was proposed to me by the farmers’ associations in my constituency and here I should particularly like to have the attention of the Minister of Finance.

Wait, they are first discussing the coolie question.

I should like to have the attention of the Minister of Finance because it is a matter which affects him. The position is that the crop farmers have not had a big income. Their income was very poor. In those days when they did have a good income—and the Minister knows it; he has often boasted about it—they repaid their debts as far as they could. But now they are feeling the pinch and they do not know what the future will bring forth. These people are being asked to produce. Crop farming involves heavy expenditure, and they want to know whether the Government will not make provision to enable them to get loans from a Government source—from the Land Bank, for example—on the security of their movables. Where they find themselves in this difficulty that they must have money in order to buy implements and seed and to carry on with their farming operations, and where they cannot afford to sell their stock or do not wish to do so, the Gvemment should come to their assistance with short-term loans from the Land Bank on the security of their movables, and those loans must be intended for production purposes only. They stipulate three conditions: In the first place it must come from a Government source, from the Land Bank or some other institution, but not from private moneylenders. In the second place it must be a short-term loan, and in the third place it must only be for production purposes so that the farmers, when they want to plough and sow and plant again this year, will have the necessary funds to see them through, and they will then be able to repay the loan when they gather their crops. They feel that unless they can get assistance of this nature, a large number of crop farmers will be faced with ruin. In the second place I am instructed to ask the Minister that no pressure should be brought to bear on them by the State Advances Offices. There are numerous cases where these people still owe money to that office, and they are now being instructed to pay it. The farmers would like to pay their debts, but owing to the failure of crops they are unable to do it, and they now ask that no pressure should be brought to bear on them by that office. The third matter which they asked me to submit is the position of the natives on the farms. There is no food for them; the farmers have exhausted their entire stock of mealies. I visited farms where the farmers themselves told me that they had no mealies left at all, and that the natives on the farms were really beginning to starve. The farmers cannot provide them with mealie meal. The position is critical. They asked that the Minister of Agriculture should take steps in this matter. I raised these points as matters which are strongly felt by the agricultural population in the Free State, especially in the crop areas, and they ask that the Government should act timeously. If the Government wants to introduce any schemes, it must do so in good time so that when the difficulty comes, it will not be necessary for the farmers to rush with deputation after deputation to the Government. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter, and do something about it. Then I want to touch on another matter. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here. It is in connection with the Information Bureau.

It falls under the Minister of the Interior.

Very well, the Minister of the Interior is here. No one knows what the object of the Information Bureau is, but it is certainly not its object to make political propaganda during an election on behalf of candidates. I think I can lay down this proposition—and the Minister can tell me whether I am wrong—that it is not the function of the Information Bureau to make propaganda for a particular candidate at a political election. I have before me an official statement of the Information Bureau as it appeared in the “Friend” of the 17th February. It reads as follows—

This message concerns a certain Pierre J. Niehaus who is better known to us as Percy Niehaus—

Then the report gives a long description of what he has done, of his wonderful work up North and it is stated, inter alia—

In this connection I want to say that some time ago we members of Parliament were officially instructed by the Department of Defence not to ask for the discharge of soldiers from the army. Here we see that this soldier has been released for the purpose of contesting a seat in the forthcoming S.W.A. general election. Is that right? A soldier up North can be released to become a candidate of the United Party, but we were instructed by the Department not to apply for the release of any soldier. I say it is scandalous. The message goes further—

Is the Information Bureau becoming stark mad to send out news of this description? Here we find that the Information Bureau is making use of its position to recommend this candidate to the electors of that constituency. One might almost ask whether the Government and its departments are becoming stark mad. It is a disgrace that the Information Bureau is being used to make propaganda for a candidate at an election, and moreover in such a ridiculous fashion—“this forceful, energetic and goodlooking young man”! The Leader of the Opposition says that the Government is feminine and that is why they speak of a “goodlooking young man”. I want to ask the Minister of the Interior whether he approves of this type of thing. Let him tell us candidly whether he approves of it, and let him at the same time inform us what he is going to do in connection with this type of propaganda. The Information Bureau is practically being used to urge the electors of Okahandja to accept this candidate. We want to know therefore whether the Minister approves of it and what he is going to do.

Is the objection that he is being called a handsome young man?

That hon. member is perhaps better qualified to speak about liquor licences. But I am afraid neither he nor I ought to talk about handsome people. I want to ask the Minister in all seriousness to tell the House what he is going to do and whether he is going to allow such a waste of money and time by the Bureau of Information. State money is simply being wasted to support a political candidate, and moreover in such a ridiculous way. I think it is an unreasonable thing to do, even though the election is outside the Union. We have every right to disapprove of State money being used to recommend a candidate on behalf of the Minister’s party. I hope the Minister will take strong action in regard to this matter.

I intervene in view of the remarks made by the hon. member. I need hardly say that I personally do not approve of the Bureau of Information giving such information. It is news to me. The Bureau is not carrying out its duties at it should, when they do such things. If it does its work properly one ought not to know that there is such an organisation.

A secret organisation?

No, but they should be able to do their work without making political propaganda. Their job is to give information about the efforts we are undertaking in connection with the war, not of a personal nature, but of a general nature.

What are you going to do about this?

I shall certainly enquire into it and find out what happened, and of course we will stop it. I have said as definitely as I can that it should not be allowed.

Are you prepared to say that it will not occur again?

As far as I am concerned I will. Instructions will be given to that effect. Another point was raised by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). He took exception to the fact that in replying to a question I did not lay upon the Table a list of the names of 35 members of the public service who had been interned. There was certainly no intention on my part to be discourteous towards this House, and when I intervened I told the hon. member that I would give him the information. I will give the information to the hon. member and I will lay it on the Table. The hon. member who spoke last raised the question with regard to the Bureau and I wanted to make the position quite clear as far as the hon. member for Pinetown is concerned, because he seemed to be under the impression that I intended to supply him alone with the information, but I will lay it on the Table.

There is a very important matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. It relates to the position of certain business men in Cape Town in connection with certain things which are being done under the Minister’s Department. The Government grants, inter alia, a sum of £30 to returned soldiers to enable them to buy clothes and other goods, as well as a certain amount for the purchase of tools. The returned soldiers go to the office of the Department and there they get a warrant with which they can go to a firm to buy the goods in question. There they hand in the warrant and at a later date the Government pays the firm for the tools or clothes which the returned soldiers bought. In Cape Town the position is that business firms which have been selling these goods for years and which have good reputations, are finding that the greatest sums are being paid not to them but to certain other people. In a city like Cape Town one comes into contact with some of the soldiers who have been discharged from the army and who are now back in civil life. It has come to my notice that a certain official in one of the departments discovered, after he had been discharged from the army, that he was entitled to a certain amount for clothes. He then went to the office to get the warrant which was duly issued to him. The Government official who issued the warrant to him, told him that he had to go to Sandler Bros., who would make the clothes for him. He did not know what the procedure was, and he accordingly had the clothes made there. The suit of clothes cost him £17 17s. But the remarkable part of it is that when he went to fetch it the official concerned who had issued the warrant, was also there. This became known, and we have now obtained further information in Cape Town that it is the general policy of certain firms to have canvassers at the Government office, and that these people stand in a queue in order to send the returned soldiers who are furnished with warrants to certain firms. The official to whom I referred was always there to advise the people to go to certain firms. It came to the notice of a few firms in Cape Town who had previously obtained orders, that those orders had ceased. They made enquiries and they were then told: “But what is our consideration; what will we get out of it?” That happened in the case of certain business firms in Cape Town. In other words, they were expected to pay a commission.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was explaining to the House what was happening in Cape Town in connection with returned soldiers to whom the sum of £30 is granted to buy clothes to equip themselves for civil life, and to provide them with tools to enable them to resume their occupation or trade. I explained that there were Government officials in Cape Town in the office of the Department of Demobilisation who abuse their position by telling the returned soldiers to which firm they should go to buy these goods. I explained how certain business firms in Cape Town have been affected in recent times and that they feel that a number of irregularities take place in connection with this matter, while nothing has been done up to the present to obviate these mal-practices. In Cape Town certain Government officials have been acting as touts for various businesses in Cape Town. I have before me the reply which was given to a question that I put, and I shall explain later how these touts operated. When the warrant is issued these officials tell the soldiers concerned that they are expected to buy from A or B or C. Many of the returned soldiers are coloured persons and natives. They are interviewed by an official in military uniform. He tells them where to go. They think it is a command, and they carry out his orders. This matter has assumed such proportions in Cape Town that the business people have become dissatisfied. I explained that an official in Cape Town who told the man in question to buy a suit of clothes at Sandler Bros was seen there by the soldier when he took his warrant there. I notice the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) is very interested. Perhaps the same type of thing happens in Pretoria. When the soldier went to the firm to get his suit of clothes, he ran across the official who had told him to go there. The Government should give an account of this. Numerous people who are supporters of the Government are engaged in exploiting the returned soldiers, and it is our object on this side to prevent that. In Cape Town we have business firms which have been established here for years, which have been taxpayers for years and which built up their businesses in an honest manner. They must have an equal opportunity; they should also share these benefits. I am also informed—the Minister of Demobilisation can appoint a commission of investigation—that when a soldier goes with his warrant to certain of these shops, the owner tells him: “You have a warrant for £30, but if you buy goods to the value of £24 or £25, I shall give you a cheque for the remaining £5 or £6.” In this way a number of soldiers are not only getting clothes but also cash, and an entry is then made in the books of the firm that these people were provided with clothes. The matter is very serious. On the 30th January, I put this question—

1. (1) What amount has been paid out from the 1st January to date in respect of (a) clothing and (b) tools for soldiers who have been discharged;
2. (2)
   1. (a) To which firms in the municipal area of Cape Town have payments been made for such (i) clothing and (ii) tools and
   2. (b) what amount was paid to each firm during such period?

It took a very long time for the Department to furnish me with the figures. I must say that I have learned that the Department of Demobilisation no longer deals with this matter, but the Department of Social Welfare. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact, however, that my question covered the month of January, and that the reply in connection with the amounts which were paid out, only covers the period from the 1st January, 1945, to the 25th January, 1945, i.e. 24 days, and on two of those days the shops were closed. In other words, the amount which was given to me was paid out over a period of only three weeks. The reply was—

Then the reply states to which firms these payments were made—

I want to read the whole list to the House in order to show that old-established firms in Cape Town have not been getting their share, while a few firms have obtained this huge share which is indicated by the figures—

And this belongs to a Mr. Stern and my information is that Stern did not exist before the outbreak of the war.

Why do you mention all these names?

I want to mention all the names here so that the public can see which of the commercial firms in Cape, Town are out to exploit the soldiers. I continue with the list—

