Mr. Speaker, when the House went into adjournment on this particular motion on Thursday last, I had almost completed my remarks. There are only two things I want to ask the Minister of Finance. He made provision for a 15 per cent. rebate to industry in regard to the purchase of machinery, and took into consideration that rebate in so far as the computation of income tax is concerned. I want to ask the Minister whether that rebate will operate the same in agriculture as it does in industry. I do not want to propound what the position is in regard to it, but agriculturists are just in the same disadvantageous position as industry is at the moment, and replacements will have to be made as far as machinery is concerned. The second point is the Minister’s proposal in connection with the tax on beer. I notice that he is allowing the manufacturers to decrease the specific gravity of beer, which means that in the long run it will allow the manufacturer to sell more beer than he did previously. Although it is said that the consumer does not pay the tax on the beer, if the ordinary exhilirating effect of beer is so reduced that a man has to drink two pints instead of one, then the consumer does in fact pay the tax, and not the manufacturer. I am surprised at this coming from the Minister of Finance, who is a hardened teetotaller, as I do not want to think that he has been inveigled in any way into being a contributing factor to the increase in the drink traffic in South Africa. That is all I want to say.

The second reading debate that is now in progress affords, as usual, an opportunity for the House to discuss matters of general policy, and I am glad that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is here this morning, because the subject that I wish to bring under discussion this morning is one in connection with which he carries the greatest responsibility; it is a matter of general and of urgent importance, namely, the so-called colour problem. I intentionally describe it here as the “colour problem”. There is a specific native problem, and there is a coloured problem, and there is an Indian problem, and it is obvious that to a certain extent the various problems have to be dealt with in a separate way and each on its own merits and in its own setting. Nevertheless the three problems that I have mentioned are integral parts of a larger and more comprehensive problem, namely that of colour. So far as the European population of the country is concerned, and in a large measure as far as the nonEuropean population is concerned, the dividing line does not run between natives and coloureds or between coloureds and Indians, but the great dividing line runs in South Africa, as in other parts of the world, between white and non-white. It is the colour problem. Consequently I deliberately describe it as that, and I do not wish to regard the matter merely from the angle of the native, not merely as a native problem, but I want to take the three together. I should like to put the question to the Prime Minister — and the further observations I shall have to make will all be in this key — I should like to put the question to him: “South Africa, so far as this colour problem is concerned, whither are you heading?” The question of the war with which this Parliament has now been pre-occupied for a number of years, and which has overshadowed everything else is important whatever the attitude you may adopt in connection with it. It is important. The question of the aftermath of the war and the whole series of post-war problems are also important. I can well understand that the House and the country have their attention fixed on them today. The question whether this war will lead to poverty and distress and retrogression and suffering, and whether you can so arrange matters that you can ensure a better standard of living for the population as a whole, for all sections and individuals, is also a question of the utmost importance. But I believe there is something greater and something which goes deeper as far as concerns the future of South Africa. The war will pass, the damage that has been done by the war in various directions, can be repaired in the course of years, although only with the greatest effort. You can possibly take measures to ensure a livelihood for the population as a whole, and for sections of the population, but this question that I have touched on this morning eclipses all the others in importance. It affects South Africa’s future, not alone its immediate future but its distant future. When I put the question: “Whither is South Africa heading?” it includes the question: “What will be the position in the future of the white race in South Africa?” It goes even deeper, there is a still more serious question: “In the long run will there still be a white race in South Africa?” I put this question to the Prime Minister, because as I have stated, he is in this connection the most responsible person. He and his party because they have the power in their hands, lay down the policy in reference to this matter. South Africa has entrusted its fate to the Prime Minister and his party as far as this subject is concerned, and the question that I should like to put to him is not only “Whither is South Africa heading?” but the question that I want to put is this: “Can he, can his party raise themselves above party political interests and can they approach this matter from the broad national viewpoint, the viewpoint of South Africa’s future. Amongst the various interesting books that have appeared on the colour problem here and in other countries, there is one very important and very interesting, as it seems to me. The book is “The menace of colour.” It has been written by Gregory and it deals with the position of the white race as against the non-white race in pretty well all the countries of the world. He also deals with the position in South Africa, and he does so clearly with a fundamental acquaintance of matters. What he says there—it is what I want to come to eventually—is that South Africa’s position in regard to the maintenance of the white race, the maintenance of white civilisation, is difficult, extremely difficult, because you have here on the one side a white population of 2,000,000, but as against that you have in the Union of South Africa alone—not to mention adjacent territories —a non-white population of 8,000,000. Consequently in the very nature of things the position is difficult. But he adds to that that South Africa has the opportunity still to remain a white man’s country in the sense that the white race here can maintain its position, that South Africa can remain a white man’s country, and that it will not follow the road that has been followed by what is today the coffee-and-milk colour states of South America. Then he goes on to say that for the fact that there is still a chance for South Africa and for the white race in South Africa we are indebted to the attitude of the white race, and he makes more specific reference to the Voortrekkers and those who carried on under the guidance of the Voortrekkers and their traditions. They managed to maintain their white race and their traditions. That is why South Africa has remained a white man’s country. He continues and suggests what should be done with a view to maintaining South Africa as a white man’s country, and the measures that he suggests—I shall not go into them —come surprisingly near to coinciding with the attitude, with the policy that this side of the House has generally advocated. If this policy is followed, he says, South Africa has a chance, but if it is not followed, South Africa, in his view, has no chance at all. Then what will happen is what we, and I hope all sections of the House fear today. The colour problem cannot be better described than in this way, that it is South Africa’s greatest and most serious and most urgent problem, and alas also South Africa’s most unsolved problem. I think the position can be understood the best way if we make some survey of the current of events in this connection since the commencement of Union. If we want to know whither we are going we must look at whence we have come, and what has been the trend of events. When unification was established, the Union found this colour problem. It was there. It had been there for generations and unification discovered the colour problem, and it left it as it found it. There was in the various states various policies in reference to this colour problem. There are three northern, states, Transvaal, the Free State and Natal. Two of them had been principally inhabited by Afrikaans-speaking people, and the third almost entirely by English-speaking people. But the policy of the three pre-Union States, the three northern States was the colour bar, the principle of separation, and none of them was prepared to surrender that policy when Union was brought into being. There was another policy that was followed in the south, in the old Cape Colony. There too you had the colour bar to a certain extent. There had already been reserves set aside for natives in the old Cape Colony. Consequently to that extent there was a colour bar against the, whites — so far as the native reserves were concerned. There was a colour bar so far as concerned educational institutions. The old attitude of earlier days that white and black and coloured children could sit on the same school-benches was abandoned. Separation came as far as this was concerned. It was there when Union was accomplished. But that policy was only a partial beginning of the policy of separation. So far as concerned the franchise, so far as concerned other matters that we could mention, there was no race or colour discrimination and no separation. The Union left the matter at that. It would be wrong to say that it had been left at that. No, Union hampered he solution of this problem because there was laid down the provision about a two-thirds majority. That provision in regard to a two-thirds majority did not apply to all sides but only to one side. The North could not extend its policy to the South because the rights, the franchise as well as the others, of the non-whites in Cape Town were protected against that; but the reverse was not true, that the policy of the South could not be extended in the future to the North by a majority decision of one vote in Parliament. Thus there was really a halt; policy was at a standstill, but it worked in favour of the one side. Should any movement come it would be a movement in the one direction, and it was made difficult, extremely difficult, to be able to move in the other direction. What has been the result of that? The result has been that South Africa came to a realisation that we should take a step forward or make a necessary change in the policy, that having become necessary when we ourselves obtained that measure of agreement that that policy could probably obtain a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, then South Africa came to a realisation that it had to make a radical alteration in reference to the representation of the natives in Parliament — then in consequence of the two-thirds majority there was a struggle to get this through. For seven long years a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament occupied itself with this matter. It went on with fits and starts until the year 1936, when we eventually came to this as a result of the colour bar that there was against the policy of the North, that we got the native laws through. Why was that struggle there, and why was the matter left like that at the creation of Union — the colour problem was left as it was found, and even accentuated? It was simply because the Unionist Party of those days discovered its strength as against the South African Party that was governing the country, and the vote of the native and the coloured, and because political considerations turned the scale; consequently we were in that position at the commencement of Union. After that another period followed, namely that of groping in the dark. It was a case of shilly-shallying with the native and coloured policy in general. Neither the standpoint of the North and on the other side the standpoint of the South triumphed during that period. Both continued as they were. The colour bar policy of the North did not extend to the South, and the franchise in the South did not extend co the North. But how did that policy of groping in the semi-darkness work after the creation of Union? I should like to give a few illustrations. An attempt was made —it came from the previous Prime Minister and his party, and a very considerable section supported him — of extending to the North the coloured franchise of the South, in so far as there existed a coloured community. That attempt was made and then there was a flinching from that effort. Then there came up the question of the franchise for women in general. The point was then discussed in how far this should be followed as regards the policy of the South as against the policy of the North. A policy was then laid down also under the guidance of the previous Prime Minister, that the franchise should be granted under certain definite restrictions to the coloured women as well. But then the other party wanted to go a little further, and proposed that it should be granted not only to the coloured women but also to the native women. But both sides that proposed to follow that course again shrank from it, and neither the one nor the other was carried into effect. The result of this shilly-shallying and of the groping in the dark was that during a period of 26 years practically nothing of any importance was done in connection with bringing about a change in the colour problem. But though the policy of the State — I am not speaking about one party or the other but in general—if State policy during those 26 years made no serious effort, and if the policy, or such policy as there may have been, actually came to a standstill, those matters that occasioned the colour problem in the country did not remain stationary. They had in the meanwhile become worse and more involved. During the course of those 26 years there was a new development, or a deveelopment on a larger scale than previously, that you had an influx of natives from their own territories to the European territories; you found that the education of the coloured and of the native progressed with tremendous strides, and that the increase and progress so far as concerns education, at least as far as regards the coloured person in the Cape Province, gave him greater political power. The voting power of the native, not to mention the voting power of the coloured people, turned the scale in many constituencies, and because it turned the scale in the Cape it also turned the scale as far as this matter is concerned, right through the Union. On top of all this there came a serious competition in the economic sphere. The influx of the natives and the migration of the coloured people to the towns placed white and non-white in closer contact with each other in regard to the labour market. On the one side you had the whites with their white standards, with their civilised requirements, and in the same labour market competing on an equal footing with them, you had the non-whites with their lower standard of living. That competition had gradually become deadly to the whites. Worse than that, the government of the day revealed its incapacity to take this situation into account. The government not only took no measures to take this position into consideration, but you have the Jagger policy under the administration of the present Prime Minister. What was that? Do not look at the question of race or of the colour of the skin; look at the profits that the Railways make. Run the railways in the cheapest way, and that is the only consideration there should be. He threw out hundreds and thousands of whites and he put natives and coloureds in their place because they were cheaper and allowed the Railways to yield greater profits. That gave rise, as everyone later could see, to the creation on a larger scale than ever before of slums in our towns, which are an eternal reproach to South Africa and to the policy of the white population. Slums where white and non-white, Europeans, natives and coloureds lived mixed up, whatever the consequences of that might be. The position during those 26 years when it was a case of groping round in the semi-darkness developed still further, and became more complicated and still more insoluble. Then a new period began, and the Government of the country gradually got going. That was during the time of the old Nationalist Party Government. Unfortunately what occurred there, under circumstances that are known, was that that road that would have had as a sequel the carrying through of a policy of separation, was followed with a great measure of success, but on the other hand it was also accompanied by so much hesitation that it also led to half measures Both Houses of Parliament provided a two-thirds majority for the native laws that were adopted in 1936, but I say that the matter was handled with vacillation and with hesitation. The best Bill, that for which a majority of two-thirds could have been found in both Houses of Parliament, and which at the combined sitting of both Houses was adopted almost unanimously, namely, Bill No. 1, which would have carried the native legislation to its logical conclusion, was after it had been introduced into this House, again quickly let drop by the Government, and Bill No. 2 took its place and was Bill No. 1 in a diluted form. Why was that done? Simply because pressure was exercised by a section at the Cape and party political considerations were again at stake. Bill No. 1 was withdrawn, and Bill No. 2 substituted in its place, and that was a proof that the matter at that time was no longer viewed from the broad national angle; and I say that today there are sighs that there is regret over that weakness and that hesitation. The Minister of Native Affairs who from year to year has to do with the Native Advisory Council, and who saw what spirit was revealed there, and who has himself complained over the agitation that was there, and who is acquainted with their demands — I say that the Minister of Native Affairs must himself have more than once regretted that the situation at that period was not handled with more determination, with more conviction and with more courage. The other question of the coloured people was at that time simply left alone. The position today — Gregory alludes to it — is that in connection with such a matter you cannot stop half wav. You cannot solve the matter as far as the natives are concerned, and as far as Indians and coloureds are concerned simply leave it. If you do this then you will have to pay for it. We see the position today. We have gone as far as we have gone in connection with the natives, although it has occurred with hesitation and vacillation. But the coloured problem and the Indian problem were left by us as they were. With what result? On the European front facing the side of the natives, there came a calm and there was much more tranquillity and sympathy than there had been previously. Where is the friction today? The friction is where we left the unsolved problem, on the coloured front and on the Indian front. It is there we have the friction. Now we come to the period in which we find ourselves at the moment. It is a new period that has dawned. Everyone can see that we have passed into an entirely new era, and not only we on this side of the House but the whole country is under that impression, that a new situation has been created. South Africa’s fate, so far as concerns the colour problem, is today more in the balance than it has ever been in its whole history. South Africa’s fate is being decided today. Today South Africa has still a chance, and I am voicing my own conviction and that of a large section in the country, not only representing the party to which I belong but many who are outside my party. Today South Africa has a chance, but we fear that today it is its last chance. That new era indicates, as I have said, that those opposed standpoints that previously existed still exist today. But those standpoints stand out infinitely more sharply in respect of each other than ever before, and especially on the side of the non-Europeans is there today a sharper agitation. The nonEuropeans have also come into the arena. It is the non-European who is adopting a standpoint in the North, and the non-European who is adopting a standpoint in the South. No longer is it the European that is adopting a standpoint in the North, and a European that is adopting a standpoint in the South. It is no longer the European who has appeared on the scene, but the nonEuropean is also on the scene in regard to this matter, and he is also talking today. On the side of the Government that is in power we have a period bereft of policy. On the side of the Government and on the side of a section of the people there is a blind fatalism. How does it help us to attempt again to stop the current; let things run their course and let South Africa, in the future, meet its own vicissitudes without our attempting to steer it in one direction or the other. What is still worse is that as far as a solution is concerned we have not only the postion that there is no policy of trying to seek a solution, but we are today going backwards. We are retracing our steps into the past. We are retrogressing as far as concerns a solution of this problem, and the result is a dangerous piling up of explosive material. The Europeans in the country are not disposed to see South Africa gradually changing into a country that is no longer a white man’s country. You get in respect of the population in general—I am not talking of this side of the House only but of friends of hon. members opposite; I am talking of the general public outside—I am referring to English-speaking as well as Afrikaansspeaking people—that there exists a very deep feeling of anxiety. [Time limit extended]. The position is becoming more and more involved; it is becoming more and more menacing, and the Government is, in connection with this matter, becoming more impossible and apparently more helpless. A new spirit is inspiring the non-European population, and that is a fact that we must take into consideration. I say: They are joining in the discussion, and that in an organised manner. That condition received an impulse from the war and by the war policy followed by the Prime Minister in so far as it affects non-Europeans. You cannot call up 100,000 — I think that is the figure that he mentioned — natives and coloured people to go to the front and to take part in the war without awakening a new spirit in them and without them adopting the standpoint that if they are good enough to bear arms and to be arbiters between white and white, that if they are good enough to spill their blood, then they are also good enough to have the same rights and the same status as Europeans in all respects in South Africa. A new spirit has possessed them, and it has to be taken into consideration. A new influence has drifted along which was not previously present. Communism has today, free rein in the country; Communism is preached in the country and it is nothing less than the doctrine, and that publicly from all platforms, that all colour bars in the country must be swept away, not only the legal but also the social colour bars. A new influence prevails today in the country, and if an organisation is launched today by the non-Europeans it is the Communists who are at the head of that organisation throughout the country. There is a fresh and a larger influx of natives to the European areas, and especially to the towns. The Minister of Native Affairs is at his wits end. Just look at the state of affairs in the Cape Peninsula. We see the impotence that he himself revealed in connection with that matter. Not only have we this influx of the natives, but there is the penetration in Natal in a new manner, namely, with the financial power behind it, of the Indians everywhere in the European areas. But that influx to the towns has created a new problem in regard to the coloured problem, the coloured population is uneasy over the penetration and the influx of large numbers of natives in areas where the coloured people are making a livelihood — and he cannot do it in other centres — and he gradually feels that his existence is threatened. This is a new problem that did not previously exist but which is rapidly being created. But there is penetration of another and a more dangerous character; in the European institutions in our country where that policy of separation has been followed even here in the Cape, it is gradually being destroyed. There has even been penetration in the sphere of the Europeans socially. Take the means of transportation, and look at the position of the Railways in the Cape Peninsula. I receive one letter after another, not only from Afrikaansspeaking people but also from English-speaking people in the Cape Peninsula. They say that they are not only writing on their own behalf, but in the name of hundreds and thousands of English-speaking people, who declare that the position is gradually becoming unbearable. They say that their women and children travelling on the trains and in the buses have often to sit in humiliating circumstances alongside the most neglected natives and coloured people, natives and coloureds of the lower type. They are obliged to do this because there are no other means of transport and they must use those means of transport. Take the position of the trade unions. Previously they were for Europeans, but they have gradually been taken over by nonEuropeans. And in those trade unions, in a number of cases, the executive has a majority not of European but of coloured members. So the coloured man is today calling the tune and laying down the law, and the Europeans must adapt themselves to it. There are the recreation grounds. You know what happened in Cape Town, what was organised not so long ago by non-Europeans. A recreation ground for white children in a white neighbourhood which was always set aside for white children—one might almost say for generations—was simply taken over by coloured children, with the result that blows were exchanged between these children on the recreation ground and the white children were chased away. And when the matter was submitted to the City Council in Cape Town they simply shrugged their shoulders and said they could do nothing. Take our universities. In reply to a question that was put in the House by a member on this side, the Minister of Education stated the other day that in the Cape Town University there are very nearly 100 non-European students. In the University of the Witwaters rand there are more than 100.

Shame.

