I should like to broach a matter that in my opinion is of great interest and on which an explanation is required from the Prime Minister. The House should be informed on it and to a certain degree it hangs together with the Imperial Conference that will be held and also with the San Francisco Conference. It is the question of the Prime Minister’s African policy. That we must have an African policy in South Africa is obvious. We are one of the most important States in Africa. Ours is the only state that is inhabited by a considerable number of Europeans. We must, as far as Africa is concerned, exert ourselves with all the strength of which we are capable. That is self-evident. That affects our future in relation to trade. It is a question of communications; and to a greater extent still what will happen in South Africa in reference to our native policy depends on whether it will be influenced by what is occurring in territories further north in Africa. We must have a policy in Africa, and a little while ago—I think it was in the famous explosive speech of the Prime Minister in London— which because it was so explosive and because the explosions have not always been in its favour he now keeps away from as far as possible—he then laid down a policy that he proposed for himself. It is that the British territories further north in Africa should no longer comprise a considerable number of individual members each with its own government—naturally in regard to the principal subjects everything being from England, but still representative government to a certain degree—but that a combination should be formed or greater combinations. In addition to that he expressed the view that the Government of such larger British territories should be comprised, in the first instance, of representatives from England, and then we assume representatives of the populations of those areas; but then that the dominions, or a definite dominion in Africa, namely ourselves should also have a joint say. I think that I have interpreted his views correctly and that this was his idea. Now I am glad that in this speech and in this policy he has laid down he has relinquished his earlier idea, that he voiced for instance in the year 1929, and that had its repercussions in the political sphere, namely of annexation, or in the milder form of a federation of all British territories from the southernmost point of Africa to the Equator, or wherever it may be. Apparently it is the case that he has now abandoned the earlier idea. I congratulate him on having learnt a little wisdom in the course of the years. But certain questions now arise. If this is the Prime Minister’s policy what does the British Government say about it? It is their territories and they are governing them now. Has he discussed the matter with the British Government, and is he going to discuss it at the Imperial Conference; and will he bring it up for discussion directly or indirectly at San Francisco; and what reaction is there from the other side that is involved in connection with this matter? My own impression is that he has received precious little encouragement from Britain in this regard. Britain is controlling those territories, let us assume partly in the economic interests of the aboriginal populations, but for the large part also for obtaining supplies and raw materials for its industry and for the disposal of its manufactured goods there. Now I should like to know what reaction he obtained from that side. There is another principle that was laid down by the British Government in connection with those areas, and more particularly in connection with the mandated territories, and that is that the fate of these territories will not be altered in any way wihout there being consultation of the aboriginal inhabitants and without it having their consent. It goes without saying if this is so, if the aboriginal inhabitants and the natives have the least say in those territories, they certainly will press, if a change is made, for conditions that they would like to have. If certain conditions are not granted they do not intend to give their consent. I should like further to point out that the British Government has also laid down another policy. At any rate it was the report of a commission that they appointed to make an enquiry into the conditions in the future of those areas. This was the Hilton Young Commission of some years ago. This commission reported with the greatest clarity that those territories must not be regarded as territories of the European where the European should look to do well for himself in the future, but that all those territories should be, as we in South Africa would call them, native reserves. They must be set aside for the natives and for the natives only. That is the clear established policy of the British Government that has jurisdiction over those areas and that report of the Hilton Young Commission was accepted by them. Then I want to put a further question in connection with this. If the Prime Minister wishes to carry his policy into effect that larger territories should be brought into being in which South Africa, amongst others, should also have a say, then we would have further responsibility not only as far as concerns the administration of those areas, but as far as our jurisdiction goes we should like to know what financial responsibilities we would have to bear in connection with the development of those territories. You cannot divorce the one from the other. If you have jurisdiction you will also have to assume further responsibility for these areas to the extent of that jurisdiction. It is therefore obvious that the Prime Minister should give us a little more information about it. What is his idea in regard to the further responsibilities that we shall have to bear on financial grounds for the development of those territories. This is the question that I now want to put. I should like to ask further what the position is in connection with the protectorates, but perhaps we shall be able to talk about that later. For the present it is enough to ask that the Prime Minister, especially in view of his departure overseas, should give us a clear explanation on his declaration of his Africa-policy.

It is an interesting subject that has been mentioned by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his request is entirely reasonable that I should elucidate the views that I have expressed in public in another place. Let me say this at the outset. The hon. member has asked me what the attitude of the British Government is and whether I expressed my views in conformity with the policy of the British Government. Let me say on that point I have, of course, a certain measure of individual say and responsibility. When I say anything in public I do not at all times and in all respects speak in my official capacity of Prime Minister of the Union. I have a certain personal responsibility because I take an interest in such problems, and because others who are also interested in them frequently put questions to me as to what I think of this or that, and I do not want it to be thought that the statements I make and the opinions I voice should be regarded as the opinion of the British Government, or that it is always in agreement with the opinion of the Brititsh Government; or that the view should be taken that I, on every occasion, speak in my capacity as Prime Minister. I have a personal position that makes it necessary that from time to time I should give my opinion. I should just like to make clear what the position is. I often say things that are mentioned in South Africa and in Britain and in respect of which my opinion does not coincide with the opinion of the British Government, and in respect of which they do not agree with me. I say that at the outset in order to put the position clearly and to prevent misunderstanding. On the question of an Africa policy I expressed my views not only on that occasion on which I addressed the Brititsh members of Parliament, but also in another connection and on other occasions I voiced an opinion that the colonial arrangements of the British Empire in Africa were in my opinion not as good as they ought to be. The British colonial system in Africa came into being from time to time and developed from time to time. A little area was added here; a little area was added there, here a colony and there a colony, with the result that today we have a large number of British colonies, large and small, most of them small, in the various parts of Africa. In regard to that I stated that in my humble opinion that was not a permanent arrangement and that it was not the best administrative method. It works out too expensively for the local populations. It is not promoting the interests of the various parts of Africa in the most efficient way. I also suggested that it was my opinion that it would be much better if a grouping of those territories occurred, so that there would be a smaller number of governments, taking into consideration the interests of the various parts, of the various colonies that have common interests. We have the case of West Africa, where there is a whole group of British colonies which actually have the same interests and which could be very easily grouped under one big government that would be able to arrange the interests of such a territory better, more economically and more efficiently. We have the same situation in East Africa, and also the same in the southern portion of Africa. I pleaded for a simplification and a regrouping of the system according to which all the numerous units could be grouped together so that there would be fewer governments, but stronger governments functioning, and which could function more effectively and more economically. Now the hon. member asks what the opinion of the British Government is. It is noteworthy that shortly after I had aired my views the British Colonial Secretary, Col. Oliver Stanley, gave a speech in the British Parliament in which he endorsed the same idea, namely that it would be much better to group the various territories, and they are going to work in that direction. As far as concerns the policy of the British Government, it appears to me although I have not consulted with them on the matter and have spoken personally, that my opinion is meeting with more general approval. Now certain questions arise and I come more definitely to the question that affects us here in South Africa. There is no doubt; as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has stated, that there are questions of common interest, also in southern Africa, and I can say especially in southern Africa. We have our trade interests, we have our communications. We have continuous intercourse with the British states in the North and also with the other states in the North, and it will be a good thing if discussions could take place and an organisation could exist, or a system of conference or something of that sort, whereby it will be possible to discuss such questions. The idea was suggested by me in relation to the larger interests in southern Africa that the conference system could be used so that from time to time there could be a meeting between us to discuss our common interests. We could not have a better illustration of such a system than what is occurring here now. Actually a conference of that sort is sitting here in Cape Town to draft and evolve a system of air services in Southern Africa. These are things on which we must consult our neighbours and on which we want to consult our neighbours. We can only do it at a common conference. We have previously had other traffic conferences, but it is clear to me that the trend of events shows that our common interest will grow and grow—the associations we have with our neighbours will multiply and we shall have to discuss those interests at conferences from time to time, either conferences ad hoc on special matters or general conferences on a series of questions. This is the conference system that I propose, and that is now coming into practice and which, in my opinion is calculated to promote our interests effectively, and also the interests of our neighbours. I have repeatedly said that our friends in the North must get out of their heads entirely that the Union is out to absorb them, that we want to extend our boundaries, that we are out for annexation and to dominate. That question must be eliminated entirely, because if you get on to that you will be causing suspicion and distrust, and you will not make the slightest headway. I have the limited idea of a system of conferences in connection with common material interets which bind us to each other and where it is necessary and essential to discuss matters on a common footing. It has nothing to do with questions of annexation or sovereignty nor with any territorial change or with our sovereignty in this territory or that. This is purely and simply a matter of a discussion of common interests as in a circle of friends amongst each other. The same system has developed in the course of years on the American Continent, and there exists today, as hon. members know, the Pan-American Union comprised of the United States in the North and all the states in Central and South America, all sovereign states, all looking to their own interests, the administration being carried out by them in their own territories, but they meet every year to discuss general interests, and the result of that is a much better feeling that eliminates possible grounds of disunion that might arise, the expansion of trade interests and the creation of a better spirit. To me the Pan-American Union is a precedent, an example on a larger scale on the sort of organisation that we might have in Southern Africa, and it seems to me that this is the direction in which we must move in the future in our relations with the states in the North. If we wish to discuss our traffic problems and our trade problems, if we want to enlarge our relations and find markets for our developing industries, we shall have to discuss these things at such a conference. Take the question of the natives. I do not want to discuss the native policy, but it seems to me that there is such a deep-rooted difference as far as native policy is concerned, that it is a difficult matter to identify the way of thinking of the North with our way of thinking in the South. But take that matter. We in Southern Africa, and we in the Union more particularly, have the experience that ours is more and more the country to which the natives from other countries rush. Our economic position is without doubt much better than that of the North. In the North there is much talk about the rights of the aboriginal population, much is said about political rights. But nothing like so much is done for the material development of the natives as we are doing in South Africa, both in the sphere of industrial development and in the promotion of their material progress. Much more is being done in South Africa than in any other territory in the North, and the result is that the natives see that and know it, and South Africa becomes a magnet. They come here because their material interests are thereby fostered and there is a great influx of labour from the northern states. Our mines are to a large extent carried on with those natives from the North, and it is beginning to extend to industries, and even the farming community are becoming in a great measure dependent on labour from the North. In the Transvaal, for example, they are to a great extent dependent on natives coming from the northern states. That indicates our community of interests even in such a matter as the native problem. Apart from the general policy which differs in these territories, it remains a question that our neighbours would like to discuss with us, and that we want to discuss with them, what the position is of their people that come down here. I mention this as the sort of subject that could be discussed and arranged at such a conference, but there are many other matters, a thousand and one matters of common interest that can be discussed, and my opinion is that we shall be promoting not only our immediate interests by such a system of conferences but we shall be building up a spirit of tolerance and co-operation and consultation, which in my opinion is the direction towards which humanity must move if we want to arrive at a solution of our great problems. Our conceptions of the past are to a great extent antiquated. The idea that you must absorb a piece of territory there and annex another piece over there, and that things should be conducted on imperial lines is out of date. It was in force for centuries. It was a heritage from antiquity, particularly from the Roman Empire, but which is no longer applicable according to the desires developed by humanity or under the juridical conceptions of today. Today the direction in which humanity is developing is different. You can have your own country, your language and laws and your own outlook in the world, but you can still develop an atmosphere between the nations without there being any thought of absorption and only with a view to fostering common interests in the best way. In my opinion that is the direction in which the world is moving and in which it must move if we are going to have world peace. We shall have to abandon the old-fashioned conceptions of domination and annexation and of promoting the interests of one part by gaining control of another part.

They are now following the way of “peaceful penetration”.

I think that this is the foundation on which we must negotiate. In that way we shall also be protecting our own interests in the best way. In Southern Africa you have a large measure of community of interests. Now I want to ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition two questions. The first is in connection with the administration, and the second in connection with financial expenditure. I have made it quite clear on the occasions when I have discussed these matters that the subject of administration and control must remain undisturbed in the hands of the country itself. If it is a country like England, that is a motherland, or a country with colonies, it must remain with that country; if it is a country like South Africa that controls its own territory, the entire say must remain with South Africa, there must be no interference, and no one has the right to poke his nose into our affairs. As soon as you do that you have friction and difficulties, and all the results of such a situation. The administration must remain with the local authority, whether it is the Portuguese or the Belgian, or Great Britain or the Union. Every country has its full sovereignty and complete sovereignty over its own territory and the administration of it. That applies also to expenditure. The one will not accept any financial responsibility in respect of the other. They may help each other, work out common plans in connection with which they can co-operate, they may accept joint responsibility, but taken by itself each country is responsible for its own administration and responsible only for its own expenditure in connection with such administration. I believe if this idea is put into effect in practice, if our neighbours in the North know that that is the conception we have in the South, and that there is absolutely no policy of domination and of absorption, we shall be able to achieve something.

Who do you mean by “our neighbours”?

All the neighbouring states in Southern Africa.

The British states?

British and non-British states. If the idea takes root with them that we have no intention and no policy of trespassing on their internal affairs and rights, their position or status or boundaries, and if they understand that it is a case of co-operation, a circle of friends to discuss common policy in a friendly way, then I believe that the suspicion that has arisen in these years will fall away, and there will no longer exist a feeling that they must look after their own selfprotection. There will be no feeling that there is a danger threatening from the South or from the North, or wherever it may be. They will be convinced that here is a business plan, a human business plan to promote common interests without impinging on the rights of any state. The case of the Protectorates, the High Commission territories in South Africa, rests on another foundation. We have co-operated cordially all these years with them and we are still doing so. But hon. members know that the constitution of South Africa makes provision for the eventual incorporation of the territories, and at the moment we are treating those three territories almost as a part of the Union—we give them all privileges as if they were a part of the Union, only the internal administration we leave to the British Government, but apart from that we make no actual distinction. In regard to customs, posts, railway traffic, as regards general treatment, they are treated on the same footing as if they were part of the Union. Our constitution contains the fact that they will be incorporated. Thus what I am saying with reference to boundaries or territory, the violation of them does not apply to these three territories. It does not apply to the three great protectorates which are destined to become a part of South Africa.

What is hindering incorporation?

The question of incorporation came strongly up for discussion before the outbreak of war. Discussions took place over a long period between the Union and Great Britain. When the war broke out in view of other urgent matters a great number of subjects that demanded serious attention were postponed till after the war. The negotiations will be resumed after the war, and we shall see whether we can arrive at a solution in connection with a matter that not only concerns our interests but in respect of which provision is made in our constitution. This will happen, and when I speak of a common policy, of a circle of friendship, and of administrations in the various states, then I want to say that I am not referring to the Protectorates. As far as concerns the Protectorates these are territories which in the future, according to our view, must come into the Union of South Africa. I think I have answered the points that have been mentioned, and I have gone a little further to make clear what I really mean. You must see that in this way will not only suspicion be avoided, but you will create a spirit with the other neighbouring states that will effectively foster our interests. Suspicion that the Union is looking for something, that it wants to get something more, will disappear. That impression will be removed. It is not so. There is no ground for the idea. There is not the slightest idea in the Union to absorb states in the North. If they want to join voluntarily that is a matter for discussion, but we on our side have not the slightest idea of going further than a system of friendly conferences, where we can discuss general interests and exchange views with each other, and can come to a clear understand ing on the great problems that are of interest to us.

I think that we can cordially agree with a great deal of what the Prime Minister has said. We can agree that the fate of South Africa hangs together with that of states further north in Africa. No one will dispute that, if it were for nothing else but what the Prime Minister has referred to that South Africa has become the magnet attracting the native populations from other states of Africa. They come to South Africa from further North. If it had been nothing more than that, we would see immediately how our fate and that of the other states, or what happens there, are closely interdependent. I am glad that the Prime Minister has also stated here that he does not want anything else than a conference system in regard to the fostering of common interests between us and the Northern States. I do not think anyone can take exception to that. They are our neighbours and our interests coincide to a great extent. We must understand each other, we associate with each other, we trade with each other, and consequently no one will disapprove of such a conference system. If it is kept in the right channels it is something that we can only all approve. I am glad that the Hon. Prime Minister has also stated clearly that there is no idea of extending the boundaries of the Union, that we do not want to annex territories in the North, that that suspicion is baseless, that there is no intention of that sort no objective in that direction. I think it would be disastrous for the Union if that were to happen. Can you imagine us with a small population of 2,000,000 Europeans accepting the responsibility for the administration of the half or more than the half of Africa where, in all the territories adjacent to us there are not more than 100,000 Europeans? There are not as many even as in Cape Town. How can 2,000,000 Europeans accept the responsibility for the administration of such a large part of Africa? In addition to that there is the fact that you would then have to throw open your borders for the importation of products from those territories, for the territories would then belong to us. We have had difficulty here in connection with the importation of cattle from Rhodesia and the importation of tobacco from Rhodesia, which reacted to the detriment of our farmers here, the cattle farmers and the tobacco growers. They deprived them of their market, and they could not compete with those territories. I do not want to speak further about that, but the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will have to go a little further into the matter, and he must give thought to this, that we require international co-operation not only between us and the territories immediately around us, but international co-operation in regard to the whole of Africa. As we have got the Atlantic Charter that deals with certain conditions arising out of the war and that relates to arrangemeits for a world in the future in certain directions., the question arises whether we shall not have to reach the point of obtaining an Africa charter. What I mean by that is that we shall have to get together all the powers that have interests in Africa and that have territory and possessions here in Africa, to announce in regard to Africa — it being still at the beginning of its development, and the native population in Africa being still under the trusteeship of the Europeans, and having to remain under that for years still—we must have a pronouncement, an international pronouncement, that Africa must be preserved in its development for the Western European Christian civilisation. All the powers who have interests in Africa can lay down a clear policy on the point, and in that manner you will be able to avoid great difficulties in Africa in the future. For example, the powers that have interests in Africa can agree that the native population should no longer be used on the battlefields of the world, and that they will not be given military training or be armed, so that they will not constitute a danger to each other and to other nations in Africa. I think that is a matter of extreme and tremendous importance. If Africa is not preserved for the Western European civilisation and if Russia obtains the ascendancy in Europe, as it may obtain it, and in the Mediterranean Sea, as it may obtain it, and if the whole African Continent is thrown open for communistic propaganda and South Africa is the magnet for the natives from the North, then I ask what the future of South Africa is going to be. Consequently I should like the Prime Minister when he goes to San Francisco and he dicusses matters affecting Africa, that he should work in the direction of our obtaining an Africa Charter that will lay down the development of Africa in the direction of the Western European Christian civilisation. Linked with that is the question of immigration. Are you going to throw Africa open to immigration from Asia? That has already occasioned serious difficulties in Kenya. There was a delegation here from Kenya when the Nationalist Party was still in power. Lord Delamere was here and he came to plead with our Government, as the leader of the European population, that we should do something to help them against the policy of the open door under which Asiatics were streaming into Africa, and he said they already had serious difficulties in Kenya. Keep Africa for the Western European Christian civilisation. Do not arm the natives in Africa and thereby get a state of affairs that you unfortunately have today in Europe. Close the doors of Africa as much as possible for the influx of elements from outside that have already caused the greatest trouble in the territories in the North, and which have already occasioned serious difficulties in South Africa. If you do not do this the difficulties will become a hundred times worse.