That is as far as clothing is concerned. I could not get full information in connection with tools. The Minister replied that a sum of £14.161 had been paid out to a number of firms in Cape Town in respect of tools, but he could only give information in respect of £1690. He could give no information in repect of an amount of £12,000 to £13,000 which had been paid out during these 3 weeks. I find it very remarkable that the Minister could not give that information. The largest sums which were paid out were the following: Castle Cycle Works, £101; X.L. Cycle Works, £234; Nimmoss Cycle Works £611. That is the position. I do not know why such large amounts were paid to the cycle works. I should now like to give an analysis of these figures which are contained in the reply of the Minister. An amount of £29,222 was paid in these three weeks to various firms in respect of clothing. It further appears that five firms received large amounts. Those firms are: Elite Outfitters £2.279; H. Fried, £2,577: Marine Outfitters £3.462; Sandler Bros., £3.971 and the Man’s Shop, £2,436. These five firms received the greatest share of the £29,000 which was paid out. They obtained no less than £14,725 in these three weeks. Four of these firms belong to that section of the population which has never done anything for the building up of the country. At least one of those businesses did not exist at the beginning of the war. This is a wicked state of affairs. That is what is happening in Cape Town, and we do not know what is happening in other cities like Johannesburg, East London, Port Elizabeth and Durban. The whole organisation of the Department of Demobilisation is wrong. The Minister should have known that large numbers of crows and vultures were sitting in readiness to prey on the soldiers. He ought to have known of the experience which we have had in this country in the past, that those things do take place, and he should have taken precautionary measures. When those soldiers get their warrants, no influence should be brought to bear on them to buy at any specific place. The department need not even have a list of people from whom these goods can be bought. I am told that such a list is being kept at the present time. The man is entitled to his £30 and he should be allowed to buy where he pleases. This state of affairs is nothing less than exploitation of the returned soldiers and I hope the Minister of Finance will give his attention to these 5 firms when it comes to the assessment of income tax, if it appears that they made large profits. The Minister of Finance ought thoroughly to investigate the position of these five firms. We are told that big firms in Cape Town experience great difficulty in getting supplies, but these small firms are able to get stocks to supply the soldiers. I hope the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Demobilisation will investigate this matter thoroughly and, if necessary, appoint a special commission of investigation to ascertain in what way the returned soldiers are being exploited. Then there is another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the House and the country in general, and I hope that the Minister of Education particularly will listen to this. An election is being held in the University of Cape Town for a representative on the University Council. The election has to take place at the beginning of March. We find that the University of Cape Town is being governed by a small clique which organises things in such a way that they can get hold of the representation of the Convocation. This clique is supported by members on the other side. In the first place there is Dr. Duncan Baxter. Then there is Prof. Crawford, against whom I have no objection, because he is an ex-professor. Then there is also the Administrator of the Cape and one or two others. It has always been the rule of the University of Cape Town to appoint the chief minister of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape as a member of the Convocation. Since the death of Dr. Van Heerden the chief minister of the Dutch Reformed Church has been serving on that Council. We nominated him when there was an election, but that clique organised things from A to Z. They stood as a “ticket”, and everyone was selected. This year we again wanted to nominate the chief minister of Cape Town, but they told us not to nominate him and that the Old Boys would nominate him. We Afrikaners in Cape Town feel that since the University of Cape Town was founded in the consistory of the Dutch Reformed Church, the chief minister of the Dutch Reformed Church ought to serve on the University Council. But what is happening this year? The war supporters on the other side are today keeping a soldier who is fighting in Italy out of the Council. Dr. Elliott was nominated by the younger members of the Convocation who are doctors. He is a man of high repute in his profession and he is at the moment on active service in Italy. Now we find that those six big men—old men—are organising in order to keep Dr. Elliott out. He is fighting in Italy, and they say he will not be able to serve on the Council. Now I want to ask members on the other side whether they are sincere when they talk about protecting the interests of those who are on active service and whether they are really concerned about the future of education in our coutry. Here we have a handful of old men who tell us that they are already making plans in connection with the University of Cape Town, with special reference to the returned soldiers. The financial scheme is under way, and they say that if a newcomer like Dr. Elliott is elected, things will not go smoothly. I say it is far-reaching hypocrisy on the part of those people, and it is nothing but a plan to keep the power in the hands of that clique at the University of Cape Town. I also want to say that the Prime Minister would not have been Chancellor of the University of Cape Town if it had not been for us. When the King abdicated, it was intended again to appoint a member of the Royal House as Chancellor. It was we who said: “No, if you want to appoint anyone, appoint the Prime Minister of South Africa.” He then became Chancellor of the University. Today we have an Afrikaner as Chancellor of the University of Cape Town, and I want to make an appeal to him as Chancellor of the University to see to it that the wings of that clique are clipped. Here we have a young man who is held in the greatest esteem in his profession, but he is not regarded as suitable for that post. They made an appeal to the members of the Convocation to vote for these six old men. I can only say that that appeal fell on deaf ears, and that we are going to vote for Dr. Elliott because we feel that an injustice has been perpetrated, and that a new start should be made in this country as far as education is concerned. We feel that those old men are not imbued with the modern spirit. I mention this matter because it is of public interest and because we feel that the time has arrived when young men should be appointed, and that clique must no longer be allowed to govern affairs; I also raise this matter in order to expose those men who so that they may govern, are relegating a person to the background who went on active service and who was prepared to make the highest sacrifice.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has raised a matter of public importance in the first part of his speech, and I feel myself compelled to deal with it immediately. He has referred to a scheme under which the Social Welfare Department has been assisting ex-volunteers in acquiring clothing and tools for the purpose of their business. I would like to remind the House briefly of what the scheme was. Up to the 3rd January, 1945, the scheme was administered by the Department of Social Welfare and was generally known as the £50 scheme. It was found from experience that many ex-volunteers required tools in order to take up their civil occupation. That was particularly the case with artisans. At a later stage the £50 scheme was extended to other ex-volunteers and they were given amounts up to £50 with which to purchase clothing. Some five months ago information was given to me while I was on a visit to Cape Town which led me to believe that there might be abuses in the administration of that scheme. It was alleged to me by the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters) that certain firms were getting preference and that many ex-volunteers, who went to Social Welfare for financial assistance and were so assisted, were then going to particular firms. The suggestion at that stage was that there was touting on behalf of certain firms, getting hold of these exvolunteers after they had received warrants for the purchase of clothing and diverting them to particular firms. I asked the hon. member for Wynberg to assist me and immediately took up the matter with the Department of Social Welfare and I am grateful to the hon. member for Wynberg for giving me that information. The hon. member for Gordonia said that persons have had information in their possession for some time. This is the first occasion on which the hon. member gave me that information.

No, no!

It has been said in the House on a previous occasion this Session.

We wanted information from you first.

If any person, and especially a member of Parliament, has information so important, it is his duty to bring that information to the Minister concerned. The hon. member for Gordonia gave me the information today.

I have been waiting for your reply all these weeks.

The hon. member obviously had information in his possession which prompted him to put the question, but the hon. member for Wynberg gave me that information months ago. Obviously, if there was corruption or favouritism it had to be dealt with.

What did you do?

I took the correct action. I said that if there was anything against the law the police must be brought in. The police have been brought in and carried out investigations as the result of information placed before them, and I can tell this House that within a very short time—I imagine within the next 24 hours—there will be certain arrests.

Is that due to the information I brought?

The hon. members may laugh but they will learn that all this—when further proceedings take place, when these arrests are made and the proceedings which will no doubt result from them—I cannot detail them because it will be sub judice—was the result of the information given to me by the hon. member for Wynberg and the resultant investigation.

When did he give you that information?

In August or November.

And you only acted now?

I am interested to hear all these interjections because it would now appear that hon. members opposite are not so much interested in the public interest and in keeping public administration clean, but are more interested in making capital out of it.

The question is why you waited so long.

No Minister is a public prosecutor. I am not a member of the police. When I or any other member of this Government hand over matters to the police they come within the sphere of the police and we are out of the picture.

This side of the House told you about it long ago.

This matter was dealt with immediately the information came to my notice.

Then there is something wrong with the police, if they take six months before they take action.

There is nothing wrong with the police nor with the Minister of Justice.

There is a limit to loyalty.

The only difference is that we are sitting on this side of the House and my irresponsible friends are over there. The hon. member for Gordonia, who is a lawyer, or professes to be one ….

Now, do not be churlish. How many cases did you ever have?

He should know that it is no criminal offence for a man to direct any person to go to a particular shop.

I did not say it was a criminal offence. I am putting the facts before you and I am asking you to investigate it.

If hon. members will just keep calm and the hon. member for Swellendam would forget his grapes ….

I am not Swellendam. And they are sour grapes.

Precisely. I am suggesting that it is not a criminal offence for any persons to be directed to a shop by an official of the Department.

Did I say that?

No, you did not.

Then why did you make that remark?

Because you perhaps did not give it the careful thought that my officials did. It became clear to us, when the matter was mentioned, that it might go deeper than the favouritism of a particular firm and that more serious issues might be involved, and that is why the police were brought in. The police had to carry out careful tests and enquiries which of necessity took time. These tests have now been carried out and the investigations completed and the police force, which has not been influenced in any way by me but was left to carry on its work, is now in a position to take action. That is the position.

When did you instruct them?

About five months ago.

If it is not a criminal matter, as you say, why did you call in the police?

My hon. friend’s legal knowledge does not seem to be adequate. There might have been allegations of corruption on the part of officials and that is why the police were called in. As far as I am concerned if there is any suggestion of corruption in my Department it has to be investigated and the man brought to book. The matter was handed over to the police three or five months ago.

But the hon. member for Wynberg only told you three months ago, about the matter.

The matter was handed to the police on the first occasion immediately after my Department of Social Welfare had an opportunity of going into it and considered that this was a matter beyond a mere Departmental investigation. I cannot give the House the nature of the evidence which has been collected by the police. I am not in the position to give the House the nature of any charges which may be levelled. I know the facts but it would be improper for me to state them in the House this afternoon because they will be the subject of judicial enquiry in future. All I am called upon to do today is to assure this House that, so far from there having been neglect on my part, the Department of Social Welfare—and it is not the Department of Demobilisation which was wrongly organised, as hon. members allege—when the information was brought to me the head of the Department took all the steps necessary to ensure that this matter would be thrashed out and that, if there was any contravention of the law, it would be dealth with, and that any abuses which might be there would be removed.

What steps did you take against the man in that office, what departmental action?

Do you suggest that if we anticipate criminal action we would first anticipate it by a departmental action?

You did not say it was a criminal action.

I am sorry that my learned friend does not understand the position even yet. I thought I had made it clear. I said there was an allegation of favouritism in respect of certain firms. If there was such favouritism it could only be on the part of someone in the Department. Obviously unorganised soldiers returning to civil life would not have known about these firms. If they were directed to the firms they were directed by officials.

You said that is not criminal.

Of course not.

Then why did you not take departmental action?

Because although it is not criminal it was conceivable that there was something more in it than that and that officials were receiving a commission. I must say that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), who is normally so prophetic that he misreads the future, now shows an obtuseness which I find difficult to understand. I cannot take the matter any further. Investigations were made and if there was a corrupt official he will be punished. We could not first discipline the official and so obstruct the police. These matters will be investigated in court and it may be that later further investigations will be made. I am just reminded of this, that the Department had a special request from the police not to take Departmental action until such time as the police had completed their investigations. We were specially requested to do that and, before giving the hon. member for Gordonia a reply to his question yesterday, I first ascertained from the police whether there would be objection to giving that reply at this stage. If the police had asked me not to do so I would not have given it, not because I do not want to give information, but because we did not want to obstruct the police. As from the 3rd January of this year the administration of this particular scheme has been transferred to the Department of Demobilisation, not because of anything which has happened in this matter, but because it is part of the general plan of demobilisation and of the general idea of co-ordinating all aspects of the demobilisation scheme. The events to which the hon. gentleman makes reference are events of the past. We have the matter in hand. There has never been any question of overlooking or white-washing malpractices and I hope the House will realise that in this matter the Department of Social Welfare was the first to jump in and protect its own honour.

I am not rising to reply to the speech which has just been delivered by the Minister of Demobilisation. I only want to say that his allegation that we on our side are rushing into the matter, as far as this question is concerned, is not justified. This is not the first time that we have brought up this matter in the House. Indeed, it was brought to the notice of the House a few weeks ago by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). And what was the Minister’s answer then?: “You never told me anything about this before”. He blamed the hon. member for Stellenbosch for raising the matter in the House instead of going to see the Minister personally.

I thought that we might hamper the police at that stage.

I can only say that this whole episode leaves a bad taste in the mouth of this House, and it will also leave a bad impression in the country. The country has for a considerable time been under the impression that there is more corruption in the country and in the administration of the country than has ever been the case before, and that corruption is taking place on a large scale.

Do you include the Broederbond?

The whole affair has left a bad impression on everyone. And what has left just as bad a taste in the mouth of this House is the fact that the Minister is not in the first place concerned with protecting the interests of the people in regard to corruption, possible corruption in the administration of the country, but that if the Opposition discovers things and bring them to the notice of this House, as it is their duty to do, then he is resentful towards them. There is some resentment in him, because this side of the House has raised the matter and because the other side does not concern itself with the interests of the people in this way. I leave the matter here. I have really risen for the purpose of returning to the question which I brought up at the second reading of this Bill, a question connected with external affairs. On that occasion, in the presence of the Prime Minister, and also because I wanted an answer from him at that stage, I raised the general trend of affairs in regard to the progress of the war. In particular I concerned myself with the Yalta Declaration of the three Great Powers, which was intended not only to reach further settlements of a military nature, in connection with the war, but which was at the same time intended to lay the foundations for the settlement of the peace, when peace should come. More particularly I brought under discussion, or wanted to do so the question of how that statement affects South Africa and the future of South Africa. The Prime Minister answered me, and the nature of the answer which he gave me makes it necessary for me to return today to that, answer. I am not doing it so much for the sake of discussing the matter myself. I have already tried to make my attitude clear to this House and I explained what I felt about the matter. I do not want to come back to that or go into details of that. That has been done once and that is enough. I want to come back to the answer given by the Prime Minister, more particularly to the standard of that answer. You will remember that I told the House at the beginning of my speech what the spirit was in which I was approaching this matter. I said that I wanted to concern myself with facts, and that everything I would say would be based on known facts as we have read them in the war reports that have appeared in the newspapers. I said in addition that I did not think that we should at this time cast aspersions at one another here about our attitude towards the war, that it would be fitting for neither side to do so. It is not fitting that the other side should blame us here for our attitude of neutrality. We have nothing for which to blame ourselves in that regard, but on the other hand I have no intention, where I have differed radically from the Government, of casting any aspersions from this side of the House against the Prime Minister or his party. There are greater matters at stake today than mutual recriminations. We have to do with South Africa and South Africa’s most vital interests and her future, as it is affected by the trend of the war. That was the spirit in which I approached the question, and that was the spirit in which I made my speech here, and I kept to that. But what did I get from the Prime Minister? One would have expected from a man placed in the responsible position that he holds, that he would have come forward with a calm and serious explanation of the position, especially as it affected South Africa. At this critical time one would have expected that from a responsible Prime Minister. But the speech we got was not that; on the contrary it was the essence—I cannot call it anything else—of irresponsibility. There we have the great fact that Russia is moving towards the west, and when she gets a footing in a country which she occupies, notably the small, free independent countries that lay on her borders, there she announces she will remain. As far as Poland is concerned, at least a great deal of Poland, as far as Finland is concerned, at least a great deal of Finland, as far as the Baltic states as a whole are concerned, she has let it be understood that she has gained a footing there and will not give way again.

That is only what Germany did.