In the Natal University College there are 134 supposed Indians, and in Cape Town and Johannesburg—what is happening in Natal I do not know—but in those two universities not only in the classrooms but even in the students’ refreshment rooms no distinction is made. They sit around the same table. They are being treated in all respects on an equal footing. I have no objection to equality, but equality must rest on the basis of separation, and there is no separation. There was a policy so far as concerns higher education to do what is done at the primary schools and to provide nonEuropeans with their own institution, and accordingly Fort Hare was established. Fort Hare is today falling into oblivion and the coloured man and the native is turning his feet today not towards Fort Hare but towards the Universities of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand, where he can be on an equal footing with the Europeans, and so the thing is going on until today it is even affecting our primary schools. Did you see the decision that the Provincial Administration arrived at in connection with schools? The position in the Cape Peninsula is known in this House, namely, that the coloureds have gradually, owing to laxity on the part of the Administration, begun to send their children to European schools, and in many schools they mix on the school benches. Then a stronger line was taken, and to a large extent separation was revived. But only with great difficulty. Now the Administrator has notified that in the case of a coloured child who was attending a European school on the outbreak of war, or at the time of his father joining up or returning from the front, even though it is quite clear that the child is coloured and that it does not belong there, it still will have to remain there.

Shame.

I notice too that one of the teachers has made the statement that there is not a single school in the Cape Peninsula where we do not have this mingling to a greater or lesser extent. I ask again, “Where is this leading to?” I say that you are attempting by residential segregation to meet this position as far as possible. You are paying out of the Treasury large sums of money, and on the outskirts of the towns sub-economic schemes are being carried out — and the •native naturally in his own location — but the coloured in any case has a coloured sub-economic residential area for himself and the Europeans cannot reside in it; and where such schemes are being carried out for Europeans the coloured person cannot come and live there. If that is all there was in connection with this question, you could say it is a solution; the Government advances this as a solution, but what about the rest of the large city where no economic housing schemes are being carried out and will not be carried out; what about those city slums out of which the Europeans have been taken and placed into new sub-economic schemes? Just as previously they became filled with a mixture of Europeans and nonEuropeans, so in the future they will be filled with a medley of Europeans and non-Europeahs. You are trying to scoop out the water where the flood has entered the house by means of these sub-economic schemes established on the outskirts of the city, but the tap in the middle remains open; where you have removed the Europeans from the non-Europeans, the tap remains open; and while you on the one hand are attempting to solve the problem in that manner you will find it turn up again just as previously, only in an aggravated form, and all the money that you have spent on the business will be of precious little use. It all boils down to this in the long run, that in this position that has been created there is a strong agitation in progress amongst the coloureds, amongst the non-European elements. They want to abolish all colour bars. They are active—one reads about it in the newspapers of the coloured people—in establishing a non-European front in the country embracing coloureds, natives and Indians. This is a challenge; it amounts eventually to a challenge by the non-European population, led by that section, a challenge to the white race in the country to remove all colour bars and to have absolute equality in all respects, or otherwise to take the consequences. What has been the result? In Johannesburg and Pretoria you have seen not only strikes and now organised strikes amongst the non-Europeans, but bloody collisions have occurred. Bearing in mind all this, I ask: Tell me whither is South Africa heading? The Government in general and the Prime Minister and the other Ministers—I am not referring to the Prime Minister but to other Minsiters—admit their importance in connection with this matter. They are not ashamed to admit is. The first thing they mention is this, that when the Cape Provincial Council (and oher provincial councils in the North followed in their footsteps) took a resolution to effect segregation in residential areas—because this is a municipal matter; it falls under the provincial councils; they have to make the laws in that connection—when they made this resolution this Government raised its voice and said to the provincial councils: “Leave that alone, this is not a provincial matter, this is a national matter, and the Government will tackle the matter itself, the Government will solve it itself.” And the provincial councils then dropped the matter, notwithstanding that the municipal associations, at their congress, decided by an overwhelming majority to support the provincial council in its efforts towards residential segregation. The Government does not want the provincial councils to solve the matter; the Government was to tackle and solve it. What has become of that? Absolutely nothing. It has simply let it slide and who are the bodies that are taking action today? Not the provincial councils, not the Government, but the town councils. I ask you again: where it is such a serious matter as this, affecting the position of the white race in the country, a national matter as no other matter is, can it be left to the town councils? Have you noticed what the Cape Town City Council has been doing. I believe that never has a greater mess been made by any body on any great matter. The Government has treated this question merely as a football between them and the provincial councils and the town council, and the subject remains where it is. There is the Minister of Railways. What was the statement he made the other day? Whatever you may think about the position on the trains and the motorbuses he can do nothing about it. He says he has not the power. He really has the power but he says he has not; he is no reformer; he is leaving the matter where it is. Then you have the Minister of Native Affairs. He is at his wits end in connection with the influx of natives into European urban areas. Is he going to discontinue it? No, he will not discontinue it. He too will say that he has not the power. No, that is the way in which he is reforming, not forward but backwards. He is going to establish separate depots where he will receive the natives who are streaming in and he will keep them in the camp and in addition he will establish labour bureaus. I put it to you: Will you thereby arrest the influx of natives into these areas? It is not going to stop it, it is going to encourage it, They will not need to sleep under bushes in the Cape Flats or to run round looking for work. No, their postion in reference to streaming in here has now been regularised, and they can come freely; they can just come along, they will be cared for. Now the Minister is blaming the railways. He says, how does it help if the railways make trains available for the natives to come here? He can do nothing about it. Then there is the Minister of Demobilisation. He has called into being a Coloured Advisory Council. This was the body that was to ensure satisfactory co-operation between European and coloureds and that was going to create a state of co-operation. He tried. What did he announce the other day? What did he promise to the coloureds? There has been so much opposition on the part of a large section of the coloured population, that he told them that one of these days the time for which this Coloured Advisory Council was appointed, will expire and then he will ask the coloured people themselves—I do not know in what manner—whether they want it any longer, yes or no, and why should they object to that? Because they maintain that the coloured people do not want to be treated as a separate group in any respect When a council is appointed which can be the intermediate between them and the Government, it is a stigma on the coloureds; in that case they are treated differently from the Europeans. That attempt is also turning out to be a failure. What can be put in the place of it? Natal is in turmoil about the Indian question and the Government allowed itself to be forced to accept a pegging down measure, but once that Pegging Act had been passed, it let itself be pushed from the other side and wanted to repeal the Pegging Act again, and when the Natal Provincial Council opposed that with their ordinance and did not want to consent to his new agreement, the Government again fell back upon the Pegging Act, and the Lord only knows what is going to happen next to this pegging measure. Apart from the impotence of the Government shown in this instance, one finds that the leading men on that side of the House are today openly abandoning the policy of segregation, or the policy of separateness —I prefer the latter term. As far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, we know his point of view, and the Governments he supported from time to time, commencing in 1936, also know him. He is a liberal; as far as I can see he opposes racial discriminination in any shape or form. Well, let us leave him at that. We know his point of view and I do admit, and he does deserve credit for it, that he has faithfully stuck to his opinion; he remained faithful to it; he remained consistent and he was prepared to suffer for it. We do not need to go further into that matter. Now let us see what the position is in regard to the Prime Minister. I could quote from speeches he made in 1917 when his outlook in connection with this matter was still sound, when he gave lectures in England and when to a very large degree he advocated the policy of segregation as strongly as we on this side of the House do. At that time he still adhered to it. I could read that out here, and it would be interesting to compare the Prime Minister of those days with the Prime Minister of today, but I shall leave it at that. I am more concerned about the present outlook of the Prime Minister in view of the question I am going to ask. The first thing the Prime Minister did was to issue a statement on behalf of the Government and himself. I think that happened in 1943. In that statement he committed the Government. The Government would not interfere in any way with the existing political and economic rights of the coloured people. Even though it is true that large parts of our cities are mixed areas, he would not do anything about it. Things have to come right of their own accord. He is not going to use compulsion in any shape or form. He has committed the Government as far as the future solution of this problem is concerned, in whatever way it may develop, and he has given definite assurance to that section of our population. I want to go somewhat further, however, and want to read here what his further statement is. He went further than that. He declared himself to be one of those who no longer believe in a segregation policy for South Africa. Listen what he said here in the Cape Town City Hall at a meeting of the South African Institute of Racial Relations—

In other words, do not look at this problem first of all from the point of view of South Africa. The Prime Minister has become accustomed to consider nothing from the point of view of South Africa first. He has identified himself so much with overseas interests that he now looks at everything from the point of view of a non-South African. Well, he went further and applied this still further. He said—

I am now referring to the front—

This all points in a certain direction. But then he went on—

Now listen—

On the part of the European it is of course prejudice—

That is the policy of the Prime Minister—

That is still supposed to be the policy, give the natives an area and then they can come to the European areas to work there, but they should only stay there temporarily—

Abandonment of segregation. Here we have the Minister of Finance again. He said—

On this occasion he was addressing school children—

Those are wise words. There the Prime Minister was for once level-headed in regard to this problem. Allow thing to develop. Let things drift and one day in the end we shall have to pay the price for it. But the question is in which direction he was drifting.

And he wants to become our Prime Minister.

I have quoted sufficiently now to formulate my question. Seeing that the Prime Minister holds that view about the segregation policy—which was South Africa’s traditional policy although it was never put into practice consistently—seeing that he holds that view, seeing that the Minister of Finance holds that view and since the Secretary for Native Affairs holds that view, I believe I am entitled to ask: Tell us and tell the country whither South Africa is going? I want to stress the following. If you take away that segregation policy, you are not only going to give the natives an equal status with the white man, but you are going to create a radical change in the relationship towards the native and so far as his relationship towards the European is concerned. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, a colour bar exists as far as landed property is concerned, a colour bar from the side of the natives against the European. The European cannot enter the native areas. The European cannot own land there; he cannot make a living there without a special permit. But when you allow the native, by the abandonment of the segregation policy, to penetrate wherever he can amongst the Europeans, the position arises that an injustice is being done to the European; then you must treat the native as you do the European and that means the breaking up of the reserves by allowing the Europeans to enter the reserves and to compete with the natives there; I want to know what is going to happen to the native population. They will simply be squeezed out and become to a larger extent—if one can call them that today—the woodcutters and drawers of water in this country, simply because they cannot compete against the European and the capital of the European. I ask: “Whither South Africa?” In asking this question I can fortunately also say that we have a European population in this country, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, who agree on certain matters, and one matter on which they agree is that they do not want to oppress the non-European in this country. That was the traditional policy of the Voortrekkers, that is the policy of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, and that is the policy of the Nationalist Party. We want no oppression, and I think the whole of the European population agrees with me there. We want to assist them to develop themselves, but develop in their own sphere. We want to see a policy of separateness being followed. The European population of the country— I am speaking of both sections—do not want to assimilate with the non-Europeans. They want every one in his own sphere receiving the highest measure of opportunity. They have also reached the point where they begin to realise more and more that the policy of segregation, the policy of separateness, cannot be followed only half way. It has to be put into practice consistently and fully, as otherwise it will in the end become impossible to put it into practice at all. You cannot proceed half way. That is also how we on this side of the House view that policy and how we should like to carry it through. We do not want to acquiesce in a policy of laissez-faire as followed by the present Government. After what I have said I once more want to ask the Prime Minister, he being the person with the highest responsibility, to tell us and to tell the country “Whither. South Africa?”

It is impossible to answer fully the speech made by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition this morning.

No one asked you to.

I shall not attempt to do so, but there are certain matters which I think one can refer to and which one may draw the attention of the House to. Let me say, first of all, that this is probably one of the most serious problems that we have before the country today, the problem of the European and of the non-European. It is a matter that one feels should be dealt with on non-party lines, and certainly it is a problem that can only be solved by the united efforts of all people in this country. What does the Hon. Leader of the Opposition say about it? Practically in the whole of his speech he has been blaming the Government and governments of the past for having failed to solve this vitally important problem. He spoke of the difficulties; he spoke of the troubles that we can see surrounding the position today, and let me say that definitely the position is worse than it was last year. To those who have come down from the North and who have seen what is happening, it is a matter which must cause great worry, disturbance and regret, as it does to all of us, but in a problem like this when the Hon. Leader of the Opposition blames numerous governments in the past for having failed to tackle it, and when he states it is of vital importance, it is a very significant thing that in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) there is no mention of this vitally important problem he has raised today. He has not referred to it in his amendment, and furthermore whatever speeches have been made by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) on this particular problem, never once have we had any help from him in trying to solve this problem. Have hon. members forgotten the hon. member for Piketberg’s own record in the matter, how he dealt with this colour problem in the days gone by? Have they forgotten the speeches that have been brought up in this House at different times to show that so far from trying to solve this problem the hon. member is in a way responsible for a great deal of the trouble that has come about in this country in respect of this problem? The hon. member for Piketberg has gone out of his way to attack the Prime Minister with regard to speeches made a few years ago. May I then remind the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of speeches and statements he made only a few years ago, and how on a famous occasion when a Bill was introduced into this House for the extension of the franchise to women, I think I am correct in saying the hon. member objected to that Bill because it did not extend the franchise to coloured women. May I quote other statements he made in the past dealing with this problem? [Interruptions.] The hon. member has charged the Government and he has charged the Prime Minister with not having tackled a problem which I venture to say will require the united efforts of the brains of all the people—

That is your contribution.

I want to quote from a speech that was made in this House—

For years past the coloured people have concentrated their energies on the removal of their economic and political disabilities. If I am reading the mind of white South Africa correctly that removal cannot long be delayed.

Who wrote that?

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member went on to say—

What can those blessings be, but the extension to the coloured people of the full rights and privileges which the European people enjoy? And if you are going to extend those rights and privileges in the political field, you are opening the door yourself to the social field as well. That has been part of the trouble right away through, that it was a question of obtaining the votes of the coloured people to help the party down at the Cape. They were good friends of the coloured people and wanted to give them full citizenship rights, but when afterwards they found these people swinging to another section they wanted to take them away.

Who gave the quotation?

You are all confused with that speech.

I only wished to save time and did not want to quote unnecessarily. The quotation was made by Mr. MacCullum and has never been challenged.

It was said in the presence of the hon. member.

Why try to make the House believe you are reading from the hon. member’s speech?

You are trying to mislead the House and the country.

I quoted from a speech in Hansard, and if there is any question of a wrong impression I am glad I have been asked about it. I said that it was in a lettter written by the hon. member for Piketberg.

It was not.

Will you challenge that that letter was written? The fact that another member of the House quoted that letter does not alter the authenticity of it. There is another speech that the hon. member made, and he may be able to deny that letter. It was delivered in the City Hall at Cape Town on the 17th June, 1925—

As far as the policy of the Government in regard to the Malays is concerned, I can give you the assurance that we shall never classify you as Asiatics but shall always regard you as South Africans. You people like the coloured man, will receive the enhanced status, which will ensure that equality, economic and political, which you are seeking. The Malays have a just claim in the formation of the national history of the country.

What is wrong with it?

Some hon. members have challenged that statement. I ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he challenged the correctness of the statement that those were the sentiments he expressed in days gone by, in the days of the Pact when they relied on Labour to keep them in power, when they required the assistance of those particular social principles which they were so fond of enunciating in those days.

Will you deny your Party voted for the extension of the franchise to native women?

Not at all, we have always been fairly broad-minded.

Will you support it again?

This policy of dealing with the coloured and non-European problem of the country cannot be dealt with and solved across the floor of the House by this type of debate. If it comes to a vital problem like this I believe the only way in which it can be tackled, the only way we can hope to get fresh minds, fresh thoughts, and a sense of justice on this problem, is by having a new National Convention to thrash out the different problems that arise and that are growing in intensity, and to see whether we cannot arrive at some agreement between all sections.

Dr. MALAN. That is some advance.

I was waiting this morning after the attack made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to have some constructive proposals put forward for dealing with this problem, but we have had nothing else. But let me say this, was it not the hon. member himself who’ made what was called the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” with Japan, that admitted the Japanese to rights in this country?

Read the debate about it in Hansard; it will make you wiser.

These little things have all helped to create this problem, and when hon. members talk about the trouble, that this Government has caused through sending coloured and native troops up North, why was that? If hon. members opposite had given us their full support right through there might have been no necessity to take the steps we did take. Let me say this, though, that South Africa has no reason to be ashamed of the part the non-European people have played in the grave crisis through which this country passed. And I would add this, that alone entitles them to consideration they might not previously have been given, and at any rate it does entitle them to the fullest measure of fair play from the European section of the population.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to continue with the remarks I made this morning in answer to the speech of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I want to refer now to two speeches made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), but I can only briefly refer to their speeches in the time I have at my disposal. The amendment proposed by the hon. member definitely asked the Government to renounce their intention not to decrease the taxation borne by the lower income groups, and in support of that amendment he quoted figures of the taxation on the lower income groups, and I hope the member will correct me on the figures he quoted. He quoted that there were 1,053 taxpayers earning less than £300 a year, whose taxable income was £175,000, and paid £4,585 in tax, and he went on further to say that in the same year quoted, there were 288 individual taxpayers whose taxable income was £28,298,000. That was taken up by the member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) and quoted as an instance of disparity of the income tax paid by people in this country. The hon. member does not apparently realise that any married person with an income of less than £340 per annum pays not a penny income tax, the figures quoted of less than £300 did not refer to the lower income group but to the higher, because the whole is in respect of a part period of less than 12 months, and in many cases the taxable income of these people runs into many thousands of pounds a year. So the whole of the tax in that group is not borne by the lower income tax groups at all. I submit that it is serious to put that statement forward, and it is far worse when he complains that there are 288 taxpapers whose income is £28,000,000. If he had shown that out of that roughly £25,000,000 is income from companies whose shares are owned by thousands of persons, that the income of these individuals is in many cases small and instead of a few enjoying that large income, it is owned by thousands who have share investments in these trade companies, it would have been correct. Take the three million that is left. It is owned by 91 individuals. Out of that three million, with an additional sum of super tax, over half is taxed as normal and super tax. So the hon. member will see that far from there being any injustice to the lower income groups, they are not taxed at all. Take the tax on an income of £400 per annum. The tax is £25 13s. 4d. per year, but for a married man there is a rebate of £22 and if he has a child, and additional £5, making a total of £27, so he pays no tax at all. The single man with £400 only pays £25 13s. 4d., the married man without children, with £344 income, pays no tax. I want now to refer to matters raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith, because it is linked up with the suggestion made by the hon. member for George, and I may say that it is gratifying to find that the hon. members opposite are going more and more to the Treasury of Great Britain to get support for the propositions they put to the House. This is to be commended, but I suggest that in putting forward that case, they should give the full facts. The hon. member for George puts up an amendment that the tax of the lower income group should be omitted.

No, they should not be more heavily taxed.

How can they be taxed less heavily when they are not taxed at all? The hon. member for Fauresmith quoted our own Excess Profits Tax as compared with that of Great Britain as being excessive. He said look at the relief they have been given in the Excess Profits Duty. I will quote the Chancellor’s speech in regard to that, but before that, I want to put on record United Kingdom income tax rates, because comparisons are made of how hard we are hit and I want to quote this statement which appeared in the statistics relating to the war effort of the United Kingdom—

That shows the difference between the taxation of the lower groups between Great Britain and here. The hon. member for Fauresmith went on to say that no steps were taken in this country to assist industry, and that the Minister might well take the example of Great Britain to do this.