In raising the question of the relationship of the Union to our colonial neighbours in the North, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised a question which will not only be of great moment in the future, but is of increasing practical importance today. As the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, I think there are very few members in this House who would disagree with the general outline that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has given in this regard this morning. I think we all agree on the need for a redelimitation of the political frontiers between many of the colonial states to the north of us, and I think we all agree on the desirability of co-operation between the Union and the undeveloped states to the north of us. But I want to raise certain questions which, if I may say so, I regard as being of more immediate practical significance than the future political arrangements in Africa in regard to our relation with the colonial territories. I am sure that this House is agreed on the necessity for co-operation between the Union and the other states of Africa. That, however, leaves open questions relating to the basis of that co-operation, more particularly in the economic field, because it is the economic field which is of the most immediate moment in this regard. There are two conceivable policies for the Union to pursue or rather, in the direction of which to lend its weight. The first I may characterise, for want of a better word, as the policy of African Imperialism, not in the sense of political Imperialism, but economic Imperialism, regarding the northern territories as fields from which the Union may draw cheap labour, regarding them in very much the same way as our own native reserves have been traditionally regarded, a policy which instead of looking forward to the development of these states as potential markets for the South African industries, rather looks upon them as places from which the Union can draw additional supplies of cheap labour. The alternative policy I may perhaps characterise as a good neighbour policy, a policy in which the Union will lend its weight to the development of those countries in the interests of the Union itself, with the idea of developing markets for Union products and with the idea of developing the African continent in the interests of the Union and of the other states on the continent. Now, speaking for myself, at all events, it is my opinion that it is the good neighbour policy which is really in the interests of the whole of this country. I myself object to the principle of the importation of low paid native labour into South Africa. My objection is based broadly on two grounds. One is that it extends the migratory system of labour, with all its disastrous social effects on the family life and the social life of primitive peoples, and secondly that the importation of labour to supplement local labour resources, unless it can be proved that all local labour resources are fully employed at their true marginal value, simply means a depression of the living standards of the local workers in this country. That is an objection which has often been put forward in this country, and it dates from the days when an attempt was made to import Chinese labour to work on the mines of this country. It is an objection which is particularly associated in this the history of the country with the name of Colonel Creswell, and it is, in my view, a sound objection. The alternative policy, as I say, involves the Union’s throwing such weight as it has on the side of the development of the Northern territories. But it is of no use making verbal declarations in favour of the latter policy unless its implications are clearly recognised. The Prime Minister’s speech today and his references to the Africa organisation he visualised would indicate that his inclination is in favour of a good neighbour policy. On the other hand he stressed the Union’s economic position as a magnet attracting cheap African labour. But the implications of a good neighbour policy would appear to me to be these. First of all there is a lot of loose talk about Union industries finding markets in the North. We must recognise that those markets do not exist today. The purchasing power of the native peoples today in Africa is lower, much lower, than the purchasing power of our Union native population.

You admit that.

It is a definite fact. Secondly, what is needed for the development of markets in the North is large-scale capital investment for the development of the resources of the Northern territories. That is the only means by which markets can be developed for the products of our industry. That raises a third question; who is to supply the capital? I have not got full information on this point, but I think sufficient information does exist upon which I can safely express doubt whether South Africa alone is in a position to contribute in a very large way to the capital development of the colonies in the North. We have too many undeveloped resources, including human resources, of our own. The Van Eck Commission has pointed that out in the most forcible terms. The colonies in the North must therefore look to the great industrial powers of Europe, and to a large extent also the United States, for their capital development. As I conceive it, the Union of South Africa, in co-operating with the territories to the North has also to cooperate in the economic field with the Great Powers on the continent of Europe and on the continent of America. May I express the hope that when the Prime Minister goes overseas he will make full enquiries as to what the economic plans are—what the intentions are—of the British Government and of the United States also as to the capital development of the African continent. It is no use our pursuing a good neighbour policy unless we recognise its full implications. Another implication, apart from the fact that capital development alone can give South Africa markets, is that a potential market is also a potential competitor. A country whose resources are developed is also capable of competing with the country providing the capital investment. These countries have large populations. They are populations potentially capable of great development, and I believe that that consideration points to the fact that if the Union is to hold its own in the future, even on the continent of Africa, it must mobilise all its human and material resources. If it does that you will find in the North, provided sufficient development takes place, a fruitful market, the territories concerned will not be in dangerous competition with us, since, if we develop our own resources aright, we shall not have to fear competition.

There are two points I should like to raise in connection with the San Francisco Conference. The first is whether any steps will be taken to protect the rights of religious and racial minorities in Europe. We know that the treatment meted out to these minorities was undoubtedly one of the causes of the present war, and unless some means can be devised to prevent the ill-treatment of these people, the same conditions, namely, the refugee position, immigration, economic difficulties, are bound to arise and all these create ill-feeling between human beings. There is no doubt in the Versailles Treaty some attempts were made to solve that problem.

They never worked.

They did not work, and I think the reason they did not work was because they irritated the nationals in the countries in which minorities existed. They created a sort of extraneous organisation to protect the rights of these minorities. The same question, in a sense, arose in this country under the Pegging Act. When the Pegging Act was first passed the Indians appealed to the Government of India to protect them, and after they had made that appeal they approached the Prime Minister,

and the Prime Minister then said: “Either you are South Africans or you are not South Africans; if you are going to India as Indians go to India and do not come to me; you have to choose.” I think the underlying idea in that answer illustrates the cause of the aggravated position of the minorities after the Versailles Treaty. It is clear the same solution cannot be adopted this time. There are millions of people who would like some assurance from the Prime Minister that that question will be raised at San Francisco and that some reasonable attempt will be made to solve it without prejudicing the people concerned in the eyes of their own nationals by the solution that will be affected. The second point I should like to raise is this: What steps, if any, are likely to be taken in order to prevent the dissemination of Nazism throughout the world after this war? Even at this stage the Germans take up the attitude that all is not lost and ultimately victory will be theirs. They know it cannot be a physical victory, but they think that by the disseminating of propaganda the world might be persuaded to adopt their principles after the war. Only the other day Mr. Pirow, who cap be regarded as our leading Nazi, in addressing one of his New Order groups, assured them they were not to regard the defeat of Germany as the termination of their hopes, because the principles underlying Nazism were of such a character, so good, as ultimately to prevail, owing to their virtue. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister to give us some assurance that this question will be raised at San Francisco, and he may be prepared to indicate, if possible, the lines on which an attempt may be made to solve these problems.

As the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, I think we have all listened with interest this morning to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. There is only one difficulty I have in connection with his statement, and it is this, that this morning he repeated what he said at the time of his explosive speech in London, and that is that he will not be responsible for the things he has said.

Not officially, personally I am responsible.

That is just my difficulty. How is one to interpret his statement one day as his personal statement and the following day as his statement in his capacity as Prime Minister. He said in London: “I do not want to be held responsible for what I am saying here today.”

That is so. It is my personal opinion. I do not want to be officially held responsible.

But how can the Prime Minister say in this House: “What I am saying here now is my personal opinion and in my capacity of Prime Minister I had nothing to do with it.” In London he said—

That is just my difficulty. You do not know what value to attach to what the Prime Minister is saying. For instance, if one could pin him down in connection with what he has stated about the system of conferences, that he has now entirely relinquished ideas that he previously expressed, namely, about a sort of Pan-African state, then I say we have progressed a great deal. But in five or six years time he may perhaps say: ‘I am not responsible for what I said in Parliament in South Africa on the 21st March, 1945.” I say that if one can pin him down to the conference system we have undoubtedly made great progress, because the danger that we eventually may have a political unit in which the white man stands in a hopeless minority, is to a great measure warded off, and it is not an imaginary danger; it is a real actual danger. The Prime Minister has himself admitted this morning that the policy in respect of the natives’ political status and the natives’ rights is entirely different in many of the Northern states to ours. Should we get such a political union, if the British liberalistic conception on the political rights and other rights of the natives eventually triumphs, then it is obvious that it is simply finished as far as the European civilisation in South Africa, and even in Africa, is concerned. Then the European civilisation is simply done with. Nothing remains of it. But let me now return to the idea of the Prime Minister’s in connection with a Pan-African Union like the Pan-American Union. The Prime Minister sees security for us in that. The Prime Minister will readily admit that in the Pan-American Union there is one dominating country, and that is the United States of America. There you have the one dominating country, and it imposes its will and its wishes on the other states in all sorts of ways, whether by threats, even of war, or by threats of economic victimisation. We have the case of the Argentine, where the United States of Amerca intervened in the domestic affairs of the Argentine, where it prescribed for the Argentine what sort of government it should have and what sort of government it should not have. If that sort of government is one that does not please the Argentine the United States comes and holds out all sorts of threats to the Argentine. That is the position of affairs in the Pan-American Union. If this idea of the Prime Minister’s of a Pan-African Union is realised what is the position going to be? Who will be the dominating country in this Pan-African Union? It is a thing that gives one to think, and if one may put it that way, one’s suspicions are aroused, when you think how the Prime Minister talks so glibly of a Pan-African Union. It is not only a question of holding joint discussions from time to time; no one has the slightest objection to that; nobody raises any objection to our holding conferences from time to time on matters of common interest, but I say that I am afraid of any idea of a sort of ring fence that will be drawn round us, a Pan-African Union like the Pan-American Union, in which you have a dominating country in that Union. There is just this further point. The Prime Minister mentioned the fact that we have a native problem to deal with. This is so. As the Prime Minister is going to a conference in London, as I assume that the thoughts that he expressed this morning will also be dealt with there, I want to direct attention to a thing that to Afrikaans-speaking people, to Nationalists, and also to English-speaking people who think with us, is a real and actual danger, namely, the eventual domination of the native over the white man in South Africa; I say that all who think with us on that matter would like to know from the Prime Minister what his attitude is going to be in reference to the protection of the white man in this connection. We have noted that a few days ago a conference was held in London of missionary societies to which the Anglican church gave its blessing, and we know what a tremendous influence the Anglican Church, with its Archbishop of Canterbury and its various missionery associations, exercises on the government of England. Here I am again dealing with the dominating factor in a Pan-African Union that the Prime Minister envisages. We have seen in the newspapers how at this London conference a few days ago a statement was issued in which emphasis was laid on the abolition of the colour bar in British territories, and I am stating that the blessing and approval of the Anglican Church in England was bestowed on that and we know what that means when we bear in mind the tremendous influence that that church exercises on the British Government. If this is one of the things that the future holds in store, that this policy for a Pan-African Union may eventually be adopted, and that the attitude of the Anglican Church in England will eventually triumph, the Prime Minister will readily understand how we simply stand in a state of terror in regard to the idea of a Pan-African Union in which this policy would triumph, of all trace of a colour bar being abolished in the British territories in South Africa. I want to express the hope that as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the Prime Minister will tell us clearly what attitude he is going to take up in respect of this growing idea in the English world that the colour bar should be abolished in all British territories; and in that they include South Africa; they include the British territories in South Africa; they include the British Protectorates, and their idea is that the colour bar should be entirely eliminated and abolished. The Prime Minister has mentioned the fact—and it is true— that as a result of the native being much better treated in an economic sense in South Africa than in the British territories, even in the Protectorates alongside us, South Africa has become a magnet. That influx of natives is occurring on a large scale, and I know that for all practical purposes actually nothing has been done to stop this influx of natives from all territories to South Africa. Nothing is being done. The whole of our borders lie open to them. There is not a single native who comes to this country from the North that crosses by the Beit Bridge; he crosses the Limpopo River, travelling a distance of a couple of thousand miles. They are coming in their thousands every year to South Africa.

Do you propose that we should stop them.

There are people who require the labour. But I want to put this question to the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe). We know that in the North there are millions of natives; there are millions and tens of millions of natives. Should it be our policy, seeing that in South Africa we already have 8,000,000 natives as compared with a European population of 2,000,000—just because the hon. member for Potchefstroom or I, as a result of the Government’s weak policy, needs labour—to throw open our boundaries for these millions of natives so that they will stream unimpeaded into South Africa. If this is the position in order that we may pluck a temporary advantage from the labour of the natives, then I want to put the question, to the member for Potchefstroom and particularly to the Prime Minister: How does it appear to him; what is going to be the numerical proportion between European and non-European in South Africa after another twenty years? [Time limit.]

I am pleased to find that the Opposition is suffering from broodiness and they have not been able to clack or cluck on the subject of the Broederbond this morning. If the Minister of Lands is responsible for bringing this matter to the notice of the country. I think we must be extremely grateful to the hon. gentleman. Need I say how fortunate the Opposition is; if they had had Adolf Hitler to deal with this matter instead of the Prime Minister I think the answer to their plea would have been the grave. It is all very well the Opposition telling the House the Broederbond is simply an organisation to promote the interests of Afrikaners, and stating that it is nothing more dangerous than the Freemason or the Sons of England movement. I have still to learn that the two latter movements have ever tried to instai a racial government in this country or to instil hatred or suspicion in the minds of one section of the people. I submit in all sincerity that the Government has been too lenient in dealing with this movement which was given birth to at Munich, and unless it is destroyed, root and branch, I am afraid South Africa will find itself in the same straits as Germany is in today. The Opposition members have stated that the Prime Minister refused to accept the challenge of the Public Service Association. As an ex-Government servant I should like to say the Broederbond movement and other similar organisations have for years now done everything in their power to capture these associations, with the result that one knows exactly what side of the line the Public Service Association is. I also say without fear of contradiction, that the activities of the Broederbond are very cleverly camouflaged because so many senior officials in the Government service belong to it. They protect one another. I would like to know whether it is the duty of public servants beloning to this movement to absent themselves so frequently from their offices. They are supposed to be on official duty, away from the office, but actually they are conferring with outside and also other members in the Government service, scheming to bring about the downfall of the Government. I have been in the service long enough to know what is going on.

You have been in the House long enough to know you should not read your speech.

I am not reading my speech. Why is it that these members take such an active interest in various public bodies, in securing membership on school committees, hospital boards, ratepayers associations, boys’ and girls’ clubs, trades and Government staff unions, city councils, cricket and rugby clubs and all through the Herenigde Party organisation.

Full stop.

I should also like to ask the hon. interrupter why do not these individual members of the Broederbond hold their meetings at the right time and not, as I know from actual experience, round about 10 and 11 o’clock at night in schoolrooms with people guarding the entrances to these schools. I say with all the emphasis at my command, a number of the more senior members in the Government service are drawing Government salaries and are not giving a fair return in the way of time and attention to their duties. In that regard I say it is downright dishonesty, and that these officials, if employed by private employers, would not be tolerated one moment. Therefore I feel it is the Government’s duty to take action in respect of them, because an official of the Government should not take an active part in trying to bring about the downfall of the Government. I should also like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) yesterday, when he whined about local authorities debarring Afrikaners fit for military service from being given municipal employment. I should like to remind the hon. member for Westdene that that does not apply only to Afrikaners; it is applicable to every South African citizen. I should like to know from the hon. member why should not local authorities debar healthy individuals from stepping into the shoes of men and women who have gone overseas prepared to sacrifice their lives to enable us to enjoy the freedom we do. I say that the object of hon. members like the hon. member for Westdene, and of certain local authorities controlled by the Nationalist Party, is a deliberate attempt to try to break down this restriction in order that the Government may not be able to fulfil its honourable pledge to the men and women when they return from the war. I would also like to refer to a resolution which came into my possession, and I feel that the Prime Minister should know about it. It is from the Protestant Association of South Africa and the Women’s Protestant Union. The resolution reads—

I trust that the Prime Minister when attending these conferences, will bear this resolution in mind.

The little-known member who has just spoken again tried to attack the Broederbond. Yesterday we challenged those who delivered such attacks to support their attacks with proof. Not a single proof appeared, but now this member is again making a number of attacks without in the least adducing proof. Anyone can make that sort of attack, but they are of no avail. We accused the Sons of England, but we delivered proofs. However, I do not want to pause here. I want to discuss another matter. After the war the world will not be what it is today. Revolutionary changes will take place and one of the greatest changes about which we in South Africa are most anxious is the relationship between the European and the non-European in Africa and also in South Africa. We hope that the Prime Minister will act very wisely in future when this problem is being dealt with. The Prime Minister knows that when the war broke out there was a very strong sentiment amongst the Europeans in South Africa, both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, against the arming of natives. We felt that if the Government were to arm natives against whites, we would be creating a problem which would have serious repercussions in South Africa. The Prime Minister himself felt it, and for that reason he made a statement in this House saying that he knows that there is a deep-seated sentiment against the arming of natives, and for that reason he promised not to arm the natives. Later however the Prime Minister in fact did take the step of arming natives. I have now read an article written by a British officer in the “Fortnightly Review”, in which he describes how non-Europeans in Kenya, Uganda and those parts of Africa were armed. When we read an article like that it can only create great anxiety on our part about the future relationship in our country. He says that great numbers of natives were armed and that they learnt all the military and war knowledge that was necessary. They made an attack on the Italians. It amounts to this, that those natives who were armed were raw natives who were taken from their tribes, and this officer points out that they learnt how to fight with open ears and open eyes. They paid the greatest attention to everything they could learn. They were anxious to learn and to develop. We have nothing against that. But what did they learn? He points out that they were taught to shoot, not only with ordinary rifles, but with machine guns and cannon, and to handle any weapon which modern military science made available to them. He also points out that these natives by nature are brave. They are ignorant, but by nature they are tough and brave and we can teach them to become good soldiers. He further points out that they have been taught to fight and that they were made part of the army. He points out that the natives have the intelligence to specialise in certain cases. That is where the danger lies. By arming these natives in Central Africa we are creating a great problem. The Prime Minister told us the other day that after the war we should arm and not disarm ourselves. I should now like to know what the attitude of the Prime Minister will be as regards the arming of non-Europeans. Is he going to stop the training of natives as soldiers, their training with modern weapons, or is he going to support that policy? If we proceed with that policy we are simply creating an evil which may become a threat to the European civilisation in South Africa. We are a small handful of Europeans against a mighty non-European population, and if we are going to teach the non-Europeans on a large scale to become soldiers and to get war experience from the Europeans, we are busy creating an evil which our descendants in our fatherland will regret. I should like the Prime Minister to give us a statement as regards his point of view about the arming of non-Europeans after the war. Furthermore I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will use his influence with the Northern states to stop the arming of non-Europeans. I do not think that the British territories will be inclined to continue with that policy, but there are other territories where it will be done on a large scale, and perhaps it will also be done on a smaller scale in the British territories. They will allow the natives to gain military experience and it may be fatal for European civilisation in this country. I should be glad if the Prime Minister would reply to that.