And where Russia, has moved in this way towards the west, there she has taken her ideology, her Communism, with her, and that Communism that Russia has taken with her has been imported everywhere into the territories where she has gained control through her military occupation. She is trying by direct and indirect methods to advance that same Communism in other parts of the world which she has not invaded and the two opposite philosophies of life are clashing today, with few exceptions, in all countries, and they are clashing in a bloody way with one another throughout Europe. Those are the facts. And now, notwithstanding the facts, the Prime Minister in his answer passes lightly over all that. What else did we get from him? He admits that an assurance, and a solemn assurance, was given by the three Great Powers—first Britain and America, and then Russia with her signature as well—about what would be the basis of the peace. They gave that through the Atlantic Charter. And what does the Prime Minister come and do here in his answer? He comes and says that the Atlantic Charter is an ideal, it visualises an ideal; but so much for idealism, ideals, are only impractical things, they are not things which are intended to be carried out. In other words, he finds justification for committing a fraud on the peoples of the world, who take the statesmen who give such assurances at their word. The Prime Minister did not even deign in his reply to answer certain very pointed questions which I put to him. There is, for example, the question that strikes one at once: why, when such important decisions are being taken, especially in connection with Poland, he, who has expressed his opinion about Poland on other occasions in the past, and who has taken a definite attitude in regard to Poland, was not consulted; why through him this Dominion, and perhaps other Dominions, were not recognised in this matter. We were called upon to take part in the war, we were dragged into it because of what had happened in Poland, but when a settlement is made about Poland and Poland’s future, and when the Atlantic Charter is kept from being applied to Poland, and Poland is raped, then our Prime Minister is not consulted. And when I ask him to give us an explanation of the fact that we have not been consulted, then he is silent as the grave, and one simply does not get an answer to the question. Later in his reply, if I may describe it as such, one found the repudiation of his former attitude in regard to Poland. When the last war reached a close, when the peace conference was being held, then, in spite of Lloyd George and Clemenceau, and in spite of the majority of delegates at the Peace Conference, he took an attitude of his own—let us call it a genuine South African attitude. But what do we find now? He has no genuinely South African attitude in connection with Poland, but what we have had from him now is nothing else than a slavish grovelling before the mighty colossus. What did we get further from his answer? All sorts of misrepresentations and distortions of the attitude of the Opposition towards the war. I summarise what he said in that regard by describing it as nothing more than the dishing up in this House of the cheap propaganda of his own S.A.P. newspapers. That is what he came and dished up to us here. We on our side are supposed to have said that Britain had lost the war, that she would lose it and had already lost it. We on this side, and I in particular, are supposed to be, or to have been, Nazi-minded. He went further and stated here, always in the footsteps of his own S.A.P. press, that I even negotiated with the enemy. That is what he comes and dishes up to us here. And then the rest of his speech was marked by a contemptuous attitude towards me personally and towards this side of the House, and practically amounted to what one might call vulgar abuse. And then he ended with intimidation, intimidation of the following type: You people be careful, you be careful. Russia is a mighty State today, Russia is going to be the most powerful State in the world, and everything that you are saying is being noted. You be careful. Don’t come along now and criticise Russia and Russia’s doings. That was briefly what his speech contained. As I have said, it was a rehash of the cheap propaganda of his own Press. I do not want to waste much time on the Press, but the Press of the Prime Minister and his Party is irresponsible, it is purposely stupid, and I should prefer to say nothing about its moral standard. But everyone who knows the distortions that are made in those newspapers about the Nationalist attitude towards the war, everybody who knows how that Press deliberately hides things, and makes it its aim to keep the English-speaking people of this country in the dark and mislead them, cannot say otherwise than that that is correct, cannot deny that the Press is irresponsible, malicious and stupid, and that its moral standard is low. They keep the English-speaking people of the country in ignorance, they create the ignorance, consolidate it and exploit it for their own purposes. But I do not want to go any further into that. I only want to say that in intelligence they certainly have not achieved a high standard either. It reminds me of what happened at a Van Riebeek commemoration not many years ago. The festival was held under the auspices of the Algemeen Nederlandsche Verbond. The representative of Holland played an important part in the affair. The programme was issued and published in advance, and the festival was planned to end with the singing of “Wilhelmus van Nassaue.” For the information of hon. members on the other side who may not know it, I should mention that that is the Dutch national anthem, and the William to whom it refers was the first Prince of Orange, William the Silent. What happened was this: A report was published of the proceedings. It was reported that this and that had been said at the ceremony, and the report ended with these words “Mr. Wilhelmus also spoke.” That was just a little too much for the representative of the Netherlands, and he telephoned the editorial department and said that he did not understand how such a stupid things could have been done by them, that the man had long been dead, the man who “also spoke”. Then there was an answer from the editorial department that they were very sorry to hear of his death, and they would like to express their deepest sympathy both personally and editorially. The answer of the representative of the Netherlands was just this: “You silly idiot, the man has not died recently; he died 300 years ago.” And the only reply he got then was: “Oh.” That is the standard of the newspapers that keep the English-reading public informed here in this country. They are here to fight against South African nationhood, they are here in the interests of the Empire, and not to advance South African interests, not for the intertsts of our people. They know about as much about the South African people, its permanent population, of the ideals and interests of the Afrikaner people, as a cat about saffron. I come back again to the reply given me by the Prime Minister in this debate on external affairs. He was not as irresponsible as his newspapers. But that is the sort of answer that one gets from him. I want to tell him that I should like to repay him in his own coin. When I do so, I want to tell him that I am not annoyed with him. I have known him too long and too well for that. I know that he is never serious about serious matters, and that he is always serious about matters that are not serious. For that reason, because I know him so well, I am not annoyed with him, but I want to repay him in his own coin. First again in connection with his attitude towards Poland and the Polish settlement. He has shown himself in the course of the years in a threefold rôle. The first was in 1919 at the Peace Conference. Then the question was whether Poland should get the corridor and Danzig, which everybody understood to be German territory, and on that occasion the Prime Minister revealed himself as the prophet on the watchtower of the world, and he could see what the consequences would be if it were given to Poland. He was the prophet on the watchtower, and he said to them: If you do this you will be sowing the seeds of a future war. You are sowing dragons’ teeth. Out of them will arise an armed regiment. That is the first rôle which the Prime Minister has played in connection with Poland. The second was in 1939, at the outbreak of this war. Then Britain, with his knowledge and consent, gave Poland a guarantee before war had broken out, that if Germany should invade Polish territory or in any way infringe her independence, then England with her whole armed force would intervene, and they would side with Poland and declare war. That guarantee was given with his knowledge. In other words, on that occasion, in 1939, he appeared as the defender of Poland when Poland wanted to retain Danzig and the corridor, which he had previously not wanted to give to Poland. He was now prepared to protect Poland and help her, with the whole armed might of the British Empire, to retain what she had. In that way we were dragged into the war. But now comes the third rôle in which he has played in the course of the years, and that is the rôle which he played here last Wednesday, that of the mocker of Poland in Poland’s trouble. For what did he do? He shrugged his shoulders when talking about Poland and with an air of contempt cried out: “Poland, Poland, what is Poland?” He even went on to try to justify his contempt, and brought to light a whole catalogue of Poland’s sins. All that I say about that is this: It would be a very good thing and would have the greatest effect if the three rôles in which the Prime Minister has displayed himself in the course of the years—the rôle of prophet, that of defender of a Poland that against his advice was hanging on to what she had taken, and thirdly that of the mocker of Poland—could be shown in the country in the form of a cinema film. They would learn to know the Prime Minister through that. I come to the misrepresentations that are made about our attitude during the period of the war. First we heard from the Prime Minister that there was a time when I said that Britain would lose the war or that Britain had in effect already lost it. I shall not deny that I said that. Only, that is not all I said. I said in addition that in those circumstances South Africa had to attend to her own interests and take account of the situation. But was I the only one who said that England had for practical purposes already lost the war, or that there was a great possibility that England would go under and that serious account had to be taken of the fact? I remind the Prime Minister of the fact that immediately after Dunkirk Mr. Churchill sent a telegram to America which was nothing less than an S.O.S. But that was not all. He said this in addition, and I can read out the telegram if necessary, that England would fight to the last in England to protect her own territory, but that it was quite possible that England would be overwhelmed—“subjugated and starved” That might happen, and what was to be done then? Then the war would be carried on by the British Empire outside England in the Dominions, and they would be supported by the Brtish Navy. In other words, there was a possibility that the war would be carried on—to say nothing of us here—on the coast of North America, for that is where Canada lies. And if that had taken place, what would have happened there so far as the United States are concerned? Then there would have been an infringement of the Monroe Doctrine. A war would be waged there between Germany and England, between two European powers, and according to the Monroe Doctrine America would not have been able to allow it. Then America said that her own interests, her own independence, were being threatened, and that was the reason why America came into the war.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said that it was British propaganda.

I ask again whether I was the only one who expressed that opinion. Mr. Churchill said in anticipation what would happen if England and Europe were overwhelmed. An when the war turned still futher against England, what was said by Stettinius, even at a time when Russia had come into the war against Germany? You can get Stettinius’s book “War Lease-Lend” in the library. He gives a description of the situation at that time, and see what he writes about the position even at a time when Russia was fighting on the side of the Allies. He says this—

That is when war broke out between Germany and Russia—

We were all surprised.

Further he says this—

And you were not among them.

I hear a buzzing down there. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I mean people who buzz. If that was the opinion in leading American circles too, such as represented by the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the United States, why then should I not have expressed the same opinion here; why should I not at that time have come to the same conclusion? If that was the position, was it not my duty in those circumstances to ask: What of South Africa? If what Mr. Churchill regarded as possible had happened, if what was expected in leading American circles had happened, was I not then entitled to ask: What of South Africa? That is not a question which I expect from the Prime Minister. I do not expect a question of that sort from a S.A.P. It is not in their nature to ask: What of South Africa? And yet the Prime Minister himself with his followers answered the question that Mr. Churchill put; they answered the question: What of South Africa? They simply accepted the statement made by Mr. Churchill that if England went under in the war, then the war would be continued by the Dominions. He accepted that for South Africa as well. In other words, if Europe had been reduced to heap of ruins by the war, then we were prepared to see our own fatherland, South Africa, reduced to a heap of ruins as well. [Time extended.] That was his answer in connection with that, and I also gave my answer. I said: South Africa means more to me than England; South Africa means more to me than the whole British Empire, and if the war develops in such a way that England should be beaten and overwhelmed, then there is another alternative for me to making South Africa a heap of ruins, and that is that we in South Africa should try to bring about our separation from the British Empire. If one must go under, then let England and the British Empire go under, but let South Africa remain. That is what I said at that time in those circumstances, and that is what we were out to achieve. In any event save South Africa, or save for South Africa what was to be saved. We had to deal at that time with two possibilities. Two answers had been given to the question: What about South Africa? The one answer was given by the Prime Minister. If England is converted into a heap of ruins, let us carry on with the war in South Africa and make of South Africa a heap of ruins too, if that cannot be avoided. There was another line which was taken by other circles in South Africa. The answer of Mr. Pirow, and together with him Dr. Van Rensburg, was this: Germany will win the war, and she will get South Africa too into her power, for we are in the war. But now, in order to get as favourable treatment as possible from Germany, let us simply accept Germany’s leadership, Germany’s mastery, at least in the realm of the spirit, and let us become Nazis. Accept National Socialism, and then we shall achieve a republic at the hands of Germany; but spiritually we shall be subject to Germany. That was the answer of that group. I rejected both those answers, and I rejected them at a time when it seemed certain that England would lose the war and that Germany would win supreme power in a large part of the world. Dunkirk was on 29th May, 1940.

You mean 1941.

Yes. I think Paris fell on June 22. I then summoned a Union congress of our party for the purpose of giving an answer to those questions. At that Union congress I myself drafted the resolutions and described the attitude of the party in that way.

When was the congress?

In June, 1941. At that time matters were going even worse. I took up an attitude which was confirmed by the resolutions of the congress, that we wished to dictate to no other country what its form of government should be. If Russia chose Communism; it was her own affair; if Germany chose national socialism, then it was her own affair. But so far as South Africa was concerned we had our own ideology, and we did not want national socialism. We repudiated it and we stood by the basis of popular government. I say that that is the attitude which we very clearly defined, and the fact that Mr. Pirow resigned from our party and that Dr. Van Rensburg stood apart from us, and still stands apart from us today, is the result of the attitude we took up that we did not want to be Nazis but stood for popular government. For the Prime Minister to come now, for that party to come now, and for their slavish press to come along and make out that we are Nazis is nothing else than an indication of the low level of lying to which a political party can sink. We base our fight on the fact that we want a republic. Zeesen has used the fact that I took up that attitude. Where did they get the information? I say that here within the borders of the Union there is a transmitter that has been in communication with Germany all the time. I say that you have the code it uses, and you simply allow it to go on because you want to enlist the aid of Zeesen against this Party. [Laughter.] Do you deny that there is such a transmitter? No, they do not. Do you deny that you know where it is? Do you deny that you know who it is who is broadcasting? If you do not know that, then I can give you the information. But it is not necessary for me to do that, because you know it yourself. You have simply allowed it because you have control of the code, and you allowed it to go on because you calculated that you might in that way possibly be able to get the Nationalist Party into trouble. I say that if Zeesen reacted towards the attitude which I took up, that is its own affair. I said that we wanted a republic in South Africa and that we did not want German overlordship. Zeesen said that Germany would agree to a republic and did not want to lord it over us. I said that I would accept that, but to me it was not an authoritative statement. If that is negotiating with the enemy, then it is high treason, is that not so? I ask you whether it is high treason or not. If that is treating with the enemy, then it is high treason, and if it is high treason, then why did you no arrest met? [Laughter]. No, you need not laugh. Why did you not do it? Why were you too cowardly to do so? If you were too cowardly to do what it was your duty to do, then you must keep quiet. I come to the last thing which the Prime Minister did in his answer, and that was to apply intimidation. He came and warned me and this Party that we should be very careful about what we said, for Russia was a powerful country, and the implication was that Russia would at some time or another settle with us. All that I want to say about that is this: The first signifiance of this is that the Prime Minister is giving indirect encouragement to communistic agitation and action. We dare not say what we please about Russia, but the communistic agitators need not be afraid, for mighty Russia is there to protect them. That is the implication of that statement. The second implication is that we are dealing here with a slavish grovelling before a foreign power. We may not speak here in South Africa in the interests of South Africa; we dare not discuss the bases of the peace here, and how they will affect South Africa, for there is mighty Russia! I say that that is the language of a slave. I want to repay the Prime Minister in the same coin as that he used against me, and I want to end with this. When he comes and intimidates us here, he is taking up a slavish attitude towards Russia, and if we trace his career, then we can put it in a nutshell. When he started his career, he was here in the Cape, and then he was an ardent worshipper of Rhodes. Here Rhodes was the power in the land, and he was a Rhodes worshipper. Shortly after that he moved to the Transvaal, and there he was an ardent Paul Kruger man, the great opponent of Rhodes. I go farther and I say this: When he got the appointment of Attorney-General of the Transvaal, Kruger did not go far enough for his liking. He was then a more ardent Paul Kruger man than Paul Kruger himself. Before there was war between England and the Republics he was urging to the Executive Council that Paul Kruger should declare war and press through to Durban. We can understand that. But do you know what he did further? He recommended to the Executive Council and to Kruger that they should overrun a peaceable people who lived at peace with the Boers and who were always friendly disposed towards them, without a declaration of war, and capture Delagoa Bay.