Beginning with tax relief.

the fundamental difference is this, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain emphasised this particular point. He was dealing with applications that had been made for a reduction in E.P.D. taxation. What he said was this—

Then he says, after stating that he has always taken the full 100 per cent. of the excess profits tax, what he proposes now is not to take away any of the 100 per cent. tax but to increase the abatement to the trading companies above which the excess profits tax will operate. That is the explanation. But what hon. members forget is this; in Great Britain they have always had a 100 per cent. E.P.D. tax, in South Africa we have had 75 per cent.

Thirty per cent. of that is savings.

Pardon me, it is not. The incidence in Great Britain is 20 per cent., and I will read what the Minister stated on this: “I must remind those who complain of the rate, that the law has made special provision for the refund, after the end of the war, by way of a post-war credit of 20 per cent. of the net amount of taxation paid at the 100 per cent. rate. … It is clear that all trading concerns that have to face postwar expenditure on rehabilitation and reconstruction or any capital expenditure can look with certainty to have their post-war excess profits tax credits available for financing same.” The Minister pointed out that this new abatement meant a saving of some £12½ million. But the hon. member went on to quote some other sections of the speech. He dealt with the question of the severity of taxation in regard to South Africa. He dealt particularly with this point of no steps having been taken out here with the problems of inflation. The hon. member did not suggest that the only real method of dealing with inflation is by severe taxation; he would not be prepared to do that. Where I do want to join issue with him, where, if I may say so, I think perhaps quite inadvertently he misled the House as to the true position, was when he made a statement to the effect that the farming community only had 12.1 per cent. of the national income, although they had to bear the whole cost of the increased cost of living.

I asked why they should bear the whole burden of cheap food.

Very good. The Minister of Economic Development on Friday gave figures of the increased cost of foodstuffs in this country which ranged from 38 per cent. to 48 per cent., nearly all of which are controlled prices, and the farmers get the benefit of it. But I want to deal with the hon. member’s statement that the farmers have only 12 per cent. of the national income—as if the rest of the country has some huge sum. What is the actual position? According to Prof. Frankel, whom the hon. member quoted, manufacturing holds first place in this country in regard to national income, with 19.4 per cent. Total mining, that is gold mining, base metals and everything has 17 per cent. Farming and fishing has 13.1 per cent. And after that comes the wholesale and retail trade with 12.3 per cent. One would infer from the hon. member’s remarks that the farming community had a very small proportion of the national income, whereas in fact they hold third place out of fifteen instanced by Prof. Frankel.

In proportion to the capital investment.

That was not the statement made by the hon. member at all. I submit there is no justification for the statement he made that they have to bear the whole burden of the increased cost of living. I wish I could go further into this matter of finance, but my time is limited, and I should like to turn for a moment to another subject, which however does figure in the amendment before us.

What are your objections to the other parts of the amendment?

I wish I had time to deal with them, but my time is very limited. I want, however, to deal with (e), with control, about which no one so far has said a word on that side of the House. I want to say to the Minister, and I will speak quite frankly to the Minister, that the problem of import control is a matter which is causing very serious worry and concern to the business men of the country. We do not feel that a sound policy is being pursued. We are getting various reports as to what the real position is. I want, for instance, to refer to an article that appeared a few days ago. One of our representatives of commerce was in Johannesburg last week, and he came back and gave an interview in which he stated we could look forward for a certain increase in the supply of goods—

Then he went on to say—

I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give us any information on that. We have had information from Great Britain that the shipping position is likely to become increasingly Worse, and yet we have information here coming from a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, after he had attended a meeting in Johannesburg, that the shipping position is likely to improve and that we are likely to get increased quantities of goods. These sort Of statements are causing a great deal of optimism. The public are getting it into their minds’ today that the war position has so improved that it will be only a short time before vast quantities of goods will be coming from overseas, and already the merchants are saying: “Why don’t you get the goods, or are you hoarding, or what is the position?” I hope the Minister will make a statement. Another thing that is causnig concern is that a few days ago a statement was issued by the Director of Supplies in which he has made a very serious statement as to the policy of war supplies. I have heard a great deal of criticism about this. We feel that it is a matter for the Government to lay down a policy, and that a statement of policy should come from the Government and not from outside sources. We have these reports that are very often made of a contradictory character, and I hope on this particular question (I have told the Minister I was going to raise it) he will give the House some information. I want to deal with one or two other matters in connection with this. We have been crying out here for building materials, for electrical equipment and other essential goods. I want to say that efforts have been made from London in regard to building requisites, and I have a letter here from London now, dated 16th January, in which it is stated—

I have a case where electrical equipment was offered to this country if we could get the necessary permits in respect of these goods which were in short supply. They were willing to release them. They had special releases from Great Britain for this purpose, but we could not get the necessary import permits; and I would like to say this, that the country is perturbed at the charges which have been made previously about discrimination having been shown between certain businesses. I have no time to go into that, but there is a definite feeling that firms are being penalised. You have firms being put on the 1939 quota irrespective of the business they are doing today, and you find all over the country firms have sprung up, some of them of an extraordinary nature, and they can get goods. I would like to give definite instances where import permits have been refused or cut down in the case of old-established firms and afterwards they have been given to other firms to buy these goods. I do hope that the Minister concerned will give a very full statement on the matter, because I can assure him there is a good deal of uneasiness throughout the country. Commerce has been willing to help as far as possible, but we want to know what the explanation is, and what is more, we want to be assured that the policy of the country is not going to be laid down by any organisation that is not responsible to Parliament.

When this Government assumed responsibility at the outbreak of the war, it acquitted itself of its task under most difficult circumstances with very great honour and during the darkest days it undoubtedly aroused the admiration of friend and supporter as well as enemy and opponent. I make bold to say that in the darkest days which we have known in the history of South Africa, the nation gave the Government of its very best, and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, under whose leadership it happened, can be assured that we will always bear that in mind. The question as to whether the achievements of the nation in these dark days is due to inherent bravery, true patriotism or a firm belief and confidence in democracy, or whether those achievements should be ascribed to the promises which the Government made in such unambiguous terms in those days, is one which is of lesser importance. What did happen was that the nation achieved great things. There are two undisputable historical facts from which one cannot get away, namely that the nation achieved great things and that the Government made certain promises. These two facts ought to form the background of the whole policy of the present Government. But the fact that the Government is now backing out, the fact that the Government is hesitating to carry out and to give effect to those promises, is one of the greatest political tragedies which has ever been enacted in the history of South African politics.

Slowly!

The Government’s failure at this stage, notwithstanding repeated requests, clearly to set out its policy immediately with reference to post-war industries and its post-war policy, has bitterly disappointed the people in the country. The Government’s failure to give positive guarantees that opportunities of employment will be created on a large scale and that existing industries will be encouraged and given the necessary protection by the Government, is an act of political breach of faith which must inevitably disappoint the people all the more. It is becoming more and more difficult for us to understand the Government’s attitude. The public which cherished such high expectations of this Government, is now called upon to suffer one disappointment after another; the public which expected such a great deal from the Government is now being left to the mercy, to the arbitrariness of controllers who do nothing but provoke the public and public opinion. The fact that the Government is persisting in carrying out a policy which has not got the approval of this House, to say the least of it, is a violation of the rights of Parliament. The fact that today we have a department to whom the public looks up, the Department of Public Works, is generally known. The fact that a returned soldier, for example, time and again asks for the right to build a house and is denied that right, while speculators on the Witwatersrand are given the right to build palaces which remain empty, the fact that it is alleged that bribery has been taking place in that department, and the fact that the matter has been raised in this House without any notice being taken of it apparently, cause the greatest unrest. That is something which more and more brings this Government into disfavour. That is why it is so tragic, after all the glory that has been acquired, after the great prestige which has been acquired by the Government during the war years, by our men on the battlefield by the achievements of the nation in these dark days, that all that must now be buried under the dust of incapable, inefficient and unreliable controllers, in spite of complaints of the most serious nature which we have brought to the notice of the Government. It is so serious that the Government is aware of the fact that even some of its most loyal supporters are deeply shocked. The fact that the Minister of Public Works has not the moral courage to put that department of his in order, impels us to say that it is a sign of weakness; and this brings me to a most unpleasant part of my speech. It impels me to ask the Government immediately to abolish the control as far as the building industry is concerned.

As far as the building of houses is concerned?

Yes. My reason for asking that it be abolished immediately is because the control as it exists in our country, and as alleged in this House without any attempt on the part of the Government to refute it, has become nothing but a source of corruption. That brings me to the first unpleasant part of my task, and that is to ask the Minister, so as not to leave the people in the lurch and to bring about the fall of the whole Government, to relinquish his position, to resign from the Government.

Hear, hear.

You no longer deserve to occupy that position, thus dragging the nation and the whole Government in the mire. With the deepest sense of responsibility, I make an appeal to the Minister of Public Works to relinquish his position. I now come to my second unpleasant task. If an election were to take place in South Africa, you would see which section of the people, whether they belong to my party or not, would be the first to say that the time has arrived for a far-reaching change to take place. There was a time when the British Parliament became desperate because there were men in the Cabinet who were incapable of fulfilling the great expectations which the British public held, until it reached such a stage that without considering personalities, the British Parliament displayed the moral courage to purge the Cabinet, and only from that time onwards was the war effort in England placed on a sound footing and given its rightful place. Today we are faced with the cheerful prospect that we think the war will soon come to an end, with victory on our side, but we are faced with the task which I think everyone dreads, and that is that if the war were to end today, what would the position in South Africa be tomorrow? What right has the Minister of Economic Development to continue to hold that portfolio since he consistently refuses to say what the policy of the Government is in connection with economic development? I therefore ask this Parliament to scrape up its last ounce of courage, because we are in a critical position, no less than the British Parliament was at that time when the British Cabinet made no move in any direction. We find ourselves in such a position in South Africa today that the Government, by implication, adopts the attitude that it cannot move in any direction. The great problem with which we will be faced tomorrow when peace is declared, is that problem with which the Minister of Economic Development is concerned, and the Minister is not yet in a position to make a statement of any kind. We do not want the Government to wake up when the peace comes and to ask: “Why did our men go and fight?” We want the Government to show at this stage that it is prepared, that it is providing employment on a large scale. Large scale employment is necessary for the men who come out of the army and for those who are employed in war factories. Now we ask the Minister of Economic Development, if he is not in a position at this stage to announce his policy, to take a leaf out of the book of the late Mr. Chamberlain and to relinquish his position. He does not justify his position. One bitter cup of disappointment after another is proffered to the nation, and you simply adopt an attitude of silence. Industries have been developed in South Africa which could go a long way in solving unemployment in our country. Industries have been developed which can undoubtedly develop further the moment they have a guarantee and assurance from the Government, but they do not get it; it is not given to them. These are industries which have developed since the outbreak of the war and they are probably praying that the war must go on, because if peace comes today, they will be ruined tomorrow. It is because we know that we have not much time under the Estimates, since our time has been curtailed, that I address these few words to the Government. I direct this request, this urgent appeal to the Government in the interests of the nation. We do not again want to witness the spectable at some future date of thousands of unemployed people marching through the streets. Take the honourable course of sacrificing yourself in the interests of the people of South Africa and make room for young and capable young men who are on your own side. Make room for men who can handle these affairs better and more thoroughly than has been done up to the present.

Where are those men on the other side?

This matter is of importance. The people in the country want to know what the position is. This matter is of the greatest importance to our country. I recently read an article in the “Glasgow Forward” that the Government has drawn up a pamphlet in which it is to be explained to the soldiers what they were fighting for. I hope that our Government will not find itself in a similar position and that it will not have to follow this example of making out a case at the eleventh hour why we fought. This matter can only be postponed if the war continues, and I say that South Africa is in an extremely difficult position if our welfare and our interests, are to be dependent on the war. But what is the position today? In the absence of a statement by the Minister of Economic Development, in the absence of a guarantee which is necessary for industrial development in South Africa, the time has arrived when he should either make a statement immediately or give the country, which made these sacrifices, this assurance immediately, or, failing that, he should make room for other more capable men.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a remarkable thing that in South Africa, where we are dependent so much upon the mining industry for our wealth and prosperity as a foundation on which to build our plans, we hear so little about the mining industries when we come down to a discussion of the Budget. May I remind the House that there would be no possibility of the enormous building plan we have, no possibility of building the enormous secondary industries we have in mind, unless it were for the aggregation of wealth and technical skill which the mining industry has brought here and has expended in such a generous way for the benefit of the population. I was rather pleased when the member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) seemed to foreshadow some sort of co-operation between agriculture and mining. I pricked up my ears and thought that we would get some sort of a plan, but it just faded away in the rest of his speech. If I was to pursue that shadow I would say that if there were any two industries in this country that ought to work together they are mining and agriculture. The mines want food and agriculture wants a market. The great problem before agriculture is not the question of production, but the disposal of its products. The main difficulty has been distribution and the finding of markets. If you take away our mineral wealth and if you take away the deciduous fruits, there is very little profitable export left in the agricultural field. But let them feed that large number of people who are engaged directly and indirectly in mining and the numbers go up and up, and by a process of political metabolism farming products are digested to promote the welfare of the country. For export South Africa depends almost entirely on its mineral wealth, because that can be exported with a profit and very little else from South Africa can be. In pre-war times, of a total of export of £150,000,000, £110,000,000 was accounted for by gold alone, and when we add to that the other mineral exports we find that our dependence on the mining industry is outstanding. I feel that not only this House, but the country as a whole is not sufficiently alive to this, and is not forming its ideas on the right lines, and not linking itself to the proper perspective. I feel that there is great danger in that. We have heard speeches in this House quite recently, some in this debate, in which the mining industry has been treated as something which was to be reprobated or relegated to a second-grade rank.

No, no.

I am not referring to the hon. member who is interrupting me. These speeches are not confined to one side of the House, but there have been speeches of that kind on both sides. I think it is a very, very dangerous signal when we find an attitude of that kind. Now, as a matter of fact, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, made two statements with reference to the mining industry, statements of very great importance, and I think some comment should be made and attention should be paid to them. I find practically nothing has been done. One matter is the determination of the Government to take into reconsideration the whole of mining taxation when the war is done. The second is that we have determined to start the establishment of a research institute to go into the question of ultra-deep mining, to exploit the gold which lies at extreme depth on the Rand. These two statements in the Budget connote a good deal, and I would like to say something on them. The first is in regard to taxation which has been imposed to a pitch which imperilled the flourishing of the gold mining industry. Owing to the exigencies of the war he has had to impose very great taxation, but when it comes to the stage of taking 75 per cent. of the income of industry, it calls for review, and that is going to take place in time. But coupled with this fact, and as incidental to this, the public should realise that the cost of production has riseri and is rising to the extent when the margin of profit left is getting smaller and smaller, and is taking out of your gold reserves immense quantities which in 1939 were included in it. That is a very serious position and the scope of this industry on which our present and future economic future depends is being threatened. That has resulted in the closing down of some mines. When a mine gives me notice that it is going to close down, what do I do? I investigate whether it should or not, and I have on occasion, as I am empowered to do under the Gold Law, appointed a committee to go into it. On not a single occasion has the commission advised me that the closing down of a mine was not justified, and that the notice given was not justified. On other occasions the case has been so clear to my technical advisers—the position has been so clear— that no commission was necessary. When a municipality is affected by the closing down of a mine they send me telegrams couched in the strongest language, calling on me to stop it. Then it is already far too late. You cannot do it at the last moment. The only way you can prolong the life of a mine is to keep the costs in such a position that the whole of the reserves can be sent to the mill and used. What has been happening? What was taken into the reserves at one time, has to be excluded in the next few years because the margin of profit has disappeared. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think one would have expected that representatives of a great industry of this kind, which is largely centred in the Witwatersrand, would take notice of this. I have listened in vain, and it is a striking matter that apparently there is no-one in Parliament who is able from a practical side to give this House or the other House any practical experience in the management of this great industry. There is no-one in this House, or Parliament, who has got this capacity or got the background which enables him to tell us what are the needs of this industry. It is a serious position which I think the attention of Parliament should be drawn to. Then there is another thing, and that is the cost of labour, native labour. We do depend in the mining industry on native labour, and the cost has gone up steeply. If I understand the policy of the native representatives correctly, it is that they are looking for the abolishing of the migrant native labour force, and they want the whole of the native family to be permanently resident on the Witwatersrand, or in the Free State, or wherever they may be. I say that if that was to happen it would have one of two consequences. One would be that the wages that they would require would rise to the same level as those of the employees of the other industries in the town, and that would at once close almost the whole of the existing mines and prevent the opening of others. Of that there is no question or doubt. I dare say some members would regard that with complacency and would say the sooner we get rid of the mines who treat their natives that way, the better. There is another alternative, and that is that the colour bar should be abolished with one stroke, and the mining industry would be handed over to the native population with the exception of a few technicians and highly skilled engineers. That is still a possibility, which, I gather, the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) would welcome with both hands, and I have no doubt so would his colleagues too. But would the rest of the House? I would like the Leader of the Opposition to say what his policy is. In days gone by he took pride in saying that he abolished the colour bar in regard to coloured persons and left it only operative in regard to the natives. Now, is the policy of the Nationalist Government based on philosophy or faith, and if so, why does he stop short at a degree of colour and not include both?

Have you forgotten the Colour Bar Act?

No, but you took credit for abolishing the colour bar in regard to coloured persons. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I should address you and not reply across the floor of the House. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), when he was Minister of Mines ….

He never was Minister of Mines.

…. when he was Ministetr of the Interior, took credit for abolishing the colour bar in regard to coloured persons, and left it only in relation to the natives. Is that what he wants at the present time? I gathered that he expressed regret as to the statement by the Secretary for Native Affairs that he thought that the abolition of the colour bar was essential for the prosperity of South Afrcia. Well, this is a fine line for the hon. member to take, and the country would be very ill-advised to trust his alternating policy, because we know when he is in the Opposition he makes one class of speech, and whe he is in power he makes another class of speech. Let us face up to the question of native labour. Let us make up our minds whether we want the mines; do we want them to be worked by the natives only, or as they are now, with a labour force of skilled whites and a native labour force of a mirgrant character such as is exploited at present? I say the present position is a dangerous one. It is dangerous for the nation and for the industries threatened. We have to get more mines going and the Government, realising this, is hoping to get mines in the central Rand going at very great depth indeed. This will take an enormous amount of research and also ah enormous amount of money to exploit our mineral wealth at the great depth. How are you going to get the money for this unless you allow profits? I know that the socialist members of the House would like to have everything done by the Government and to abolish profits, but that is not South Africa’s policy. It is well committed to the policy of letting a man get the fruits of his labours, whatever they be. That is the profit system and unless you allow people to make a fair profit you will not get investments.

Except the farmers.

