I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

In new Clause 3,

The Bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering an amendment to new Clause 3, involving increased expenditure.

I move—

Helderwater A, situate in the division of Malmesbury, Province of the Cape of Good Hope, for any loss or damage they may suffer in consequence of the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2, the Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, pay to the said owners jointly the sum of two hundred pounds.

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 2, the omission of Clause 3 and the amendment to new Clause 3, put and agreed to.

In Clause 4, Amendment in Clause 4 put,

I move as an amendment—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendment in the Preamble, put and agreed to, and the Bill as amended, adopted.

I move—

I object.

Third reading on 8th May.

I move—

This Bill does nothing more than to give effect to the resolutions that have already been adopted by the House after discussion in Committee of Ways and Means. As I have explained the proposals during that debate and as the most important of them was also dealt with in my Budget speech, it is not necessary for me to say much, especially in view of the explanation of the details in the White Paper. Consequently I would merely refer to the proposals that were adopted in Committee of Ways and Means and indicate in what way they are incorporated in this Bill. The first proposal was to make provisoin for the payment of stamp duties when an original debtor under a bond was substituted by a fresh debtor. The proposal was that the scale should be the same as applies today in the case of a cession. The stamp duty in the case of cession is lower than the scale in respect of a new bond. This resolution is contained in Clause 3 of this Bill and in conjunction with that must be read Clause 2, the object of which is an amendment of Section 20 of the main Act namely Act No. 30 of 1911, which is necessary as a result of the acceptance of the resolution. The second resolution that I submitted to the Committee of Ways and Means was for the doubling of the stamp duties on brokers’ notes issued in connection with securities, marketable securities, and this is now contained in Clause 4 of the present Bill. Then the following resolution was for the imposition of additional stamp duties in the case of delay in the registration of the transfer of securties. The stamp duties are only payable when registration occurs, and it is desirable to combat excessive delay, and for that reason the provision is made that is contained in Clause 5 of this Bill. I should like to direct attention to the proviso in Clause 5, the object of which is to avoid the difficulty that would otherwise arise as a result of the fact that there are many undated deeds of declaration in circulation. The proviso will then lay down what the position will be in connection with those declarations, and Clause 1 of the Bill will lay down that such a deed of declaration must in future bear the date. The following resolution in connection with altered stamp duties relates to insurance policies and similar documents in order to determine the duty that is payable in accordance with a number of insured persons. This is being done under Paragraph (a) of Clause 6 of the Bill. Then there was a fifth resolution, namely to make stamp duties payable in connection with certificates of insurance issued outside the Union and then brought into the Union with articles imported here. At present no duty is payable in such a case, and the effect of Paragraph (b) of Clause 6 will be that stamp duties will also be payable in this instance. We have consequently to deal only with the five resolutions that have already been adopted by the House, and to which the Bill has given effect.

Many of the amendments proposed here are not objected to by us, but there are just a few remarks I should like to make with reference to what the Minister has said. The first is in connection with the stamp duties which will now be payable where group insurance takes place. Until now the stamp duties payable when group insurance took place of 500 or even 1,000 people, was just 1s., the same as for one person. I think it is right that it should be kept in mind that in group insurance where there are perhaps 500 or 1,000 people they all fall under the same policy, but I have been wondering whether it is necessary in such a case to levy the full stamp duty on each individual. It will result in there being less work, and I thought it was reasonable to give a small discount where a group of persons is insured, so that the 500 or 1,000 persons will not pay the full stamp duty. I think it is right that stamp duty should be paid for every person insured, but in the case of such a large group it can be less per person than when only one person is insured. That, however, is only a minor point and I only mention it here because it makes quite an appreciable change in the existing position. Group insurance generally affects people who are not well-to-do, who are not as prosperous as people who take out insurance for themselves. Usually such group insurance is affected by one or other society, and we know that the stamp duty is in the end payable by the person or persons who take out the policy, and I think that in this case 50 per cent. of the fee payable by an individual insurer will be sufficient—say 6d. if the individual insurer pays 1s. Then, in connection with the delay of registrations, the extra stamp duty payable if there is a delay of more than 12 months. I think that is a specially good provision. It will also make it compulsory to have more registrations. It now very often happens that a blank transfer form is simply signed and attached to the share certificate and it passes from hand to hand but nobody registers it, and all the possible profit on it is lost to the Treasury. I hope it will also have the effect of preventing this. At the moment many transfers can take place and it may still be possible that within 12 months transfers may take place without any tax, but if the period is longer than 12 months the extra tax will be payable. I think it is a good provision.

The present position also leads to difficulties in cases of deaths or insolvency.