He was right.

He does not deny it.

It is too childish to be taken notice of.

I only want to prove here that when he was in the Cape he was a fervent worshipper of Rhodes; when he was in the Transvaal he wanted to go further than Kruger himself; and in connection with what I have said here, I want to read a passage from a letter which the Prime Minister addressed to the Executive Council of the Transvaal at that time—

Then he goes on—

And then he ends—

What is the date of that?

I say when he was in the Cape, he was a fervent worshipper of Rhodes. When he got to the Transvaal, he was a Paul Kruger man, to the very limit.

Then he wanted to conquer the Portuguese.

When the Boers lost the war, then he too lost his faith in his own people. And when he lost his faith in his own people, what then?

Then he became a P.C.

Oh no, then he had to adopt the same grovelling attitude towards somebody else who had the power, and England was then in power. Then he became a fervent British imperialist, so much a British imperialist, that Lloyd George expressed the view that England should look to her own interests above all, and where she was watching her own interests, other nations should not get in the way; in other words, with the implication that when England overran the Free State and the Transvaal it was right, because it was the British imperial policy. And all that time he simply did not lift a finger to help that section of the people out of the dust. What did he do? He did not lift a finger for that section of the people, and he does not lift a finger for them yet.

Hear, hear.

On the contrary, at last he and his Government have turned to the systematic persecution of Afrikaners. I say with a view to all this, with certainty that if Germany had won the war and if Germany had come here to South Africa as the conqueror, then he would have been South Africa’s Quisling. [Laughter.]

Hear, hear.

Yes, then he would have been South Africa’s Quisling. He is on the side of those who are most powerful. Now Russia is the mightiest—so he himself prophesied—Russia will be the most powerful nation and now he adopts that grovelling attitude towards Russia, and now he comes and intimidates us with Russia: “Be careful, don’t defend South Africa; don’t dare to say here what a damaging effect it will have on South Africa if Europe becomes Communist; be careful, there is mighty Russia”. And now I say that if the day should come that Russia should come to South Africa, then he would become Field-Marshal Smutsowitz. I say I am repaying him in his own coin. I do not as a rule speak in this way, but the answer given by the Prime Minister to a calm, reasoned speech on external affairs, made with South Africa’s interests in mind, fully justified it.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition concluded with an apology for the tone in which he had spoken about me. But that is not necessary. He has used worse language towards me in the past. Who called me a Chaka? I think the Hon. Leader of the Opposition need make no apology. I have heard worse language from him and I do not worry about it. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition must not think that I feel hurt about it. I know what he says does not come from his heart. It is intended to exonerate himself. It will not blacken me. My career is reported, in the book of history.

Yes, as an Empire man.

The world tribunal will decide about that. I leave it there.

We will also judge of that.

But the Hon. Leader of the Opposition was not so much out to attack me—that was only the conclusion; that was his peroration, the Chaka oration, but it was not really his intention. His intention was to apologise for himself and to justify what was wrong in his attitude during the last five years. That is the whole explanation. I waited a moment to see what he aimed at, but afterwards it became clear. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition wished to explain why he adopted that attitude during this war for which I had hauled him over the coals in the reply I gave last week. He had to explain why he was against the war, why he rejoiced at England losing the war, why he adopted that sympathetic attitude towards Germany, and why he acted as if he wanted a republic, the freedom of South Africa, at the hands of Hitler.

Hear, hear.

That stands out clearly. He has now admitted it.

Where?

He admitted that he used Zeesen ….

Nonsense.

…. to win the friendship of Hitler for the coming republic.

That is a falsehood.

He admits it now and he must now whitewash that black blot on his name, but that he will not manage to do. All the argument that took place here today, all the attempts, the eloquent attempts, with great gesticulation, to whitewash what is black in his record and in the record of South Africa, will not avail him; he will not manage it. No, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition will feel it in years to come and the people of South Africa will never forgive him for the attitude he adopted, for the lead he gave to his party. But what is the excuse he makes? That is the funniest of all. Yes, Lloyd George agreed with me; Lloyd George also thought all was lost; he also thought that everything was lost; he wanted to continue the war in other countries.

He said Churchill, not Lloyd George.

I am referring to Churchill. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition asks: Why should I be blamed for the attitude which I adopted seeing that Churchill himself adopted that attitude? But there is a world of difference between the attitude of Churchill and that of the Leader of the Opposition. Churchill’s attitude was this: We will fight to the end. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition’s attitude was one of jubilation over the defeat and downfall of England and glad acceptance of the friendly hand of Hitler who would win a republic for him. That is a fact, and he can argue and be eloquent, and he can paint pictures here but he cannot get past that.

At any rate I do not suck things out of my thumb.

His intention was only to whitewash what is black.

So far you have said nothing yet.

Nothing need be said. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition answered it himself and his whole attitude was one of self-justification, of justifying what was wrong in the past, and he will not succeed in that. Then he attacks the so-called slavish United Party Press. Is it necessary for me to defend that Press? A Press which stood for the right side through thick and thin, for the freedom of South Africa? The lapse of time has shown that that Press was right. Who was wrong in those days of propaganda emanating from Germany, and what is worse, German propaganda here in South Africa? The Press was right and it is not necessary for me to defend it. History will judge of that, and the result of the last election was the judgment of the people about it.

What about Port Elizabeth?

Now the Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that I want to intimidate him.

You tried, in any case.

No, what I say is this. I said he must speak about other countries with more respect.

About Poland.

Speak with more deference and respect about countries which will play a big rôle in the world in future. We see what the attitude of Great Britain is, we see what the attitude of America is, a dignified attitude, not this insulting language against Russia. Pres. Roosevelt does not go to Yalta, over half the world, to insult Russia, to use language such as we hear in South Africa.

No, he goes because Stalin calls him.

Churchill has gone to Russia to negotiate with Russia many times. No, it is because they are statesmen, not barking dogs, and it is for the dignity of South Africa that I plead. I say that this language which is used here by responsible persons is unworthy of South Africa, and it will do South Africa harm. That language, if it should go far enough—I hope it will not; I do not think it will; I do not think Stalin or anyone else will take the Leader of the Opposition seriously—and if Stalin takes it seriously South Africa will have to pay for it. I raised the point here because today we have the example of Great Britain, of the attitude of America and of the attitude of the Great Powers of the world, and here one of the smallest and most unimportant countries is shouting and carrying on and using language which is unworthy of us and will quite possibly do South Africa harm. We can differ in our points of view from Russia, and we can be careful about the course Russia will adopt. About those things we can have a difference of opinion. We can admit that there are different courses in the world and nobody knows what the future will bring forth. But a great responsibility rests on us, in our own interest and in the interest of the world, to be moderate, not to use language which later will be held against South Africa. It is not a question of intimidation or threats. It is only a question of warning, and I hope the Hon. Leader of the Opposition will take it to heart. If there is Communism in South Africa, he must be careful how he ascribes that Communism to Russia and in what measure he ascribes it to our own conditions in South Africa. The matter does not arise now, but in passing I just want to say that in my opinion the attitude of the Nationalist Party contributes more towards encouraging Communism in South Africa than any other factor.

“Tell it to the marines.”

Their whole attitude during the war created a spirit of recklessness and lawlessness in South Africa, a spirit which will become a fruitful breeding-ground for Communism.

Lawlessness!

You are becoming smaller and smaller.

Let us use the argument of Communism carefully. We have our own responsibilities, and those responsibilities rest mostly on the other side. Do not let us now wage a verbal war with Russia about a matter which is sitting on our own threshold. It is unnecessary for me to talk about this question further. The Leader of the Oppostion made an apology. He adopted an attitude here of now wishing to justify what was wrong in the past, and I think we can leave him there. His apology will not be accepted in the country, and is entirely in conflict with the facts.

I am only rising to say a few words to the Prime Minister. I think we have now known one another very well for many years, and I have never yet known the Prime Minister to be so pathetic as he was today. He stood up here and accused the Nationalist Party of being responsible for the fact that there was Communism in the country. He accused us of lack of moderation and lawlessness. If it had not been for the Nationalist Party, then there would certainly have been a rising in the country, but the Nationalist Party tried by word and deed to do everything possible to prevent immoderate acts in South Africa. But the Prime Minister goes further and says that we wished to obtain a republic at the hands of Germany. The Leader of the Opposition has said very clearly here today how we differed from Pirow and how we differed from Van Rensburg. We had no need to run to Germany for help; we have confidence in ourselves and in what is our own, but we are not turncoats as the Prime Minister of South Africa unfortunately is.

You wore a German uniform during the last war.

The Prime Minister cannot get up and deny a single word which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said here. He was a Rhodes supporter in South Africa. He dare not deny it for it stands recorded in history.

It is recorded in the Kimberley speech.

Yes, it is also recorded in the Kimberley speech. When he got to the Transvaal, he became a supporter of Paul Kruger, and at Vereeniging, when we had to conclude peace, he persuaded the delegation at Vereeniging to make peace, with the argument that as soon as England eventually got into trouble we should throw off the English yoke and make South Africa free again. We can put very little reliance on things that are said by the Prime Minister, and I am sorry that this is the case. It is a pity that the state of affairs in South Africa has become such that one has to doubt the words of the other side, from the Prime Minister down to the most junior member. The Prime Minister has not dared to repudiate that letter which he wrote to the Executive Council, and it is noteworthy that it was on 4 September, 1899, that he wrote that letter to the Executive Council. On the same day in 1939, 4 September, 1939, he stood up again and sought in turn to work in the interests of England. We on this side differed from the Prime Minister. I do not think there is a man who has been responsible for more bloodshed in South Africa than the Prime Minister. When he is borne to the grave one day traces of blood will follow him. How many innocent Afrikaners has the Prime Minister not had shot dead for the sake of British imperialism? And then he rises here and tells us that the people of South Africa will not forgive us for not wanting to join him on 4 September and make war side by side with Great Britain. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister: Does he remember the letter which he wrote to President Kruger from the Magaliesberg mountains when he wrote about the predatory expedition of the English, how women and children had to take refuge in the mountain fastness to take cover from the English? Has he forgotten how South Africa was burnt out and robbed of everything she had, and now he wants us to forget all that. Does he expect us to forget what happened in the years 1899 to 1902? We shall not forget it, and in truth our descendants will not forget it. I say that we shall carry on with this struggle for Afrikanerhood in South Africa until we achieve victory, and there is no doubt that we shall achieve the victory. I think the Prime Minister has failed to persuade the country to the least extent that we are not justified in asking at this stage what is going to happen at the peace conference. Now he wants to intimidate us. We dare not do those things now. No, we as the Nationalist Party have no reason to be ashamed of anything we have done during this war. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister: “If I was engaged in negotiations with Zeesen, then surely it was high treason?” Has the Prime Minister no longer a duty; has the Cabinet no longer a duty? If there is any one of us who has negotiated with the enemy during this time of war, then surely it was his duty to take action. Why did you not take action? Were you too much of a coward? Now he tells us that the people will not forgive us. No, the people are now beginning to realise how they have been misled from step to step by that side. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke clearly here about the transmitting station. It appeared that the Prime Minister knew where the transmitter was—he did not deny it—but he said that he took no steps because it was only propaganda. In other words, he is the person who allowed those things to be sent through to Zeesen during the past five or six years; and he is taking matters a little too far if he wants to make the people believe that we have had negotiations with Zeesen. I do not think it is necessary for me to follow up the Prime Minister further oh the reply which he gave this afternoon. From beginning to end it was an egg-dance. What did he really say here? We are always hearing from the opposite side that there is a war in progress and that we are involved in that war. Our attitude in regard to this war is that we never wanted to be in the war, and I say that on 4 September the Nationalist Party took up the best attitude that it could. Today the people of South Africa are going hungry. Going hungry for whose sake? We must go hungry because the Prime Minister has plunged this country into a war that is the concern of other countries. That is the reason why this country must go hungry today. I say their consciences will accuse them one of these days. Then I want to say a few words about a few other little matters. I see the Minister of Agriculture is here now. The other evening I told him that the consumption of meat had been decreased from 100 per cent to 70, and now the quota has again been reduced by a further five per cent. The Minister, however, denied that that was the case. But yesterday evening he made a speech outside and he practically stated that what I had said here was correct. Here in the House he denies it, and outside, at the first subsequent meeting that he holds, he says that there was in fact such a decrease. He says that we are now trying to import meat from other places, but here in the House he denied that. I just want to deal with a few matters in connection with some of these questions. I only want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that I was in Pretoria last week, and it was pathetic to see how our European women had to queue up in front of the butcher shops for the sake of getting hold of a little meat. They were forced to stand in queues among the kaffirs in order to get into the butcher shops. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot do something to put an end to that state of affairs. Cannot he make an end to this indifferent attitude of his, which has led to the position that white and black are forced to throng together in the butcher shops? I think the time has come for the Minister to do something in the matter. He could solve the difficulty within 24 hours if he would take our advice and raise the prices to the producers. Then he will get enough slaughter stock for the whole population of South Africa. But as long as he continues with that stupid policy, that will not happen. One cannot understand why he carries on with that stupid policy, knowing that it is wrong. But he remains obstinate. He does not want to take our advice. I hope that the Minister will go into these matters and try to find a solution. He could find a solution if only he would take our advice, but he does not want to do that. Now I want to say a few more words to the Prime Minister. Last year we asked the Prime Minister in this Parliament to ensure that when the war was over those motor lorries and tractors would not again be handed over to the speculators.