No, I told you already that I would like to pursue that avenue very much. Do not put me in opposition to agriculture. I say you must allow the mines to have fair profits if you are going to have new mines. You have this ultra-deep mining which calls for a risk of £20,000,000, and who is going to put it up unless they have assurances as to future taxation, working costs and the labour supply and the rest of it? No-one in his sound senses would do it. How are you going to get anyone to open up what we think is going to be a very big field in the Free State? I paid a visit to Odendaalsrus recently and I was as welcome as the flowers in spring, because I suppose, it was thought that I brought a promise of gold production there. Let us hope it will happen, but all these great hopes will be blasted unless you allow the mines, after costs and taxation, to earn a reasonable and definite profit. Í find very little attention paid to this elementary but very fundamental position. The whole of your social security depends on mining production. You cannot get social security without full employment for the whole of the population, and I say it is idle to suppose that you could unless you have a very flourishing mining industry here. Gold mining has been most important; diamonds have been a very great help especially in recent years. The output of coal has been very necessary to the war effort. The response of the workers has been so great that I have received from the Ministry of Supply overseas thanks for the efforts we have put forward. I do not think that it is realised that our war effort, great as it has been, could have been anything like it has been, had it not been for the mining industry which furnised so much skill and enabled us to send forward an engineering brigade which has done such magnificent work. Where did they get this knowledge? It has been in the mining industry in South Africa, principally concentrated on the Wit-watersrand. When our thousands of mine workers return they will expect not only to get their work back, but also promotion. The only way that that can be done is to put the mining industry on a sound basis in respect of cost and native labour in future. I wish to say that South Africa in taking part, and successfully taking part in the war, is now looking to peace, and the attention which been paid to social security proposals has been of a great and very outstanding character. Full employment is our own policy here and the policy of the Government, dictated by commonsense. I think it is the policy which our men and women will expect when they return, and let us see that it is done. But we are considering not only our internal economy, but our external economy as well, and we have found proved by the course of this war what I have had occasion to say on many occasions in the past, that the security of South Africa is the result of its partnership in the British Empire. The course of the war has shown that the existence of small independent nations is short and precarious. Small independent nations can no longer stand by themselves in safety. I think that is the experience of our lifetime, and the history of the ill-conceived League of Nations proves it step by step. When we look round and we see the enormous preponderance of power now being exercised by the three nations, the British Empire, the United States of America and Russia, and the relative insignificance of the rest of the united nations, we are led to the same conclusion. The days when the small independent states could really protect themselves are passed, and where they survive they count for little. We are very fortunate in South Africa in our membership of the British Empire. I hope and trust that throughout the discussions which are to take place in London, and later in San Francisco, there will be confirmation of this safe policy, the pursuit of which will enable us to play a worthy part in world affairs. Let me ask the House to consider for a moment what would be the relative weight of one speaking at such an assembly as a Prime Minister of a Dominion with the background and from the platform of the Empire with that of the same man but bereft of that setting. How wise are the words of the strong! When the Prime Minister of South Africa goes to any of these conferences, and speaks from that platform and with that background, he will be listened to and his words will carry much weight. For that South Africa should be very thankful, I say again the safety of our country, the basis of our freedom—freedom of thought as well as of person—our hope and faith in economic development— are founded in a partnership in the British Empire, whose unity has been confirmed by the course of events.

The few remarks which the hon. member for Pretoria Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) made in connection with the speech of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, gave this House a good example of the kind of game which is being played outside this House by members of the United Party, including the head office of that party and its monthly bulletin. They give a misrepresentation of facts and create a wrong impression: at the same time they are as silent as the grave about their policy in the past, and which is still worse, about the policy they still adhere to today. In former days there was hardly any difference of opinion between the various parties in regard to this matter. In 1914 the Nationalist Party began propagating the policy of separating the franchise of the European and the franchise of the natives. The hon. member for Sunnyside is silent about the fact that since those days the present Prime Minister and his party have fought the policy of the Nationalist Party tooth and nail.

At that time you did not exist.

As far as the franchise of the coloured man is concerned there was practically no difference of opinion at the beginning, but afterwards a difference did arise. The Nationalist Party at one time held the view that the vote should also be given to the coloured woman, but the Prime Minister went further and said that the vote should also be given to the native woman.

That is nonsense.

That is the truth.

In the Hansard report of the 17th February, 1928, we find that the present Prime Minister said the following—

Now, however, the members opposite are silent about it. When this matter was brought up, this side of the House moved an amendment that the vote should only be given to the European woman, and then the present Prime Minister and his whole party voted against it, against the amendment proposed by this side. In 1932 already the Leader of the Opposition held the view that the coloured population should have separate representation and in 1936 the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment in this House to that effect. What happened then? All the members on the other side voted against this amendment. I ask where those members get the right to criticise the point of view of the Opposition. What is more the hon. member for Sunnyside is the last person to open his mouth in regard to this matter. We all know and the country knows that his policy is one of placing European and non-European in South Africa on the same level. He dare not deny that.

You are talking nonsense now.

The whole of South Africa, European as well as non-European, will one day be grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for having pointed this morning to the serious danger which confronts us in regard to South Africa’s national problems. When we look at the extent to which these national dangers have lately grown in South Africa the question arises what is at the root of this phenomenon. When we analyse the position properly, there can only be one reply, viz that a policy is being followed in South Africa today, that South Africa is being made the prey of a policy and a campaign of denationalisation, which upsets our entire political economy and which is going to saddle South Africa with a heritage of racial strife and racial conflict and which is already sowing the seed of a self-destructive revolution—a heritage of racial conflict such as has never been witnessed in any other part of the world. This is going to be a heritage of racial tragedy in South Africa. The Government is not only closing its eyes, to this large-scale process of denationalisation in South Africa, but it is even encouraging it covertly; it does not even hesitate in many cases to take the initiative in this process. When one looks at the racial policy followed during the past few years, and more in particular during the past six years, one has to face the fact that this period of the last six years will go down in history as the period during which a coffee-coloured policy in South Africa was shaped and introduced. I am making serious accusations today but we can prove them to the hilt. I should like to dwell shortly on a few aspects of this definite process of denationalisation on the part of the Government. In the first place I want to mention the methods and the system of government which this Government is applying not only to the nonEuropean races, but especially to the natives. During the past few years we have noticed that the Government has abolished all forms of control in regard to the natives. Why? Only because it succumbed to the cry of freedom for the natives; because a small group of detribalised natives and a small number of negrophiles who do not know and do not understand the natives, have been shouting from morning till night that the native is being oppressed and that the native is feeling wronged on account of the measure of control he used to be subject to. I maintain that the Government fell for that. A child could have predicted that the result of such a policy would be the position we find today, namely, loafing and the furtherance of crime and nothing else. I must warn this House very seriously today that this large-scale occurrence of crime which we have in our country today will not remain confined to the urban areas. Those occurrences will spread throughout South Africa; as a matter of fact they can already bé noticed in the native reserves. I just want to point out that as a result of the policy which the Government is following at present, namely a policy of licentiousness and lack of control, the Government is today transforming the natives into a nation of criminals. We should not forget that the natives as a people have only just reached adolescence. If there is one section of the population in our country which should be properly guided and properly protected, it is the native population. What is more; this policy is not in the true interests of the native himself. It amounts to nothing less than a crime against the native himself. I want to point to the further fact that this policy which the Government is following today in giving complete freedom to the native, is a direct contradiction and a direct negation of the recognised and established traditional policy of the native himself. I say that it is a direct contradiction of the traditional policy of the native himself and I should like hon. members in this House to take notice of it. If one goes to the reserves, what does one see there? There one notices that under the old tribal system the native is not left to a freedom of licentiousness. He is being kept properly under control by a wonderful system of patriarchal government, and the native did not feel this as an oppression. On the contrary he welcomed it and he felt that it is to the benefit of his own people. He welcomed it and it even had the sanction of his religion and of his tribal government. Why don’t we adapt our system to that? Why is the Government not taking those facts into account? If it did so, we would not have been saddled with this large number of criminals we find today in our country. What was the outcome of that system whereby the native exercised control over its own people? In the reserves we find a form of social life which was rather advanced. We did not find crimes on such a large scale there as we find today; we did not find these modern social evils there. They did not even find it necessary to develop a police system. Even today we find in the reserves that no large police force is required there. I ask again why we do not take that fact into account and why we do the native this glaring injustice of leaving him to do as he likes? I want to Warn the Government very seriously that the implications of this policy are today clouding South Africa’s horizon. The people outside are afraid. Just look at the large number of lives lost as a result of this senseless policy; look at the assaults occurring every day in our country; look at the bloodshed; look at the large-scale destruction of private property; look at the waste of labour. When I consider these matters I maintain that this policy of the Government is transforming our natives into a nation of criminals and this is most unfair towards the natives themselves. I see very clearly that there is only one solution to the problem and that is, that the native population be again placed under a proper systetm of control, a system of control which links up with his own patriarchal system of control so that he will actually feel that it forms part of his existence. That is the only sound policy for our native population. I want to warn this House that if matters continue as they are going today, the day will not be far off that our civilian population and our decent natives will, from sheer desperation, have no other way out but to take the law into their own hands. And when that happens, you will see bloodshed in South Africa on an unprecedented scale. The Government is today drifting towards that position and I maintain that the time has come for the Government to change its policy. Through the ages the native peoples have built up a fine system of tribal government. That system was not a dead system; every native played his part in it. We know that this system cultivated a high sense of esteem and respect in the native for his own form of government. Ignoring the decisions of the tribal government was tantamount to playing with death. To talk sneeringly of the native’s tribal system was a sacrilege. What is the practical policy of this Government? It does not give the slightest recognition to that tribal system of the native. The Government is busy destroying that feeling of the native for his own tribal system and is not creating a feeling of respect for our own Government in the place of it, because the native does not understand our system as it does not fit in with is own social life. The old native today realises that his tribal system has become a farce. The young natives have no respect for it; they do not worry about it; they even ridiciule it. What do we find today? Everywhere the tribal system is being replaced by councils. How are these councils being composed generally? In this respect I want to warn the Government earnestly. Those councils are being established on the basis of the system the Europeans are accustomed to. The result is that those councils do not take into account the background of the native himself and instead of being forces for the uplifting of the natives, they have become nothing but centres of denationalisation. Who are the natives who are appointed to these councils? They are not the recognised leaders of their people. They are not the authoritative leaders of their people. With few exceptions they are political agitators. One actually gets the impression that the greater the slant with which a native carries his hat and the higher his collar is, the better he is qualified in the eyes of the Government for appointment to those councils. What is more, those councils have become the hunting ground of political agitators, where they do not intend representing the interests of the natives but where they simply go to use those councils as instruments for propagating the policy of denationalisation and the Government is encouraging that to a great extent. This morning the Hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned the instance of the Native Representative Council. Some members of this House cherished high expectations of that council but at the moment the exact thing is happening there now which this side of the House predicted at the time. The Native Representative Council is degenerating into nothing but a council of political agitation. We need only look at the speeches made there. Those speeches are not made to further the real interests of the natives. No, that native council has merely become a propaganda machine in the service of the agents of denationalisation and in the service of the Government itself. The council has only one aim and that is to see how quickly it can turn natives into people with European manners. It has only one task and that is to sow as much suspicion as it can amongst the natives towards the European. Instead of the native council being a link between European and nonEuropean, as it should be, it has become an institution for the creation of racial conflict. It spreads racial poison wherever it can. Matters have become so bad that even the English Press has uttered warnings, and we know that when the English Press begins to utter warnings matters must be very bad indeed. The position in that council is so bad that the English Press has found it necessary to issue a warning. During the last election we noticed that certain natives were candidates for membership of the council and did not hesitate to describe themselves as candidates of the Communist Party. Do we realise the danger of this phenomenon to the life of our people? It is, however, no use to bring this danger to the notice of the Government for the members of the Cabinet are all patrons of the Friends of the Soviet Union and comrade Madusa became a member before they did; he, therefore, is their senior; how then can they proceed against him. I maintain that a great injustice is thereby being done to the people of South Africa and the people of South Africa are becoming restive on account of it. The actions of the Native Representative Council are today of such a nature that very serious consideration should be given to the question whether that council should not be abolished. In the second place I want to refer briefly to the process of denationalisation which the Government is not only permitting, but even encouraging, amongst our urban population, and in this connection I specially want to refer to Communist propaganda and the admittance into the Union of all agitators with every kind of doctrine and all sorts of sects making propaganda amongst the native population. The Government refuses to take any steps. It is only necessary to look at our urban population in the Transvaal. During a week-end in the Transvaal the urban locations there look more like open air schools in Russia than urban locations in South Africa. The Communists have established a system so efficient that this House would be astonished to see it, but the Government refuses to take action. I repeat what I said last year in this House. When matters go on as they do today, then I predict that the hammer and sickle of Communist Russia will accomplish for Communism amongst the non-Europeans here in South Africa what the crescent accomplished for the Islam in North Africa. I maintain that the time has come for the Government to take action. The Minister of Native Affairs told us that there are about 80 sects working amongst the natives. I can give him an assurance that the number is not 80, but a few hundred. If a native is too lazy to work he simply puts on a collar the wrong way round and establishes a church. The time has come that we should take action. The Government will say that this would be an infringement of our religious freedom. What is happening today among the natives is not a question of religious freedom but of religious licentiousness, and there is nothing so dangerous as this phenomenon, especially in the life of primitive races. We are the trustees of the native and in respect of these matters it is therefore our duty to protect the native and to give him proper guidance. The day will come when the native will point a finger of bitter reproach at us and will accuse us that we did not protect him in the days when he needed our protection. The time has come that we in South Africa should adopt a thoroughly tried and large-scale system of missionary work and I even want to go as far as suggesting in this House that the time has come for this country to finance the right type of missionary work among the natives. In that work I see one of the solutions for our racial problems in South Africa. But in that case this foreign propaganda of all kinds of sects must be stopped and we should get the proper type of missionary endeavour in South Africa which will take due account of our own policy of separateness, missions which will work according to definite principles of a Christian national policy, missionary work which will also take into account the background of the native, the native mind. I now want to say a few words in regard to the educational policy of this Government. We know that the purpose of education, the main purpose of education, is the building of character and to adapt the individual for his environment. What policy is being followed in South Africa at present? Today an amount of £2,500,000 is being spent on native education and the people are entitled to demand an account of this expenditure. What is the educational policy which is being followed today in regard to the native? It is nothing less than a large-scale process of denationalisation. Instead of forming citizens really imbued with a national pride you are creating monstrosities who are no credit to the native population and are a burden on the State. Nothing is being done to encourage the noble and the beautiful aspects in the native’s own culture. On the contrary our educational policy bears the hall-mark of denationalisation. It is not fair on the part of this Government to simply shift the responsibility on the Provinces. This Government had a wonderful opportunity to place native education on a very sound and thorough basis. But what did it do instead? It came along with a proposal to leave native education in the hands of the Provinces. It produced an educational council. A sound policy would have been to place native education under the Union Government. We should not shirk, our duties in that way. We should not separate the policy from the administration; policy and administration should be one, and it should come under the Union Government, but be placed in the händs of the Department of Native Affairs. There it belongs and that would be a sound system and when I say that I am not speaking on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking people only; I am also speaking on behalf of a large section of the English-speaking population. I am also speaking on behalf of a large section of the native community who have the welfare of their race and of the people of South Africa at heart. At the head of such a department of education should have been placed a superintendent of education with his advisory council which should consist of a number of experts — not experts on the policy of denationalisation, but experts on the life and ideals of the natives themselves. Then we would have had something that would have been of value to South Africa. Instead of that the Government comes along and leaves the matter in the hands of the Provinces. The Government is shielding behind the Provinces. They can do as they like. I just want to say that this policy of denationalisation is most unfair to the native. Take away a man’s national pride and you deprive him of the greatest incentive of character-building. A policy of denationalisation does not only paralyse the national life of a people but also destroys the character of the individual, for an individual without a national pride is usually a person without a backbone. The result is that you are creating an element without a backbone. As a result of this policy of the Government South Africa is today burdened with a host of people without a backbone, who are no use to their own people as far as development is concerned and who are a burden on the shoulders of the State. The native feels that that policy is a policy of injustice. He notices that the cultural treasures of his nation are being destroyed and he asks why. He notices that this policy has paralysed his national pride and he becomes impatient. When I drew the attention of a native to this matter he replied: “Yes, this is only the white man’s medicine which has sucked dry our marrow and brains. We are only the victims of the white man.” We should remedy what we have spoilt. We should acknowledge the spiritual values of the natives. If we do not do so, the day will dawn when the native will despise and trample upon everything which comes from the white man. That is the natural result of every national awakening which is born from the ruins created by the destructive hand of the conqueror. Finally I want to say that whatever may be said here, and I say it with all due deference to the opinion of others who may differ from me, that South Africa needs only one thing to save this position. South Africa need not appoint commissions or call together conferences. South Africa only needs a government which believes in the policy of separateness and believes in it to such an extent that it will put into practise such policy of separateness, a government which believes that a people should develop in a definite Christian national direction, a government which still believes in the principle of the trusteeship of the native over the non-European races in South Africa; give South Africa a National Government and these problems will be solved.

The hon. member for George, in his amendment to this debate, states that the House declines to go into Committee of Supply unless, inter alia—

That is a very fine sounding, sweeping amendment, but to anyone who has studied the control system, it reveals that whoever drafted this amendment is not really very well versed in the control system and the organisation. In the first place it suggests that our control system is simply a local affair and it shows no signs of realising that so far from being that it is part of a world-wide organisation which has its centre in London and in Washington, and secondly half the difficulties we have had with the control system, the vexatious delays and difficulties, have been due to our having the greatest difficulty in getting adequate staff, so that so far from having unnecessary or redundant staff, we are very short-staffed. I shall do my best to enlighten the hon. member for George on this question of control if I have an opportunity to do so. I think the amendment was apparently rather far-reaching even for hon. members opposite, because the debate is now well advanced and so far nobody has stated a case for this clause of the amendment or has brought forward anything to substantiate the radical proposals contained in it. The only support which the hon. member for George has had up to date has been from the hon. member for Krugersdorp this afternoon, whose only suggestion for improving the position is to sack all the controllers and half the Cabinet as well. On a previous occasion he suggested that the solution was to appoint members of Parliament in place of controllers. Well, that also does not indicate that the hon. member for Krugersdorp has really studied the subject. The hon. member for Krugersdorp did make a remark this afternoon on which I should like to take him up. He suggested that the control system was a source of corruption. I understood him to say that.

On a point of explanation, I said that building control irregularities have been brought to light in this House and in the absence of any indication on the part of the Government to rectify these things, I think it is nothing less than a source of corruption.