Mr. Chairman, it is completely useless to cry “peace, peace” when there is no peace, and to talk of world security, whether at conference or elsewhere, while we cherish and preserve the main causes of war. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) did not agree with me that the manufacture and sale of armaments by private firms should not be tolerated, but even without his support I want to reiterate that it is quite obviously better that the State shall produce its own armaments and utilise the money gains of that horrid industry to repair some of the devastation and suffering that is caused by war. It is better, I say, Sir, than that private individuals of any kind or in any place whatever shall be allowed to produce armaments and sell them to the potential enemies of their country, selling them at a very high profit indeed. I do not want to make a speech. I want to say one or two things on a very difficult matter. The impeachment of ministers and trials for treason have passed out of fashion. Dr. Hugh Dalton, at present the British Minister of Economic Warfare, appeared considerably to regret that in a speech he made concerning the Disarmament Conference on the 11th February 1938. He said—

Sir, that is pompous humbug. What are the possible limitations of a bombing plane after it is once up in the air? Dr. Dalton goes on to say—

Sir, that was not the end. Since that day the end has come to Coventry Cathedral. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have ended too, but the consequences of that success have been written in letters of blood in many other places than China, Abyssinia and Spain. The hon. member for Troyeville had the nerve to say that if the State prepared its own armaments there would not be sufficient. Sir, the great trouble with the present private capitalistic supply to the world of armaments is that there are a great deal too many, which they then proceed to supply to the enemies of their own country. Sir, in “The Aeroplane” which is a periodical a very famous internationally circulated magazine, of 18th July, 1934, there was an advertisement of a fighting plane which the firm concerned was prepared to export to any country whatever. At that very minute Britain did not recognise the right of Germany to have an air force at all, and the League of Nations had just protested against their re-arming in that country. Within a few days the Premier of England got up in the House and said that 41 new air squadrons would forthwith be established to counteract the growing menace of the air force of Germany; and the curious thing, the shameful thing, was this, that the advertisement I have mentioned had an illustration of the fighting machine which British capital was prepared to send overseas to anyone who would pay for it, and on that very illustrated machine was a swastika. It had already been sold to Germany. The fact which emerges is that the manufacturers did not first supply their own country and then send any surplus overseas; but first of all they supplied the overseas countries and then, by a type of commercial blackmail, said to their own Government: “Look what they have got; you must have an equal amount”. Sir, the cynical statement of the Chairman of the Handley-Page Company at their annual general meeting in the same year, 1934, proves my point. He said—

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

I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a few matters which we noticed recently. We find in the English Press, emanating especially from England, that there is a very strong agitation on the eve of the conference in San Francisco for equality of races, that there should be no discrimination between the various races. Recently a S.A.P.A. report appeared emanating from the congress of the Coloured Nations League in which they plainly say that they are in favour of the elimination of all differences on the ground of colour. There must be no colour bar. This is strongly supported by the English Church. Motions have been adopted at their congresses, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed himself in that direction. We see an agitation just before the congress at San Francisco. I therefore want to warn the Prime Minister to be on his guard, especially when the incorporation of the Protectorates will come on the tapis shortly, and with an eye to the fact that we have neighbouring states with large native populations. I am, however, thinking specially of the Indian problem in South Africa. I think that this agitation emanates from India especially. India wants equality, specially in view of the problem in Natal. At present they cannot tackle the matter easily, but as soon as India and South Africa are affiliated in a body like a Security Council, they are on common ground where the matter can be discussed. Then it will be a matter affecting not only South Africa, but it will become a matter affecting South Africa and India together because they are represented on one body. There is the franchise and mixed marriages. At present there are laws in our country prohibiting these, but if they belong to one body the matter can be discussed. What are we going to do with two million Europeans against eight million non-Europeans if the franchise is given to everyone and mixed marriages are permitted? I should like the Prime Minister to deal with this not as a matter of party interest but of national interest. Let us regard it from the point of view of the future of South Africa and the protection of the European population. If the idea of equality takes root and achieves a kind of status, we can say farewell to European civilisation. I hope that the Hon. the Prime Minister will pay attention to these few thoughts.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition raised a very important thought in our minds this morning, namely that the time is more than ripe to bring forth a clearly outlined African Charter. We feel very strongly about this matter, and if we study the course of matters, it must be a matter of the utmost importance to every person who has the interests of the European civilisation and also the welfare of the whole of Africa at heart. We feel that we should support the idea expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, and propagate it outside. I therefore want to appeal earnestly to the Prime Minsiter to give serious attention to this matter. Today in Africa we have a European population of something over 4 million as against a non-European population of 150 million. If we look at the ethnical composition, the colour of the various populations, Africa can rightly be described as the boiling pot of racial problems. What is more, when we look at the various territories, we see that as far as policy is concerned, there is clash upon clash. Each area has its own policy in connection with the great principles affecting our racial problems. Not only have the various territories which fall under various governments different policies, but even in the British territories there is no unity of policy. For that reason it is essential that we should have uniformity in connection with these matters. What is more, if we today look at the basis of the policy followed in connection with the racial problems over the whole of Africa, we see that in the majority of cases that policy is simply determined by capitalistic interests overseas, by financial investments in Africa. The policy is not laid down by people who really have the great interests of the nations of Africa at heart. When this thought perhaps materialises we should like to see that the settled European populations, not only in South Africa but in the various territories of Africa, will in fact have a voice in the formulation of an African Charter. It is a fact that today numbers of nations overseas interfere with these problems, not because they are interested in the actual interests of the population of Africa, but because they aim at exploiting Africa and markets in Africa, and their policy is directed at deriving as much economic benefit as possible from Africa. That is the principle which lies at the root of the policy adopted by them. It is an utterly dangerous principle, especially to us in South Africa. What is more, to a large degree the policy is dictated by people who have not the least knowledge of the native population or of the nature of the native population. So we find that decisions in favour of equality are adopted by the Anglican Church in England. I do not doubt but that they have good intentions, but their policies in regard to these matters are unpractical, and will result in the destruction of the Christian civilisation in South Africa and in the whole of Africa. That cannot be denied. The Leader of the Opposition pointed that out, with an eye to the future, and when we think of the permanent happiness of Africa, one of the chief requisites is that the European Christian civilisation should be protected and enabled to continue not only in South Africa but in Africa as a whole. Then only can we find a condition of contentment here and can the non-European populations gradually be developed and become an asset to Africa and to the world. There is not only the question of arming. I also think of another important problem, namely the education policy as regards the aboriginal races in Africa. In large measure a lesson can be learnt from experience in South Africa, and in large measure the principles applied here can also be made applicable to the other territories of Africa. It is therefore essential that we should have clarity about a few of these important principles which should be followed by us as regards the aboriginal races of Africa. But it is really a serious word of warning which I would express in this regard. That is that we in South Africa will not for a moment be satisfied with a policy which seeks to draw an encircling fence around us. The possibility of enforcing a set of measures on Africa and on South Africa from outside should not be created. We must guard very vigilantly against that, and I hope that the Prime Minister will specially give this guarantee that he does not in the least intend to bind South Africa to the rest of Africa in such a manner that in a large degree we will be the victim of a policy forced on us by people from outside; a policy which in large measure is dictated from overseas and which will result in our being bound within a network decided on from outside. We must be free to execute our own policy here, and we must proceed from the point of view that the European communities in the rest of Africa should be narrowly consulted. We cannot get away from the fact that with the course of events in South Africa it has become increasingly clear how essential that is. We find that phenomenon amongst numbers of European civilisations in the rest of Africa that they want to be consulted in the policies applied in the various territories and countries, and that it has become clear to them that the policy of isolation is the only one which can be followed here. That policy is the sound one. Everywhere we find the phenomenon that it is realised that the system of educating the native must be such that his nature and function are recognised, and that it should work in the direction of the development which is peculiar to the non-European population. Then there is the question of Asiatics. That problem is assuming tremendous proportions, not only as regards the European population but also the non-European population. There are clashes between the Indians and the Europeans, as we have perceived, but there are also clashes between the Indians and the natives. That phenomenon is appearing here in South Africa it is also appearing in Kenya and even in Tanganyika. It is very essential that we should have a clear and sound African Charter, a Charter which will at least give guidance in this great problem which affects not only the non-European races, but especially the European races, and which we must solve in order to promote the welfare of both.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to extend the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister our good wishes to him on his intended journey to San Francisco and to London, and we know, in South Africa, that he is the only person who could represent the real South African point of view at this conference. I feel perfectly certain, in spite of what the Opposition has had to say, that the Prime Minister does realise, that as a result of this world-wide war, the time of isolation, the days of the small nation, have entirely disappeared, and it is only in the union of a Commonwealth of Nations that the future of South Africa can be guaranteed. Sir, you will remember that in 1933, 1934 and 1935, during the debates taking place in this House, there were speeches made by a considerable number of members to the effect that there should be more Empire co-operation in regard to defence matters. An Empire defence scheme was suggested by a number of members. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that if that advice had been accepted a different story would have unfolded itself at the beginning of the war. Instead of every dominion, including England, being quite unprepared, had that advice been taken of the Empire defence scheme, I very much doubt whether Germany would have embarked upon the war. Instead of that we all had to start from scratch, and we all know with what result. Now, I hope that the Prime Minister does realise that in future we must have some scheme of Empire Defence. I think that is very necessary indeed, and as for those little South Africans whom we have in this House, who want to run away from the rest of the world, I think that is something of the past. I really mention that because we have paid very, very dearly as the British Commonwealth of Nations for not being prepared for the war as we ought to have been in both 1939 and 1914. When you hear members of the Labour Party, as was heard here and elsewhere during the last few years, advocating that armaments should be taken out of the hands of private enterprise, I ask what has happened in Russia. There was no private enterprise there, and yet Russia declared war on Finland and it has not made a scrap of difference whether those armaments were made by private or by State enterprise; and where Britain was unprepared I would like to say: Look at your own country. The reason why Britain was unprepared in this war and in the last war was because the Labour Party was asleep. It is only in this war that we found the Labour Party in Britain and here prepared to shoulder their responsibilities. So it is idle for them to say that the late Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and the British Government are responsible. It is chiefly the Labour Party in every country in the world which was so passive and unprepared to re-arm the country. Now, last year when the Prime Minister was proceeding to Britain, I did suggest to him that as we were embarking on a Navy in South Africa, and as we have a wonderful army, he should see whether he could arrange to get for South Africa one or two cruisers, and I think I even suggested a battleship. What is the result? The result was that through the Prime Minister’s efforts South Africa was presented with half a dozen corvettes. But I would still like to press for the building up of the South African Navy. At the San Francisco conference the matter will be discussed as to what is to happen to the navies which are being brought into existence, and I suggest again that the Prime Minister should tell the British Government that we will be very happy indeed if they can see their way clear to present South Africa with a cruiser or two. By the time that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has made a few more visits to Britain we may find that we have a very substantial navy, which is very necessary. We have the men. We have made a start, and it is up to us to see that the naval defence of South Africa is carried out by South Africans in future. We have embarked on launching a navy. I am perfectly certain that the British Government will be only too pleased to help us in giving us, free, gratis and for nothing, a few cruisers and before we know it, we will have a navy. Having mentioned that, I do trust that the Prime Minister will be able to stress the necessity of Empire co-operation in connection with defence, and that we will not be found unprepared in the event of another war breaking out, and that the Empire will be able to speak with one voice and will be in such a position that any nation in future will think twice about declaring war on Britain. I feel sure that as a result of the San Francisco conference the whole of the world will realise that the day of the small nations is already past, and that the only safeguard of any nation is to act in conjunction and in free association with the larger powers with which we are all so freely associated at the present time.

I should like once more to raise the question of Basutoland and the two other native territories. I am not satisfied with what the Prime Minister said in his reply. I do not think it is a matter which should be left in abeyance until the war is over. I accept that the Prime Minister will have the opportunity of discussing this matter with the British Government. I cannot see why these two territories which lie within our boundaries should be controlled by the British Government. What I feel about it is that they lie there under British control and that later they will cause trouble for us. The Prime Minister also said that he feels that these territories should come under our control. I was glad about that. But why should the matter now be postponed? The present is the desirable time to deal with it, while he is Prime Minister, and seeing that he helped the British in the war, I cannot understand why he cannot now put the matter to them. It is a fact that we have done more for the natives than even the British Government in the territories under their control. We keep those people alive. If we close our borders to them, they will die of hunger. Now those territories lie within our borders just to cause us trouble one day, and I think that the sooner the British Government hands over control to us, the better it will be. I appeal to the Prime Minister to try to achieve this thing, seeing he is now going to England and later to America.

There is not much to reply to. That does not mean that the discussion was not interesting. I listened with great interest to this discussion, but still there is not much to reply to. Many of the points are points which cannot now be replied to. History will have to reply to them. That is the case with most of the questions put to me. No man can answer them. It lies in the future which is not only dark but endless; and to expect that we here, with all the difficulties and troubles we have to cope with, should answer all those questions now, well, that is too much to expect. We must leave certain replies over to our descendants. We must not take too much hay on our forks; already we have enough. We must also leave something to our descendants. Perhaps the most interesting matter raised here is the one raised by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, namely the question of an African Charter. That is very significant to me. I have never dared go so far. I thought I could talk about a conference system, especially in the southern part of Africa, and that so doing I would be biting off a large chunk—that that would be enough for me and for our time. But it is remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition, who also is a man of wide vision, with a long life behind him and with great experience, is looking further ahead than I am, and that he speaks not only of a system of conferences, not only of a conference system for Southern Africa—the furthest I have gone—but of an African Charter. That is very significant. It shows how the idea of Africa is coming to the fore. We were the despised continent. We were the Cinderella of the continents. Only two days ago I said at a conference that even in my lifetime Africa was the unknown and uninhabited country of barbarism. Today in South Africa we are debating and suggesting the idea of an African Charter, to stand side by side with the Atlantic Charter drawn up by President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill. That shows how the idea of the importance of this continent, which is our mother country, and which is speedily coming to the fore, has taken root. But there is no doubt about it that that idea goes hand in hand with the greatest difficulties. The idea of an African Charter is one of the most difficult and involved questions one can tackle. In the first place there is what the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) has called the boiling pot of racial problems. I think he used the expression “boiling pot of racial problems”. It is a surprisingly difficult task, the most difficult with which we can cope. We have not yet a direction in connection with it on this continent. We are still searching. We are still Voortrekkers and we have not yet found the road. America, although it is a new world, although not really older than South Africa, has already progressed fairly far on the road, but it has not that conglomeration of problems with which we have to cope here. We have here the boiling pot of racial questions, and there is no doubt—I feel it—that the greatest problem of mankind is the problem of race and colour, and it will remain a question in Africa for many years to come. I do not know whether we will find a solution. It may be that the problem is unsolvable and lies outside the capacity of man, with the point of view and passions, sentiment, religion which animate us at the moment. But there is no doubt that it is a most difficult problem at present. This continent is the continent of racial problems, which is the greatest problem of humanity, and on it depends the whole future of humanity. Unless we can find a solution of that great and difficult question we will never find a solution for the greatest racial problem facing us. One cannot solve it but one can approach a solution. I shall be satisfied if we could manage, in our day and in our generation, to contribute something towards the solution of that question. To speak here about a solution of the colour problem is to speak about something which does not lie within the power of this generation, but within many generations in the future, who will all work with us to find a solution. We can do our best. I know that in great measure South Africa is being condemned. In a large measure the world does not understand the position. Much has been said about poor South Africa. Many accusations are brought but there can be no doubt that there is something in the idea of a European civilisation which is not inimical towards other civilisations, which is not inimical towards people of another colour, but which proceeds from the point of view of supporting something which is of the greatest interest and value to the European civilisation. I feel proud of the prestige of our European white race in South Africa. Others who are far away from our difficulties and who have no idea of what happens in Africa, who do not know what our difficulties are, who do not realise our dangers and who do not know our history, are inclined to condemn us from an abstract point of view, from the point of view of lofty principles. But they are not acquainted with the facts. We who sat with our noses to the grindstone, and still sit like that, for generations and centuries, have learnt that we must be careful and must look after ourselves by means of being cautious and in that way build up something for our European civilisation which will be permanent as it has been permanent up to now. We have achieved something and delivered something of which we can be proud. I do not condemn those who differ from us in their opinions. They have not our experience but they condemn South Africa. But I am sure of it that the more they come into contact with the actual circumstances pertaining in South Africa, the more they will realise that there is something to be said for our point of view.

Australia is beginning to follow our example after a lapse of 100 years.

No, they did not follow our example. They exterminated the people. America and Australia followed another direction. They exterminated the coloured population. But we did not do that. We in South Africa, notwithstanding everything that is said about us, said: No, live and let live. We shall try to find a way together with the native; we shall give him his territory; he today has the best part of South Africa. We gave him his territory. But our problem is to live together with him on the basis of self-preservation and segregation.

Hear, hear!

We have formed a policy of living together with him and we have gone fairly far towards solving the problem on those lines. No, Mr. Chairman, the question of an African Charter takes us very far along the road and brings us into very deep water. What I said here was just to deliver proof that although others complained, and although I suppose at San Francisco I shall also have to listen to another point of view, but without delivering a plea for South Africa, there is something to say for the point of view of this country. I am digressing from the point a little, but not too far. Hon. members will remember that a delegation of British Members of Parliament were sent here some months ago by the British Cabinet. Eight Members of Parliament came here. They saw me in London and wanted to discuss the native problem and the whole colour question with me. I said: Friends, I do not want to put you on a false track and make propaganda for South Africa. But I advise you to go to South Africa and to see for yourselves. Go through the British Colonies to the north of South Africa; look at the conditions of the natives there, and go to the Union and examine conditions in the Union itself with open eyes; also look at the territories falling under the High Commissioner round about us; and when you have examined everything carefully, draw your own conclusions. I know to what conclusion they came. I discussed the matter with them after they had been through the country, and let me tell you that many of the eight friends left South Africa with a very different conception from that with which they had come here.

Did they say that our natives are much better off?