The Jews.

As I have said, I was in Pretoria last week. There lorries and tractors are standing in their hundreds, lorries and tractors that the farmers need urgently today. They need tractors particularly because there is a shortage of labour today. They need motor lorries in order to be able to transport their products more quickly. But what is the Government going to do? I understand that they are going to recommend that the lorries and tractors and all those things should be sold to the trade. The Government has already bought them from the trade, but now they must be given back to the traders so that the traders can again make a certain profit on them. The Government has decided, as has also come to light here today, that people who are nothing less than beasts of prey, should prey on the country further and make it still poorer. I make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to put an end to this. I raise the matter now, for in a fortnight’s time it may be too late and then everything may be in the hands of the speculators again, the lorries and the tractors, the motor cars and the wire. The farmers greatly need these things. Perhaps we cannot get everything, but there is a great need for these things. For that reason I am asking the Hon. the Prime Minister to intervene. It is said that we must produce. We can only produce if the Government gives us the chance of doing so and provides the necessary facilities for transport and the means for ploughing. But we lack those necessities. The Hon. the Prime Minister knows the position in the country. It is very bad and miserable. The Minister expects a mealie crop of 16,000,000 bags. I say to the Minister that if we manage to produce 12,000,000 bags this year, then South African can consider herself very lucky. We must therefore act very carefully in regard to the food situation. Help the farmers. They do not want anything for nothing. We are only asking for the things we need, and we plead that they should not be sold to the speculators but direct to the farmers. I am sorry that the Minister of Lands is not here. He has had a headache since yesterday and it is bothering him. The Minister of Lands started last year to drive the old people off the premises, then the young people who had to help with the production of produce, and now he is engaged in driving from 3,000 to 4,000 lessees off the land. Those are all people who are being thrown on the road, and who are stopping production. I said the other day that he should leave these people alone until such time as the land had to be distributed; and when the land is distributed, then give these people a month or two grace before other settlers are placed there. I see that provision is being made now to protect the baboons and monkeys and venomous snakes, but the poor farmer has no protection against the Minister, he must simply be thrown on the road. And the Prime Minister still keeps a Minister of that calibre in the Cabinet. He is digging a grave for the farming population. The farmers now have to come under the thumb of the Department of Lands. The farmer may not become the owner of his own land, as the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) said the other day. We have given warning and we warn you today. The Minister is going ahead rapidly and the Prime Minister simply lets him loose among the farmers. We thought that the Prime Minister had some say over all the Ministers, but he allows the Minister of Lands to carry on with the farmers as he pleases. A miserable situation is being created, and it may bring about the fall of the Prime Minister sooner than he thinks. For the reasons which I plague is the Ministers we have; it seems to this Bill, I now want to move—

I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will help us in this regard. We want no more poor whites; we already have hundreds of thousands of them. The Minister says that the country is flourishing, but I can give him the assurance that the situation is very much more serious than he thinks. One crop failure after another, one plague after another. But is seems to me that the worst plague is the Ministers we have, it seems to me they are the worst sinners of all.

I second the amendment. We can heartily support this proposal, for I think it is a scandal to see the way in which the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, allow the poor population to be victimised. We did not expect that the Prime Minister would ever allow anything of that sort. The Minister of Lands is engaged through his policy in making the poor people into nothing more than white kaffirs. They have to go begging, hat in hand, while the Government spends thousands of pounds for the purpose of giving the natives all the conveniences and privileges it can think of. The poor settlers are bowed down today under great burdens, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, who is fortunately here. I have in my hands here a letter from the farmers’ association of Oranjewal. The Government has a large water scheme there and the whole of Vaaldam is infected with algae. The Government has bought up farms there from well-to-do farmers and has cut up the land into settlement plots and on those plots the poor people now have to try to make a living. The whole of Vaaldam is now infected with algae, and so is the whole neighbourhood, and as a result of that these people have lost hundreds of head of stock. Last year at the beginning of the Session I approached the Minister of Lands, and he referred me to the Minister of Agriculture and still later I was referred to the Director of Irrigation. Then I urged that the poor people should be compensated for the losses that they had suffered there. You are sent from Pontius to Pilate and from larboard to starboard. And what do you get? The one shrugs his shoulders and the other hides his face, they can do nothing about it. Last year, after the Session, the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) took up the matter. He was in Pretoria and he discussed, the matter with the Minister and the Department. There have now been cases of poisoning over a large area, and what did they suggest? The farmers had to fight the plague. What is the position? You have that lot of poor settlers and people who have to hire the land. Their contracts of lease provide that they must keep their farms free of any weeds, any noxious weeds. They are paying through the neck today in rent, they have one crop failure after another, and as a result these people simply cannot afford to fight this plague too. I am glad that the Prime Minister and also the Minister of Finance are present. We want to suggest that the Government should fence in those places. Last year I asked the former Minister of Agriculture, who unhappily has passed away in the meantime, whether the Government was not going to bore wells for the farmers and construct dams with drinking troughs for them, so that the stock need not drink out of infected dams, but would drink healthy water from the troughs. It is possible to put drugs in the troughs that counteract the effects of the plague. That is the only solution. It is of no use leaving it to the people to do that. They simply cannot afford it. Millions and millions of pounds are being spent in the country in my view unnecessarily, and there are people who are making thousands of pounds and profiteering, but the poor man is perishing from poverty. Here the farmers’ association writes that Vaaldam is infected and that hitherto nothing has been done to fight the plague there. The farmers are under an obligation to keep their farms free of weeds, but nothing is done on the part of the Government, and they ask me to bring the matter seriously to the notice of the Minister. The Government must do something effective and save the farmers in that connection. It is becoming a disaster, a national disaster. It is a matter that must be tackled by the Government. The Government must provide those people with the necessary means and financial assistance, so that the plague can be exterminated. It must not simply place obligations on the people. They cannot undertake those obligations. For that reason we are asking that the Government should do something to give relief.

Before lunch the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) made a remark which I feel I should answer. In reply to an interjection which I had made the hon. member immediately turned round and told me that I should concern myself with liquor licences. That was in my opinion scandalous and mean. I believe that the intention was to give the House the impression that I had had something to do with liquor licences in which dirty work had been involved, in connection with which there had been bribery or something of that sort, or that there was something connected with liquor licences in which I was involved that was not honest. I want to deny that. The remark might have left a wrong impression, such as the other side are continually trying to create. I applied for a liquor licence because I was a citizen of the State and had no reason to be ashamed to apply. I am, for example, not in the same position as the hon. member for Winburg, who has created suspicion in the country. I am faithful to my people and my country, and so I had the right to apply, and the application for a licence was refused. But that does not mean to say that there was anything wrong. The hon. member has, however, unconsciously also cast a reflection on his own leader on the Rand, who was also concerned in an application for a liquor licence at that time. I only wanted to say these few words because a mistaken impression might have been created. I am sorry that the hon. member for Winburg is not here. If I had been in the position that I had made a failure of my life then he might have made such a remark with the object of creating a wrong impression. If, for example, I had gone to Hollywood with the intention of becoming a film dancer and had proved a failure, then he might have made that remark. But fortunately that is not the case. We have a clown here in the House who wants to create the impression among people outside who read Hansard that there was something which was not right in connection with the application for a licence.

Are you ashamed of your application now?

The hon. member must keep quiet when liquor is being discussed. I had the right to apply, and there was nothing suspicious about it. I am not a man who has occupied myself with treasonable matters, with persons who have been punished for sabotage, I did not plead for them, I did not occupy myself with people who represented subversive elements. I want to come to what the Leader of the Opposition said about my leader. He represented him as a coward and a Quisling. I just want to say here, and I say it emphatically, that the Leader of the Opposition is the last person who should talk of a coward and a Quisling. The country has never yet known him as a man who came to the people with a cause and stood by his cause to the end. He dare not speak of cowardice. I want to remind him of the troubles on the Rand in 1918 and 1919. I was then the chairman of a branch of the Nationalist Party.

There is the Quisling.

The Leader of the Opposition was due to address a meeting at Germiston, but after what had happened at the Wanderers we had to promise him an escort to protect him before he would agree to address the meeting. He refused to address the meeting otherwise. I was due to act as chairman, but I then refused to act as chairman, for my attitude was that I would not be the chairman of a coward. Let him put that in his pipe. He has never yet in any circumstances shown that manliness which characterises a brave citizen of the country, and his supporters know it.

Will you explain to us why you, a young man, have not gone to fight?

In his speech he took the attitude that Communism was a danger, and that Communism and Bolshevism would come about as a result of this war. I only want to say that there has never been a statesman or a leader of a Party or a man who imagined himself to be a statesman who has done more to support Bolshevism or Communism in South Africa than the Leader of the Opposition. He is the man who has tried here to give the impression ever since the declaration war in 1939, that there is only one country with a right to exist and with the right to win, and that is Germany. The hon. member spoke here about Zeesen. I can remember how he arrived at Epping Garden Village during the Hottentots Holland by-election, and he made this statement at the meeting: “I, Dr. Malan, have consulted Hitler about South Africa’s future after this war, and now, friends, you may feel at ease, everything is in order, for Zeesen says I need not concern myself, it will take care of the status of South Africa.” And now he comes here and dares to throw allegations of that sort at the heads of the Party on this side. Not that alone. He stated in other instances that England had lost the war, that Germany was the victor and that Hitler expected a Government to be formed here that would be favourably disposed towards him, and he (Dr. Malan) was willing to take that Government on himself. It is a pity that the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) has walked out, for there are other members who stated unequivocally that they were in favour of a German victory. He cannot deny that. Their leader on the Rand, Mr. Schoeman, said in a message from the Transvaal to the Free State congress at Bloemfontein, that his message from the Transvaal was that they were in favour of a German victory. Do they deny it now? Will they deny that when the troubles occurred at Brits, one of their supporters said there: “Away with Jan Smuts, we want Hitler here”? The Leader of the Opposition made an attack on Dr. Van Rensburg, his one time ally. Was it not the Leader of the Opposition who said at a large meeting at Boksburg: “I say, just you touch the Ossewabrandwag, and then I will show you. I will protect the Ossewabrandwag”? At the last election, in spite of what he has said about Mr. Pirow, they managed to achieve a sort of co-operation in the election, and the Leader of the Opposition then said: “It will be an honour to me to get up on the same platform as Mr. Pirow.” Do they deny that? Now he comes along and says that Mr. Pirow and Dr. Van Rensburg wanted to bring about Bolshevism by saying that Hitler and Nazism would win the war. Now the Leader of the Opposition stands up here and tries to defend himself under the cloak of the loss of the war by Germany. He is turning his coat again. The attitude of his Party was quite wrong, and now he is turning again and trying to get on good terms with the winning side. He now wants to go in the other direction again. I want to make a prophecy. When the war has been lost by Germany, the Leader of the Opposition will be the first to run with his hat in his hand and say: “Good morning, Uncle Joe, I am Dr. Malan of South Africa, what can I do for you?” Communism means nothing to him. It simply has no meaning for him. Was it not he who made a statement in Court in favour of Communism? Surely it was one of his supporters who acted as a protagonist for the communists when there was a procession here, and who brought a message here into the House. Did he disapprove of that? I want to give the Leader of the Opposition and his followers the assurance that all these things are not having the least effect on the people outside. He is known as the person who has always been a Quisling in connection with South Africa’s ideals, not only during this war, but also at the time when the republics, about which he now cries so much, were in danger. From that time up to today, the people have never yet had any faith in him. He has always shown that he is out for personal interests, and as long as he can advance them he does not care what happens to his policy, and how he has to turn his words and change his policy.

I want to come back from Zeesen, Norway, and America into South Africa, and to make one or two suggestions to Ministers concerning domestic policy. This will not be done by me in a spirit of unbridled optimism, because I have made far too many suggestions already to departments, entirely in vain, to count my chickens before they are hatched. The attitude of many Ministers towards suggestions appears to be—not quite in the words of the poet: At the going down of the sun … and in the morning we will forget them. There are very important matters which need to be advanced, and we are not altogether witless when we make suggestions here in this House, for this reason. There is just a possibility that they will filter through the Press in some amazing way to the people, and be approved by them, for after all they are the proper arbiters. Even I, from time to time, get as much publicity as a full half page.