I thought the hon. member’s charge was wider than that. But let us accept the position that he is just accusing building control of corruption. I say that is a charge which should not be lightly made in this House, and I say that if the hon. member has any evidence to substantiate such a charge, it is his bounden duty to place that information in the hands of the proper authorities, and if he has no such information, I say it is unworthy of him to make such sweeping charges in this House against people who cannot defend themselves, and I repudiate the suggestion that controllers are anything but well-meaning and honest people who are doing their best in the interest of the country. That they have made mistakes is certain, but to suggest that they are corrupt is a suggestion which I strongly repudiate and I hope the House will repudiate it too. The hon. member for Krugersdorp—and that is one point I would like to deal with—and other members have made the statement that the Government has not indicated ….

He appeared to think that you ought to remain in the Cabinet.

The hon. member and others have made the statement, again a sweeping statement without a vestige of substantiation, that the Government has not in any way declared what its policy is in regard to industrial development in the post-war years.

Of course, you have not.

That again is a serious charge but it just does not happen to be true. There have been statements by various Ministers, by the Prime Minister and myself and other Ministers in this House, in the Other Place and on various public occasions, outlining perfectly clearly what the industrial policy of this country was to be, particularly in the immediate post-war period. What we said is that before clarifying a long-term industrial policy for the Union we must wait until we have the report of the Board of Trade. The hon. member for Krugersdorp may believe in giving his verdict first and hearing the evidence afterwards, but we think it is essential that we should first hear the evidence and then give our verdict. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) also raised this point and asked whether the report would be available to members of Parliament. The position is that the interim report of the Board of Trade has been handed to me. It is a formidable document; it is rather lengthy and it is now in the course of being translated, and as soon as the translation is complete it will be laid on the Table of the House, and I hope we will have an opportunity of discussing it.

We want to know your policy.

The Government’s longterm policy must be finally guided by the report which they charged the Board of Trade to produce. The Board of Trade has been carrying out investigations during the past eighteen months, perhaps the hon. member does not know it. But this Board has been carrying out investigations during the past eighteen months in connection with the industrial position of the country. It has been collecting an enormous amount of data and facts in order to be able to advise the Government. As far as the immediate post-war period is concerned, as I say, the policy of the Government has been laid fully before the country and not only has it been laid fully before the country but it has been generally accepted by industry as satisfactory. In regard to these hon. members who stand up here and claim to speak on behalf of industry, I think their claims are somewhat exaggerated, because I am in very close touch with organised industry, and I have every reason to believe they have accepted as satisfactory the declarations that have been made on the subject. It is not only the industrialists that have accepted it; it has also been accepted by the Nationalist Party. The other day the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) criticised the statement I made to the Chambers of Industry last October, and he went through it sentence by sentence and raised various queries about it, criticising it generally. I was rather surprised, because in respect of that particular speech the day after I made it “Die Burger”—which for the information of the hon. member for Gezina is the official organ of his party in the Cape—had a leading article and said this—

In other words, the Nationalist Party’s only complaint was that I had taken over, boots and all, the industrial policy of their party. Now they say we have not got a policy at all. I leave it to the hon. members opposite to work it out.

Such little policy as you have you have taken over.

That was the complaint of hon. members opposite. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) made reference to one point to which I would like to refer, and that is that the Government, having had a huge supply organisation during the war and having become a major purchaser, should continue to some degree in those capacities after the war. I think there would be grave difficulties about that, but to this extent the hon. member is right, that we have made arrangements for the Union Tender Board to take a much more active part in coordinating the purchases of Government departments. If we have more co-ordination between the Government departments much more orderly purchasing can be done by the Government, and the Government will be in a position to place its orders more wisely perhaps and to the better advantage of the country as a whole. Now I have turned to the wording of the amendment, and this question of control and the future of control is, of course, one which people are worrying about a good deal. It was said in this House the other day that there had been no statement on this subject either. But that is also incorrect; there have been a number of statements. Perhaps I may quote the most recent statement made by the Prime Minister himself, which is this—

That is a clear statement of policy. The implementation of the policy must, of course, depend on the war and on the supply position. Both commerce and industry are interested in the question. Commerce, on the one hand, wants its stocks replenished and wants free trade in return. Industry, on the other hand, is anxious to obtain raw materials and machinery and plant. Commerce, at the same time, does not want control removed too suddenly, or so suddenly as to allow a large amount of speculative buying to take place, or until established traders have had an opportunity to restock. In the same way industry does not want to be exposed to the full blast of overseas competition until it has had a chance to re-equip itself for full time production. In other words, there is agreement on the desirability of removing controls as soon as possible, and on that point there is no difference of opinion. But there is a considerable difference of opinion as to which control should be removed first, or as to how far they should be removed. There are, of course, two kinds of control which are complementary to each other.

We are listening carefully about these control boards.

I am pleased to hear that, but the hon. member would find it much easier to listen if he would keep quiet. The first control is the internal control, which is absolutely necessary in our rationing out the goods fairly in our country, and it is also essential as part of the procurement policy from overseas. I should like to quote, to show how necessary this internal control is, and how much further it goes than merely a question of local interest, from a telegram which we received within the last week or two. It contains the following statement which I commend to the attention of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), who every now and again takes some little interest in the proceedings—

That comes from an official telegram from the Washington Administration. That indicates the importance in regard to supplies to this country of the proper distribution and use of the goods we are getting under the present system. The import control, the other side of it, is equally necessary. We have to have an import permit from the States arid an essentiality certificate from Great Britain. These are necessary to have an export permit from these countries and to obtain shipping registration. Nearly all the essential supplies are rationed in some form or another, and therefore in order to obtain them at ail we have to comply with the terms of that certificate, and we have adhered to it very strictly and with very satisfactory results, because we have built up an understanding between the supplying companies that we will not try to exploit the position, but we will confine ourselves to only asking for what is essential in war time. Six months ago it looked as if the position was going to improve. It looked as if the war might come to an end sooner than was expected. It looked as if there was a prospect of more goods and shipping becoming available, and we had information to that effect from overseas. Many merchants here were receiving cables and letters from their suppliers offering goods, and for that reason we sent over a mission to America and to Great Britain to explore the position, because of the urgent need we have for goods in this country as soon as they are available. It did look then, from reports we got from that mission, as if some modification in the control system would be possible. Well, the war did not move as fast as it then looked as if it would, and the position in the supplying countries has changed again. I have just quoted from this cable from Washington indicating that the supply position there has changed. We have also had communications from London in the last ten days in which a special appeal is made to the Dominion authorities to limit shipments to the most essential requirements during the next few months, and to do their utmost to avoid additional demands on shipping; and we are advised not to go too far towards procurement until the position is examined, and it is known what shipping is available. So far, therefore from shipping being free we are informed that for the next few months at any rate, there will be a substantial percentage cut in the shipping available for the Union, and we therefore not only cannot proceed to look forward for freer supplies, but we shall be compelled to go very carefully through the orders we have outstanding overseas in order to see which we might do without and to ensure the most essential coming over.

Does that apply to all countries?

To the United States, Great Britain and Canada.

Why?

Because the demands on shipping have never been greater. The Prime Minister of Great Britain pointed that out recently. With the Pacific. War being carried on more vigorously than ever, with the enormous demands of the American armies in Europe, with the demands of the occupied countries when they are free, the demand on shipping is greater than it has ever been. I also want to point out the Union has become a party to an agreement in the principle of maintaining an international shipping pool for a considerable time after the cessation of hostilities, and therefore all things considered, the supply position is by no means what it looked it might be some months ago. I therefore want to make it quite clear, both to this country and these countries on whom we rely for our supplies, that we are not relaxing in our efforts towards shipping economy, we are not suggesting that the war is nearly over, and we are not making any demands on supplying countries which might embarrass their war effort; and that our aim in discussing these questions is simply to let importers obtain their goods as soon as they are available, and that as and when and where shipping may be offering we shall be able to make use of it. When last year it looked as if the position was improving we were not quite in a position to take advantage of it, and we do not want to be caught like that again. I want, however, to make it quite clear that any discussions that take place now must not be regarded as preparations for taking advantage of what we hope will be in the not too distant future an improved situation in regard to shipping, and not as an indication that we think they are likely to be freely available in the near future. Considering the enormous demands that have been made on world shipping the Union has been very well treated indeed, and we have every reason to be thankful for the consideration shown in supplying those ships. We naturally look for an improvement but we cannot count, on it, and I hope the country will accept this statement of the position. Of course the position may change sooner than we expect. It certainly did some months ago. But we cannot bet on that. But at the same time we are particularly anxious that our industries should be able to place firm orders for raw materials, machinery and plant to be shipped whenever shipping space is offering, and in order to place those orders, in order to get the orders accepted by the manufacturer, it is essential they should be able to place a definite order, and for that they must be in possession of definite permission to import, otherwise the manufacturer will not accept the indent. So far as the commodity controllers are concerned, they have been required, in recommending certificates of essentiality, to adhere very strictly to the terms of the certificate, which are that the goods are necessary in the war effort or for maintaining the community on a wartime-basis; and we shall have to maintain that. But as goods come on to the free list, and as shipping becomes available, we shall be ready to interpret these permits more favourably, but at present that cannot be considered. As far as applications are concerned which cannot be regarded as essential for war time economy but which are in respect of commodities required as soon as we can get them, for restoring the economy of the Union and for immediate post-war adjustment, we are going to use a new priority of 9 with the shipping terms “Ship when shipping is offering”. This rating we propose at this stage to confine to machinery and plant and raw materials required for industrial purposes, and the net result of that will be not to make any extra claim on shipping, but it simply means that the people from whom we hope to obtain these goods later on will be in a position to accept the orders and to prepare them and hold them and ship them as soon as shipping is offering, so that we shall not run the risk of the position arising of shipping being available at a later stage and this plant and machinery not being ready. Of course commodities on quota, allocation or programme, which are the three methods of obtaining our supplies — allocated by the combined boards—represent the limits we have to keep within; we are bound to keep within those quotas, and there can be no change or alteration in that respect. But there are cases where goods have been offered ex quota, and there have been cases where delay in taking them up has resulted in their being lost to the Union, and control authorities are now instructed to improve their machinery so that advantage can be taken of any opportunity for shipping goods when shipping is available to take them. I think I have put the position as clearly as I can at the moment. One major difficulty that will confront us in regard to control and the future of import control, is the question of our own industries. I made a statement last year on the subject in which I said that the control of imports was never visualised as a means of protection of local industry, but during the period of readjustment or whilst there is any shortage of shipping or supplies, some form of import control will be retained, and dining this time preference will be given to the establishment of machinery, plant and raw materials intended for industry. That still stands. The proper body to afford protection to industry is the Board of Trade. But at the same time we shall have to take great care during the period of readjustment immediately after the war, to see that relaxation of import control does not cause a sudden dislocation of local industry, especially in view of the employment position; and the case becomes one not of how to retain import control, but how best to relax it as and when circumstances permit in the future; not of how to keep the door closed, but of how to open it without causing such a draught as to blow valuable things out of the window. I do not want to elaborate that point beyond saying we are busy with plans to deal with that situation when it arises This afternoon I only want to make it quite clear that at present restrictions in shipping, and in many respects the availability of many classes of goods, is as short as at any time. I want also to make it quite clear that what we are aiming at is to be ready when the time comes to take advantage of improved conditions, and we are not aiming now at making any claims for shipping of goods, which would be at variance with the policy of the supply countries with whom we work in close collaboration and conjunction. I ask the House and the country to realise that, as I have said, this control is not a local matter; it is part of a world-wide system, a most complicated world-wide system with rules with which we have to comply along with everybody else. I want to make it quite clear that any premature attempt on our part to disturb arrangements which have worked well and are still working well, would result not in more supplies but in less. The position, as I say, may change sooner than we expect, and I assure the House we shall be ready to take advantage of any important improvement if and when it occurs. Until such time I would ask the country and the House to continue to exercise the strictest economy and to limit our demands to the minimum.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition made a contribution to the debate this morning which will undoubtedly be received with gratitude and appreciation throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. When he dealt with this delicate and serious matter, he tried to keep it out of politics. But what happened? The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) immediately got up and instead of approaching the matter from the same point of view, he made an attack on the Leader of the Opposition and stated that he was co-responsible for the hopeless position in which we find ourselves in connection with the coloured problem. If the hon. member for Sunnyside had only consulted the Minister of Agriculture before he made his speech, he would have heard from the Minister of Agriculture how he was taken to task at Wakkerstroom during the by-election in connection with the same matter, and the hon. member for Sunnyside would probably not have ventured to discuss that subject. But if the hon. member for Sunnyside has forgotten it, I want to remind him of what actually happened in 1928 when the question of women’s franchise was under discussion. I just want to quote what the Leader of the Opposition said on the 2nd March, 1928, column 1650 of Hansard—

Does the hon. member want to suggest that he knows nothing about it? The hon. member must not quote certain things from Hansard and omit the most important section. He must look at this matter realistically. But since this reproach has been made let us see what the present Prime Minister said at that time. I just want to quote a few words—

Here the present Prime Minister reproached this side for having inserted the word “European”. I do not want to enlarge on that, but hon. members on the other side will be able to refresh their memories by looking at Hansard, not by extracting only a certain portion and then fabricating a misrepresentation. I want to confine myself principally to one point as far as the present Government is concerned, or more particularly the Minister of Justice. I want to confine myself to what is happening today in my own constituency. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here. I asked him to be present and he promised to be here. The hon. member for Krugersdorp made a plea that the Minister of Demobilisation should make room for someone else. I am almost inclined to say that the people will welcome it very much if they can get rid of the Minister of Justice. There is probably no city in South Africa where there is so much penetration of natives as there is in Johannesburg, and as a result of this penetration we find licentiousness, crime, housebreaking and theft on an alarming scale on the Witwatersrand. The cause of it is self-evident. In the first place we on this side have continually pointed out that there is no control over the natives. Last year, through the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), we asked the Government to consider the advisibility of sending all vagrants in the big cities to reserves and to institute an identification card system in order to exercise control. That appeal fell on deaf ears. We heard nothing more about it. I am glad the Minister of Justice has just entered the House. In the second place I want to say that it is wrong to have the employment office in the city; it should not be in the city but outside. Natives freely enter Johannesburg and there they look for employment. Some of them go to the employment office. When one passes the office in the morning, one sometimes sees as many as seven hundred or a thousand natives outside the office, seeking permission to look for work. They are then given leave to look for employment for a whole week. They either do not look for employment or do not get it, and then they lie idle in locations like Martindale, Native Western Township and Sophiatown, and we can imagine what goes on there when the natives are idle. The employment office should be outside the city and natives should not be allowed to enter Johannesburg until such time as they have employment.

Where must they stay?

The natives now come in; they do not obtain employment with the result that we find the mal-conditions which exist today. I think the Minister of Native Affairs especially should give his serious attention to this matter. It is not only a handful of natives but tens of thousands of natives in the city are unemployed. If the Government takes steps now it can still relieve the situation. But as the position is at present, there is licentiousness amongst the natives on an unprecedented scale. There is an unprecedented wave of crime, such as housebreaking, theft and assault. When anyone leaves the city for a day or two, he has to get someone else to guard his house. Those who know the western suburbs of Johannesburg will admit that no one can leave his home in the evening without having it guarded.

That is not the case.