Yes, it is dangerous to let a blank transfer form lie about. One may later find that it no longer belongs to one. Then I come to the increased stamp duties on broker’s notes. We on this side welcome that. We would naturally have welcomed it even more if that tax had in any way been correlated with the large amounts put into circulation on the stock exchange by means of sales and if it were used as a method of levying taxes, so that taxation may be decreased in other respects. Last year the Minister began with the tax, and then the rate was 2s. 6d. per £100. That was payable both by the buyer and the seller, so that it amounted to 5s. per £100. Now the stamp duty has been increased, which means that the Minister will receive 10s. per £100 from the buyer and the seller together. He will receive 10s. on a transaction per £100. You will see that that is only .5 per cent. and we feel that that is a ridiculous tax to levy on such transactions, especially if one compares it with the tax payable on the transfer of ground, on immovable property. For years we have had transfer duties, but recently an additional amount was added. On any property sold for more than £2,000 an additional 2 per cent. special war levy was placed. The estimate of the Minister is that he will receive £1,100,000 from that. It is a measure which we objected to at the time. It does not encourage farmers to incur production expenditure, and it will be especially onerous on the young farmer who buys ground and who will now have to pay the extra tax. We pointed out at the time that the tax on transfers of ground above £2,000 in the form of transfer duties will now be 4 per cent.; why must transactions on the stock exchange only be taxed by .5 per cent? We feel that there is an opportunity here for the Minister, where he is dealing with transactions which encourage speculation and may lead to inflation, to use that as a form of taxation. Those people who are busy speculating with their wealth can contribute to the taxation to a larger degree, so that taxes may be decreased in other respects. Last year we suggested that a tax should be levied upon profits derived from the stock exchange. The Minister has consistently adopted the attitude that there are practical difficulties. We offered to remove his difficulties if he would give us the opportunity to make the suggestion as private members, but he did not accept that offer. He has now increased the stamp duties a little, but in comparison with transfer duties it is still ridiculously low. If the Minister would only levy a tax of 2 per cent. instead of .5 per cent. as stamp duties, he will be able to collect £2,000,000 per year insead of the £500,000 he now expects to receive from that tax. I am not sure that the Minister’s estimate is correct; if his estimate last year was £250,000 it means a turnover of £1,000,000 on the basis of 5s. in the £. I am not quite sure but it has always been accepted that stock exchange transactions amount to more than £200,000,000 per annum—not other dealings in shares, but only those taking place on the stock exchange. If the Minister levies 2 per cent. on that, it will mean—I have in mind 2 per cent. on the seller and the purchaser jointly—that each one will pay £1 per £100, and on the basis of a turnover of £100,000,000 the Minister will then receive £2,000,000. We feel that that will make the relationship between the tax on transactions in ground and stock exchange transactions more reasonable. The share transactions will always be in a still more favourable position, because on transactions on ground the tax is now 4 per cent., i.e. if it is a transaction in ground amounting to more than £2,000. In that manner the Minister will then collect £1,500,000 per annum more, and through that means he can relieve taxation in other respects where it is very necessary. For example, when we went into Committee of Ways and Means, we suggested that relief should be granted as regards the excess profits duty. We suggested that 20 per cent. should be set aside from the excess profits duty payable by the concern to cover capital expenditure after the war. If one takes that one suggestion into consideration, that 20 per cent. would amount to approximately £3,000,000, if it were all to be used for captial expenditure afterwards. But the professional men would probably not use it for those purposes, and probably other businesses would also not use it so, with the result that if £15,000,000 were expected from excess profits duty, this 20 per cent. eventually would not have meant that Treasury would have to repay £3,000,000.

I do not think that the hon. member should expand too much on that matter now.