A half page?

I should of course have said a full half-inch in the “Cape Argus,” which will be followed perhaps by a similarly spectacular display in the “Natal Mercury,” and there is now at least the bare possibility of ideas being broadcast also in the “New Era.” The point I make first of all may by unimaginative critics be considered as light, because it has to do primarily with sentiment or the feeling of the people. But I would like to suggest to the Government through you, Sir, that one of the biggest mistakes they are making at the present moment is to ignore the sentiment or feeling of the people of this country, which is definitely running counter to the Government. I have seen it more during this Session, not at all because they have not accomplished the impossible, but because in the opinion of the people they have not attempted that which they could quite easily have done. I have been urged by many of those concerned to raise what is a sentimental but important question about medals and decorations which are being awarded in connection with the present war. Perhaps the terms had better be defined. The medal is presented, as it were, in mass formation, to thousands of people at a time, for some kind of participation in a war or at least a campaign; but a decoration is awarded to an individual for a personal act of bravery or for some distinguished personal service. Psychologically, the Government is making not just a mistake, but a whole series of mistakes, in connection with these awards. They could very easily be used to weave a great net of goodwill, but actually it is discontent and ill-will that is being created. I want to refer first of all to the Africa Service Medal, which is awarded to full-time soldiers in the Union, and also to members of part-time units which have undergone at least one eighteen-hour period of consecutive training. I quote the first paragraph of a letter addressed to me from Col. Kay, D.S.O., who commands the Durban Civilian Guard (Special Constables)—

Sir, you will remember that in 1940 a very large number of South African police, many hundreds of them, joined the Union Defence Force, so many that two complete infantry battalions were formed, and eventually there came into existence a Police Brigade. The Government quite naturally thereupon called upon those men still in the factories and offices to join the Civilian Guard, and to become special constables under the Police Act, thus taking the place of the men who had gone into the fighting line. The response was generous, Thousands did so attest, and most of them who joined the Civilian Guard in 1941 are still carrying on their duties. They have patrolled the streets in all weathers nightly, and have assisted the S.A.P. in whatever manner or method was required, and especially in the black-out years they performed the most valuable services in maintaining order. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that that service should be recognised, and my just recommendation is that the Africa Service Medal should be awarded to them. Other people who are not getting recognition are the members of the South African Women’s Auxiliary Services. These people in 1939 recruited themselves, officered themselves, and put themselves into uniform, found money for the necessary work of entertaining the troops of South Africa and other allied nations, and have carried on magnificent work from that day to this. The troops of our army themselves have thrust this upon my notice. They want some recognition to go to these women, who with absolute selflessness have been working all this time. I suggest this Africa Service Medal, the one which is reddish in colour—some people have compared its tint with that of the raspberry—should be given not only to the Civilian Guard, but also to the Women’s Auxiliary Services and also to members of part-time military units. When we come to the army proper, so far as full-time soldiers are concerned, who may probably not have left the Union, these full-time soldiers do not like to be given a medal precisely the same as that given to the soldiers who did 18 hours of part-time training, and I suggest to the Minister that the difficulty can easily be got over by giving the full-time soldier a distinguishing symbol, as for example a “V” in silver or in bronze on the ribbon of that same medal. These things may seem of relatively small importance, but they are not unimportant when they affect the aspirations of hundreds of thousands of men and women. There is another point. In 1941 I was in considerable doubt as to which coast of Africa was in most danger, the north or the south. It appeared to me that the Government also found difficulty in deciding, because they considered it necessary to organise a Coastal Army, with a Major-General in command and a large staff of officers and an efficient fighting force at his back. Now, the position of the South African coast at that time was critical. I used to go to gunners and others on a Sunday and explain to the men as carefully and as safely as I could, why they, who were keen to go North, had to stay in Cape Town, East London, Durban, and other such places. It was explained to them that the work they did was active service work, very important work, and none more so. Well, I took it, and they took it, that the 1939-1943 Star was going to be awarded to the men who were on active service in the Coastal Command. I still think this should be done, and hope the General Officer Commanding will accede to my request. I have one other proposal to make here, and that is in regard to the men who joined up in the first twelve months of the war. These people had the hardest times of all. The pay was very low. It was not until 1941 that I suggested in this House that the pay of the lowest soldier should be approximately £1 a day, and at that time the idea was received with something very like derision. Later the rates were greatly improved, but the men who joined up early did not get that pay. Conditions were harder on these men who joined in the first twelve months, and they had the distressing experience of knowing that their wives and children were not drawing their family allowances regularly. For these reasons I suggest that the Government would be well advised to institute another medal, as was done in the last war for the volunteers of the first year and the members of the Permanent Force who took the oath for service anywhere in Africa or overseas. I suggest there should be a 1939-’40 Medal for the volunteers who first joined up. I do not recommend these changes merely of my own accord, but on behalf of the many thousands of soldiers who have approached me. I am, however, in perfect agreement with the position they have taken up. After all, the average soldier only gets two medals under this revised system of awards, which is not too much for six years of war. I wish to remind the House that the French awarded no less than nine campaign medals in the last war, leaving decorations out of consideration altogether. I do not suggest such a number as this, but I do most seriously advocate the plan I have here put forward. May I mention my own department for a moment, the Chaplains’ Corps? It seems to me that the padres should not be overlooked altogether, when it comes to the distribution of decorations. There has been very little appreciation shown of the work done by army chaplains. We have not even been given the needful working tools. To this day I have never been issued with communion vessels. The attitude was taken up by one very senior officer that after all, though the chaplains were in the army, they only had a sentimental value. I am sorry to say that I think the Prime Minister has been a little thoughtless in that respect, and am glad the Rt. Hon. gentleman is present to hear what I say. I do not remember one occasion when he offered in public one word of praise or thanks for the work done by the chaplains in the army. I hope that that attitude will alter, and that recognition will be given at least to the principal chaplains of the various churches, so that it cannot be said that religion is regarded by the Government as an unnecessary and despised extra. Quite contrariwise, sincere and true religion is the only basis on which a real nation can be built up and preserved. Now, I have to make a point about demobilisation arrangements. I often wonder how private members of this House can spare the time to sit here and listen to speeches, however interesting these discourses may be. Judging from my own case, the average member of Parliament receives from 12 to 24 letters a day. I do not know when we are supposed to answer them, nor do I always know how to answer mine; and due to what I consider the dilatoriness and laxity of the Department of Welfare and Demobilisation, here is one I cannot answer at all. The letter is very short, and I think it will be remembered by this House. It is a letter I received not from a nobody but from a retired major in the Union Defence Force who has held a commission for over 30 years. It is dated 6th February and reads as follows—

What is his name.

I will give it to you later. I do not think it is right to give it to the whole House. It is a request which was made to the Demobilisation Committee in this town. I remember the stupendous speech made by the hon. Minister of Demobilisation last year.

Let me have his name.

I am tired of giving the names of people to those who thereafter, in my experience, do very little about it, but I will tell you what he asked for and did not get. This major, in the service of our army, was mostly occupied at his post in Port Elizabeth and East London. His wife, who was sick, lived in Cape Town with an attendant. How could he save and pay his income tax? He could not pay his income tax when he earned £60 a month, and had two households to maintain. At the end he got a gratuity, and £15 to buy clothes, though precious little clothing can be bought for £15 even by a Minister. He did get a considerable bit of money, I understand from the Treasury, which was due to him, but the whole lot of it was taken by the Treasury as income tax which he had failed to pay during the last two years of his service, so he had nothing at all. He has no money to pay house rent. He is a month behind in this respect. It is a very modest house, but at the end of next month he will owe £16. He asked the Demobilisation people to lend him a small sum. They did not do it. Last Session I listened to the Minister’s magnificient-seeming speech, but I have very little time for the embroidery of schemes which when it comes to the test do not work. I am told that machinery exists to meet every case. Many of the cases I know seem to have slipped through the machinery. I want to know a little bit about the Fisheries Development Corporation. This enquiry, I suppose, should be directed to the Minister of Economic Development. I know very little about what the Corporation is doing. I only know the names of two directors, one of them being Dr. Von Bonde, in whose ability I have the fullest confidence, and the other is Dr. Skaife, in whose competence and progressiveness I have complete faith, and also in his good South Africanism. To make sure that I am not misrepresented, as so often happens, I am saying now and plainly that I have every belief in him. But yet I think it is a great pity that my suggestion last year was not followed, and one or two members of Parliament, who have given many years of study to the question of fisheries development, were hot appointed on the directorate. They were willing to serve without remuneration, and had they been appointed we might have known what was being done. I know some things that they have not done. They have not come to the rescue of Port Shepstone, in Natal, to help it to establish itself as a fishing port. A man named Harley in Durban invented a kind of net which could be used from the shore, or so he thought, and so did a company think which was prepared to finance it. I thought that the poor people who needed fish should have the first consideration, and not a private company, and I persuaded him later to put his drawings before the Fisheries Development Corporation, and so he did, but that was the end of it. I do not say it must immediately have proven a success, but I do say that civilian money was ready to support him, and I want to suggest that the Corporation should have been prepared to spend a few hundred pounds to try out new ideas and not wait until these have proved to be a success before they put in a penny. Private enterprise will put in money, and I do think the Corporation could have done the same, because perhaps in the end it would have assisted the poor of the country. I know another thing they have not done. The slipway at Stilbaai is almost finished. There is a well-known fisherman, known to me, and to many, as an expert on our costs—and an ex-Lt.-Commander in the Royal Navy. He had in view a fishing project on a relatively small scale. He still has it. He was asked by the Corporation to frame a full report on proposals he had in mind. He did so, but from that day to this has not had an acknowledgment of his report, let alone any assurance that it will be adopted. We do not know why there is this silence. I want to know whether the Minister is causing it, or whether the Fisheries Development Corporation is receiving opposition from vested interests. If you take the shark fishing industry, which produces vitamin oils, I know that three or four companies are doing extremely well in that occupation, and are making 100 per cent. profit on their outlay. Will the Minister tell us whether the Corporation wants to take part in that industry, whether they have tried to do so, and whether they realise that money must be obtained for the amelioration of the disgraceful and disgusting condition under which the fishermen of Paternoster and other little fishing villages are living? The Corporation has been constituted for almost a year, and we want to know what is being done; and if nothing is being done, who is stopping them? It is food which is brought out of the nets of fishermen, and the matter does not only affect the fisherman. The people of the country are painfully interested in food at present. How much extra food in the way of fish have we had since this Corporation was set up? We cannot neglect any of the possible sources of food. Before I sit down I want to refer to the truly ridiculous figures put out by Government departments about the increased cost-of-living. The latest ratio sets forward the figures 1,297 as against 1,000, representing present cost-of-living as against pre-war cost. Some of you may have observed that I sometimes smoke a pipe. The tobacco does not cost me 30 per cent. more than it did, but twice as much, 100 per cent. increase. The pipe I put it into cost 5 times as much. A 2s. 6d. pipe now costs 12s. 6d. to 15s. The uniform I put on, tunic and slacks, in 1940 cost £9 9s. and was excellent. If I want one now it cost £21 and will not be good. As to meat, prices have increased in much the same proportion. (Bread has not increased in price, but has halved in value, which is the same thing). As regards meat I am reminded of the facetious butcher who put a notice in his window, having nothing more nourishing to display: “Mutton talk of sheeps, or dripping!” For people in my position, which is not a particularly enviable one, during the last two or three years household expenses have increased to twice or three times as much as they were before. I am interested in this matter of cost, and I will quote a little more to show you that the cost-of-living is now in many cases almost 300 per cent. up. This is a quotation from “The Daily News” of 29th January. It says—