I have been on the Witwatersrand longer than that member realises, and I know what the position is. The other day there was a case where a person went away on leave and when he returned there was not a single piece of furniture in his house. Every piece of furniture had been carted away. I do not want to sling mud, but that is the position which exists in Johannesburg, and it is a serious problem which we must face. I want to make an appeal to everyone who loves South Africa to stand together because, as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said this morning, we still have a last chance to save South Africa from this danger, and we dare not allow it to pass. Then I want to say that the number of police on the Witwatersrand is inadequate to cope with the existing position. The handful of policemen we have got have practically worked themselves to a standstill, but they are unable to prevent crime. Numbers of native soldiers have now been discharged from the army and trained to guard Johannesburg at night. I do not want to cast any reflection on those people, but they do not appreciate what is required of them. The other evening when I arrived at my house I found two of these native policemen there, while another native was in the act of running away from the house. I asked them what was happening, and one of them replied that the native had probably been up to mischief because he was running away. I then asked him why he did not give chase and the reply was that they could not do it alone because the native might have a knife with him and kill them. As the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has said, the time has arrived for the Government to expedite the discharge of policemen who are still in the army as much as possible so that they can return to places like the Witwatersrand and other big cities to maintain law and order and to protect the citizens of our country properly. While we are on this point I want to tell the House that all the trouble which is going on in Johannesburg and in Pretoria, is the result of the Communistic propaganda which is being made amongst the natives. I also want to say that that propaganda is not confined to the big cities today, but it is also being spread to the platteland. In dealing with this matter, I am obliged to direct attention to the unwillingness of the Minister of Justice to take steps against these people who are inciting the natives on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere. I make a point of attending many of the meetings of the Communists, because it is they who propagate this propaganda of incitement amongst the natives. They make speeches to thousands and thousands of natives, and I can only say that it is nothing less than reckless incitement of the natives against the European in South Africa. The Minister knows that on May Day he gave instructions—I put this question to him and he knows that that is the case—that the police and the traffic constables were to accompany the native procession through the streets of Johannesburg. That is actually the case. I saw with my own eyes that thousands and thousands of natives joined the procession and the Europeans had no hope of crossing the streets. Who were these people whom the Minister protected? They were natives who were largely under the leadership of Communists, and they carried banners with the words “We demand equal rights”, “We want guns”. Those were their slogans. While these riots were going on I telephoned the Minister and asked him why he allowed that kind of thing to happen. I asked the Minister to look at that type of slogan. The Minister knows what happened there, and that is the type of thing he allows. I was also told that traffic constables had to be on duty from early morning until the evening to accompany the procession and that they had nothing to eat the whole day. They had to keep up with these thousands and thousands of natives until they got back to the reserves in the evening. That is the type of law and order which is being maintained in South Africa. Are the emergency measures in our country intended for one section only? The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) got up in this House the other day and made an appeal to us to help them to oppose the propaganda of young Germans entering this country after the war. He asked us to help them to oppose that propaganda. It was not necessary for him to ask us that, because the Reunited Nationalist Party has shown from the beginning and still shows that it is the Party which opposes any acts of sabotage in the country. It was not necessary for him to make that appeal to us, but for my part I want to make an appeal to him and his Party to help us to save South Africa from that evil of Communistic propaganda. I ask him to help us to avoid racial clashes in the future by opposing the propaganda of Communistic agitators. While that is the position, we have the remarkable position in Johannesburg that there are native residential areas amongst and next to European residential areas. We find native reserves around Westdene, Newlands and even Crosby, Brixton, and those parts are in mortal danger. Those who come from Johannesburg will know what the position is, but for the benefit of those who are not acquainted with the position I just want to say that those reserves are not in any way separated from the European residential areas in Johannesburg. We have a place like Sophiatown where there are tens of thousands of natives and where there is practically no dividing line, not even the width of a street. In the event of trouble or in the event of a rising those natives can reach the European areas within five minutes. I shall come back to this point later. As a result of an incitement which took place there, we are today faced with this position that the natives in Pretoria and Johannesburg are hostile towards the Europeans. That was not the position previously, but it is the case today. In the Gape there has always been a coloured problem but the coloureds have not been hostile. In the Transvaal it was different at first, but today every native is hostile towards the Europeans. That is the position which obtains in Johannesburg. The Minister will recall the incident of the 5th November last. We have pointed out to him on more than one occasion that internal peace in South Africa, more particularly in big cities like Johannesburg or Pretoria and other great centres, is serioulsy threatened. The position is rapidly becoming worse, and the leader of our Partly correctly stated today that we still have a last chance to save the position, but it is our last chance and we must avail ourselves of it. In order to show how hostile the native has become. I want to relate what happened there. On the 5th November a tram reserved for natives killed a native who was under the influence of liquor. So efficient is the organisation amongst them that within a comparatively short time there were no less than ten thousand natives who invaded the streets and molested every European woman and child on whom they set eyes. They were in the main road through Westdene and Newlands. The Minister of Justice will know about it because I got into touch with him when it happened. There were ugly scenes. The Minister asked me to try to calm the people. I tried to do so, but if the Minister himself had been in the shoes of many European men in Westdene and Newlands, he would not have allowed himself to be stopped. It was an ugly sight to witness hundreds of women with their children on their arms fleeing and not knowing where to go. They were attacked by blood-thirsty natives, and the Minister asked me to stop these people. I used my influence to keep the people calm but I want to tell the Minister that the time will arrive when we shall no longer be able to stop the European unless the Minister takes steps to maintain order. We cannot expect it. I again want to ask the Minister what I asked him at that time, and that is to protect the tram drivers operating trams reserved for natives. They are in mortal danger. It was not only on the 5th of November that we had incidents of this nature. On a few subsequent occasions the natives again got out of hand, and the Minister ought to keep special police in that area. Why should the police be asked year in and year out to overwork themselves because of this propaganda amongst the natives? I say that all credit is due to the police of Johannesburg that there was not greater bloodshed on that occasion. But what happened even after that incident? After this incident at Westdene and Newlands, the “Rand Daily Mail” published a report in which it was stated that the European inhabitants of Westdene and Newlands were hooligans. Can we imagine greater incitement than that? The following evening I held a meeting at Newlands. The authorities tried to stop that meeting. I refused, to the advantage of the Minister, because at that meeting I tried further to calm the feelings of the people, but while I was holding my meeting, a native addressed a big meeting some little distance away, and he said over the loudspeaker: “The ‘Rand Daly Mail’ is quite right; they are hooligans and we shall still deal with them.” But nevertheless we find that the Minister of Justice takes no action. He cannot take action because he is the honorary president of the Society of the Friends of the Soviet Union. I say therefore that the time has arrived for him to vacate his seat with honour and to ask another Minister to save the country. On the 8th November, two police constables who stood guard at the Bantu World, were shot at by someone from a native tram. The Minister knows of it; why cannot the Government take action? The Government knows that the locations are full of fire-arms; why cannot they raid the locations and seize those fire-arms? The Europeans in South Africa were grossly humiliated because they were forced to hand in their fire-arms. The Government knows that natives are in possession of hundreds of fire-arms, but it allows that state of affairs to continue. I have not got much time at my disposal, and I just want to say in conclusion that if at this time of crisis the Government is not prepared to take steps and to maintain order in the country, we are going to have a second Blood River on the Witwatersrand. There is only one solution for the difficulties on the Witwatersrand, and that is on the basis of separation. It is not only I who say that. On the 14th November last year, the city council of Johannesburg accepted the principle of separation between Europeans, coloureds, natives and Indians. That is the only thing we can do. But we must bear in mind that the City Council of Johannesburg is not in every case in a position to effect a re-shuffling of this nature on its own, and we should pass far-reaching legislation in this Parliament to enable a city council like that of Johannesburg to carry out its policy, and if we do that, we will have to take into account certain provisions in the Gold Act of 1907 in terms of which Asiatics, coloured persons and natives may only live in certain seperate areas. As a result of the report of the Feetham Commission those sections of the Gold Act were repealed. That report made Asiatic penetration lawful in many cases where it was previously unlawful. That causes an enormous amount of trouble on the Witwatersrand. There have been prosecutions, but I think only one person appeared before the court and the Minister stopped the other prosecutions. We do not want any injustice to be done towards natives, coloureds and Asiatics, but we want to apply the policy of separation, so that everyone of these communities will be able to live in its own area. The City Council of Johannesburg has bought the land already, and if this Parliament makes it possible for the City Council to carry out such a policy of separation, we are going to solve our difficulties on the Rand to a very great extent. The Asiatic is not happy amongst coloured persons and natives. They would like to have their own community, and we should give it to them and protect Europeans against penetration. We must be prepared to make available the necessary money in order to be able to carry out such a policy of separation. My time has expired, and I want to conclude by putting a few questions to the Minister in the hope that he will give a clear reply to those questions. The first question on which I should like to have a reply is whether the Government would be prepared to introduce legislation immediately whereby local bodies will not onlý be authorised but compelled to give effect to the principles of segregation or separation in the social, industrial and political spheres. In the second place I want to ask whether the Government will introduce legislation for the delimitation of areas for coloured persons, natives and Asiatics under the jurisdiction of the local authorities, so that they can be governed mutually by the Government and the local authorities. In the third place I want to know whether provision will be made for proper housing in those areas with a view to maintaining the principle of separation amongst coloureds, Asiatics and natives. Fourthly, I should like to know whether the Government will take the necessary legal steps in such cases where occupation by natives, coloured persons and Asiatics for residential or trading purposes is in conflict with the conditions of the deeds of transfer or any Act, and, futhermore, introduce legislation providing that in the event of the deeds of transfer in respect of any stand in any urban area not making provision for the prohibition of property, occupation or trading rights in respect of natives, coloured persons or Asiatics, such prohibition will be incorporated in such deeds of transfer.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the arguments and speeches from the other side of the House, and I conclude that if there had been more co-operation from the other side during the last five or six years, their arguments would have been far more convincing to me. They have had the unhappy knack of doing everything wrong during this war, and now they place themselves on a pedestal and pose to be our critics. During the last four or five years it did not matter to them whether we lost the war or remained in the British Commonwealth, or whether we came under German influence. Some of them wanted a republic. They were not prepared to co-operate and were not sympathetic. On the question of demobilisation, soldiers’ pensions and other measures they have shown no co-operation. They went into the wilderness, and now they pose as our critics. They criticise our war efforts, our expenditure, our national debt. Some of them think we have paid too much for our freedom. In spite of the fact that the history of this country is what it is. They think we have paid too much for freedom and our national debt is too high. They have criticised demobilisation and control. There is only one alternative to control, that is inflation, and inflation spells national bankruptcy. That is why I feel their arguments ring hollow. After the war we will have great problems to solve, reconstruction and demobilisation, but I want to speak on industrialisation. In 1914-1918 this country made a spurt forward along those lines, and after this war there will be another spurt, and having thought of these things, as we have all thought, I think our best market will be our internal market, and we must concentrate on that. We have as neighbours the Rhodesias, Portuguese East Africa and the Belgian Congo, they are good neighbours, but they have their roots in Europe, their parental countries are in Europe, and there they have their sentimental ties, and it will not be easy to trade with them. What are we going to do, even if Japan remains a fisherfolk after the war, what are we going to do about India, a great industrial country, and the United States. She is keyed up to send her goods throughout the world, and what about Britain who has to export in order to exist, and what is our position? Can we enter world competition? We still have a great deal to be thankful for. We have our gold mines and that is a tremendous asset, and we also have the diamond industry. Let us not belittle this great industry; it has had a glamorous past, and its future is assured. What I do want to see is the development of our base metals and minerals. Here is a tremendous untapped field, and this is where all our enterprise is necessary and I shall go so far as to say that if private enterprise will not tackle that field, the Government must step in. The whole of the interior is comparatively undeveloped. You have vast deposits of asbestos, gypsum, manganese, iron, salt and lime, we have irrigation schemes on the Vaal and Riet Rivers to feed a great industrial population. These minerals are lying there side by side and comparatively undeveloped. In this undeveloped interior there are huge possibilities, and people are saying that it will still become the second industrial heart of the Union. My time is limited, but let me refer to a few matters. I want to talk about salt and lime which are base commodities. From them you can manufacture all your alkalines and the sodas. Experts have advised that we can produce these sodas, washing soda, caustic soda, bi-carbonate of soda at 35s. per ton cheaper than we can import them. Practically every industry requires alkalines, the gold mines, the match factories, and the sugar industry. Here is an industry which can be established on the Vaal River where water can be had for 1d. a thousand gallons, and the population can be fed from the irrigation schemes, and the lime and salt is close at hand. It would be second only to iron and steel, a basic industry. We have these huge possibilities in this part of the country, and up to now we have done little or nothing about it. We have concentrated in three or four areas of the country, and the country has become lopsided. 77 per cent. of the industries are concentrated in 2.6 per cent. of its area, and they are producing 86 per cent. of the gross output. The whole thing is wrong, lopsided and over-centralised. The position cannot be allowed to go on as it is going. Now, what we are keen on is the development of our interior. I heard only the other night over the wireless that in the House of Commons a Bill was introduced called the Distribution of Industries Bill. I could not get an advance copy, but that Bill is being introduced in order to prevent, after the war, the recurrence of what were called the distressed areas. You know that years ago in Wales and also in the northern parts of England, industries faded out and thousands of people were out of work and that gave England a tremendous amount of trouble and labour unrest. This Bill has been introduced to prevent that happening again, and has been introduced to encourage industries in the less favourable areas; it is designed to give powers to the Government to create industries where private enterprise is lacking. That will prevent congestion and lopsidedness. These are some of the points in the Bill. What we do in this country when we look for knowledge is to send our experts to England and America to find out what is being done there. Now here is a necessity for our experts to find out how this Bill is going to work and to apply it in this country. I think it is highly necessary. If any country requires a distribution of its industries it is this country. Our industries must be equally and evenly distributed over the country. Here is another important matter; we contend that the railways have hampered us. Let me say this first, the railways have done an excellent job. The railwaymen who have gone overseas have enhanced the prestige of this country; those at home have also done an excellent job. I believe, in fact, that there are few railways in the world that have done what our railways have done. Of course, our railways are going to develop after the war, and we can thank the Minister for the development he is anticipating and which he is planning for. We contend, however, and the people up-country contend, that the railways are a taxing machine. We want readjustments of the railway rates and we cannot get them from the Minister. He stands on his mountain and he says, industries are not influenced by tariffs; and freight rates follow the industry and he quotes other railway systems in support and he says his system is perfectly sound. On the other hand, we contend this country is over-centralised, and a railway policy which worked well in the years after Union in 1910 needs revision today. We want him to bring the industries to the raw material. I have a letter here typical of how the tariffs are against the hinterland and the interior. It says here—this letter is from a very big firm in America that wishes to establish a business in this country, in the interior principally because the climatic conditions are very suitable there; it says—

That is an instance of where the railways keep industries away from the hinterland and the interior. I do not want the Minister to pull his railway tariff policy to pieces, but we do want adjustments. We want a reasonable rating system. This country has divided itself, and quite righly, on account of its vastness, into regions, and I think it has done a good thing. What we feel is wanted now is a regional rating policy or a specific tariff policy designed to meet industries in those particular regions; but up to now we have been unsuccessful. I feel very strongly that the time has arrived when the interior of this country, which has vast possibilities, should be developed instead of development being restricted as it has been to a strip along the coast and to one big centre in the interior. Let us develop the interior. The possibilities are great, and now is the time to do it. There is one other point I want to touch upon, and it is this, in regard to war-time industries. A considerable number of war-time industries have been established in this country, and some of them of course will stay. Others that are uneconomical will disappear. But the people who are today working in those factories are hoping none of them will disappear, and that they will all go on working full time as before. Because these people, mostly non-European, have tasted what industrial conditions are, and particularly industrial pay, and they prefer these to domestic conditions and pay. Then you find that the towns in which these industries have been established and the local authorities concerned, they are also reluctant to let these industries go. Their motto is: what we have we hold; and they are trying to keep these industries there at all costs. They know that when the war ends many of these industries must come to an end also. But do not let us allow these things simply to come to an end and fall into decay and leave these people to themselves, because they have tasted prosperity, and the Government must assist them. I would ask the Minister to consider this position of wartime industries very carefully indeed. I know that in some instances the Minister, very rightly, has called for a report, and he has had the best technical men in the country who have drawn up reports for him, and these men have reported against many of these industries continuing. Various departments have also reported against these industries. Let the Minister consider the human aspect also, and if it is possible in any way to keep these industries where they are today, if it is at all economically possible, I would ask him in all earnestness to do so.

If I translate correctly the expressions of opinion and what we have read in the Press during the last week coming from members of the Provincial Council, to the effect that they look upon health services as national services that should be in the hands of the Union Government, then I sincerely hope the provinces will not waste time before preparing and transmitting to the Union Government such petitions as it is necessary for them to furnish, asking to be relieved of these services. I shudder to think that we should have to continue in the state in which they are, a subsidy, charity from the very few that subscribe an enormous amount to the health of this country; and lastly, there are the deficits that have to be met by local authorities whose resources are extremely limited, and whose resources in any case were never intended to provide a health service. In view of that I sincerely hope that we will have a translation of the expressions of opinion we have heard last week into law at the earliest possible date. Owing to lack of time, one is compelled to deal with these problems in a very summarised manner, but in expressing this opinion let me assure the House I am expressing the opinions of many people in this country. Now I turn to the question on which I asked a question the other day, and I am extremely pleased the Minister of Finance has had his attention drawn to the fact that a type of inflation has been carried on which, to my mind, is going to constitute a very grave danger to the industries of the country. Hon. members have talked very glibly of the £400,000,000 or more lying idle in our banks. It is hardly necessary for me to remind hon. members that much of that capital is actually capital which would be utilised at the earliest date in the purchase of goods to fill the empty shelves in their stores. But at the same time there will possibly be many millions over, that might be tempted into the channels I have indicated, into these new flotations that are trying to attract capital, flotations that have been floatetd with an increase on their ordinary assets, their buildings and their movable assets of 100 per cent., 200 per cent. and in some cases as high as 400 per cent. This, as hon. members will appreciate, is causing the greatest danger to our future industries, and I want to ask the Minsiter of Finance if it is not possible for him to investigate how far he can go to freeze that amount, the difference between ordinary assets and inflated value, and keep the amount deposited with the Public Debts Commission, having it available when machinery has to be replaced. The Minister suggests I might give him information. I certainly can in many instances, but I think the matter had better be left in his hands. He has his accountants available, and if he puts them on the track of the flotations made last year he will find that much of what I have suggested has been carried on to the detriment of industries that are likely to require money in the future. I make no apology for pleading again a case I have pleaded before, and that is for the small industries that are not receiving that just treatment they are entitled to. They are being robbed of what might be made available at some future date when the war is over, to re-establish themselves on a different basis. The Minister has gone so far as refusing to allow some of those normal expenditures necessary in the pre-war days. We have gone so far as to have these industries reduced from their pre-war expenditure, accepted in the past from £2,000 to £600 for income tax and excess profits duty. On that basis and where you have the imposition of the excess profits duty, many of these industries cannot continue to function when the war is over, because they will have little capital in reserve to carry on. I want to refer briefly to the question of the cash basis as it affects certain sections of the community which have suffered from extended droughts. Many of these owners of stock have to sell that stock and hold that money for replacement. If the man has not been able to replace that stock during the financial year, he is assessed at normal rate, with the result he cannot possibly make the necessary replacement. He would be ruined if he wanted to continue on any decent basis, if he wanted to carry on over the end of the financial year. There is one important point in respect of railway fares for natives in our part of the country, which includes the bulk of the Transkei. I should like to read an extract from a letter I have received from one of the labour bureau organisations in that part of the country—

The whole problem is this, that you have thousands of natives sent to the Cape and to the suburbs, and many of them are coming down here as free natives in search of employment. What we ask is that priority should be accorded on the railways to any native who can produce a certificate that he is going down to permanent employment. We have organisations there who recruit labour for definite service in the Cape Province for divisional councils, municipal councils and farmers, for requirements outside municipal areas, and we should like to have a definite assurance from the Minister that where the native is travelling to take up definite employment he should have a prior claim to railway accommodation. I want to deal with one problem affecting the South African railways. It is a very important one in view of the enormous amount of capital works that might be put in hand at an early date after the war. It affects farmers in this sense that the South African railways have already to go to firms after they have surveyed the line and put the work out to tender. The contracts are tendered for by Italians, and the result is that possibly on one man’s property you may have 1,000 natives under these Italian contractors and they are absolutely out of control. The railways maintain they are not responsible in ally shape or form, and they will not try to exercise any supervision. They are quite indifferent as to what takes place. Damage is done all over the place. Sheep are stolen. On one occasion no fewer than 1,600 gallons of beer were emptied, and on a subsequent occasion 2,000 gallons. During that period 153 sheep were lost in the immediate vicinity of these gangs. We feel that we are right in asking the railways to assume some responsibility for these natives and to protect the farmers from the consequences of having had these 1,000 natives being placed on their farms without there being any proper control.

You said they were Italians?

They are Italian contractors with native labour. I should like the Minister’s assurance that something will be done in regard to the major works that are put in hand in the post-war period. Finally, I want to deal with one point raised by an hon. member in connection with the Dairy Control Board. I want to assure him that as far as prices are concerned, the Board has hardly any say. It may be consulted in respect of some items but the Board is not in any way responsible for the fixation of prices, though the hon. member suggested that the shortage of these products was due entirely to the fixation of prices by the Dairy Control Board.

The only matter I wish to refer to is the question of broadcasting in the Union. It has been brought up before and I make no apology for raising it again, because things are worse than when the matter was raised last year. The Minister was kind enough to say last year in the course of the debate that he thought it would not be a bad idea if we had a Select Committee to go into the matters that had been raised and to which he had been asked to reply. He said he had no actual control— we know that—and he thought the questions we had put should be put to the Board, particularly the director and the manager of some of the stations. The whole thing is in a most anomalous position. You have a Broadcasting Board that has no influence or control over the director. You have a director who is not controlled by the Minister, and things are in a most topsy-turvy condition. We do not get the reports; such as they are are not printed until they are quite out of date. The last report that was laid on the Table was for the year 1942; that was a report that we dealt with in connection with our Estimates last year. Nothing has been laid upon the Table since. I have made enquiries from the Clerk of the Papers, and I find that nothing has been laid on the Table since the 25th January, 1944, and that report dealt with the year 1942. There is no report for 1943 and there is no report for 1944. This Broadcasting Corporation is under the aegis of the State, and we find they have an income of half a million a year from 350,000 subscribers, who pay the highest licence in the world, £1 15s. The Board is piling up a huge reserve fund. Instead of giving listeners the benefit of the huge income they have got they are piling up money which is urgently needed for the better working of the programmes and for the better payment of their artists, who are miserably paid. Whether they are used by the Broadcasting Corporation in connection with art, music or any other capacity, they are miserably paid compared with what is paid in other countries. I believe the reserve fund amounts to over £400,000; that is accumulating year after year. We cannot get any information except by direct question from the Minister, who has to get it from the board. The whole position is anomalous, and I make bold to say that in South Africa the general public are only asking one question: Ought the Broadcasting Corporation to be mended or ended? And the majority would like to see it ended as it is run at present.