I only want us to deal honestly and justly and in a Christian spirit with our fellow man although he has a black hide. We must stick to that Christianethical basis on which we stand as a Christian nation, and we must act in accordance with that. Whatever the colour of a man’s hide might be, and whatever his langauge might be, treat him like a human being and treat him well, in a manner which satisfied your own conscience. If one does that, one is never far from the right road. A man who acts on that basis will still make mistakes but he will never be far off the right path. I hope that we in South Africa with all our faults and shortcomings will show the way as regards this greatest of all quéstions, although we have not yet found quite the right direction in Africa. The matter of an African Charter is still a little distant. I like the idea. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was not here when I began. I said that I liked the idea. He goes further than I do. He looked further into the future than I did, but he is on the right road. It is not only the racial question which is concerned in such an African Charter, but there is the matter of the competition of European powers who also have a position on the continent of Africa. There is no doubt that there is sharp difference of opinion about a matter, for example, like defence. I know what happened at the last peace conference in Paris, where the matter was fought out between France and other powers. France insisted on using her colonial territory in Africa for the recruiting of troops for wars which might perhaps be fought elsewhere. There was a deep-seated point of difference on the question of arming natives amongst the various powers. The British Government to a large degree shares our South African point of view. It is true that today armies are being trained for battles in the Far East. I know that that also happens in British territories.

The King’s African Rifles.

That was a permanent police force, but what now happens is that even in British territories in Africa troops are being trained, although mostly for fighting in the Far East.

Belgium also adopted such a policy.

Belgium shares the point of view of France, while Britain is more inclined to agree with our point of view that it is not the right thing to civilise the African by means of military training. He is a first-class fighter. I know that. The trained African is a soldier of high degree. But it is not the best message which our white race can bring to them to train them for purposes of war. On this matter there is a radical difference of opinion between our point of view and the French point of view and that of some states which are interested in the North of Africa. I mention this only as one difficulty one finds in the path of an African Charter. There are deep differences which at the moment cannot be bridged. That is not all. There is the matter referred to by the hon. member for Wonderboom of what he calls the European capitalism. There I differ from the hon. member. He condemns the use of European capital in developing Africa. There is no other way. One can of course adopt the way of the missionaries and try to civilise the African along purely religious lines, but if one wants to develop him, the only way is by means of European capital. One must have capital here. We in South Africa ourselves have been developed by means of the help of European capital, although we have other resources. With the help thereof, for example, great public works have been completed and our railways developed and many of our industries built up. It is not European capital which is the enemy. That capital can contribute to the development of the resources of Africa. It is not something which should frighten us. It is a means towards helping us develop. Of course, one can misuse capital on the continent of Africa in order practically to make slaves of the natives here. That is quite possible and without doubt it was attempted at a certain stage in the Belgian Congo. In the old Congo Free State they were well on the way to doing that, and there European capital went to work recklessly and practically enslaved the people there, until the Belgian Parliament intervened and said that an end had to be put to it. We must see that capital is also used in such a manner that not only the country and the resources are developed, but also that the native population is assisted forward on the road of civilisation. We must also keep a watchful eye on it. Take the condition of the mines, the matter of mine labour, the problem of industrial labour. We shall always have to see to it that capital is used in such a way that the activities of the capital are such that it is a means of uplifting the native population and not a means of suppressing them and keeping them under. I again refer to the old Afrikaner Party. I think there is a lot to be said for the old Boer system. There is not doubt about it that our farmers on the farms, our farming population spread over the length and breadth of South Africa, made a surprising contribution to the moral uplift and civilisation of the native population. If one goes about and one meets the older servants, the old maid-servants of the farms who grew up in the houses, who were taught the Bible there and who still speak about “Baas” and “Nooi”, one finds that amongst them the old Christian virtues were sown and that they sometimes possess these old Christian virtues in a higher degree than the Europeans themselves. That is an astonishing contribution made by the old system of us Afrikaners towards the civilisation of the natives, and we must see to it that capital does not destroy that work. I do not want to enter into the matter further; I only wanted to make these few remarks in connection with an African Charter. The idea appeals to me and is advanced and visionary, but I doubt whether it is possible to give effect to it in view of all the differences still reigning in the great world. I see more chance for the lesser attempt.

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has quite rightly said that the importation of African labour, of native labour into the Union is undesirable. We all agree. But the hon. member must bear in mind that it has been a historical necessity here. The introduction of labour from outside into the Union arose very largely in connection with the mines at the time when our natives were not equal to the task and did not come to the mines. Unfortunately the same trouble arose in Natal over the Indians. We sometimes blame our Natal friends, our Natal forefathers, if I may call them so, for the mistake they made, but do not forget the difficulty in which they were placed. They were placed in the same difficulty as our mines were placed in the Transvaal and in the Cape. We had these great opportunities for development, we had these great resources, and we had no labour, no white labour, no labour at all; our labour was quite unsuitable and unwilling, and it was under these conditions that our forefathers were reduced to the expedient of importing labour. We are suffering for it in Natal today. We are sitting with a very grave problem. We have stopped the importation, but we are saddled with the consequences; and we hope that even with the mines the time will come when it will be no longer necessary to import African labour. We must look forward to that period and build up towards it. But today the problem is not so much importation. Today the problem is the endless stream of native labour, not imported, which willingly comes into the country, which forces its way into the country. Nothing can stop them. One hon. member was speaking this morning of the immigration from the North. He said they did not come by Beit Bridge, they crossed thousands of miles of wild country and over rivers. There is nothing to stop them. We have no means of stopping them. You will have to police your borders in all directions to keep back this vast stream coming into the country.

If you do not stop them, they will overwhelm us, they are coming in by the thousands.

I think that things will not continue like that, but as long as conditions, economic conditions, wages and other conditions, are far better in South Africa, are far more attractive in South Africa than in the neighbouring states this stream will be irresistible.

It is going to be like that for many years.

It is a very difficult question. Hon. members will remember some years ago we did our best to stop this immigration through Rhodesia, and it was hopeless.

What is required is a system of registration of all natives.

Even so, you may register them, but no registration system fills the bill. I do not think we will be able to solve the problem in that direction.

*Let me continue to enumerate the difficulties we today have in connection with the labour question. There is no doubt about it that in the Transvaal and the Free State, and to a large extent in Natal, there today exists a surprising labour problem for the agricultural population which to a large extent is alleviated in this manner, and if one were to dam the stream of natives entering, there will immediately be opposition from the farming population. I do not mention this because I defend it. I am not defending what is happening. I think it is wrong, but without doubt we are today in a transition period in which we have to deal with great problems which are almost unsolvable.

What about the thousands in the Cape who have no work?

That is the same problem viewed from another point of view. Just as they stream in from the north to the Transvaal because they are enticed by higher wages, so they stream into the Cape Peninsula or Johannesburg or Port Elizabeth because higher wages are paid there.

Those who have no work.

Steps are being taken. I do not want to discuss the native problem now. It has already been dealt with. A bureau is now being instituted in Cape Town, a depot to canalise the stream arriving in the Peninsula and to remove those who cannot find work.

✓

Cannot the stream from Rhodesia also be canalised?

Where? One cannot canalise it on a border of 1,000 miles.

Those who are not registered cannot work here?

We have a system of registration on the Statute Book since 1926, for twenty years already, and the hon. member knows that when it comes to the application of the provisions of the law, it is almost impossible to apply it.

The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has asked the question (I do not know whether it was in this House or by private letter) whether this change we are making here in the Peninsula, at Langa, does not mean introduction of a compound system for natives in the Peninsula.

I was asking in regard to natives in compounds on farms in the Eastern Transvaal.

I did not know in what form it had been raised. I may say at once I think a compound system of that character is entirely against the interests not only of the natives but of the employers, of the white people themselves, and the Government will do nothing—my hon. friend can take that from me—the Government will do nothing to foster or to help such a compound system, whether on the farms or in the Cape Peninsula. I hope we shall never make the mistake of laying the foundations of a system which is bound to have destructive social effects here in the long run. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Davis) has asked me about this question of minorities, whether steps will be taken at San Francisco which will prevent the minority question assuming such dimensions as it has in our generation. Well, I am sure there will be some provision of some sort in the charter which will emerge on this minority question. It is a very difficult question indeed. I know we wrestled with this question at Paris during the last peace conference. There we found the question very difficult indeed, and when we had found an apparent solution it was no solution at all.

It will be more difficult still with millions of Poles the wrong side of the Curzon line.

I will come back to that. The question is one which is most difficuilt. As long as you have small minorities differing in views, in outlook, in culture, from the people surrounding them, you are bound to have these difficulties, and in our day in Europe the minority question has become more difficult, more disastrous almost than it has been ever before. The tendency is now towards another solution, namely, taking these people back, exchanging populations. It is the method which has already been tried under the Hitler regime on a fairly large scale in Central Europe. People are moved from one country to another; people are moved to their own people, even from territory they have occupied over a long period of years. An attempt has been made, and I am afraid will continuo to be made after this peace, by the exchange of populations to try and strike at the roots of this minority question and get rid of it. Whether that will be a solution, who can say? Apparently it seems a good solution, just as the minority treaties we made last time seemed to be a good solution.

Can you move 4,000,000 Poles east of the Curzon line?

Do not ask me that. It is a question whether they are Poles. The hon. member knows there has been a great deal of jerrymandering with the nationality of people when they were busy with these territorial questions. It is a very difficult question, and what the solution will be no one can say. Take the most striking minority question today anywhere, it is the Jewish question. I look upon the Jewish question as the most serious aspect of the minority question in the world, and it is one of the reasons why I am what I may call a Palestinian all these days. I should like to see the Jewish people have their own national home to which those of their people who are unwelcome in other countries may go. It seems to be a natural solution. Here is the old historic home of the Jewish people. Why should not they have it back and have a country to which they could go?

They are not wanted here.

In many parts of the world they are unwelcome. They are not unwelcome here. They are not unwelcome with people who have a large human outlook and who are prepared to give and take. But with many peoples who are perfectly intolerant and inhuman the Jewish question has become an urgent question. It has become an agony to both sides, and therefore for long years I have been a strong advocate of the national home in order that some form of solution may be found for this most terrible of all minority questions. What will become of it? Who knows? We are pledged to certain things; whether they will be carried out time alone will show.

You are speaking for the British Government about that.

I am not speaking for the British Government.

They are the people preventing it now.

Oh no, the British Government is in a very difficult position. They are sweating blood over this question. Mr. Chairman, my friend the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hopf) has asked whether the question of fundamental human rights is going to be raised in this new charter, and he refers to a resolution which has been taken and circulated by some Protestant body, asking for the incorporation of fundamental human rights in this document. I am sorry that the question should be approached from that point of view, because it is not a Protestant question. It is a question of human civilisation, and there is a great deal to be said for the affirmation of fundamental rights. I myself should like to have a declaration of faith, of our human faith, of the fundamentals in which we believe. There are certain things which are our ten commandments, there are certain things which are basic to our whole western outlook, and I should like to see them solemnly affirmed, even though they are not always kept in the observance but are kept at times in the breach. But do not let it be ignored; let them be affirmed there as a confession of our human faith. Whether that will be done at San Francisco I do not know. But I think there is much to be said for affirming our faith. Hitler has affirmed his faith. All these new ideologies give us their platforms, the things for which they stand. Why should not we, who stand for western civilisation, who stand for the things we think basic for human nature, why should not we declare them?

Is it not better to practise them?

No doubt, but even if some of these things are not carried out completely in practice, it is right to affirm them and to know that when you fail you are falling below your own standard.

Is that not lip service?

All ideals can be viewed from that point of view, but that does not prevent us from having ideals and cherishing ideals. We know we may not be able to carry out ideals. We know the principles we profess may prove sometimes beyond our accomplishment; but that is no argument for not having those ideals.

You can try to carry them out.

Yes, you can try, but you do not always succeed.

It is just lip service.

It is not lip service.

What about the Atlantic Charter?

The Atlantic Charter is all right. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need refer to many of the other points that have been raised. It has been an interesting discussion, raising a multiplicity of points. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) emphasised this question of a joint Empire defence scheme, a definite joint Empire defence scheme. There is no doubt that whether you take the Empire point of view, or whatever point of view you take, the best contribution you can make towards defence is to see, in the first place, after your own defence; and I hope that South Africa will do that. It is perhaps the best contribution we can make to defence all round, defence by land, by sea and by air, and I hope whatever may emerge from San Francisco, whatever world order should be established, whatever means for security in future may be found, that we shall never make the mistake of not looking after our own defence and not having our little air force, not having our army, and not having our little navy as a nucleus for expansion, in case this provision may turn out to be a failure, and we may find ourselves in the same terrible position in which we found ourselves in 1939. Charity begins at home, and this is our home, and this is the home of our defence scheme. I should like to see this country not lulled into a false sense of security, but on a moderate and reasonable scale looking after its own defences and its own protection in years to come.

For the second time today I listened with great interest to the Prime Minister, and as I listened, the Bible phrase entered my mind “almost persuaded to be a Christian”. If the Prime Minister continues in the same strain a little longer he will become a Nationalist. I would welcome that with a glad heart. The point of view adopted by the Prime Minister today as regards the colour problem in South Africa—he just has to go a little further to adopt our standpoint fully. I can only welcome that he eventually, after many years, comes back to the point of view he adopted at one time, that there should be a division between black and white. In his old age now, after years of propaganda from this side, he is again adopting the healthy point of view that there should be segregation.

That was my standpoint through the years.

You will remember that segregation was the war cry of this side of the House for years, and it was in regard to that standpoint that we had to endure bitter insults from the other side. But I say that from the depth of my heart I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister adopts that point of view, because if he adopts that point of view I have not the least doubt that before many days have passed numerous members opposite will also adopt that point of view, and when that day dawns we shall go to meet the future of European civilisation in South Africa with more equanimity. There is just one other point on which I want to react, and that is the standpoint of the Prime Minister. I want to compare that with the standpoint of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) and with that of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). The Prime Minister agrees with us that this unrestricted stream of natives from the north over our boundaries is wrong.

Who said it was right?

Oh! Well, there is another convert. I am also thankful for that. I say I am glad to hear that at length the Prime Minister supports our point of view, namely that it is dangerous and wrong to allow this unrestricted influx of natives from the north into our country. I want to put it to the counry this way, that if it were to continue during the years which lie before us, that from the north where millions and millions of natives live, unlimited thousands of natives rush to South Africa as a result of the financial attraction which South Africa has for them, then I say the white race in South Africa is doomed to extinction. Therefore, something shall have to be done notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister says that we are powerless. I say something must be done. The Prime Minister touched on the difficulties in connection herewith, and it is a fact that especially the farmers on the farms have a very great shortage of farm labour and that many farmers for that reason therefore shut their eyes and are thankful that by means of this channel he still sometimes obtains labour. It is a problem, but we cannot just because of that, follow a laissez-faire policy, because this shortage of labour on the farms should not be there. We have millions of natives in South Africa lying idle and doing nothing. It is very easy to arrange things so that those natives will work. They stream into Cape Town from the reserves; in other words, they have no work, and if you simply close the entrances of Cape Town and Johannesburg to them so that they are not allowed to come here unless there is work for them, they will be forced to work by the ordinary economic laws of life. But if you are going to erect receiving depôts for them in Cape Town and elsewhere, if you are going to entice them to come here in thousands, and if you give them food here, do you for one moment think they will work where they are?

Should one not gather them together in order to send them away?

No, it is unnecessary first to collect them in order to send them away. One should see that they do not arrive here. That is what one should do. See to it that they do not arrive here and discard the idea of instituting receiving bureaux; the labour bureaux should be in the reserves and not here. Then we should see to it that we get rid of the superfluous natives in the cities, and if we, as regards our factories, institute the idea of a quota— certain work being reserved for the white man and certain work for the native—and if we extend it so that every industry should have a relationship between the number of natives employed by them and the number of European employees, and if one applies the pass laws so that no native may travel here unless he has work here, there will be a return to the reserves and then one will have labour on the farm, and the hon. member for Potchefstroom and I will not sit with our hands in our hair and worry about the question of how to obtain farm labour in order to cultivate our farms. Let the Government adopt the right methods. Let them do this. I should like the whole country to devote attention to this and I especially want the Prime Minister to devote attention to it. We have an immigration law. We have a law by means of which we prohibit Europeans whom we regard as undesirable immigrants coming to South Africa. While we are excluding Europeans from the country by means of our immigration laws the Prime Minister says that we are powerless against the influx of natives in thousands. What a state of affairs to tell the world: “I cannot guard my borders; natives can stream to South Africa as they like and in such large numbers as they like; I am powerless.”

That is an admission of impotence.

That is the greatest admission of impotence I have ever listened to, and I ask you, if it is our point of view that we are not able to protect our borders against undesirable immigrants— and natives at that—what will become of white South Africa if the Prime Minister says that he is not prepared to lift a finger in order to obviate what he himself confesses to be a danger and what he himself confesses to be wrong. While in many respects we welcome the new point of view adopted by the Prime Minister, we want to tell him this: In Heaven’s name do not hoist the white flag in that way and say that we are powerless. We can protect our borders. I say that in the interests of the European civilisation in South Africa the time has dawned that we should protect those borders and that we should make full use of the labour we have in South Africa, European and non-European.

I just want to put a few questions to the hon. member who has just sat down. I will not detain the House long. In the first instance I want to ask the hon. member whether he will return to his district and say that he is in favour of the influx of natives from the north being stopped immediately. I almost want to challenge him to say that before a meeting of farmers in Nylstroom. We all realise the danger, but there is not one farmer in the House representing a farming constituency who will support that policy under the present circumstances of shortage of farm labour. I also want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact—it is not necessary because he also represents a border district like me—that it is absolutely impracticable to guard that border. I want to ask the hon. member whether it is humanly possible to guard that border. One would have to post a police official every five yards. The question is whether the country can afford it and whether it is worth the trouble. I would just like the hon. member to reply to these few questions.

One has listened to this debate with a lot of interest because what is going to happen as a result of the conference to which our Prime Minister is going will be of paramount interest to us who live in South Africa. I have heard on the one hand rather too fulsome praise of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and on the other hand I have heard rather too whole-hearted deprecation of the same gentleman, but I am quite sure that he is sufficiently balanced not to be disturbed by either fulsome praise or wholehearted deprecation; and I think he feels that the weight behind him as our delegate to that conference could only be fulfilled and could only make him the power he ought to be, if that weight was put in by the whole of the population of South Africa. That, unfortunately, is not the case. He must be aware that whatever the issue of that conference, we in South Africa will have to abide it, because we in South Africa cannot hope as an entity to do much in the way of shaping trends at that conference. I do not want to claim as an ordinary member in the House that I can weigh in the balance the intentions of mankind and that I can in any way apportion their fates. But I do say as we look at the picture here, there is such a contradiction of thought and intent as to make me rather wonder how on earth members could have stood up in this House and ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness to do what they have asked him to do. Our friends of the Opposition in all that they say obviously see only two portents. In the first place they see Communism, and they say that unless we do something about it, Communism is destined to rule the world. The other portent is the happy day to which they look forward when they will be in power. I want to say that I have no such fear of Communism as my hon. friends the Opposition have.

Are you a communist?