The article goes on to state that many articles of clothing cost over 100 per cent. more than they did before the war, as the following prices, taken at random prove. They then say that a white mercerised twill shirt for the average boy of 10 cost 12s. 9d. today compared with 2s. 6d. or 2s. 11d. before the war. Long grey flannels are 22s. 6d. today as against 7s. 6d. and 7s. 11d. before the war. The difference is just as marked for girls. Gym costumes which before the war ran from 10s. 6d. are today from 21s. to 43s. 3d. Cotton pyjamas which before the war could be bought from 5s. 11d. to 7s. 11d. today cost 21s. 3d. In addition to the tremendous increase in the cost of clothes, the article says, the materials do not stand up to the pre-war article, which is another increase in the price. I am giving these figures because I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance for all the people in this country who have small pensions, and especially those who receive old age pensions. If we take the old age pension for a coloured person, she may receive including 15s. cost-of-living allowance, £2 10s. a month. I managed to get an old age pension for a deserving and a grateful assistant in my flat. She had to pay 9s. 6d. a week for one room. That is 42s. a month. She has therefore 8s. a month for food, and clothing, the doctor, and other kinds of expenses. She therefore has £4 16s. a year, for all purposes. With what she earns, she is allowed to have £3 5s. a month. If she goes out and earns £2 a month extra her pension is deducted to the amount of £1 5s. If she earns £3 monthly, she will have to give the Treasury £2 5s. a month. Europeans are in no better position. Their pension is £5 including cost-of-living allowance, and they can have other income of £1, altogether £6 a month. The poor laws in England from the time of Queen Elizabeth, right up to 1801, made conditions so humiliating that as few people as possible would make application for aid. It seems to me that the principle behind our old age pension is that it is to be so inadequate that people are better off when they do not take the pension at all. I am entirely against that. If there must be differentiation between the old age pension of a coloured person and a European (which I do not support) I suggest that by cost-of-living allowances these pensions should be brought up to £8 and £10 a month respectively, at once, for the reason that no-one can live on less. It seems to me that the attitude of the Government in this respect is that it is a crime to be poor, and the punishment must be meted out. The punishment is very heavy, and must end. I hope that the Minister will find ways and means to include in his Budget a new figure of old age pension, at least £8 a month for a coloured person, and £10 a month for a white person. As I went home from the House at three o’clock the other morning—there was no need for me to remain longer—as I came out on the square, I saw the mountain burning, and I remembered what is said of the Emperor Nero, that he fiddled while Rome burnt. This House is a place where we come to right the wrongs of the people. This Parliament is a body, if it would only realise it, which has the power to right the wrongs of the people. What are we doing? We do little more than fiddle while the fires of want, misery, disease, and despair are burning the heart out of our nation. I say that the conditions under which millions in this country are living are indescribable, and the Government must attend to the matter. The people must have food to eat, and decent clothing to wear. The best we can do is to give them work so that they can provide these things for themselves. But, meanwhile, and if they cannot support themselves, through illness or old age, the Government can and must, find ways and means to support them in reasonable comfort.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to our mining taxation. I do not think the subject has been mentioned in the course of this debate, and I want to deal with our whole gold mining taxation. I maintain that our taxation, in view of the costs of production, has reached danger point. Our gold mines, on which our whole economic structure is built, are amongst the most highest taxed mines in the world. In some cases the mines themselves pay 75 per cent. of their profits to the Government, and the shareholders themselves, after having paid the normal and supertax very often pay 17s. in the £ on what the mines earn. We have also come to the point that mines are either closing down or on the point of closing down. Five mines have actually given notice of closing down. We have large areas in the Free State which are being prospected at present, and if we want those sums running into many millions of pounds for the development of the Free State and the Far West Rand we shall not obtain that money for purposes of development unless our mining taxation is revised. These people feel this way. They have put large sums of money into the ground. When the ventures have proved a failure they have lost their money, and if the mine turns out to be a success most of the profit, by far the higher proportion, goes to the Government. We should realise that we ourselves in this country cannot raise all the money required for development. We have to go overseas for it, and the people in England and other countries overseas who invest their money in South Africa will not provide the money that is required unless they see a bigger return than is offered at present. From that I should like to go on to the Stock Exchange. I am hoping that the Minister of Finance will bring in a Bill controlling to a certain degree some of the activities and machinations on the Stock Exchange. During the last few months we have seen shares skyrocketing to five times their nominal value.

Some shares are going down, unfortunately.

Yes, and that brings ruination to quite a number of people. The Minister promised us last year that a Bill would be introduced this Session.

He promised that two days ago.

I hope it will be brought in shortly. Included in that Bill should be the question of unit security certificates.

That, too, was promised two days ago. You were not here.

I was here.

It happened to be half-past five in the morning.

One other matter I would like to raise here relates to the Deciduous Fruit Board. The figures referred to by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) were those for last year. I would like to point out to the House that although the position has slightly improved, the figures in the balance sheet disclose some rather glaring facts. In regard to pears, they purchased 12,346 tons of pulp pears at £80 4s. per ton. Of this quantity there was sold to the canners 5,813 tons, the price received being £70,834, and the remaining 6,533 tons were sold for £14,250. That is approximately 25 per cent. of the cost. It works out at £2 7s. 10d. per ton. Despite this low intake price, they show on gross sales turnover of £39,776 a loss of £25,458. That is what they show in the balance sheet. But when we examine the position still further we find it is far worse. If they had paid the cost price of the pears, that is the price to the canners, they would have lost approximately £70,000 on a turnover of £39,776. The wages alone on this little item were over £30,000. I should like the Minister of Agriculture to agree to the departmental enquiry which I understand has been asked for in various parts of this House in order that the workings of this Deciduous Fruit Board may be enquired into. The present state of affairs is to my mind due to a lot of incompetence on the part of the members.

When I had the opportunity of speaking on a former occasion, my time unfortunately ran out, and there are still a few matters of great importance which I want to bring to the notice of the Government. In regard to the matters which I want to raise in the meantime, I am very glad that the hon. the Minister of Railways is present, and also the Minister of Finance, for he may have to give his approval on the financial aspect. Now that the Minister of Railways is present I should like to pay him a compliment. One does not often have the occasion to pay compliments to any Minister, but I want to do it today. I am referring to the very happy practice of the Minister of Railways, when matters are debated here in Parliament, of having the decency or the courtesy later to have answers provided by his Department to the questions that are raised here. That is of great importance to members. It shows that they have not simply spoken uselessly, and that the Department is giving attention to their pleas. I hope that practice will be imitated by other Minister as well. The first point that I want to raise is a matter of very great importance not only for the Northern Transvaal, which has an especial interest in it, but unfortunately owing to the conditions that exist throughout the Union, it is also going to be of very great importance to a large part of the Union; and that is the provision that is being made for giving assistance to drought-stricken areas. We know that it is the policy of the Government, before use can be made of the existing provisions—and they are very scanty—to have a district declared to be a drought-stricken area, and that is wrong, for the effect is immediately to give the whole district a bad name. It may perhaps be an area which is merely subject to such a condition temporarily, and now you immediately give the whole district a bad name by declaring the whole of the district to be a drought-stricken area. As soon as that is done, the facilities of the farmers are immediately restricted. Even the Land Bank will not make the same advances on land. There is an old English proverb that says: Give a dog a bad name and hang it. That is applicable when you proclaim a drought-stricken area as such. I applied on behalf of Pietersburg that provision should be made for the removal of cattle, of animals, from those areas to other areas where there was available pasturage, and also for the provision of cattle feed which We might keep there. I received a letter from the hon. the Minister of Railways in which he writes:

Here we see that where such animals are transported, if you have not had the district proclaimed as a drought-stricken area, the farmer must pay the railage and other charges in cash. We know that the farmer honestly cannot do that today. He is transporting his cattle for the very reason that they are so thin that they cannot remain there. He cannot sell them and he must deposit that amount in cash. In the second place the Minister writes:

1. (b) Upon presentation of the duplicate copy of the affidavit (form T. 125 or T. 125 A), with the “B” declaration duly completed and signed by the stock owner in the presence of a Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner of Oaths, the original stock is rerailed to the original forwarding station free of railage charge.

When you send the animals back later you have nothing to pay on them. You merely make a declaration before a commissioner of oaths that you are sending the original cattle back to the original station. Then I come to (c)—

When the cattle come back one apparently pays one-quarter of the amount of railage which one had to pay for sending them away, and then again one pays one-quarter of the amount which one should have paid for the return transport. In other words you pay in practice half of the ordinary railage, only in one direction. That is in cases where the district concerned is not a drought-stricken area. But now one comes to the other case—

Here we can see that the Railway Department is satisfied with a promissory note from the farmer, subject to the approval of the magistrate, but that applies only when the area has been declared a drought-stricken area. But now why should a distinction be drawn between a drought-stricken area and an area which has not been declared to be a drought-stricken area? Surely the same farmer is concerned. Surely the same cattle are being transported. In certain circumstances the Department is prepared to take a promissory note from the farmer. Why then do they not allow the farmer to give a promissory note in such circumstances in every case where the situation is known to the Government? Then we come to (e). I say honestly that the farmers would greatly appreciate it:—

That is precisely the difficulty I experience. We have the situation today that in fact a large part of the Union is in the unfortunate position of experiencing a severe drought. There are certain areas to which the cattle can be transferred. Why should it be necessary first to have the districts declared to be drought-stricken areas? Why should we give practically the whole country a bad name? Why is it necessary to proclaim the name of the district in the Government Gazette? I think it should be enough if the Minister made a proper investigation and satisfied himself that the district was a drought-stricken district. Let him get a report from his agricultural officials, from his extension officers and from the magis trate, the magistrate who is the representative of the district, and treat the area as a drought-stricken area when the magistrate recommends that conditions in the district or in that particular part of the district justify it. Often the whole district does not suffer from drought. It may possibly have rained in certain parts of the district. There are for example parts of the Pietersburg district where there have been good rains, and therefore one cannot have the whole district declared a drought-stricken area. But if there is a drought in any part, then allow the people to transport their stock to areas where there is pasturage on the conditions which I read out here, namely that the Department of Agriculture bears three-quarters of the expense. The situation is really very serious. I cannot imagine that they have ever before been so serious in the Northern Transvaal. Take a district like mine. In one part of the district there is no pasturage at all. In other parts they have had rain. If the farmers in that district wish to enjoy these privileges, then they must have the whole district declared a drought-stricken area.

No, that is not right.

I am speaking from experience. That is the position. It is true that our magistrate has done his best to enable a part of the district to get the advantages of a drought-stricken district, but his request has not been met. What is really the purpose of having a district proclaimed? Surely it is only to give notice. To whom? It is to give notice to the Minister. But the Minister must issue the proclamation. Whom do you now want to inform that the district is a drought-stricken area? The two people who are concerned already know what the position is. Only the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Railways are concerned in the matter, and if they find that conditions there are such that the farmers have to move their stock to some other part where there is pasturage, then it should be their policy to say: Here is a report from the magistrate; my department has investigated the matter; I am satisfied that the district is sricken and I am prepared to apply the provisions to which the Minister of Railways referred to the district or to a part of the district. That will relieve the farmers amazingly. And I can assure the Minister that the farmers will greatly appreciate it. Then we come to a question which is also of very great importance to the farmers, and that is the question of the supply of dip to the farmers. A little while ago almost no dip was available. There were certain preparations on the market, and then the farmers were told: all that this dip comprises is a little colouring matter and for the rest it is only sodium arsenate—arsenate of soda— and because it is coloured, you are asked to pay two or three times as much for it as what it costs you to mix the ordinary sodium arsenate and use it as a dip. The only ingredient of any value is the sodium arsenate. Here again we expect the Department of Agriculture to take some action in the interest of the farmers. If that is the position, why cannot the Department see to it that the farmers are able to obtain this sodium arsenate at a reasonable price? The farmers have asked the Department to arrange for sodium arsenate and other dipping substances to be supplied to the farmers’ associations when it is in the public interest to do so. Why should not a great and important matter of this sort be taken in hand by the Department so that arrangements can be made for the farmers to get these dipping substances for those purposes, just as they get drugs for injection from Onderstepoort? It is said that the price of sodium arsenate in powder form is 7d. while it is 1s. 4d. when sold as now in the form of a preparation. We know that it is also essential for the treatment of foot and mouth disease. The Minister told me a few days ago that he was also recommending sodium arsenate for the treatment of the commando worm. That shows how important it is for the whole farming industry that sodium arsenate should be made available for all farmers. I hope that the Minister’s Department at Onderstepoort will meet the farmers and enable them to get hold of the dip at a reduced price. I am glad that the Minister of Lands is also here. I should like to make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture as well as to the Minister of Lands. I previously said a few words about this, but I have again received a letter from Messrs. Probart and Stedman at Potgietersrust. They have sent me a letter which is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. This letter is signed by. Messrs. P. A. Coetsch, B. J. Vorster, Max Gordon, V. C. Emmerich, P. L. Botha and P. Schutte. They are well-to-do farmers in the Potgietersrust district. They are people who own large farms there. They are not poor people. They have a very large number of stock. They say here that as a result of the conditions that are being experienced in the Potgietersrust district as well as in the Pietersburg district it has become impossible for them to keep their cattle on their farms. They have no pasturage. They write that they have found that there are large blocks of farms that belong to the Government, and they name the places here—

So one finds here that there is pasturage there that belongs to the Government, and where those people are now threatened with ruin, I say that is it no more than reasonable that the Government should agree to allow citizens of the State to let their cattle graze there. It might be necessary to take certain precautionary measures. I appreciate that. Good, then limit the numbers and allow the people to get grazing there only for the short time that must elapse before rain falls again. As I have said, these are not people who rent their land. These people are all the owners of fairly large farms. I make an appeal to the Government, not only in this case, but in general, that where there are Trust farms in the Northern Transvaal which are controlled by the Government and which are not now occupied by natives, or where there is other Government land, then I say that it is not more than reasonable under the abnormal conditions that now prevail that these people should be given the right to find grazing there. It is not necessary for the Minister of Lands to depart from his policy, but I appeal to him in view of the abnormal conditions to allow the farmers to graze a certain number of animals in those areas. Then I should also like to hear from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture what the position now is in regard to foot and mouth disease in the Northern Transvaal. I have had a letter from farmers there who are interested, farmers in the Pietersburg district who also have land in the lowveld. They ask what is going to be the position there. They have applied themselves to the breeding of cattle there on a fairly large scale. They have planted various grasses with the object of making a success of their farming, and now foot and mouth disease has broken out there. They cannot understand why Hall and Sons have been allowed to transport cattle from the adjoining district to Letaba. Because those people have moved their cattle to the district of Letaba these farmers have now been placed in those unfortunate circumstances. They want to know what is to happen to their cattle. Is it the intention of the Government to have those cattle shot? I personally do not know what the position is, but I am simply asking whether it is the intention to have the animals shot and then to compensate the farmers, or will they be allowed to destroy the animals themselves. The cattle have now been in quarantine for a considerable time. The cattle are possibly suitable for marketing, but now they are in quarantine. I would like to know whether they cannot be transported to Johannesburg in sealed trucks. We know that in the old days cattle from the East Coast fever areas were allowed to be transported to the markets in sealed trucks. I should be very glad if the Minister would explain to me whether that would be possible in this case. Then I understand that the people there are not allowed to use oxen for ploughing. I understand that is also one of the restrictions. According to this letter it seems to me that the people are prohibited from ploughing with oxen. These are all matters of very great importance to the farmers, and for that reason I am mentioning them here. I should in normal circumstances have discussed them later on in the vote of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, but the situation is so serious that I dare not fail to mention it here at the very first opportunity, and therefore I should be very glad if I could get an answer to these questions. Just one more question. I think the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) also touched on it here this afternoon; and that is, what is going to be the policy of the Government in connection with the sale, the disposal of war material that is available and suitable for use for agricultural purposes? There is going to be a lot of wire, there will be many sheets of corrugated iron, there will be many tractors and there will be many lorries. What is going to be the policy of the Government in regard to the disposal of this material? Will the Government see to it that the farmers get some of those supplies at a cheap and reasonable price? I know that an application has been made by the co-operative societies that they should be allowed to take over some of the material. If the hon. the Minister finds it impracticable to allow that to individual farmers—and I see no reason why he should not do so—would it not then be possible to allow the co-operative societies to get it? Why should the traders alone be given the right to make those profits? Give the co-operative societies the right to get possession of those things and to dispose of them to their members at a proper and reasonable profit, if they want to make one, or if not, without making a profit, and not only to their own members but also to other farmers who require them. I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us information on these few matters.