That is quite right.

We want a Broadcasting Corporation, but not the one we have got, nor the system under which it is worked.

What is your suggestion?

Radical reform is what I suggest. I suggest in the first place we get rid of the present Broadcasting Corporation altogether. It is a very weak board. The board does nothing apparently except O.K. the decrees of the director. The Minister has never anything to do with it.

He appoints them.

Yes, he appoints them, but that does not cut any ice; he has no control over them whatever. They have not to report. He appoints a director and a number of persons who will say “Ja, ja” to the dictator when he comes in with his decrees. They have no contact with the public. There is no proper listeners’ research department to find out what the listeners want. They have advisory boards who do not act at all. Some of them are beginning to wake up now, but the whole thing is almost a racket at the present time. We are not getting value for our money. Most of the money is tucked away every year into the reserve fund, and while they have £400,000 in the reserve fund, they only spend £85,000 during the year on administration. I should like to see a corpora here more on the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation in London, or the Australian Corporation, where things are very different indeed and where the public get value for their money. You should have a “Radio Weekly”, a paper covered by advertisements. I believe the Volkspers applied to be able to publish the “Weekly” free because of the advertisements they would get; it was turned down. Why not call for tenders to see whether the “Weekly” could not be published as a radio paper, relying entirely for revenue on advertisements. Then I would like to ask, what about the wired wireless, an extraordinary invention which enables the poorest of the poor to get a wireless service at 1d. or 2d. a day? They get that wired wireless through a loudspeaker, and they can plug into native huts. In Central Africa they give wired wireless to the natives, and at such small cost that it is ridiculous to think it is not done here now. A private corporation cannot do that—it costs too much money—but the State can do it.

They know all about it.

They may know all about it, but why have they not done more for the natives? I know that in some of the compounds they have it, but I am speaking of the thing being done on a large scale as it is done in Central Africa. I do not understand why the Corporation is not doing more about it. There should be special programmes for the natives. It is no use giving them the ordinary programme. Special people shoúld be entrusted with the work, people who know the natives and their habits and know what kind of programme to put before them and that they will enjoy. I am suggesting giving the native something he would like to hear, something that takes note of his customs, and put across in his vernacular. That they are not doing.

Yes, they are.

They are doing it in some places on a small scale. I believe there are about a hundred in the Union, but I am told most of the programmes are not listened to because they are not put over in the right way. On the Gold Coast it is done on a large scale for the natives. It might also be applied to the coloured community where possible. The programmes for the coloured people should be the same as for Europeans. Such programmes would afford a splendid means of educating the people. Technically I believe it is simple and satisfactory. I am told there are no atmospherics. All the listener has to do is to plug in and listen and he hears much more distinctly than we hear on our sets. There are no valves and things to go wrong. There is no use our talking so much about television, and there is no good piling up this money, because we may want sometime to put in television. It is most unfair to spend so little out of revenue and to tuck the rest away. That is not right towards the listeners. The Minister cannot control that policy; nobody has anything to do with it. What the director says goes. He has full control; whatever he says goes. Unfortunately he does not always say the right thing. But whatever the director, says goes; there is no doubt about that, and otherwise there is no control. They resent criticism. I have no doubt I am doing rather a foolhardy thing in talking like this in this House. I shall be a marked man in the future. The chairman and the director of the corporation particularly resent any criticism in this House or anywhere else; their feeling is that they should be above criticism. It is a regular hush-hush policy, and we cannot get information. The Minister does not get information. The corporation do not publish their minutes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what this conference in England is about, and what is going on, because the director flew there. Can the Minister tell us something about what is being discussed? I should say this too, I understand that the staff of this corporation is seethinig with discontent over the way it is being treated. They complain about their miserable wages, they complain about the rate of pay for work on Sundays. So not only is there wide discontent on the part of the public over the corporation, but there is discontent among the staff. They have no contact with the board at all, they can only make representations through the director. He represents the staff, no member of the staff dare approach the corporation. One does not hear of that in an ordinary concern, but the staff is not entitled to bring their grievances directly to the notice of the board. No, they can only bring their grievances to the notice of the director. I say the time is ripe for an enquiry, and if it is too late for a Select Committee to be appointed, the Minister should appoint a judicial commission to go into the working of the Broadcasting Corporation. An enquiry is long overdue. And the constitution of the board should be considered. Finallly, at present the majority of the members are professors. Well, a professor may be a jolly good fellow, but why a professor should be regarded as more competent than anyone else to serve on the Broadcasting Corporation, I cannot understand. In any case, at present, there are only seven members of the board. There is a vacancy in the Cape and there is a vacancy for Natal. I understand the system up to now has been in the case of the eight members other than the chairman to appoint two, one English-speaking and one Afrikaans-speaking, for each province. There are two vacancies and no attempt has been made to fill those vacancies. I hope that when the Minister is officially notified of these vacancies he will replace the men who are going out with younger men of wider experience and knowledge. The level of the programme is probably the lowest in the whole world. If it were not for the news broadcasts, I doubt whether many people would listen in. The intellectual level of what you hear from the South African Broadcasting Corporation is the lowest intellectual standard, I dare say, in the whole world.

Lord Reith does not agree with that.

Lord Reith lives in England so he does not have to listen to it.

the whole year. He was only here for a few days. I am speaking of the public that has to suffer under this system all the year round. And I think if Lord Reith had to listen to the South African programmes the whole year round, his opinion would be exactly the same in that respect. When you do get a good thing it is dropped by the Broadcasting Corporation. One good thing which they have produced, which really was South African in sentiment, witty and much tickled the ears of the masses was “Snoek-town Calling.”

And that was done away with.

And that was done away with. Sooner or later the corporation quarrels with everyone of the artists. They will not take notice of South African talent. If you want to hear a South African composer you have to listen to the overseas programme. Why don’t they seek out our talent in this country and put it on the wireless? Recently two brilliant young lady-pianists, who came here—and here the Broadcasting Corporation deserves credit —were put on the wireless. Instead of arranging for a national broadcast, it was confined to local broadcasts. These were persons of such talent that they deserved a national broadcast. Still in that case the corporation took the trouble of putting them on the air.

What about members of Parliament?

That raises a controversial question which I am not going into as to whether we should broadcast the proceedings of Parliament. I say there is no imagination in the outlook of the Broadcasting Corporation. They do not know what the people want and they have not got proper broadcasting experts on their board and I say the time has arrived for the Minister to appoint a commission of enquiry to go into the workings of the Broadcasting Corporation and to give the people an opportunity of putting their case before the commission. I think the results of such an investigation would be startling. One of the startling finds would be the enormous amount that has been tucked away by the Broadcasting Corporation and which should be used for the benefit of the subscribers in this country.

When I listened this morning to the long perroration of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I was disappointed that I did not hear something new from him. Over a period of years he has made similar speeches in this House, speeches which, while running down the nonEuropean section of South Africa, have never yet given any indication of some solution of the problems with which he says we are faced, and it seems to me that the hon. member may look at this question from a different angle. He might start realising that day by day he is watching and seeing the emancipation of a people, and that no matter what he may do, no matter what legislation is introduced, you will not be able to keep those people down. They have the right to advance and as the years pass, they will advance. In contrast to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, I have always admired the attitude of the Minister of Finance, particularly in regard to his broad liberal outlook in connection with the less privileged non-European sections of our population. I remember, Mr. Speaker, many brilliant speeches which he has made at different times, outstanding of which I think was his speech on the third reading of the Native Bills in 1936 and his speech a few years later on the Pegging Act when he offered our then Prime Minister the resignation of his seat in the Cabinet. Always, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister has shown too that he is prepared not only to render lip service to the cause of liberalism, but also in no uncertain manner, no matter what the personal cost might be, to give positive proof of the fact that he has the courage of his convictions. I have referred to that occasion when he offered to resign his seat in the Cabinet, and I should also have referred to that other solemn and dramatic occasion during the Joint Sitting of Parliament on the Native Bills when the hon. Minister, with my humble self, formed part of that pitifully small minority who voted against those Bills. I remember, too, Mr. Speaker, the fine speech which the hon. Minister made when he announced, as Minister of the Interior in 1934 that he intended in view of the fact that our coloured people were in danger of being ground “between the upper millstone of the Europeans and the nether millstone of the natives” to appoint a Coloured Fact Finding Commission in order to obtain authentic factional information in regard to the disabilities suffered by our coloured population, politically, economically and socially. In addition, Mr. Speaker, to admiring the hon. Minister for his liberalism, I also admire him as a cricketer and I take this opportunity of congratulating him on “carrying his bat” last Saturday afternoon. It is because I want him also, politically as a liberal, to “carry his bat” as captain of that small team of members of both Houses who wholeheartedly support his liberal views that my appeal is addressed to him today, but I also want to address him at the same time in his capacity as the keeper of the purse strings of our country. I have referred to the appointment of the Coloured Fact Finding Commission. For close on two years, Mr. Speaker, that commission toured all parts of the Union and took evidence, and then, after making its recommendations, presented its report and what a revealing report it was. It revealed so much that was bad, unfair and unjust in our past treatment of our coloured population, and its recommendations for the removal of the disabilities, under which our coloured population suffered, were of so sweeping and far-reaching a character that the report appears to have been bundled by the then Government into the darkest and deepest Government pigeon-hole, to be occasionally dusted, peeped at and then hurriedly put back again. To the coloured people, however, who had acclaimed with the greatest possible pleasure the announcement of the appointment of the commission, its report was looked upon as their future “magna charta”, and they were filled with fresh hope for their future. The time at my disposal does not permit of my dealing with more than one important finding and recommendation of that commission and I intend, therefore, to confine myself today to dealing with what, in the minds of our coloured people, is of paramount importance to them, and that is the provision by the Union Government of sufficient funds to enable compulsory coloured education to be brought about with the least possible delay. Not only was this step recommended, Mr. Speaker, by the Coloured Fact Finding Commission, but ever since its inception, just over two years ago, the Coloured Advisory Council has made strong representations along these lines. At a joint meeting held last year, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, of local members of Parliament, local members of the Provincial Council and the Coloured Advisory Council, it was unanimously decided to support the Coloured Advisory Council’s request for the provision of sufficient funds to enable the compulsory education of coloured children in the primary standards to be legislatively introduced. It was with high hopes, therefore, that those interested looked to a very substantial increase in Provincial subsidy being made for this purpose in this Budget by the Central Government to the Cape Provincial Council. It can be imagined therefore with what deep disappointment it is found that not only does the amount of the subsidy to be voted not make any provision for the cost of such coloured compulsory primary education, but, worse still, that according to the hon. the Minister, the position regarding this subsidy will only be revised in three years. Three years, Mr. Speaker. To the coloured people three further years of standstill; three further years of frustrated hope. It is not too late even now, Mr. Speaker, before the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister leaves for San Francisco, for the Government to review the amount to be granted to the Cape Province as provincial subsidy, and a supplementary grant could be included in a special supplementary estimate of expenditure. In effect, Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to the hon. the Minister to translate his liberal views into, on this occasion, practical financial reality I am emboldened to do so, not only because of the various recommendations which I have already referred to; not only because I sincerely believe that it will be in our ultimate interest to do so, no only from an economic standpoint in regard to our future development and prosperity, but also from the point of view of maintaining friendly and peaceful relationships with our coloured population; not only, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that the time is long overdue when some such gesture should be made; but also, Mr. Speaker, because our great leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, when addressing a large coloured audience at the Cape Town City Hall about two years ago, speaking in praise of the splendid services being rendered by our coloured soldiers in our war effort, in effect assured his audience that the coloured people need have no fear for the future and that they would share in the benefits to mankind that would follow on the New Order of things that was to be. How better, Mr. Speaker, in proof of our goodwill and the earnest of our intentions, how better in gratitude for the worthy part that our coloured soldiers have played in the war—it was no fault of theirs that their contribution was not still greater than it has been—how better can be shown our appreciation than by ensuring that each and every coloured child shall at least receive free of all cost, a primary education? I submit Mr. Speaker that it will be the best Investment ever made by a Union Minister of Finance, and one that will yield the highest dividends—dividends of friendship, of appreciation, and of economic progress and development, not only for the coloured people themselves, but for all the people of South Africa. Mr. Speaker I appeal to the Minister to take his political bat and to hit for a resounding six any difficult opposition ball that seeks to hit the middle stump of compulsory coloured education. In the words of an old school song, now is the Minister’s opportunity—not three years hence, Mr. Speaker—to “play up and play the game.” By so doing he will have materially helped to turn the match against illiberalism, intolerance, coloured prejudice and repression. So far, Mr. Speaker, I have only referred to the Provincial Subsidy in as far as it affects compulsory coloured education. I now wish to refer to it in as far as it affects education in general, both European and coloured, in the Cape Province. Again, Mr. Speaker, I must express my great disappointment, as the hon. the Administrator has pointed out in the Provincial Council, in spite of the increased subsidy from the Government, the province has come off rather badly. To quote from his speech replying to the Part Appropriation (1945-’46) Draft Ordinance, the Administrator said: “A great injustice had been done the province in regard to coloured education. They had claimed a 60 per cent. subsidy for Europeans and 80 per cent. for coloured education, and had received a 50 per cent. general subsidy plus £150,000 which did not even cover the total increase in salaries of coloured teachers” In all, Mr. Speaker, the Government has granted a subsidy to the Cape of £750,000, strangely enough, an amount exactly equal to the estimated revenue which the Treasury will receive through a comparatively recent new source of taxation, namely the Fixed Property Profits Tax.

Don’t you mean £7,500,000?

£7,500,000?

The subsidy is certainly £7,500,000.

Yes, I have my figure wrong. One only needs to draw a comparison between the educational advantages of a Transvaal. European child and that of a Cape European child to realise at what a disadvantage the latter is placed, whilst if we compare those of a coloured child the comparison becomes the more odious. In the Transvaal, Mr. Speaker, the European child receives free education up to Matriculation standard; in the Cape only up to the age of 15 after which 40 per cent. of fees payable are remitted. The biggest burden, however, is in respect of books in the higher standards. In the Transvaal, books are free in standards seven and eight, whilst in standards nine and ten a subsidy is given by the Transvaal Provincial Council. In the Cape, the books costing from £6 to £10 have to be bought by the parents. The subsidy in respect of European children in the Cape is equivalent to £14 whilst the actual cost of educating the child is £21. The Corbett Commission recommended £22 10s. as the amount of subsidy that should be granted. In regard to coloured children, the effect of the new subsidy will be to increase it from £5 5s. per child to £6 5s. whereas the Corbett Commission recommended at least £10 per head per coloured child. It is estimated that at least 40,000 coloured children, by the way Mr. Speaker, are receiving no education at all, and that no less than 100,000 places, particularly for coloured children, are unsuitable for educational purposes. When it is also realised that the Corbett Commission recommended that for Europeans there should be no fees to Matric, free books, extended-medical and dental services, and the replacement of defective schools, it will be realised how inadequate the subsidy is and how justified the Administrator was in making his remarks. In this also, I appealed to the hon. the Minister not to wait three years before the subsidy is reviewed. As Minister of Education he should not permit a state of affairs to exist wherein the children—the future citizens of our country —should have unfair advantages in one portion of a united country over those in another. This is an anomaly which should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity and on behalf of all Cape parents and children European and Coloured, I make an earnest appeal for early reconsideration of our Provincial Subsidy.

It is awkward to belong to such a big party. We are degenerating completely. Hon. members of other parties have more opportunities of making speeches and in that way they keep themselves au fait. But apart from that I want to say that never in the history of South Africa have we had a government which has had the responsibility which this Government took upon itself as from 1939. In spite of all the spokes put into the wheel of the Government by people who were against the war, the Government came through with flying colours, something for which the people of South Africa are very grateful. But I am going to ask the Government not to overlook the small matters. A solution must be found for these small matters. It is the small fire which causes the big flames. I am one of those who likes to pay attention to the small matters, such as general development in connection with the native question. That is a problem which is developing and as the years pass it becomes greater and more serious. There is no end to the matter; it becomes all the more difficult, and what is going to be the result of these temporary problems which present themselves? They pass. But this is a problem which becomes more serious with the passage of years. I should like the Government, in which I have 100 per cent. confidence, to pay its attention to this problem. It is essential thoroughly to take into consideration the relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans. It is a fact that since 1912 the respective governments have been faced with this problem as a political arugment advanced by the Opposition. For that reason this Government is placed in the difficult position that it has to find a solution for the problem with which we are faced today, namely the native representatives and their announcements. The Opposition Party must not therefore blame us for this state of affairs. It is a position which has existed throughout the years. I do not want to deal with this matter as a political matter. But I should like even the native representatives to appreciate this, and to bear in mind the future. It is easy to incite people. It is easy to incite irresponsible people. The less developed a person is the easier it is to put wrong ideas into his mind. I should like to make an appeal to the Government of this country to co-operate with us, to deal with this great problem, not from motives of racialism, but out of respect for the feelings and rights for Europeans and non-Europeans. Once again I want to make an appeal to members of this House in discussing this matter not to try to make political capital out of it. I want to make an appeal to the representatives of thé natives to be very careful how they deal with this matter. This is the greatest problem which South Africa is called upon to solve today, a problem which may have far-reaching consequences not only for us but which may be a danger to those representatives of the natives and for which they will be held responsible. Then just a few suggestions in regard to the mines. The most important source of revenue in South Africa is the mines which provide a good living to thousands of people. We hear a great deal about taxes and things of that kind, but the taxes which we pay are small, are insignificant, in comparison with mining taxation generally and the source of livelihood provided by the mines. I know how much the coal mines in my constituency mean to the country. The European employees and even the natives who work in the mines are well paid and cared for. We had the honour of accompanying the Minister of Mines into the mines at Witbank and through the compounds and showing him how the natives were housed. Everything is done to make things comfortable for them. I should like the native representatives to come and look at the compounds which have been erected there for the natives, compounds and locations on which thousands of pounds have been spent. They are given first class and sleeping accommodation. Their washing facilities are of the best. They have their own bioscopes and every possible Comfort. I would even invite the native representatives to come and look at the conditions on the farms. There are so many people who know precious little of native affairs, and they want to make us believe certain things in this House. I want to come back to the mines. I ask the Minister not to tax the mines very heavily, thereby handicapping our sources of livelihood. We decided to participate in the war, a course which has proved to be in the best interests of South Africa. It costs a great deal and we are called upon to pay those costs. What was the price which Holland, Belgium and other countries had to pay? Those countries would give a great deal today to enjoy the same privileges as South Africa. We are living in abnormal times, but when normal times return, we shall have to consider the question of reduced taxation on the mines. As it is, we have heard that there are low grade mines in Johannesburg which will have to close down as a result of high taxation and production costs. The Government should afford them protection. I should like to bring that to the notice of the House. Now I want to come back to the question of separation. I went about in Cape Town and as a Transvaler it struck me that there was no separation between Europeans and non-Europeans. Where must the fault be sought? Is it not the duty of the municipality and of the Government to provide proper facilities in order to keep the non-Europeans apart where necessary? I was at Muizenberg and there I found natives walking about everywhere amongst European women who were half clad. What impression does that create? Last Sunday afternoon I was at Kirstenbosch and there I found that 90 per cent. of the benches were occupied by coloured children because they had no separate place. These are small things, but these small things assume greater and greater proportions. Yesterday L walked about in the Gardens, and wherever one looks one finds nonEuropeans sharing the benches with Europeans. Why not have separate places and separate benches? The non-Europeans share our views in this matter.