I take no delight in the prospect of the Opposition performing the functions of Government. But I am perturbed in the light of the march of events that the reason, if any exists, why they think they may one day become a Governent is the fact that in the ranks of the people to whom they are opposed there is not that unity that would betoken the kind of adherence to power, and grip on power that the present Government ought to have, and if the Nationalist Party one day rules this country in the near future, the blame will rest within the seats opposite me in this House. It will not rest upon the disloyalty of the Labour or of the Dominion Party. It will rest there, and I want South Africa to be alive to that fact. I want South Africa to realise that no mère disgruntled attitude of mind which will help to bring about that particular consummation, will do anything to help South Africa, nor can it help to solve the chaos with which the world as a whole is confronted. It is well known that the Prime Minister’s private hopes, and my own private hopes are not similar. We do not have the same thoughts about political issues, and I think you will agree with me, that he, equally with myself, cannot do very much to influence the trend of events abroad. I want to say that I pin my faith most of all on the country that was not represented in the peace conference that was held after the last war, that country being Russia. Russia will bring to that conference all the inspiration, all the power that resides in an experiment desperately initiated and wonderfully carried out. They, if anybody, bring to the world the hope that the rights of the common man will be respected in that peace conference, and will in its eventuation find some hope, and I also want to place on record, having said that, that I quite agree that our delegation is wholly satisfactory from South Africa’s point of view. I do not represent South Africa; the United Party do not represent South Africa; the Nationalist Party do not represent South Africa, but in the total issue I feel that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister does. I say that because I feel it is true, and because no other person could go from South Africa in these circumstances to represent us at such a conference. I wish him God speed and I hope that from that conference the kind of thing will emanate that it gives me cheer to think of; I hope that he will be able to make his voice heard because it is proper that that should happen. But we need not hope, any of us, that on the one side he will be discredited and not listened to or on the other side, that he will be heard with that awful respect that will make him the arbiter of the nations’ destinies. Let us keep our balance; let us keep our sanity of mind, and if we have ideals, let us not merely pay testimony to them; let us see to it that we put our ideals into practice, and let us get among ourselves some unity in some kind of final programme of progress and development in this country that will make it unnecessary for one to hope— because that would be the last hope—that out of the chaos might come forcefully the thing that we ought to bring about peacefully and intelligently.

I should just like to clear up a misunderstanding, but before I come to that I should like to say that I really listened to the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister in connection with the native policy with pleasurable surprise. I could not help thinking that it is again the philosopher talking here, because to a large extent the Prime Minister’s speech was a justification of the policy which this side of the House has always propagated. What I should like to explain is this: We are not in the least against capital being invested in Africa. On the contrary—I agree 100 per cent. with the Prime Minister—it is necessary that capital from Europe should be invested in South Africa. But what we warn against is that this capital should be used, that the powers they possess should be utilised to disintegrate the whole of the racial policy of South Africa, as has often happened in the past. If we study the history of capital investment in South Africa it is really not a pretty history. It is a history which is not to the credit of the European nations. We see that the racial problem was not approached by those powers from a Christian standpoint; that problem was not approached from the point of view of human values but from the point of view of exploitation, purely from a materialistic point of view, and in that we today recognise one of the great perils threatening not only South Africa, but the whole of Africa. Even in South Africa it is one of the great influences which upset the sound relationship between the races and caused chaos, and just because of the fact that those capitalistic powers have so much authority in the formulation of our racial policy. That is true of South Africa, but it is ten times truer of Africa, and it ought to show us how essential it is to take serious and efficient steps against it. I also recognise in it one of the most important reasons for the justification of what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said here about the necessity for a clear charter for Africa.

I will not keep the Committee more than two or three minutes. But so far as I know I have had no answer whatever to the question that I have raised in this Committee. My point has been that huge business corporations controlling millions upon millions of money have in the past exercised overdue influence in the making of wars. Now, Sir, I want to quote just one other instance and then ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister one question. I have referred to the way that private manufacturers of fighting aeroplanes and armaments of all descriptions not only have sold to foreign powers but have first sold to foreign powers and then squeezed their own Government to arm. That is not just a vague assertion by a private member of Parliament. That evidence was given by Mr. Noel Baker before the Royal Commission. He said—

Public money spent, I submit, in the last resort to destroy private citizens. The question I am going to ask the Prime Minister as regards the United Nations’ Relief and Rehabilitative Administration is, what is that? What is it for? I have had it described from England not by an intolerant or fanatical politician but by one of the steadiest intellects as a ramp. My information is vague, but such as it is, it is to this effect that for a start 10,000,000,000 dollars will be required to rehabilitate these nations. Of this amount less than a quarter is to be given for the vast amount of supplies received by those countries they are to pay, and they will have to pay the great nations who are making these arrangements. The administration, so I understand, is to have control of trade at least to this extent that they will be in cahrge of commercial shipping. Is this what we have heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister about ideals? People are talking about ideals everywhere. We had magnificent ideals put before us in the Atlantic Charter, and where is it now, already? I want to know what the practice is going to be and whether the idea is to set up again the old catch-as-catch-can and make-what-is-possible system that we had before, because in that way we lose the war. It is useless beating about the bush. Are we going to set up the same old ramshackle, cruel, impossible structure that brought us to war, or are we going to try something new? Today is the accepted time, whether great statesmen say it or not. A great thing that has happened during this war is the lease-lend agreement. We hear very little about that now. I submit with great humility to the Prime Minister that is a line of argument he could very well follow at San Francisco and at all other conferences. The Five Powers have to be unanimous. How can they be unanimous when they are competing one hundred per cent. the one with the other, when each is a great manufacturer and shopkeeper fighting che rest for profitable markets? How can they? With great deference I submit to the Prime Minister that the lease-lend agreement is the greatest thing, the safest thing that has come into existence during this war, and I hope that he will go to all the congresses with this in mind, that the old capitalist organisation has come to the end of its tether, and it becomes necessary now (for us to live together) to import a socialistic spirit. Sir, I hope you will go to that conference with a socialistic spirit. By that I mean the spirit that all the people born into the world, whatever their colour, whatever their race, whatever their creed, that everybody has a right to live and live fully and decently and in the end even beautifully, and that the masses of any country do not continue to be exploited as they have been exploited in the past by the few. We want to get rid of competition. We want to run the world by co-operation. That is what we want. Will the Prime Minister be so good as to clear up the Unrra item?

I wish to point out to my hon. friend that I have already twice replied at length to those questions and that criticism. The point that he raised has been raised several times on this side of the House and I replied. I thought it unnecessary to enter upon the question once more. The position is this: we know that on the European continent there is a situation today of human destitution, of suffering, such as has never existed on this earth of ours. Thirty-eight nations have come together at Bretton Woods, and they agreed that it was a situation in which the Christian world, the whole civilised world would have to come to the rescue and they made an agreement on a certain basis, to extend a helping hand to Europe, and I now find my hon. friend calling this a ramp. Thirty-eight nations dealing with a situation almost beyond human remedy, a situation of suffering, a situation of destitution, of hunger, of privation such as has never existed, thirty-eight nations agreed and now my hon. friend says this is a ramp, and he pins his faith to lease-lend which was, of course, a great thing, but it is something of the past. As far as we are concerned, lease-lend has served its purpose. We are not dealing now with machinery to wage war; we are dealing now with machinery to cope with the results of war. Unrra is meant to deal with that situation and not with lease-lend. I hope my hon. friend will think twice before he dissociates himself from the rest of us and votes on the assumption that it is a ramp.

First amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz. F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Serfontein J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—86:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside. D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Second amendment put and negatived.

Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs”, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, £45,375,000.

I would like to avail myself of the half-hour rule and desire first of all to ask the Hon. Minister of Defence a few questions in connection with the Defence Vote. The first is whether he will be so kind as to inform the House whether he can say at this stage how long thé training camps for British military forces will be retained here in South Africa; whether they are here for the duration of the war and will come to an end with the cessation of hostilities, or whether it is intended that they be retained after the war has come to a close. The esecond question is whether he is of intention to speed up demobilisation, particularly in the case of coloured soldiers, and in that way to relieve the labour problem on the platteland. The hon. Minister is perhaps aware that the position has deteriorated to such an extent that in some parts farmers are almost without farm labour. A few days ago I heard of a case somewhere in Swartland where a farmer and his wife had quite a number of farm-hands in the past, but today they are alone on the farm and are unable to obtain labourers to assist them. I think that example could be multiplied over and over. For that reason I want to ask him whether a plan cannot be devised by which the demobilisation of coloureds is speeded up. Another question closely linked up with this is whether he cannot release those coloureds in dispersal camps who refuse to accept a certain class of work; can he not devise a plan to force them to accept farm work. The third question is in connection with the prosecution of the war. We have reached the stage when we are justified in asking him his intention in connection with the continuation of the war, so that particularly the South African troops who have signed the Blue Oath will know what their position is. Suppose the war against Germany should come to an end. Does he intend taking all the South African troops who have signed the Blue Oath, or a portion of them—say certain engineers units—to participate in the war against Japan? I am asking this question because we have been approached by certain South African troops who would like to know what the position is, and whether they will have the opportunity, when the war with Germany has ended, of returning at least to their fatherland, or whether they will be expected to go to the East because they have signed the Blue Oath. If he contemplates that those people, or a large proportion of them, must go to the East after the war with Germany is terminated, then I ask him to be lenient, particularly towards those who have families in South Africa. Many of them have been away from their home for years. He should make a statement to set their minds at rest, so that whether they belong to the Engineers or not, they will be afforded the opportunity of returning to their families. That is the question I want to put to the Prime Minister in that connection. Then I would like to raise certain other matters, and the first is in regard to the supplies problem. It is generally accepted that a confused state of affairs exists in regard to" supplies belonging to the Defence Force, and that the Government has not the slightest idea as to the quantity of supplies in the possession of the Defence Department. Our request to the Minister is twofold: (1) That he should have a thorough indent made of all military supplies; and (2) that those supplies which are no longer required for war purposes, should now be made available to the public. It is asserted—and the Prime Minister will be able to say whether the assertion is correct or not—that abundant quantities of nearly everything, except possibly certain foodstuffs, which are scarce in South Africa, are held by the Defence Department. We have reached a stage in the war when one must accept that there are large quantities of material which are no longer required by the Defence Department in the prosecution of the war. I will make an estimate, and I ask the Prime Minister to say how far I am out in my calculations. We have military supplies in South Africa to the value of between £50 million and £100 million. We invite the Prime Minister to say how far we are out in our calculations. He cannot, we are told, and one can see that everywhere, that large quantities of material have accumulated at various places in the country. I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make a better calculation than the one I have made. I do not think he can, for it is generally accepted that the Government has no idea of the quantity of material there is—they do not know their possessions. There are various kinds of material which the people are in need of, and which the Defence Department possesses in abundance. And what is more, these large quantities of material being held by the Defence Department and which the public is in need of could easily be released because they are no longer required. There are motor cars, motor parts, batteries, wood, medicines, paint, galvanised iron, etc., to mention only a few kinds of material which haye accumulated in the Defence Department. The public complains that the Defence Department, at the commencement of the war, seized everything they could lay their hands on, including goods which they did not require, and which at this stage of the war they most certainly no longer require. For that reason I am putting this question to the Prime Minister, for the Defence Department is holding back large quantities of material which the public are in need of. I will quote an example. A short while ago someone approached a soldier and told him that his car was out of order, but that if he could obtain just one small part, it would go again; otherwise not. The soldier answered that he would be able to get it for him as the Defence Department has abundant supplies. The following day the soldier brought it to him. There we have the position: Cars cannot run owing to lack of spare parts, and the Department of Defence has unlimited quantities of these spares. We ask the Minister to have a thorough indent made of all the material there is, and to release it to the public. At the moment we have a board for the disposal of war supplies, but that board can only sell material which is either redundant or unserviceable. It can, however, not decide on its own what material is unserviceable or superfluous. The military authorities have to decide and only then can the War Supplies Disposal Board dispose of such material. Then there is another matter in this connection which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Defence. He should take South Africa into his confidence by telling us how he intends arranging the distribution of motor cars and motor spare parts in particular after the war. Will the same thing happen which took place after the last war on a considerable scale, namely that the public had to buy those goods from unscrupulous people who made exceptionally large profits on them? Large quantities of material are in the hands of the Defence Department, and are we going to have a repitition of what happened after the last war when the material got into the hands of people who made large profits, or has the Department of Defence adopted a policy which will prohibit the sale of motors, spare parts and other material to the public at excessive profits? I want to make an appeal to the Minister to prevent that in time. The people of South Africa have had to pay dearly for this war; generations to come will also have to pay dearly for it. Do not let the material which was bought at such cost with the money of the nation be used to play into the hands of people who will sell that material at huge profits to the public. There is great danger in this connection. Time does not allow me to go further into this matter. I want to come to another point. It is in connection with our Defence Force after the war. I am raising this matter here because the question has already been put on all sides as to how our Defence Force will be organised after the war. A large number of South Africans will return from the war who have gained military experience, and they can be used. What is our Defence Force going to be after the war? I would like to say to the Minister, and I hope he will agree with me, that after the war our Defence Force will have to be entirely reformed. It will have to undergo a drastic changé. We will not be able to keep a large permanent force. It would cost too much. We will have to hit upon some kind of compromise by which a Defence Force can be created in South Africa, not in the form of a permanent force, but a force which we will have available and which can be called upon when the occasion may arise. It seems to me that the future of our Defence Force lies in that direction. I want to make this personal suggestion to the Minister. What was actually the position in regard to a permanent force? It was an expensive force which had to be kept on in peace-time and which was used for no other purpose. It was just there waiting to be used in time of war or rebellion. We must get away from that. I would suggest that a happy medium would be the building up of a military force, which would not amount to a permanent force being idle, but which would be available if the necessity arose. In that respect it would be a permanent force but not in other respects. That is one way in which we can create a reserve to provide for the military needs of the country. The Minister knows that according to the Defence Act, the police force is our first line of defence in the country. I would humbly suggest that we should enlarge our police force with a view to reaching the goal I have in view. Let me say in passing that the lack of police in the country has become acute and chronic. We must strengthen our police force and at least double it. If the police force is strong, it is a means of preventing crime; if it is weak; crime increases. For that reason we must have a strong police force. The question I want to raise is whether the course which is set for the police force cannot also serve to train a picked force of soldiers. The police force course which newcomers have to undergo is on its own an excellent training for a soldier. At the moment the South African Police are trained in one way, the gaolers in another way, and the Railway Police in yet another way. But all are, in a sense, policemen. My first suggestion is that the three should be combined and that the South African Police, the Railway Police and the gaolers should all receive the same training. Then they would all have to take the same course. Take a young man who goes in for the course. In the first place he has to go through the police training. This takes from five to six months. He will undergo physical training, learn to use weapons, learn to box and wrestle, first-aid and criminal work. All these things, except criminal work, are excellent factors in the training of a professional soldier. After the young man has completed the five or six months police training, he can go to the Department of Defence and undergo military training for a year or more. He can then specialise in military service. We know that the police are well selected. These young men can then specialise in military training. The one can go in for the artillery, and the other for the air force, and so each one to his own liking. When they have completed their training, the six months’ course in the police and a year’s course in the Defence Force, they can go back to the police force. There they will then constitute a reserve which will be available to the South African Police, the Railway Police, the gaolers, and in addition— and this is the main point—a reserve force of picked soldiers on whom we can call in days of trouble. Our difficulty has been in the past years that we have kept a permanent force in peach time which could do no other work. If we have this force of picked soldiers, at the same time we will have a strong police force. If we have a young man who has completed these two courses, he will be available as an efficient police officer and a first-class soldier whom we can use at any time for military service. We will then have in the police force also soldiers from amongst whom we can choose our officers. It will dispense with the difficulty which we are experiencing at present. At the moment we are sending people to Roberts Heights and elsewhere for a month or two to be trained as officers. This difficulty can be solved, for the police force select their men very well and the officers can be trained from his force. What I have in mind is a sort of medium between a permanent force and a part-time force. It will cost very much less than a permanent force and will obviate the retention of a permanent force in peach time with nothing to do. Another problem which I will deal with shortly is this. It may be asked: But what of the boy and girl of 16 years of age and over? I regret that these young boys are taken away from their parents at such an early age and trained for military service. It was never our intention to teach young boys of 16 years of age to kill and to teach them to attack with a bayonet. Educationists of repute in South Africa and elsewhere are strongly opposed to making a half-baked soldier of a 16 year old boy. Those boys who are absorbed in the Youth Brigade today or who are enticed to join the Physical Training Brigade are for the most part poor boys, and the 1s. per day and free boarding entices them; their parents are poor and are glad that the boys can get a training somewhere. What happens then? When they are 18 years old, they may join the military forces. The poor parents are in most cases after these two years not in a position to refuse. The father may never have intended that the boy should go into the army, but by degrees the boys are enticed away from their parental homes, and once there, they join the army. I want to ask the hon. Minister rather to abandon this method of affording the boys a military training and of teaching them the use of weapons of destruction at that age. There are physical training clubs for which we vote £50,000 each year under the Department of Education. One wonders whether we should not rather make provision under this vote so that our young boys and girls in every village and town can join these clubs, instead of joining the brigade. Every village or town which establishes such a club, obtains a subsidy from the Department of Education, and old and young are admitted. Then at an age of 16 years the boy would not be enticed away from his family to play at soldiers. It makes one heartsore when you go to Pretoria and see how in some cases the youngsters get out of hand. Generally speaking this is not the case. There are certainly many exceptions. But there are cases where the young boys who have been trained as soldiers so young try to imitate what the older soldiers do. Reliable people have told me that the boys cannot obtain liquor at this age, but that it is sad to see the condition in which they sometimes appear in the streets. I believe that they are exceptions, but I want to ask the hon. Minister if he thinks it is right to entice boys away from their parental homes at that age and make soldiers of them so young. I think it would be a sound system to educate them by way of the existing physical training clubs. Another question I want to raise is in connection with the Hon. the Prime Minister’s personal aeroplane. The aeroplane which he bought, or which was purchased for him, appears on the war expenditure account. I would like to ask him whether he can tell us on whose advice the aeroplane was purchased for him at state expense. Who advised him, if we may know, to buy an Avro-York? Everybody knows that the Avro-York is an aeroplane which the British Government itself still regards as an experiment. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister risks his life in such a plane. The Avro-York is still generally regarded as an experiment. The British Air Force itself and the British air services, regard it as an experiment which they hope to improve on after the war. The Hon. Minister knows that during the whole course of the war Britain has been unable to devote much attention to civil aviation and the building of planes. She has had to concentrate on making tanks. But America, particularly owing to the fact that she kept out of the war so long has devoted all her attention to the manufacturing of aeroplanes also for civic purposes. What is the position now? We remember how in the days before the war they struggled along with old worn-out British machines belonging to the Imperial Airways. Why? Because South Africa had created a monopoly for British air services and it was difficult for us to go elsewhere. They made full use of the monopoly and the hon. Minister will remember how we plodded along with the old Hercules planes and the Hanniballs, and the effort it cost them to reach their destination travelling at 100 miles per hour, while in other parts of the world aeroplanes were already much further developed. I want to ask the hon. Minister why he purchased this aeroplane. It is South Africa’s money and a machine like that costs thousands of pounds. Must we spend all this just on an experiment? Why do we not buy in the world market? Before the war we purchased in the world market and for that reason we had an efficient air service which the hon. Minister also made use of. They were aeroplanes with American engines which were regarded then as the best in the world. It is a dangerous experiment for the hon. Minister.