I am sure the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) would not like me to follow him into the drought-stricken areas but I would like to remind him he had several perorations, and that I think I shall follow the example of the hon. member for Pretoria (North Central) (Mr. E. P. Pieterse) who sat down without a peroration. In regard to the drought-stricken areas, I was impressed by a remark made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) when he was speaking about the limitations imposed on natives in the Cape and Natal areas who required mealies for food. We understand that in the first reaction to the limitation of the anticipated maize crop there will be withdrawn from the natives the opportunity of finding sufficient food from the stores that have accumulated in the past season. If the statement of the hon. member for Pinetown is correct the normal allowance of two bags per family per month is to be reduced to one bag per family per month. I know that the two bag limitation has been in force for many months in Cape Town and in Johannesburg. Irrespective of the size of the family and the number of aged and other dependants, they all look to the head of the family to send maize home. I should like the Minister to consider that if there is to be a limitation in the consumption of maize, let it not be at the expense of those who eat maize and at the expense of our natives who depend on it as their principal diet. If we are to import it let us import it soon, and let our first and chief concern be the feeding of our natives. The hon. member for Pinetown stated, and this is a matter which causes me concern, that the Minister of the Interior reluctantly withheld the names of officials who had been released from internment camps and who had returned to their positions in the civil service of this country. He suggested that these officials who for the last four or five years have been spending their time in concentration camps, due entirely to their subversive actions against the war effort in which this country was engaged, were released on compassionate grounds. I have no objection to their being released on compassionate grounds but I have a definite grievance to their returning to the Civil Service as if they had a clean record throughout the war. We know that during the last war there were occasions when men of the Civil Service were denied an opportunity to enlist but many of them did enlist at the expense of resigning their service, and we know that there have been repeated applications by these people to have the break in their service condoned. It was the policy of the Government to condone these breaks, but they went back without seniority. If I understand the remarks of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) right, there is to be little or no difference between a man who spent four years in uniform and one who spent four years in an internment camp. That cannot be tolerated and will be interpreted to the prejudice of the Government. I know that the Government is loyal to the servicemen and will not do anything to bring it into bad repute with the soldiers, but let me say that the English-speaking public and the Afrikaans-speaking public will not tolerate the acceptance of these men who were interned for subversive actions back into the Civil Service. I have, like the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), only just read the biography of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and if the author’s figures are to be accepted as accurate, the Afrikaans-speaking soldiers fighting for South Africa comprise 70 per cent. of the army. Mr. Crafford says there are 70 per cent. of Afrikaans-speaking men in uniform and 30 per cent. English. That is the first time any person has had the temerity to estimate the number of those serving in relation to their home language. I say that the soldiers of this country will not permit people who have been disloyal to come back into the Public Service as though there is no difference between their contributions to the war effort. I feel very strongly on this. It is possible in South Africa that a person may of his own free will decide whether he will or will not make a contribution to the war effort of the country, but South Africa became a belligerent nation and its whole energy should have been directed towards the maximum effort which we could make. If it was necessary to intern some civil servants, so much the worse for them, but it was in the interests of the country that these steps were taken. They took what was a legitimate choice and some were put into the internment camps and they were either released or still detained. But if officials of the Government act so that they must be detained in internment camps, they should not be taken back into the Civil Service of the country. You cannot rely on their loyalty and if they come back into the Civil Service, which is the only possible inference to be drawn from the reply of the Minister of the Interior to the hon. member for Pinetown, why is it then that we are asking members of the Broederbond to leave the Service? If we want to be consistent we must not allow them to return to the Civil Service. I say that the soldiers of all races who fought for South Africa will say the same. I would appeal to the Government not to undermine the confidence which our fighting men have placed in this Government. We know that there is no possible alternative Government to this one. We know that there is an election coming on at Port Elizabeth. We know that the debate that has gone on in this House for three or four days and culminated in an all-night sitting was designed not for the purpose of declaring a division of 68 to 33. The division could easily have been 138 to 33. The Opposition mustered every vote they could possibly find in the morning, but 33 was the maximum. This debate was not calculated to register a vote of confidence in this Government but it was designed to parade if possible before the public of Port Elizabeth the fact that there are grievances and differences in the ranks of the Government against the policy of the Government. I have just returned from Port Elizabeth and I know the propaganda which is being made by hon. members opposite in that election. It is the official propaganda of the Nationalist Party. It does not matter a bit to the. Prime Minister whether he has one more supporter in Parliament, but if Port Elizabeth votes against the Government hon. members over there will say at once that confidence in the Government has been undermined. I would appeal to the constituents of Port Elizabeth not to give them the chance of saying that.

What has this debate to do with the election at Port Elizabeth?

We sat late in order to impress Port Elizabeth, but I know that the result of that election will be an overwhelming vote of confidence in the Prime Minister. I say that hon. members opposite have been trying to promote a feeling in the country that we are criticising the Government, that the Government is wrong in what it does. There is no such thing. One sometimes criticises the Government, but that does not mean that there is not unanimity amongst the Government supporters. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) this afternoon spoke about the University of Cape Town and pleaded the case of a soldier whom they wished to elect but who is fighting in Italy. His observations were designed to give the impression that people in Cape Town were not prepared to support the serving soldier. That is not true at all. Let me tell you that the candidate who has been nominated, this soldier, does not even know that he has been nominated. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) also took exception to the fact that the Government permitted a soldier to return from the north to fight the election.

No, I objected to the Bureau of Information giving out that sort of news.

I do not see why a soldier should not be released in order to take a part in public affairs. The soldiers of South Africa will want to play a part in post-war happenings, and I support the Government in its policy of releasing men who can speak on behalf of other soldiers. I am more concerned with the demobilisation, and that work should be provided for all the soldiers returning from the army. We know that from 1st January work will be provided for everybody and that they will be able to stay in camp until they get that work and to return there if the work is not suitable. But I am also concerned with those who were demobilised before the 1st January. 18,000 men were discharged before the 1st January. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done to absorb them in civilian life. May I draw the Government’s attention to one particular aspect of the matter. In July last year I had the temerity to stand up on a public platform and to say that there were 500 coloured ex-servicemen who had served the country for three years who were walking the streets unemployed, and I said that as long as one of them was unemployed, the promises we had made to them were not fulfilled. I say it again. These men rendered good service to the country. We cannot do enough for our ex-servicemen, no matter what we have done already. We cannot allow them to be unemployed. These coloured men performed great services and were praised not only by their officers, but also by other high-ranking officers of armies in which they were seconded to serve. There are approximately 500 Cape Coloured soldiers who are today unemployed in this area. What are we doing about it? The Government could do quite a lot to promote employment for this type of coloured man. They drove transport vehicles in the North and were often under fire. There are probably 100,000 lorries in this country which could be driven with the same measure of efficiency by these coloured men that they exhibited during the war. The community of Cape Town should try to find work for them. The people should be told by the Demobilisation Department how they can employ these men. It is no use my saying it. I have tried to do it for twenty years, and I have found work for many discharged ex-servicemen. They could drive lorries in the countryside. The coloured people are not a negligible portion of the community. There are 970,000 coloured people. We appreciated their services in the war and we must do something for them. It is hon. members opposite who introduced a civilised standard of labour, and it applies equally to these coloured people. There has been a tendency, calculated or otherwise, not only confined to hon. members opposite, but applying to others as well to afford these people no right whatever. I say that if we readily accepted their services during the war we should do something for them and not merely allow them to work a few days a week, but see that they get regular employment. When I made my speech on Brigade Day I said that there were 500 discharged coloured soldiers unemployed. The Government Department replied to me through the Press and said that my figures were exaggerated and that there were no more than 250 unemployed. I say it is a reflection upon us if only 50 are unemployed, but I went into the figures with the Department and it was found that there were 450 unemployed. They had not taken into consideration the number of men who were dishonourably discharged. There are many of them. I know the Government is doing what it cap to review these cases. I should like to tell the House about the case of one of these men who was dishonourably discharged. A lorry driver was wounded in the head by the splinter of a shell which exploded near him as he was carrying some petrol. His lorry was destroyed, and he sustained this head wound, which necessitated him being moved to Alexandria, where he underwent a trepanning operation. He had a hole the size of an egg in his head and he was returned to the Union for discharge. He arrived at Ladysmith and awaited discharge in Natal. He was there for a month, the procedure of discharge having been more protracted then than it is today. While there he one day overstayed his leave and was discharged, because he returned to camp drunk. That man had left a home with a father and a mother and six members of the family, and because he was dishonourably discharged he had not the moral courage to return to his home in Cape Town. After having served for nearly three years he was dishonourably discharged, suffering from this disability. He went to Pretoria and looked for work while he was living at Marabastad Location just outside the town. For seven months he tried, without success, to find work. Then somehow or other an official connected with the Demobilisation Department came into contact with him, and when the department reviewed his complaint they said: This cannot be; you should not have this dishonourable discharge, nor should you be walking about without a pension. He was taken charge of by an official and put into the hospital at Roberts Heights, where he underwent two further operations for his head injury, and he was eventually medically boarded with 100 per cent. pesion, and got his discharge an honourable discharge. His pension was £6/5/- a month, and that was 100 per cent. He returned home to find that his mother had died and his father was an invalid in the Conradie Home, while his brothers and sisters had scattered round Cape Town. That man is today walking the streets of Cape Town and he finds it impossible to get a job because of his 100 per cent. disability. His clothing is in a very bad state and is getting worse and worse. Reference has been made to what was described as the scandalous payment of £15 for clothes, but this amount is only paid to the discharged soldier if he has a job. The department says:

Mr. Speaker, I have been requested by a number of my constituents to bring to the notice of this House the widespread dissatisfaction that exists over the slow rate of construction of houses, both for the returning soldier and for the average wage-earner. These people cannot afford to live in expensive flats, and the absence of housing accommodation is acutely felt by them. The tardiness in construction is attributed to the dilatory methods employed by the Central Board of Control in dealing with applications for permits. The forms that have to be filled in are so numerous and confusing, and the length of time that is taken to get finality to an application has been verified by many of the architects in Johannesburg, who have sent me affidavits and letters of complaint. I also received a telegram worded the same as was read to the House last week. The slow pace at which the Control Board works entails delays running into three or six months. Speaking in Pretoria in October, last year, the Minister of the Interior, speaking in his capacity as Controller of Building, said in the course of an address to the Building Advisory Council—

While the Minister was making these remarks in Pretoria, we in Johannesburg were observing every day the construction of buildings, within a mile of the City Hall in Johannesburg, which will take as much cement as would cover an area of from seven to ten acres six inches in depth. We also watch the erection of huge blocks of flats, which is still going on in the centre of Johannesburg and especially in the vicinity of Clarendon Circle. A number of swimming baths have also been erected in and around Johannesburg; and it is not the swimming baths alone but cubicles are constructed alongside these baths. I object to this type of construction being proceeded with at present when we are so short of Houses. We have listened to the observations that have been made in regard to the lack of manpower, but if permission to construct these luxury buildings and unnecessary buildings had been refused, the manpower involved in the work could have been devoted to the construction of the houses of a cheaper type that are so urgently required. It would have been much more important and beneficial to the country to have used that labour in this way. Not only that, we find in many of the townships near to Johannesburg that business blocks are being erected, blocks with ten shops, and not two of them have been let or will be let for some time to come. They are good shops from the constructional angle, but they were built in places where shops are not required; in fact, they are in areas where at present there is overtrading. Again, I have a letter from the Rev. Mr. J. B. Webb, one of the most respected men in Johannesburg and chairman of the Transvaal and Swaziland District of the Methodist Church. Mr. Webb says—

Reference was made last session to the construction of racing stables on the south side of Johannesburg, but now the Building Control have decided that they are going to allow luxury stables on the northern side of Johannesburg. I have the addresses here of several new stables and of one place in particular where there are twenty loose boxes, 10 ft. by 12 ft., each box with cement all round the outside and on the same ground there is a swimming bath, 33 ft. x 17 ft., with no house on the stand.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 22nd February.