Say something about the trains.

We do not want to drag this matter into politics. The question is asked whether or not we propose to apply the principle of equal rights. Even the non-Europeans are not in favour of equality. Since that is the case, why should this matter be allowed to develop in such a surreptitious way? Who is opposed to separation? No one. Again I ask why allow matters to develop in this irresponsible fashion? Bend the twig while it is supple. I do not believe that the non-Europeans expect to be treated as Europeans. Once again I want to make an appeal to the native representatives fully to realise that they will be held responsible for the future of South Africa’s free, continued existence.

In a recent address to this House I referred to the demobilisation plan, and in particular I referred to the importance of long-term planning, vision and imagination and the practical application of the greatest asset we have, namely manpower. This afternoon I would like to extend my thoughts in other directions, and I would like to speak in particular on the term “flexibility” in relation to the demobilisation plan. I have no quarrel with this term provided it is going to do what we want it to do, and providing it meets the legitimate needs of our men and women. The demobilisation plan has been in operation for a little over two months. Is it not already becoming restricted in its operation; is it not already assuming an exacting character? Is it not better to err on the side of generosity and can we afford to give offence and run the risk of alienating hundreds of men and women who should form a natural bulwark against reactionary and revolutionary trends in the not too distant and uncertain future. I wish to make myself perfectly clear. Is not the principle that a man will be no worse off after the war than when he joined, a dangerous thing? Is it not a dangerous precedent? Does it not mean bringing men and women within the narrow confines of a restricted and exacting procedure? How does flexibility line up with a man wishing to go into business now and who was not in business prior to 1939? How does flexibility line up with import permits and their restricted use? How does it line up with difficulties people experience in obtaining goods to maintain themselves in business? I am only mentioning a few and there are many more which I could mention, but my time is limited. I am moved to ask whether democracy is going to be made to work for the people and become a living, vital thing or whether it is merely going to develop into an escape route for the chosen few? We are told that any radical departure from established customs will tend to disorganise industry and commerce and create a state bordering On the chaotic. But we are told almost in the same breath that South Africa will make enormous strides in the post-war world and that it will virtually be the envy of every other country. Who has a greater right to share in the fruits of South Africa’s post-war development than the man who sacrificed his all and was prepared to die for the new and better world we have heard and read so much about? I am not forgetting the thousands of women and children, many of whom have suffered privation; and looked on while our pocket patriots have waxed fat and entrenched themselves and whose only contribution has been nothing more than a “V” sign on their front gates, costing 1s. 6d. at a bazaar. I am not forgetting our men and women and the part they should play. They too have obligations in relation to demobilisation and they must also recognise a certain degree of responsibility, and I have no doubt that they will respond to that careful handling to which I have already referred in this House. My time is limited but I want to be honest when I say that South Africa’s future demands service, a service which must be a consuming passion, given gladly, without thought of personal gain or self-glorification and it must know no limits. We cannot afford to skimp at this stage. We have incurred great expenditure in the prosecution of the war. Must we risk losing the peace by an over-indulgence in shortsightedness? Demobilisation demands a sound basis and superb organisation. We cannot pretend to enter the precincts of the new world with a clear conscience if we persist in shouldering the small man out of our way. If we persist in adopting an attitude of indifference—if we imagine we can exist in our own water-tight compartments socially, morally, mentally, indeed spiritually if we persist in this attitude then we are well on the road to world war III. There is another matter exercising the minds of honest people in this country. It is the unfortunate position in which our ex-servicemen’s organisations are placed in this country. I have no time to go into this fully, but I want to make an appeal to all ex-volunteers and men and women still on service to think deeply in terms of what is best for South Africa, and I want to sound a word of warning that if our men and women are going to be used as stepping stones by self-seekers and political opportunists, the fate of South Africa will be sealed for many generations. Unity is the only channel and the only means whereby our men and women can be assured of the future they deserve. Sometimes I feel it and I regret to say it here, that the only reward our men are going to get is a clear conscience. That is not enough; our men want something more to live on than honeyed words and fine phrases. I would not like this House to think that I am making an attack on the Minister. I wish him every success and I would like to see him the most successful man in this country, because as I have said before in this House the greater the Minister’s success the greater will be the benefits accruing to our men and women. I do earnestly appeal to him, however, to overhaul certain aspects of his plan.

At the outset I want to take this opportunity once more of congratulating the hon. Minister of Finance in bringing forward what has been termed on the other side of the House, and on this side as well, as a “stand-still” Budget. I think the Minister has taken the necessary precaution which may not arise here only, but in other places of the world, and which may have a tremendous effect on us. He has taken precaution not to commit himself so far that he would have to retrace his steps. I would remind the House of a little incident which took place in Johannesburg a little while ago when I met some of my constituents, and they questioned me on what the Budget was going to be. It is well-known that any member of the House knows very little about that, but I told them that I knew that the Minister was going to introduce his Budget before the Port Elizabeth election, and so they could rest assured that it would be a very favourable one. When this debate started, One of the hon. members of the Opposition, the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), took up the attitude of being the big noise on the financial points of view of the opposite benches. If that is so, they have played a very poor tune, and the points they have scored in connection with this Budget will not take them very far. I would just like to remind the House that I appealed to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition some time ago, when a tremendous amount of discussion was taking place, especially in regard to the Parliamentary election, and I asked him whether he was leading and what he thought he was going to accomplish, and all this talk which went on until a quarter to six one morning accomplished very little for the Opposition. After making these few remarks, I want to say, like the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet), that I am very pleased with the Minister’ of Finance’s Budget, and I think the majority on the Witwatersrand have no grumbles. We have not had much complaint so they must be satisfied. However, like the member for Vasco I have a complaint, and the complaint is this, that we anticipated that something would be done for the low-grade mines. When we talk about that, there is one aspect I would like to remind the House about. It may be termed a low-grade mine, but that seems to me to be an indication of what may happen largely in the future. It is not a question of low-grade, but the mines get worked out, and I have used this expression often, that the mining industry is a decaying industry from the time that the first ton of ore is taken out. What I want to get at is this, that we anticipate something to be done in regard to taxation, to prolong the life of the low-grade mines. That is an important matter, not only now, but when the end of the war comes, which we hope will be soon, and we have thousands of men coming back and we want to find employment for them. What is going to happen if these six or seven low-grade mines close down? Let me quote the position of one of the mines in my division. One of them complained that it was paying thousands of pounds in connection with supplies, and that was not all. There was the wages bill on top of that, and when these amounts are put together, and we realise that if the mine closes down, that these amounts will not be put in circulation, I want to say to the Minister that it would be better if he gave up the mines taxation and kept that money in circulation. I am sorry that the Minister of Mines is not here because he gave an indication in his speech that no-one was interested in mining but himself. I do not want to say that but I am glad to say that he has now taken an interest in it. After listening to the Minister I thought that he would give us some information in regard to the Phthisis Bill. We are very interested in that, but he was very careful and cautious not to give any information about that. I want to say that the Phthisis Bill is going to be one of the important ones to be passed in this Session, and the Minister, not saying anything about it, made me very disappointed. There is another matter in connection with mining that I want to mention, and that is this. The Minister gave us a lead and said he was interested in the development of mining, I want to remind the House what happened recently when we had the visiting English M.P.’s here. They were taken underground and shown some of the incidents in mining, how the rock was taken out, and I want to give the House the information I got there. I was told on very authentic sources that in order to produce an amount of gold the size of that mace it would take one million pieces of rock the same size as the mace to produce the same in gold. That was very valuable information for the visiting M.P.’s, and also for the M.P.’s here. I hope the Minister will follow up the lead he has given in regard to gold mining, and that is to arrange for all M.P.’s to visit the mines, go underground and see how the gold is produced and how the men are working.

Hear, hear!

If he wants to pay a visit to any of the mines in the district which I represent, I would very much like to accompany him. I am very sorry that he is not here because I want to bring this to his notice. Then I want to say something on the housing scheme. I agree with some of the things which have been said, and with some I do not agree. In the first place the hon. Minister of Demobilisation gave us figures in connection with the shortage of houses, and I may say the comparison has been copied from England, but the difference is this, that we have not had a single brick dislodged by enemy action in this country and so that is not a fair comparison. I have been reading reports on that. I want to say that I am pleased that the Minister of Demobilisation is present. He has told us that we have a shortage of 30,000 houses. I would like to remind the hon. Minister that a large amount of building has gone on during the last few years, and not one has been destroyed by enemy action. I am not in agreement with the fact that there is such a shortage as is made out. There is certainly a large amount of house shortage, but I want to remind the House of this, that although it appears that we have a large shortage of houses, we have a large influx of people from places outside the Union who will take the first opportunity available to leave our shores, and that would do a lot to do away with the shortage of houses. I am sorry my voice has gone, but I have got here a cutting from a newspaper this morning and it says this—

I do not know whether the Minister has received that communication, but I want to urge on the Government the necessity of settling the dispute between the masters and the men in order to get on with the job, and if the Minister undertakes to do that he will go a long way towards solving the problem. I have another cutting which I would like to read, and this is what it says—

Well, that is another factor which would relieve the situation if this building dispute was settled. I just want to say one or two things more. I understand those engaged in the building trade have offered to train something between four and six thousand artisans, and if that could be done that will also relieve the housing shortage very much. I want to say that I have listened to the speech of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty), and he made a suggestion with which I do not agree. He said the hours of the building artisans could or might be increased. With that I do not agree. When a bricklayer has handled for eight hours a seven pound brick in the one hand and a five-and-a-half pound trowel and mortar in the other, that is not using a fountain pen. I say that the present hours are quite long enough and instead of being increased they should be decreased. Eight hours would tire any man in the building trade. [Interruption.] I know because I have been a building worker myself.

Is he coming to tell you that you are wrong?

My friend here has probably come to say that my time has expired.

No, you still have ten minutes.

Anyhow, I am going to dry up, and if some of you do that a little more, a good many people in this House would be very pleased. I want to say that when the European war is finished, building control should be suspended, and the offer of the building trade should be accepted to train these four to six thousand men, and they should be given work to do, and the rates of pay to building workers should be fixed, whether they work on native houses or on castles, and the price of building materials should be fixed, so as to prevent the wealthy man from taking advantage of the poorer man.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that there is an increase in the vote for native education, but I am going to plead for more. Although there has been considerable progress in recent years of our native education policy, we still have a long way to go to reach the ideal; especially so is this in the large urban areas. The position is admittedly worse in the rural areas, but the results are more serious in the urban areas. To show how necessary it is to have an increase in the vote, might I quote some figures. In the Transvaal we have 600,000 natives of school-going age, and of that huge number we have only 175,000 attending school. In Johannesburg, according to the last census taken in 1940-’41 we had a native population of 257,000. I think it would be safe to say that figure would be 300,000 today; if we took one-sixth of that number as of school-going age, which would be a reasonable figure, we would have 50,000 natives of school-going age. Of that huge number, in a count taken two or three months ago we find that there are 21,100 natives attending school; we have 56 schools and 457 teachers. I would like to say a word or two on behalf of those teachers, re their meagre wages, which are barely enough to keep them. It is not an unusual thing for me in my business to have an application from a teacher for a job as a wagon driver— a wagon driver’s wage in Johannesburg is £4 a week according to the wage laid down by law, and the teacher’s salary would be about half of that. Until recently the schools provided in the Transvaal were almost exclusively mission schools which were established by the missions and maintained by them with the help of Government subsidies. If one were to visit some of the locations around Johannesburg he would see a pitiful sight; he would see native children queuing up trying to get into the schools, but these schools can only accommodate about half the children. What happens to the other half; do they get any education? Oh yes, they do, but unfortunately not the right kind. There are many unscrupulous men who are always willing to teach evil to the young. You can go to any street corner and you will see natives gambling, throwing dice, and learning all the tricks of crime and thieving. My time is cut short, but I will try and carry on for a few minutes longer. If I might suggest a practical remedy, it is that the Government, the provincial councils and local authorities should meet and formulate a plan for the building of schools. For instance, the State could pay local authorities a grant sufficient to cover the interest redemption on capital expenditure adequate to cover the cost of sufficient primary schoolbuildings for the needs of all native children of school-going age resident in locations. The result of this being unable to attend school is shown in the conditions that exist today. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) has said Johannesburg’s native population is a reservoir for our labour needed for our industries. That is right. But what a reservoir! A reservoir filled to overflowing with natives in the transitionary stage between kraal and factory having lost and forgotten the discipline of the kraal and groping, uneducated, around for something tangible to live on in the future. Many fail and sink lower and lower, and this is the reason for the huge wave of crime and lawlessness sweeping over the Reef today. This is not a mistaken idea, and it is not exaggeration to say that today we have not the same class of native we had years ago; the majority of them today are not to be trusted, and we cannot blame them when we realise what their early training was. I would like to see the Minister interested and to get an increase on the vote to enable him to increase the number of schools needed for the education of our native population. I am not asking for higher education but for more education fór the many. I would like to see vocational training brought in where the boy can be taught and trained to use his hands, taught to make bricks, to lay bricks, cut and plane a piece of wood, and so on. He can be taught to build a house, and then he can go among his own race and work for them. That can be done, because we have an example of a school which was built in Orlando by our Native Department. There the boys built the school themselves, and they have shown that they can be taught to do this; but unfortunately we cannot (The Johannesburg Native Affairs Department) take a hundredth part of those unfortunates who go to make up what has been called the cesspool of crime in Johannesburg.

That was many years ago. We have changed that now.

If the Minister interested acts along these lines indicated and, in addition to the houses he is to build, furnishes us with the schools needed he will be conferring a great service on South Africa and particularly on the native people.

I just want to say a few words in connection with the European populaiton of South Africa. It struck me as very peculiar that today practically all the pleas were made on behalf of the natives and the coloureds. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister with regard to the European population. Today the European child is given a preliminary education, but we leave him there, and the European child in South Africa today does not obtain the further education which he needs to prepare himself for the future. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible when children leave the primary school for them to be given a chance in the business world. They cannot all be absorbed in business, but a large proportion of the children could earn a livelihood in that sphere. The child on the platteland has very little chance of being granted the privilege of entering the business world. We have seen what they can accomplish. We saw what happened on the railways when the Minister of Railways gave them the opportunity of becoming waiters. They became efficient waiters in the Railway Administration. Where the opportunity offers, they can hold their own against any country in the world. Let us also give our young people a chance to become waiters in hotels and later perhaps to rise to managers. I want to ask the Minister to make funds available for this training, where necessary. The Minister would be amazed to see how many of our European citizens are still today without work, partly because they are ashamed of doing certain work. The sooner this feeling of humiliation is removed, the sooner they learn that work is no disgrace, the better. I was astonished today to hear the native representatives pleading for the natives and alleging that they are unfairly treated. I want to give them the assurance that in my experience the natives are not treated unjustly. But there is one thing I want to say which has never been said in this House before. We plead for everything for the natives. But there is one thing we do not discuss and that is that the native is accustomed to having more than one wife. We must improve on his own traditions. How will the European population be able to hold their own if the European has only one wife while the native has various wives? In the future they will far outnumber us. The birthrate of the natives must of necessity be considerably higher. The other day I addressed a meeting of native teachers. And what was the reply of the representative of the natives—

We must instil into the natives a pride in their own race and traditions, but we must improve on their own traditions. Then we will be rendering a service to the native population. You cannot get away from the native population’s birth rate. As far as the economical side of the matter is concerned, the natives’ bank are the animals, which he keeps at home and which do not belong to him personally but to the tribe. We must not undermine or sever the family traditions of the natives. We must only improve on their traditions. I would be the last to want to see the coloureds and the natives treated unfairly, but I say with all respect that because he has other customs, it must not be thought that he does not obtain his fair share. I feel convinced in my heart that if we would only try to improve on the traditions and customs of the natives, we would be rendering a service to the native population. May I make just one appeal to the Minister of Finance. My district is today labouring under a very severe drought and the farmers are compelled to sell their cattle, but when they sell them they are obliged to pay income tax on the money which they receive. The farmers told me that they would leave the money in the magistrate’s care as they did not want to speculate, but they plead that they should not have to pay income tax on the small amount of capital they possess and which must afford them a livelihood. They cannot obtain grazing for their cattle; they cannot go elsewhere to find grazing and they cannot obtain forage. They are compelled to sell the animals. But as soon as they sell them, they are taxed on the small amount of capital they possess. I want to ask the Minister to come to their assistance in this connection.

In the few minutes I am allowed in this debate I regret I am unable to deal, even in the briefest manner, with the budget as a whole, and so I am in the circumstances obliged to confine myself to those aspects of it which affect my constituency, and in that particular I wish to refer to the action of the Minister in deciding to retain the fixed property profits tax. I know he has made certain exceptions and has decided that where the purchase is made by a utility company or a housing authority, the tax will not be enforced, but it seems to me that does not touch the difficulty at all, nor will it relieve the shortage that has been created by the incidence of that tax. It seems to me wherever the purchase is for the purpose of housing that tax ought not to be imposed, and unless the Minister is able to extend the exceptions to cover that, he ought to abolish the tax altogether. Our income tax law has a characteristic which distinguishes it from income tax laws in other countries. In England the taxpayer is obliged to include in his return the value of premises owned and occupied as a dwelling, but our income tax law does not require that and has never required it. It has never required it for the simple reason that the attitude of the Legislature has been to encourage the citizens of this country to own their own houses, but the tax which the Minister has imposed has exactly the opposite effect. It means you cannot acquire property because the price is too high. The chairman of the European Investment Company, which among other things is a township company, recently made these remarks. He said that this tax created a most undesirable and uneconomic situation and has stopped legitimate transactions in the ordinary way of business. He adds—

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 14th March.