Are you worried about it?

I am also worried about South Africa’s money, for it is money thrown down the drain, so to speak. America has developed much further in the sphere of aviation and if an aeroplane had to be purchased, why did he not buy a safe machine which would have cost approximately the same amount? I do not know why we act in such feverish haste. The Americans have manufactured aeroplanes which can beat the Avro-York at any time. I need mention only the Douglas, the Liberator, the Liberator Skymaster. America acted very shrewdly in waiting until the Air Conference took place here in Cape Town to come and show the Prime Minister what an aeroplane should look like. While the conference was in progress and the hon. Minister of Defence was busy buying Avro-Yorks, the Americans suddenly paid us a visit yesterday with a Skymaster. Nobody knows what they have come here for, but the visit coincides surprisingly with the conference. They are apparently showing the delegates what an aeroplane should look like. There is no comparison. America devoted all her energies to the development of transport planes and cargo planes even before the war, and particularly during the war, and today they are acknowledged to be the best in the world. And now South Africa for an unknown reason purchases an Avro-York which the British themselves admit is still an experiment. Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, when the war is over, they intend improving on the Avro-York, and then we will be landed with a machine which has cost thousands and thousands of pounds, and we may probably have to break it up as scrap. It is unfortunate that our Prime Minister should adopt the attitude that whatever is British is good for South Africa, but anything that comes from other countries is no good. Britain itself does not share that view. Before the war England used German aeroplanes for the night run to Berlin, its most hazarduous service from London to Berlin, because German aeroplanes were at that time considered to be the best. I do not know what the position is today, but before the war England did not use its own planes for the dangerous night journey between Berlin and London, neither did they use American planes, but the best which were obtainable in the world market. Why must we spend £70,000 or £80,000 today on an Avro-York aeroplane which is still an experiment?. If the Prime Minister requires a plane, let us buy the best that is obtainable in the world, be it French, German. British or American. Let us buy the best for our money. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to reply to some of the extraordinary statements made by the hon. member who has just sat down.

Yon cannot reply to them.

It would be easy to deal with them. In the first place he criticised the purchcase of an Avro-York aircraft. We can, however, assume that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister would not buy a plane of that kind except on the advice of the best advisers available.

No, they are perturbed.—

I think the country will accept that statement from me rather than the hon. member’s statement.

Since when have you become such an authority?

I should like to refer to the hon. member’s remarks about the Youth Training Brigade. I think it was one of the finest things that was ever started in South Africa. It has given many of our youths the opportunity of a good education and training, and has developed them physically and mentally to a degree that could never have been done had they not joined the service. I am convinced they are the better men for having served, and that they will become good citizens of South Africa. I hope that training will be continued after the war. The hon. member made the point that a boy was too young at 16 to join the army. Well, I was in the war at 16 and I do not think it did me any harm. Nor do I think that any of these boys will suffer for having joined at that age. I really rose to ask the Prime Minister whether it will be possible to give the country some indication of what our future defence policy is likely to be. I realise whatever policy we adopt will largely be bound up with the conferences that are taking place, but there are numbers of men in our army, our navy and our air force who are anxious to make a career in the army, the navy, and in the air service, and they would like to know what the prospects are of their securing appointments in the future. If it is possible for a statement to be made enlightening them on the point they will welcome it. One thing is certain, we shall never go back to the bush-cart policy of Mr. Pirow. We have learned our lesson, and I do not think the country will jib at having to pay more for defence in future if it knows that our security will be safeguarded. I do hope that the achievements of our men in the field, in the air and on the seas, will be taken into account when it comes to the forming of the new establishments. I think personally that the South African Defence Force of the future will be largely an air force, more representative perhaps of the air force than any other arm. Secondly, I should like to see a strong naval force. We have already the foundations for this force. We have turned out excellent men who have shown they are as good as any in any part of the world. Many of them are keen to continue to render valuable service in South Africa. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether it is possible to make some statement on the lines I have indicated.

I rise this afternoon to direct an urgent appeal to the Minister of Defence. I want to speak on behalf of ten or twelve families at Midway near Bloemfontein. In 1943 I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister and last year I was not here, but this year I should again like to bring it to his attention. I asked the Minister the question whether he had had the matter investigated, and whether it was possible to give relief to these people in the misery in which they find themselves. The hon. Minister replied: “Yes”, but because no further complaints were received from the inhabitants of Midway no further steps were taken by the Department. To the reply the following was added: “In any case it is not practical to remove the native quarters as suggested by the inhabitants.” I must say that I am deeply disappointed in this reply by the Minister of Defence. The Minister says that no further representations were made by those people. What is the position? I want to ask the Minister what more those people could do than they did in order to be relieved of the misery in which they find themselves. Before a sod was turned, when it became known that just on the opposite side, separated only by the width of a road, a great air station would be built where 400 natives would be housed, those people went to interview the municipality of Bloemfontein. The municipality said that they could do nothing, that it rests with the Department of Defence. They had an interview with the Defence authorities in Bloemfontein and they had lengthy correspondence with the Defence authorities about the matter. They appealed to the Department of Defence in Pretoria. Eventually they came to me in their need. A petition was drawn up and sent to the Minister of Defence. They did everything in their power to prevent a native location, the native quarters, being placed there just opposite their houses. All that was ignored. No notice was taken of their representations. The camp was erected and it is there today just opposite the dwellings of these Europeans. I asked in this House whether there was any other case where Europeans disapprove of an air station being erected opposite their houses, and the reply was: “Yes.” What do we find, but that it was in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. In that case it was also intended to build an air field right opposite the dwellings of Europeans. Representations were made to the Department of Defence by those persons and the station was not erected. In that case the natives were not placed at the front door of the Europeans, but in this case these ten or twelve families now pray that the camp be taken away. To their prayers no heed has been given until now. The condition of these people is extremely critical and miserable. One could just as well place Europeans in a location. I personally investigated the position and those 400 natives are housed just opposite the Europeans, separated only by the width of a road. I was there and the greatest row went on and one could hear the dirtiest language there. There are children in the houses and at certain times of the day, when these natives have nothing to do and play a little football there or something of that nature, one hears that language. Who are those people who find themselves in that position? They are poor people who before the war bought ground there with their hard-earned pennies which they had saved. They lived there until the Department of Defence came and placed native quarters right in front of their doors. I enquired whether the natives there receive beer, and the reply was: “Yes, under the War Measures beer is issued to them twice a week.” What did I find? On certain days, especially on Thursdays, beer is issued to these natives so that they become half-intoxicated. One finds the greatest noise being made and that native women from the location come and stand in a long row alongside the wire and exchange their butter and meat for beer. It is a miserable situation in which these European families find themselves, and all appeals made by us to the Department of Defence to put an end to the matter are treated with contempt. I want to ask the Minister for a moment to put himself into the position of those people. They are powerless. It is the elementary right of any person that when he builds the house where his family lives be should be able to live there in peace and amity. But here the Department comes and erects a native location right in front of their doors. I cannot understand that the Minister and the Department of Defence cannot see what grave injustice has been committeed against these European Afrikaners. Again I want to protest with all my power against this course of action, against this barbarous treatment of a handful of people who are powerless. They threatened the Department with a court case, but their legal adviser said that although they have a good case they must not enter into a quarrel with a department which has the whole of the State behind it. How can this handful of people go to court? They have not the funds. They are not able to do it. Some of them sold their houses at the price it cost to build them, and went away. They did that notwithstanding the fact that houses are today perhaps twice as expensive as they were before the war. They had to sell at a loss in order that the could leave. I appeal to the sense of justice and the sense of reasonableness of this House and of the Minister. Until now our appeals to the Department and to the Government were in vain. I want to ask the Minister why he discriminates in this way. If he adopts the point of view that if he wants to erect an air station and house natives there then he does so, he should also have done so in the case of the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture. Effect was given to the representations of the Minister of Agriculture but not to the representations of these people. Why is there this discrimination? The hon. the Minister further stated in his reply that the native staff at this air station would probably be appreciably reduced in the near future. But now there is another danger which further threatens them. It is said that the air station will remain there in future and that a number of natives will always be retained. Do you know that the sanitary system of the natives there is such that I challenge any member of the Department to go there on certain afternoons and to stand the smell. That is the condition which reigns there and appeals to the Minister are of no avail. If the Minister wants to continue with that scandalous state of affairs let him then buy out these people, but relieve them of the conditions in which they are. The Minister further stated: “It is impracticable to remove the native quarters.” I can understand that when a camp has been erected and everything has been completed and people then come to the Minister or the Department and ask that the camp should be shifted, it will be difficult and will cause great expense. [Time limit.]

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule? The hon. member for Moorreesburg put quite a number of questions to the Minister of Defence. He asked, inter alia, what was going to become of war supplies. We are concerned about the position. This war, rightly or wrongly, is costing the country millions of pounds. We are shouldering the burden of it, and those who come after us will also bear the brunt. The hon. member endeavoured to calculate the quantity of war supplies in the country, and I think he made a fairly accurate calculation. We will he glad if the Minister can tell us whether he was approximately correct or whether he was quite out in his estimate. But let us suppose there are war supplies to the value of £50,000,000 and these articles have to be disposed of. We have already heard rumours to the effect that plans are being devised to dispose of these supplies. We want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to organise the distribution of supplies in such a manner that farming requirements, for instance, can be distributed by the co-operative societies in the counutry, and that preference be given to them as regards the distribution of these articles. We are aware that there is a vast quantity of tractors and fencing material and so forth. We hope that the Minister will do everything in his power to ensure that certain individuals in the country do not once again make huge profits as a result of the sale of these goods. They must not be allowed to purchase the articles from the department and then sell them at exorbitant prices to the public. We trust that the War Supplies Board will take this matter into consideration. We would suggest the fixation of maximum prices, i.e. fixing the margin of profit which can be made on the goods, or still better, giving preference to co-operative societies. Otherwise the result will be that the articles will again fall into the hands of certain individuals who will again sell them at enormous profit, while the State will be the loser. Money is still being expended in many unnecessary ways. Take, for example, the Home Guard. I want to ask the Minister whether he intends retaining the services of the Home Guard any longer. From all sides it is being said that the war has been won, and anybody with a little common sense can see that it is coming to an end. And still they are incurring unnecessary expenditure. What are they doing? There was a time when the old timers stood at bridges keeping guard with a gun over their shoulders, and then one might still have said that they were doing something useful, but that time has past and it is no longer necessary. The Prime Minister was perhaps afraid that there was danger of trouble from our side, but he has had the assurance from us more than once that we are concerned about his safety. Therefore the Prime Minister has no reason to be affraid that something may go wrong. We are concerned as to his welfare. It does not worry us to know that he has gone and bought an aeroplane in America which is as big as Table Mountain. I do not know what the public outside thinks about it; they are going through difficult times, while huge amounts of money—colossal amounts— are still being wasted in connection with the war. I would like the Minister to tell me why he is keeping a large number of native soldiers here in Cape Town. Everywhere on the platteland, where-ever you go, you find the type who roam about and who are more of a hindrance and a nuisance than anything else. It has been said here that farm labour is scarce and that farming is suffering as a result. That is definitely the case. On the other side and on this side it has been said that the shortage of labour is so great that the farmers are afraid that they will not be able to carry on properly with their farming operations. Nevertheless we find that these natives in uniform walk about here with nothing to do. Every day I ride past a certain depot, and see them sitting in the shade idling their time away. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me what they do, and why they are being retained. The other day the Minister made an admission, and I would like to discuss the question here and ask him whether he does not think that the time has arrived to re-arm the civilian population. I want to repeat that the Minister has no cause to be afraid. He has had the assurance from the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that we feel concerned and worried over his well-being. He knows the Boer Nation; he knows that the Boer is faithful to his gun and his horse. I just want to say here this afternoon that matters have developed to such an extent as a result of this strange doctrine which has been propagated in South Africa, and which has gone through the land like a veld fire; that some of our people have become anxious about their safety. I was glad to hear from the Prime Minister the other day that something must be done to put an end to this dangerous agitation. As a result of this agitation there are some citizens in the country whose lives are endangered. They have no weapons with which to defend themselves. There must be thousands and millions of guns accumulated in the Defence Department. The articles are lying there and being ruined. Why does the Government not release those articles so that the farmers can buy guns? I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether it is not possible for him to do something of that nature. Then my hon. friend asked the Prime Minister what his intentions were in connection with the defence of South Africa after the war. I want to repeat that the Prime Minister gave us the assurance that the coloureds and natives would not be armed. We learned later that they were armed and were being used in the army. They received military training as gunners and so forth. To us this is a dangerous policy, and as a result of this strange doctrine which is being propagated among the natives and the coloureds, I fear that trouble may arise, and that is why I maintain that after the war we should arm to the teeth. We must be in a position to hold our own, despite the fact that we are a small nation. We must be able to hold our own against anyone who plucks up the courage to violate South African soil. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me whether he again intends establishing an organisation of rifle societies, and what forces there will be in the country and what his plans are as regards the future. It is only right that we should realise that it is going to cost money, but we must do something to safeguard South Africa. Accordingly, I am in favour of our having a stronger air force in South Africa, and if we are to have an air force, then we must buy the best aeroplanes obtainable in the world. I told a high ranking officer, with whom I was having a discussion, that the country with the strongest air force would strike the decisive blow, and I think I was right. I want to repeat that we do not want the Prime Minister to buy aeroplanes which are inferior or second-hand. If we have to buy aeroplanes, then let us buy the best obtainable in the world. It will not help to use second-hand or inferior machines for our air force. We want safe aeroplanes, and for that reason we must buy the best. I want to ask the Prime Minister once again to give his attention to the matters I have raised here, and to give us correct data at this stage as to what his plans for the future are. As my hon. friend said, there are skilled men in the army who we can use for the protection of South Africa and of our children. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not possible to discharge those men who are still in the Union and who have signed the red oath. There are many parents who would like to have their sons back on the farms because they need them there. There are also men who were in the business world and business men would like to regain their services. They constitute manpower which is essential and we hope and trust that the Prime Minister will do something in this connection. We want to ask him again to consider the question of the proposed disposal of war supplies and to give us every chance and opportunity of assisting him in this distribution so that it will take place effectively.

I would like to raise briefly with the Hon. the Prime Minister an important matter in connection with the technical trainees in the army, particularly in relation to their employment after the war, and the arrangements that the Defence Department might now be making for their orderly demobilisation into civil employment. Thousands of these men have been trained. I happen to be one of those who had a fair amount to do with the scheme, known as the Cott Scheme, which was brought into being a few years ago. I remember encouraging, in the name of the Government, the utmost effort on the part of these young men to ensure their best progress, encouraging them by giving them the assurance that the best possible would be done for them in terms of their training when they were demobilised. Now many of these young men in the army have reached a high standard of efficiency. Many of them have attained a higher standard of efficiency than the average technician in civil life. They can be valuable assets to the country. As in war, so in peace and after demobilisation, we should do all we can to make the best use of their acquired skills. They are, therefore, rightly concerned, and their parents are concerned, as to their prospects. I hope that the Prime Minister will feel urged to give, during this debate, the assurance that the men’s prospects will be provided for. It has been said that the trade unions are likely to stand in the way of the employment of these men at standard rates. I do not think the trade unions will do so, if the Government is prepared to give the assurance that both the trade unions (i.e. the union employees) and the technical trainees themselves will be guaranteed employment after the war. I feel that the Government should give that assurance. It is not unreasonable to ask for that, to ask for guaranteed employment on the basis of a 46 hour week. Such an assurance by the Prime Minister would remove, I am sure, the main objections by the trade unions to the absorption of these men into the different trades. The matter is of very considerable urgency. Not only may we have large numbers of these young men on our hands very soon; but the employers are inclined to take action. I understand that industrialists are already considering the possibility of withdrawing from the employers’ associations and in that way will be able to keep “open shop”, by which method they will be able to absorb the trainees without consulting the trade unions. That, I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, will be an unfortunate thing; and it calls for a declaration by the Government in regard to its policy and responsibilities towards these trainees after the war. There is a fear amongst the workers and amongst many employers also that when the emergency plants we have set up during the war have closed down and war work ceases, there will be unemployment in the engineering and metal trades. If that fear develops because of slow action on the part of the Government, the attitude of the trade unions to the acceptance of the trainees is likely to harden. It is time, I think, that a definite undertaking should be given that the demand for artisans will not diminish, so far as the Government can ensure it, after the war. The trade unions are definitely willing to co-operate, but they cannot be expected to do so until they know what the Government’s policy will be. The Government should take the opportunity under this vote, of giving the country its policy. There is some doubt in the minds of the technical trainees and their parents, I will not say regarding the ability of the Government, but as to the willingness of the Government to ensure work for these men after the war. I have received during the past week letters from parents expressing their serious concern about our hesitancy in this matter. I trust that the Prime Minister will, this afternoon, declare the intentions of the Defence Department and of the Government regarding these men, and be prepared to give, as far as is humanly possible, in these changing conditions, a guarantee of work to them on demobilisation.

I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister in connection with a policy, I might almost say the new policy, that is being followed in connection with the Italian prisoners of war, with the object of obtaining a declaration from them. I assume that it is a sworn declaration that they must make. We have the declaration here, and it reads as follows—

I should like to know from the Prime Minister what the intention of this is. Here we have a large number of Italian prisoners of war in the country. They are working here, mostly on farms, and it is now expected of them to make this declaration. Is this declaration according to international law? Has it ever happened in history that anything of this sort has been sought from prisoners of war; and what is more, by the country against whom they have fought? I should also like to know whether it can be expected of South African prisoners of war that they should make such a declaration. I am putting the question because I should like to have this information. Why I am specially concerned is this. The prisoners of war are in service in this country, and I should like to know from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether they will now be sent out of the country. I understand that some 23,000 of the prisoners of war have signed the declaration and that about 900 have not signed it. This means that virtually all of them have signed the declaration; is it now the intention to send them out of the country and, if this is the intention, will timely notice be given of what the intention of the Government is? I do not want to learn any military secrets, but I should like to know whether these prisoners of war will go overseas. What also appears to me so strange in connection with this declaration, is that those who have signed the declaration will receive a better wage. Why are they paid this if they sign the declaration? I do not know what their basic wage is. I believe that it is a modest amount of 6d. or 1/- a day. However that may be, those who sign the declaration are receiving a higher basic rate of wage. It appears strange to me that such a thing should be done. Then I should like to say something further in connection with the basic payment. These prisoners of war who are working on farms work for a couple of months and they do not receive their pay. Then they have to return to the camp from which they came to get their basic pay. I hope that this will be altered. Here, however. I would point out that these people return to camp in order to receive their basic pay in respect of the few months they have worked. They receive this payment, and then they are told that if they sign this declaration they will get an increase. That does not seem fair to me. I do not want to say anything further on that. The other is that the manner in which the basic payment is now being made occasions great inconvenience to the farmers. It leads to dissatisfaction amongst the farmers, and I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister. These people work perhaps for a farmer 100 or more miles distant from the camp. They work for a couple of months, and then they have to go and get their basic pay. In the first instance we know that the farmer has to go and get the prisoners of war at the camp. They are not sent out to him. It is after a great effort that he brings them to his farm, because he has no petrol and he may not drive further than 75 miles. He has to go and get them by train. This means that he must go at night on the train. So after great trouble he gets them on to his farm and a few months later, when they have to receive their pay, he has to take them back to camp. That takes a day, and then he has to bring them back again to the farm. I should like to know from the Minister whether some arrangement cannot be made to permit of this payment being made in another manner either by the magistrate, the postmaster, the receiver of inland revenue, or some other official. I understand that certain papers have got out of order, but I think we can get over the difficulty if we allow the payment to be made through the magistrate or one of the officials that. I mentioned in the town itself. Farmers in the Zoutpansberg or Potgietersrust, or such places, will not then require to travel long distances to fetch a few prisoners of war to the camp where they remain only a day to obtain their money and then return again. This occasions great trouble, and I think it is something that the Minister can rectify. The principal point is, however, and it appears very strange to me, and I have never heard of it in history—I do not know if it has ever happened in history—that a declaration is required from prisoners of war that they are prepared to go and fight— against whom? It may be against their own people. And that there should be a higher rate of payment offered to those who sign the declaration. Then I want to support strongly what has been stated by the hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse) in connection with war supplies, especially in the case of rifles and cartridges. Our people were in the past disarmed, and we have areas in the Northern Transvaal where it is absolutely necessary for every farmer to have a firearm for lits own protection. I think it is high time to see to it that our people are armed to a greater extent, and that they may be able to obtain rifles at a reasonable price. There will, of course, be tens of thousands available, and I want to make a special appeal to the Prime Minister to see to it that the farmers obtain preference in securing these rifles. The rifles should not simply be handed over to the dealers. If the dealers have to sell them a price will have to be fixed, and they should not be permitted to ask a higher price for them. I understand that a certain number of rifles have been made available. I shall however return to that presently. If rifles are made available then the people ought to be able to obtain cartridges. I want to impress this on the Minister’s mind, that he should make rifles available to these people, and a certain quantity of cartridges as well, so that they can carry on their farming and be able to protect themselves against wild animals. The reason I specially ask that the farmers should be given preference is this. I understand that a number of .22 bore rifles were made available. The farmers, however, did not get them. The farmers knew nothing about them, with the result that those rifles went into the trade and a profit is being made on them. I think it ought to be advertised, and that the farmers should obtain a preference. The rifles should also be tested before they are made available, so that they may be usable. Then I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not possible, in cases where rifles have been taken away from people, and where in a number of cases rifles were handed in to which people attach great sentimental value, whether the same rifles cannot be restored to them. It may be a rifle that a man has carried right through the Boer War. I know that there are many difficulties connected with the matter, but I want to express the hope that an effort will be made, if it is at all possible to return these rifles to the original owners. Then there is another question that also falls under the Minister of Defence. Can he not see to it that more shot cartridges are available to the people? In some areas it is almost impossible for the farmers to obtain shot cartridges. Baboons, birds and such things have greatly multiplied. The presence of vermin is making farming almost impossible, and unfortunately the farmers have no shot cartridges. A few dozen boxes may be sent to a town, but what does that signify? I also want to say that cartridges should be reserved especially for the farmers, instead of them being made available to people who only want to shoot for pleasure, and in many cases they are the people who are receiving these shot cartridges. Then I also want to put a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the buildings that the Defence Department has constructed at various places. I come specially to the case of Pietersburg. There the Department has erected large buildings; they are substantial and permanent buildings which cannot be demolished. For what purposes will those buildings be used? I mention the question now because one or other official in the Department may consider that those buildings should be sold and that the material should be disposed of. I hope that the position of public bodies will be taken into consideration, as they may be able to make use of such buildings, and that they will be accorded the preference. In the case of Pietersburg I have suggested that the buildings should be transferred to the Railway Administration, which could use them for the accommodation of its people and also, for example, for a hospital. I only mention this so that the Prime Minister may make timely provision that these buildings shall not be demolished until such time as an investigation has been made into the purposes for which they can be used. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, during the last Session of Parliament I spoke in this House in connection with a very important matter, concerning the South African Naval Force, when I put forward certain suggestions regarding the control of that force. I feel today that it is even more necessary for those suggestions to be carried out, and therefore I make no apology whatsoever to this House for repeating what I said last year. I brought to the notice of the House that as the South African Naval Force had come to stay, the time had arrived for this force to be governed by its own officers, and that it should no longer be tied to the apron-strings of its mother, namely the army. I further said that the force had a sufficiently large personnel to warrant the appointment of a Rear-Admiral, and in addition that it should be controlled by a Naval Board. The Naval Board would naturally work under the Minister of Defence and also in conjunction with the supreme command. Today, the Prime Minister has stated, as regards defence, that in the future it will be necessary for us to have a useful navy, army and air force, and I appeal to the Prime Minister again to give consideration to the point which I wish to make as regards the control of the navy. The strength of the South African Naval Force has been increased, as hon. members are aware, by the addition of three frigates, and therefore I suggest that the force now does warrant the appointment of a Rear-Admiral. I believe that in no other country is a naval force actually under the control of the military. In order that the House may fully understand the position I want to point out that the highest rank in the navy today is that of a captain, which is equivalent to a colonel in the army. It will be seen therefore, Mr. Chairman, that when the officer in charge of our naval force wishes to take up a particular matter in connection with the control of his force, he has very little say when he runs up against the big military guns in Pretoria. Furthermore, the military authorities have little knowledge of naval matters. That can be understood, because the force is a very small section of the Union Defence Force. The fact that they have very little knowledge makes it very difficult for the Navy to be properly run and the S.A.N.F. does not get that fair consideration and attention that it so richly deserves. I might emphasise this lack of knowledge by a story which, although humorous, does go to show that the military authorities are not fully conversant with naval matters. Some time ago, one of our little ships required a boatswain’s chair. The necessary request was put in for this, but the military authorities finally, after giving the matter due consideration, replied that they could not supply a special chair for the boatswain and they suggested that he should be satisfied with an ordinary chair. That does illustrate the fact that they are not too well acquainted with naval matters. I know it would be received with the thanks of all those serving in our ships, if the Prime Minister would agree to the naval force being entirely divorced from the military; to the appointment of a Rear Admiral and the control of the naval force being in the hands of a naval board. I think at least 75 per cent. of the personnel of that naval board should be naval men with a knowledge of naval affairs. We are approaching the end of this war, and we desire this S.A.N.F. to develop satisfactorily.

Do you visualise a board similar to the Defence Board?

Yes a board similar to the Defence Board, but only in the hands of naval men. I think we should place the naval force on a sound footing so as to encourage the right kind of lad to enlist after this war. I know there are many of our men serving today who are anxious to remain in the navy, but as things stand at the present time they are not likely to do so. Therefore I think that if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will give this particular matter his careful consideration, and if he can agree to any of the suggestions I have made today, he will receive the thanks of all our gallant boys who are serving now, and who will be serving in the future, in our tough little ships.

I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to raise the ban on firearms. I am taking the liberty of voicing this appeal because our farmers on the platteland are suffering exceptionally on account of this prohibition. The attitude of the Prime Minister is this: He called in the firearms not so much because he was afraid of the Opposition, but because he required them on the outbreak of the war.

Yes.

I am glad that the Prime Minister admits that. I think we have reached the stage when the Prime Minister has enough weapons for the war, and possibly a large surplus, and consequently I hope that the Prime Minister will give this matter his earnest consideration. Last year I went personally to the Prime Minister and asked him to give me permission to obtain a rifle because I had game on my farm and I wanted the privilege to shoot a springbok now and again. The Prime Minister was very well disposed, and he said that as a responsible man I ought to be able to get a rifle, but that I should make application through the usual channels. Well, the usual channel is the local sergeant. If he is a friend of yours and he makes a good report about you, you get a rifle. The Government regards the O.B. as dangerous, and there are O.B. commandants who have got rifles, but I personally who do not in any way belong to the O.B., cannot obtain a rifle, although I have game on my farm. The report was, “You have a .22 rifle and you do not need another rifle.”

You can shoot birds with that.

With a .22 I can only shoot birds, but the worst is that I have no cartridges for the .22. You can go where you like, but you cannot obtain cartridges for a .22. The game is played in a very shrewd way. .22 cartridges may be sold without a permit, but the Government takes good care that no cartridges are obtainable. You may, it is true, purchase .22 cartridges without a permit, but they are not procurable anywhere in the country. When I personally made application for an ordinary rifle the excuse was that I had a .22, and consequently I did not need an ordinary rifle. Therefore I would like to ask the Prime Minister to take into serious consideration the cancelling of that prohibition on firearms. We are being unnecessarily inconvenienced today by that state of affairs. As has been stated here by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) those smaller cartridges especially are mainly used to exterminate vermin, to shoot meerkats and jackals etc., but the cartridges are not procurable at all, with the result that the farmers are suffering tremendously. If the Prime Minister cannot raise the ban on firearms, he should not leave it to the good graces of the local sergeant. If a man can show that there is vermin on his farm, he ought to be entitled to get an ordinary rifle and the necessary cartridges. I hope the Minister will see to it that more .22 cartridges are put on the market and that they will be made available to the farmers. Then I want to direct the attention of the Prime Minister today to the question of war supplies. It seems to me that the position is still a little immature, but in the past representatives of the co-operatives tried to obtain some of these supplies for their co-operative associations. The procedure followed was that tenders had to be submitted for the supplies. I want to express the hope that the Government will eliminate that tender system as far as these supplies are concerned. I do not want to accuse the Government for being responsible for malpractices—not at all—but I should like the Government to act in such a way that there will be no loophole for such malpractices. It has happened that tenders have been submitted by co-operative organisations, but certain dealers have gone and tendered just a penny more. Let us accept that this was just by chance, but the possibility always exists that the tenders may be made known to certain traders, and then they submit a higher tender, with the result that the cooperative associations do not come under consideration. I maintain that we should eliminate every loophole for malpractices. We must abolish the tender system. I think the Prime Minister ought to follow this policy. He knows what every article costs him, and he knows at what price he can sell it. Let the prices for the various articles be fixed, and let the trade receive its quota and let the farmers’ co-operatives get their quota. Then there can be no chance of cheating. We do not want to exclude the trade, but we also do not want to exclude the co-operatives, especially as agricultural implements are required for the purposes of production. Today South Africa is faced with the prospect of famine. We in Cape Town know how little meat we can get, how little mutton we have obtained during the Session. But it is not only South Africa that must be fed. The whole of Europe must be fed. When it comes to agricultural implements I consider that the agricultural co-operatives should be given their quota. I am not referring only to tractors and motor cars, but there are certain other things, such as clothing that the farmers find absolutely necessary for their coloured labourers. Another procedure is now in progress. Tenders are asked for such huge quantities that the smaller organisations are virtually excluded. I accept that this is done because it is easier for the department to sell say 100,000 hats than 1,000 hats. But the result of that is that the smaller bodies are for all practical purposes excluded. Consequently an opportunity must be created for the smaller organisations to obtain their quota, and in doing this to enable them to spread the stuff over the whole country. As practical farmers we know that if we want to have a good crop next season we have to begin now. Fallowing time is now. What does it help if those tractors and implements are furnished to the farmer later in the year? If the farmer can obtain them now or before the winter, there is the possibility that he may be able to plough his land. Then there is the question of military lorries. They are still unobtainable. The difficult position in which the farmers are placed will be considerably ameliorated if those lorries are made available in good time to the producer for the transport of his products. Last year hundreds of sacks of mealies rotted, because there was no means of transport. I want to make an appeal to the Minister not to let this matter slide but to see to it that these articles that are necessary for production purposes are released and made available as soon as possible. Then I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to release those individuals in the army who have not signed the oath for Europe. From time to time complaints are lodged with us. Certain individuals have returned from the North; they can obtain good jobs but they are unable to secure their discharge. In my constituency there is a person who, as a matter of fact, bears the name of the Prime Minister. At the time of his birth his mother thought so highly of the Prime Minister that she called her son Jan Smuts.

Now, of course, she must be disappointed.

This man was up North. He was wounded there. [Time limit.]

I would like to make a plea to the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister in connection with the Imperial troops who may be stationed in South Africa. I refer to men from Canada, Australia and Britain, and particularly members of the Royal Air Force who may be stationed in South Africa until the termination of hostilities in Europe. We all know that the war in Europe will come to a successful conclusion for the Allies within a very short space of time. I think the Prime Minister has already stated that. He has mentioned that as a fact, and I think we can take it as being so. Quite considerable numbers of these soldiers and sailors have married South African girls, and it does seem to me that it would be a great pity if these men had to go over to Europe and in some cases to Canada, New Zealand and Australia after the war in order to secure their discharge. I think this is a matter with which the Prime Minister may be able to deal when he is in London. I would suggest that he should take up the matter with the British Government to see whether some system cannot be devised whereby these men will be able to get their discharge here instead of having to go overseas and using valuable shipping space and incurring extra expense. A considerable number of these sailors and soldiers are very anxious to settle in South Africa after the war, and provided they are the right type and provided they can comply with the immigration laws of the country, I think they should be encouraged to stay here. We require all the good immigrants we can get for South Africa, and I make that appeal to the Prime Minister to see if he can in some way persuade the British Government to introduce some method whereby these men will be able to obtain their discharge in South Africa instead of having to go over to England at enormous expense and taking up valuable shipping space. Of course, we in South Africa will decide whether they are suitable immigrants; if they cannot comply with the immigration regulations, then, of course, they will not be allowed to stay. But provided they can comply with those regulations, I think we should make an attempt to save all this unnecessary trouble, expense and shipping which will be incurred in going overseas and, in many cases taking their wives along with them. I also asked this afternoon in what way the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will be able to help our navy which is growing up in South Africa. We have men in our navy and men in the Royal Navy who are anxious to come into the South African navy after the war. The men in our navy are at present in South Africa. I am told by a senior naval official that the material we have in our young officers in South Africa today would be the envy of the world, and these young men are looking to the Prime Minister to develop the navy for them so that they will have some security of tenure, so that they will be able to embark on a naval career, a profession of which they can be proud. I know of quite a number of officers in the navy who are not too happy today because of the uncertainty. They are wondering what their future is going to be, and I say to the House and I say to the country, and I say to the Prime Minister that after the war Britain will have more of a navy than she will know what to do with and I think she will gladly make a present of some of her vessels to South Africa. She will probably have cruisers and even battleships to spare, and although it may be extravagant to suggest that the British Government should make a gift of some of these ships to South Africa, I think the British people will be only too happy to help South Africa to build up her navy. I am perfectly certain that there is no Englishman or Englishwomen in Britain today, who would not welcome such a step. I say that after the war England will find that some of her naval shipping is redundant, and she will be only too glad to pass them on to South Africa to enable us to build up a navy. We have a wonderful opportunity today. We have an army today which is regarded everywhere as a fine body of men, as a fine army, small though it may be, and I believe we probably have a world-record, bearing in mind our small European population, in having the army of volunteers we have got, an army of volunteers second to none in the world. Everyone of our troops is a volunteer and we are very proud of them as Britain is very proud of them and every country is very proud of our South African army. Now I want to say in regard to the navy that there is no reason why we could not build up our own navy. We are surrounded by water on three sides. We will have to build up our navy and I hope the Prime Minister will not miss this wonderful opportunity. As I have said, the British Government will have redundant ships after the war and they will be only too happy to let us have some of them. This is a matter which can perhaps be settled at the San Francisco conference, and I think we members of Parliament will be very happy to receive the news that the Prime Minister, of whom the British people think so much has persuaded the British Government to make a present of some good naval vessels so that we can keep some of these men who are now in our navy. A number of these men are wondering whether they are going to be kicked out after the war. They want to know whether they will be given an opportunity of embarking on a naval career after the war. A statement on these lines would be very welcome to the men in the navy. There may be just a little spot of professional jealousy between the army and the navy, but I do not think it is anything to worry about really. I am perfectly certain that we have an opportunity today that we should not miss, and I hope that the Prime Minister when he comes back from this conference will be able to announce that we will get some real assistance from the British Government in regard to naval vessels and that we shall hear in the near future what is likely to be presented to South Africa.

I hope that the Prime Minister will be here shortly. He should have seen that there was a motion on the Order Paper in connection with the rescinding of the ban on firearms. I am firmly convinced that if there is one matter today on which there should be great unanimity in this House, it is this question of the ban on firearms. I do not want to revive unpleasant memories of the debate that was carried on here in connection with the commandeering of rifles. The Prime Minister will know that if there is one thing that has left a scar on the hearts of the people, a deep wound which will not easily be healed, it is when it was expected of the farming community that they should hand in their firearms. The Prime Minister can realise this. He is one of the people who is acquainted with that tradition of the Boer nation. This morning I listened with interest to the apparent emotion with which the Prime Minister spoke of Boer traditions. The Prime Minister will know that if there is one tradition which is entrenched firmly in the farmer’s heart, it is his right to possess a weapon. That has grown in him right through his history, and that possession of a firearm has become something wrapped up with his life. And now I want to put it to the Prime Minister: The time has now arrived in the first instance when that injustice should be put right. I think the circumstances in the country have furnished proof that that step was unnecessary at that time. Right through the war years we have had a condition of quiet in this country, such as perhaps the Prime Minister himself did not expect. I want to say to the Prime Minister we should very much like that, before he leaves South Africa, he should leave a message to his people, that message to be that he will raise the ban on firearms, and that he will make it possible for the citizens of the country to be able to possess firearms like decent people. I do not want to dwell for any length of time on the question of tradition, but I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that if he approaches the end of his career without rectifying that injustice the people will always think of him as the man who broke that Boer tradition, and who went to meet his end in that way, and they will never forget; there will be one reason why they will not forget him, and that is that he did not redress this injustice. This question of the raising of the prohibition on firearms is not merely a question of redressing a wrong, nor is it only a question of the preservation of the Boer tradition, but it has become an imperative necessity. None other than he himself has spoken about the exemplary conduct of the citizens throughout the whole country during the war years. We have had during these war years, as also during other war years, a general election in this country. The Prime Minister will recall that he said that if ever there was an exemplary election in South Africa it was this election during the war years. Consequently the argument can no longer be employed that it is in the interests of the country, and that they are afraid of having unrest in the country, and that for that reason the ban on firearms must be preserved for some time longer. But what is more, it has now become an imperative necessity to rescind that prohibition. On several occasions during the present session and also during previous sessions, we have emphasised that a healthy relationship should be created between the various sections of the population in this country. Now there has been arising of late a disturbing feature. No one less than the Prime Minister has during this session made frequent reference to this disturbing feature that has been observed in our country. So disquieting has the position now become that the Prime Minister refers to it at every opportunity; and it is that that respect that a portion of a non-European population, and especially the natives had for the white man is gradually disappearing, and the Prime Minister knows it is so. That is a result of war conditions. This ban on firearms, the fact that the European is disarmed and that the native and the coloured person are armed, has produced this state of affairs, and if we want to restore the old relationship, if we want to prevent this unrest growing, the time is ripe, if indeed it is not too late, for the Minister to withdraw that ban and to give the people an opportunity to get their firearms back. I do not want to detain the House by giving illustrations, but I would like to refer briefly to the report of the Secretary for Native Affairs. I have this report of the Secretary for Native Affairs, “Review of departmental activities in the past year”, and no one less than the Secretary for Native Affairs makes reference (on page 24 of the report) to the fact that there has been an increase in the extent of unrest amongst the urban native population in the country. He alludes to the fact that there is a degree of unrest amongst the urban native population. I want to add for his information that that measure of unrest is not restricted to urban natives but that it also prevails among natives on the platteland and on the farms. It is caused by irresponsible persons and by movements which should never have secured a foothold in South Africa. The growth of the unrest can be observed from almost every newspaper. If you go through a few newspapers, as I have done, you will come to the conclusion that never in the history of the country have such shocking murders occurred as during this period in which the European population have been disarmed. I have a whole series of cases here. Almost every day you may read in the newspapers of assaults and of murders in the towns and on the platteland. I have read of a case at Volksrust in the Transvaal where a native was taken into custody in connection with the death of a certain Mrs. Blum, an aged widow. She was found dead in her bedroom by her son when he returned from work. Here is another case of a native who appeared in court on a charge of murdering a 93 year old European woman. One could quote dozens of cases where our unprotected, unarmed citizens have been made the prey of bloodthirsty people who have been going round and running riot. I think the hon: Minister owes it to South Africa to raise the ban and to see that a measure of protection is granted. I am deeply grieved that it is aged people who need protection most who are mainly the victims of these assailants. I want to remind the Minister of a case that occurred in my constituency and which sent a shock, electrical in its effects, throughout the country; on a lonely farm a native murdered a man and his wife, both on the same morning, for the sake of a sum of money. The only thing that the woman had to defend herself with after her husband had been killed, was an axe. She tried to defend herself with that. It is a horrible murder that occurred, and we have a state of affairs in which our people have not the means with which to defend themselves. I do not want to talk about other matters at the moment. I consider that this matter is of such importance that the Minister owes it to the country that, before he leaves our shores he shall leave a message of security and protection, and that he will say the time has come for the Government to cancel the ban on firearms and to give our people the opportunity again to possess weapons, so that they can defend themselves against attack. In that way we will obtain a better state of affairs amongst our farming population.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister a small matter in connection with the Defence Force,

relating to engineers in the Air Force. A number of highly qualified professional engineers have been appointed as officers in the S.A.A.F. These gentlemen complain that they merely get the pay of their rank, and they feel that they are Unjustly treated in that other professional men, notably doctors, who are officers, obtain in addition to the pay of their rank, additional pay on account of their professional qualifications. I believe that in regard to N.C.O.’s this is done, that they do receive pay in recognition of their professional attainments as well as the pay of their rank, and the officers would like to be put on the same footing.

As the Government is aware, the food position in the country is extremely unsatisfactory, and it will probably remain so for some time to come. Production in the country is suffering owing to the shortage of the necessary means of production. Distribution is inefficient owing to lack of transport facilities. Many of these facilities are in the country; they are in the possession of the military authorities, and I think the time has arrived for the hon. Minister to issue instructions to the effect that more of the military supplies which are necessary to increase production should be made available to the public. A small amount has been released but not sufficient for the requirements of the country. Not only is the food position critical at present, but as a result our post-war reconstruction plans are affected. We must prepare ourselves for the struggle after the war. The military are there for the necessary precautionary measures. We have no complaint against that. But within the military framework there are vast quantities of goods which are extremely scarce in the country and which could be released by the military authorities. The farming community are willing to produce and we need all the food in our own country. Food is also needed outside, but if we fail to prepare ourselves we will not be in a position to assist others after the war. Another aspect of the matter is the following: There are military supplies to the value of more than £50,000,000. When you take into consideration the fact that these goods have been used, the value is possibly £25,000,000 or more. It is a considérable amount for a country in these days. These supplies will haye to be disposed of before new consignments are imported from overseas which will supersede the old supplies On the market. Most of these supplies are second-hand, but they can be absorbed on the market at the moment. However, as soon as new consignments arrive, the old articles will be superfluous. But Under existing circumstances those articles can be absorbed at reasonable prices. For that reason I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to release those supplies if it is at all possible. Other countries have very much greater quantities of military supplies, and I hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to protect us against “dumping”, but at the moment it is expedient that as many of the military supplies as possible should be released to the public. There is a great shortage of agricultural machinery, fencing material and building material. The farming industry has been struggling for the past five years to obtain these requirements. They are unobtainable, and limited supplies can only be procured at excessive prices and usually from the black market. The opportunity is ripe for disposing of these articles, and by so doing the production of foodstuffs will be increased. I hope that the Minister of Defence will give his attention to this matter. He alone can rectify the position. I may say that I have already discussed this matter with other Ministers, and they have told me that it is in the hands of the Defence Department, and that there is only one man who can do anything about it. They tell you that Defence reigns supreme and that only one man can intervene. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the serious nature of this request. We want to help the Government and the country, but our hands are tied owing to the lack of the necessary transport lorries, tractors and fencing material, and the necessary building material to enable us to build sheds which the farmers and the co-operative societies are in need of. Everything is in the hands of the military authorities. Then there is still the question of clothing. The non-European section of the population is experiencing difficult times. Recently a quantity of clothing was released, and this is a point which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister. The clothing was only released to the S.A.W.A.S. organisation and in certain parts of the country the clothing was not sold to people who had not supported the war effort. They said that the clothing was only available to people who had supported the war effort, and we, wo did not support the effort, cannot obtain clothing for our labourers. If the secondhand clothes are being made available to benevolent societies, then generalise the whole undertaking. We approve the policy of the distribution of clothing by benevolent societies at reasonable prices, but then it should be made available to all the organisations, so that not only one section of the population gains the benefit. We are especially desirous that the A.C.V.V. and the O.V.V. and the Womens’ Federation, who are performing great and noble work among the poor section of the population, should also be considered. I do not think that we can lay sufficient emphasis on this particular matter, namely that the supplies which are at present in the hands of the military authorities should be released, as far as possible, to the public.

I would like to make use of this opportunity of discussing the magazine explosion in Pretoria. At the outset I want to express my heartfelt disappointment at the Government’s statement in the press in regard to this matter. One feels that an injustice has been committed towards those people, and the nation shares that feeling. As a matter of fact a large section of the nation feel that to some extent a breach of faith has been perpetrated towards those people. No one can deny the fact that the attitude of the Defence Department authorities has revealed a negligence of duty almost tantamount to criminal behaviour. The magazine was erected there in the time of the old Republican Government. In those days that part of Pretoria was not inhabited at all, but now it is a densely populated area. In spite of this, and also the fact that we are well aware of the dangers attaching to such a magazine, the Government took no heed and left the magazine there, and what has happened had to ultimately eventuate. It is an injustice towards that section of the population. Much damage has been sustained in Pretoria as a result of the explosion. We want an assurance from the hon. Minister to the effect that those people will be thoroughly compensated for the damage they have sustained to their properties as a result of the explosion. A large number of people have been injured. We want an assurance that these people will be adequately compensated for the medical expenses they have incurred, and that generally they will receive adequate compensation for all the damage they have sustained as a result thereof. Then I come to those who lost their lives in the disaster and their relatives. We want the assurance from the hon. Minister that as far as the relatives are concerned, they will receive adequate compensation. There are cases where the breadwinner of a family lost his life in the explosion. Will the Government take into consideration the fact that those families should be adequately compensated and cared for? There are a number of people who have been thrown out of employment. Will the Government ensure that they are placed in suitable employment? We feel particularly disappointed at the Government action in simply issuing railway tickets to the people to return to their homes. It is not fair towards those people. The Government’s policy should have been to take immediate steps to find employment for them. In the past they have worked under conditions endangering their lives. Their comrades have paid the highest price. It is the Christian duty of the Government to see that all these people gain suitable employment. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to tackle this matter with all his energy. Social security and post-war employment are continually being discussed. Here the Government has a marvellous opportunity of proving to that small number of people and to the nation that they are sincere in their desire to compensate such people and find suitable employment for them. This is a serious matter which has shocked the whole nation, and the whole nation is waiting to see what action the Government is going to take. For that reason I am taking the liberty of making an earnest appeal to the Government to find suitable employment for these people and to reassure the public outside that the Government is sincere in its attempt to help them. In the second place I want to associate myself with what has been said in connection with supplies in the hands of the Department of Defence. The public outside are very concerned about the matter and expect fair treatment in connection with the whole matter of supplies. It is generally known that there are today masses of essential supplies in the Union, such as transport vehicles and other essential articles, clothing, etc. In particular there are tractors and agricultural machinery which are absolutely necessary to ensure a greater production of foodstuffs. There are numbers of tractors which are needed more than ever on account of the drought. Why cannot the Government release these tractors and transport vehicles immediately at a reasonable price to the public? I am thinking of the masses of motor vehicles, the thousands of motor cycles, numbers of cars, such as those displayed at Premier Mine. They cover miles and miles. It is one of the sights of Pretoria to go and see the accumulation of material which lies there exposed to wind and weather. Why are they not made available to the public, why are they not repaired? There is the question of material. We know that there are masses of iron poles and wire accumulated there, and in many instances they are lying there rotting. There are pliers. They are unobtainable and essential to the farmers. I have been told that there are stacks of pliers in the possession of the Department of Defence. Why are they not made available to the public? I do not say that the distribution should take place in an unreasonable manner, but in a sensible way. Then I want to sound a serious note of warning in connection with the distribution of supplies. I am afraid that the system is already lending itself to malpractices. There are already malpractices and I feel that farming co-operative societies should gain preference in the distribution of farming equipment. I would even go so far as to appeal to the Minister to consider the possibility of establishing Government distribution depôts at different places where the people will be able to purchase the articles. I am thinking only of one instance which occurred lately. A large number of tents were disposed of, a few thousand second-hand tents, and I have been told on very reliable authority that one of the conditions pertaining to the sale of the tents was that they should each have at least one flaw. I was told from a reliable source that interested parties were simply going and making tears in the new tents in order that they would be able to buy them and dispose of them on a large scale. Today you cannot buy the weakest tent for less than £3 10s., whereas if you want to buy a reasonably good tent you cannot obtain it under £5 10s. Dealers probably bought them up for a song and now they are asking these high prices. For that reason I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to take the necessary steps immediately so that the sale of this material can take place in an economical manner and in the interests of the country, and that enormous profits are not made on the articles by certain dealers. [Time limit.]

I would like to associate myself with the request made in connection with supplies. I would refer the hon. Minister to what was said last year by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) when this vote was under discussion, and when the hon. member made the same appeal to the Minister. He said—

Then he pointed out that fencing material and all these things are absolutely essential and he requested that they should not be given to the trade, for dealers had already made profits on the sale of the goods and if the supplies were to be given back to the trade, they would profit on their sale for the second time, and the farmers who were in need of them would be charged high prices. The hon. Minister replied—

The Minister declared himself prepared last year to accede to the request of the hon. member for Colesberg. We were disappointed to see a few days ago in the press that transport lorries are being released to the public, but that they are being given to the trade. The hon. Minister did not keep to his promise made last year that the goods would be given to farmers’ co-operative societies and agricultural unions. I would like to ask the Minister to instruct that the body which is responsible and which controls the material should send a circular, letter to the agricultural organisations, co-operative societies, and benevolent societies to the effect that they should send in their requirements before a specified date. There is a great shortage of fencing material. That is something which the farmers are in dire need of and are unable to obtain, and if it is obtainable, the price is so excessive that people cannot afford to pay it. The same applies to clothing. Recently I visited the S.A.W.A.S. to buy clothing for my labourers. They told me that I should have to go to the local branch of the S.A.W.A.S. because they could not sell to anybody from that area. Each branch area only sells to people resident in that area. But the position is that the S.A.W.A.S. in certain areas hold back the articles and we are unable to buy them I also want to make an urgent appeal to the Minister to make use of agricultural societies and the A.C.V.V. and other benevolent societies for the distribution of the goods. It is said that people who support the war effort are given preference. That should not be allowed. The clothes were not purchased with their money, but with the money of the tax payer and the Nationalists also had to contribute. They are State property and everyone in the country has the right to obtain the benefit of them. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to enable the public to buy these goods at a reasonable price, and not to allow that people who have already profited on them should again be able to make a double profit on their sale. I also agree with what was said by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) in connection with the handing back of guns. It is astonishing to see how guns are being distributed ad lib. in the districts and sometimes prominent persons are refused guns and other people who one would consider dangerous are granted guns. Everything depends on the attitude of the sergeant of police towards the people. I heard of one exceptional case were a gun was refused a prominent person while all the others were granted guns. The argument does not hold good that the man was an O.B., for the commandant of the O.B. obtained a gun, but the leader of the Nationalist Party, who is a prominent man, was refused a gun. Everything depends on the advice given the Department by the police, and I associate myself strongly with the hon. member for Boshof that the people should be given back their guns, without discrimination.

The question of material in the possession of the Defence Department has already been discussed at some length. Yet there are certain aspects of the matter which I would like to bring before the House and to the notice of the Prime Minister. According to investigations I have made, and as far as I was able to determine, neither the Department of Defence nor the Department of Economic Development is aware of the quantity of material on hand. In the second place there is practically no inventory whatsoever of the material which is considered by the Department to be superfluous. I understand that an attempt is now being made to have an inventory compiled of the superfluous material. But we know what happens in the Defence Department. They work very slowly if they do not “hands-up.” We are dealing with a serious matter. These supplies should be released to the public as soon as possible before post-war products from other countries and from our own factories are available. At present those articles are particularly needed, and for that reason I want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister to give instructions to his department to speed-up the inventory of the superfluous material. There is an enormous staff in the Defence Department who are no longer kept wholly occupied with defence work. A large number of them could be made available to the Supplies section to expedite the inventory in the shortest possible space of time. I appeal earnestly to the Prime Minister to accede to this request in the interests of the nation as a whole. Then there is another matter in connection with supplies. A week ago when I was in Pretoria, I learned that tenders were being called for a considerable quantity of material. But in spite of the fact that smaller firms had requested that they be afforded the opportunity of buying up small quantities by way of tender, the regulation was simply laid down that tenders had to be sent in for large quantities. Do you know what the result was? People who traded in such articles formed large companies—they are people who have already amassed large fortunes during the war by providing that same war material—and now they are buying the material on a large scale in order to dispose of it later to the public at huge profits. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) said here that prices had been fixed. He is obviously ignorant of the true state of affairs. How can prices be fixed for second-hand goods, some of which are half worn out, others only slightly worn and others again badly worn? A limit must be fixed, a margin of profit. It is the only way to fix the prices in the sense that excessive profits cannot be made. Then there is still another matter. I was privileged, together with other hon. members, to visit the war factories in the Rand area a short while ago. I was struck by the vast quantity of fixed machinery and equipment in those factories. An estimate was made by someone who possesses a knowledge of those matters, and he estimated that the Defence Department has machinery to the value of about £9 million. Now I would like the Prime Minister to inform me what they are going to do with that gigantic quantity of material which is being used today for war purposes, and which, after the war, cannot be used in that connection. Will the machinery valued at £9 million or £10 million be left there to stand and rot, or what is the intention? Will it be disposed of so that after the war it can be used in an economical manner? I spoke to the factory workers, and I cannot help asking the questions again—what is going to become of those thousands and thousands of workers? There must certainly be 10,000 or more of these workers in the factories. I know that last year when we were busy in the Select Committee with the Bill on Re-employment, the Minister of Labour said: We shall look after those people; we shall see that they are not thrown out onto the street when the war is over; we will compel private firms, or the State will look after them. What is happening now? When the loading fields and the factory in Pretoria were blown up, he simply dismissed the people. If this is an example of the treatment our returned soldiers are going to receive, then it must be clear that the soldiers’ friends are not on the other side but on this side. It is, however, not only a question which is going to affect the returned soldiers, but which is going to affect the whole future of South Africa. What sort of a position is going to prevail in the country if thousands of these factory workers together with returned soldiers are thrown onto the street after the war? I cannot do otherwise than make an earnest appeal on behalf of these people. We cannot treat them in this manner. We on this side differed strongly from the Prime Minister’s war policy, but because those people have sacrificed themselves to carry out his policy, we cannot simply throw them onto the streets as is being done now. Recently I had a discussion with a high ranking officer, and he said to me: “In heaven’s name what are you people doing in Parliament? Can I not get my discharge to return to my profession? I prayed and beseeched them to grant me my discharge.” This is the type of thing we hear all day. We are spending a gigantic amount of money on the Defence Force, and it is a matter which should be viewed from two sides. The first is the question of expenditure, and the second is the discharge of those persons who are desirous of returning to their professions and other spheres of employment. We are dealing with the problem of readjustment after the war. Readjustment cannot be accomplished in one attempt, unless we want our economic life to sustain a great shock. If the Prime Minister were to give his department instructions now to have an inventory made of all cases where people can be granted their discharge and return to their professions and spheres of employment, and if he were to continue with this policy, then we would find that there would be a steady stream returning. It is merely elementary reasoning, and to my mind also logical, that if we allow people now to return to their situations and spheres of employment as far as possible, the shock of readjustment will become less and less for the country. The time is ripe. It will not help to wait until the war is over, or to leave the matter until we wake up one day and say that the people in the army should all be discharged so that they can return to their spheres of employment. Then there is another matter which I want to raise, and which, in my opinion, is being dealt with in a most unfair manner. A series of cases have come to my notice of soldiers who have made application for financial help under the Government scheme on discharge from military service. Numbers and numbers of people have come to me and given me the assurance that the committee which makes these recommendations, as is the case with practically all Government committees, is so tarnished with the red brush, that if the person in question does not belong to the Sons of England or a similar organisation, he cannot obtain any assistance.

The hon. member must raise that matter under the vote “Demobilisation”. It has nothing to do with this vote.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 23rd March.