I mention it only as an example of how this money could be used if the Minister were now to agree to increase this stamp duty on the transfer of shares. I say that it would not even have been £3,000,000 if we took 20 per cent. of the Excess Profits Duty of £15,000,000, because professional people and other businesses would in many cases not afterwards use the 20 per cent. as capital expenditure. I think that a fair estimate would have meant that Treasury would probably have had to set aside £2,000,000 of that sum to be repaid later. If the Minister were to increase this stamp duty, as we have suggested, he would receive an additional £1,500,000, and even though he did not use it for the decrease I mentioned above, he could have used it for many other purposes. Apart from the question of deriving income he would have been able to restrict somewhat the large speculation in shares. In this respect it will perhaps not have a very great influence, but it would have prevented people from buying large quantities of shares in order to sell them for a very small profit. The so-called “tickey-snatchers” in any case would have been discouraged from participating in that sort of transaction if a larger tax had been levied on the transfer of the shares. We would have attained that object to a certain degree, and also as regards inflation it would have had a very useful effect. It would have reduced the sum of money brought into circulation because it was used for speculattive purposes, and it would have forced people to save more of it in a proper manner. If the Minister had brought that into line with the other suggestions for more compulsory saving, so that money would have been taken out of circulation in that manner, it would have helped to prevent the inflation to which we are exposed today. It would have improved the inflation position. We feel that the Minister here has an opportunity to do something in that direction. We have now been pressing for that for a number of years and the Minister is gradually capitaulating. He first started with 2s. 6d. on £100, which amounted to a tax of 5s. on a transaction of £100; now he has changed it to 5s. per £100, amounting to 10s. on the transaction. But we have repeatedly stressed that this tax should be still higher. We cannot at this stage suggest increasing the tax, but we wish to suggest that the Minister should increase this tax, and so doing he will be enabled to give relief in other necessary directions. He can then give relief in a way which will be calculated to increase production after the war and which would also later provide the Minister of Finance with the necessary taxpayers; because the most important of all is because those people after the war will be able to employ labour. It would have helped the Minister to do away with some of the rough spots still existing today in regard to the development of our industries, by taking something more from these speculative activities, and something less from the constructive industries and activities of the country. At this stage I wish to repeat— we have already done that so often that one is almost shy of repeating it, but because the Minister persists in the attitude he adopts we are obliged to do so—our request that this tax should not be so small as it is now, but that it should be made a proper means of obtaining money in that way in order to give relief where relief is desirable in order to encourage the industrial development of the country. If I may make a further comparison between this tax and the transfer duty, I should like to do so entirely divorced from the tax levied by the Minister on profits derived from the sale of immovable property. The additional transfer duty is an additional war tax. Just as in the case of the tax on profits derived from the sale of immovable property, it is intended to discourage inflation and speculation. But if it is necessary to stop the speculation in immovable property, it is just as important to stop speculation on the stock exchange, and if people still want to speculate in spite of that, let them pay for that speculation and let that money be used in the interests of the country as a whole. The tax on the sale of immovable property gives the Minister £700,000 per annum. That means that the turnover on which that taxation of profits is levied must be something like £2,100,000, if it is 6s. 8d. in the £, and in many cases it is 13s. 4d. If one accepts that the turnover on which that tax is levied is an amount of approximately £1,500,000, it brings us to a comparison with the actual sale of immovable property which took place. We have not got the latest figures, but in the year 1943-’44 it amounted to £101,000,000. We see that the sale of property which was affected by the tax on profits only amounts to about 1.5 per cent. of the total sale of property. We can see what effect that had on speculation and on the higher prices of property. The figures very convincingly show that from that year when that tax was levied, there was no reduction in the purchase and sale of ground or the money brought into circulation by means of the sale of immovable property. The only result it had is that the price simply increased.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I am only drawing a comparison. If it were necessary to levy an additional tax on the sale of immovable property in order to prevent speculation, and for the other purposes the Minister aimed at, I say that reason also exists for levying a heavier tax on share transactions, in order to reach the same goal, namely to stop speculation and to improve the inflation position and to prevent inflation and also to get money with which to relieve other taxation, in other respects which are of benefit to the country and which will promote the development of industries and activities.

I think that the last speaker put the case of this side of the House on this matter quite clearly and explicitly, and I believe that the Minister of Finance must also feel that as he is obtaining increased taxation on the sale of immovable property he ought to increase the stamp duty on share transactions. Especially in connection with farming people are obliged to buy farms to maintain their children, and because they can produce food on them. The value of these farms increases as a result of the work that these people do on them. They do not purchase this land merely for the purpose of speculation. When the Minister levied the tax on the sale of immovable property he did that, as he stated, to combat speculation. I do not believe that the Minister is going to prevent much speculation by means of this tax on the transfer of shares. People who speculate on the share market do not allow themselves to be stopped by taxes. The gambler makes his money easily and he does not mind how he spends it. The Minister has stated that there is difficulty in connection with taxes on the profits made on the share market, because losses are sustained. With the buying and selling of land the same thing occurs. There are also people who have lost on the sale of land, but they have to pay the tax if they make a profit. I think the very least the Minister could have done was to have raised these stamp duties to the same level as the transfer dues that have to be paid. The person who makes money out of the buying and selling of shares does not pay income tax on his profits. It is a capital transaction which is regarded as such, and consequently there are many people who speculate in this way. What I feel is that the amount of 10s. imposed in respect of a transaction of £100 is very much less than in respect of transfer duty where the Minister takes up the 4 per cent. If the Minister put it on an equal footing with transfer duty the position would at least be clear. We consider he would then obtain a reasonable sum. I regard the matter from the angle of revenue and not from the angle of the reduction of speculation on the share market because, as I have already said, I do not believe that gamblers will refrain from that speculation. They make their money easily and they spend it easily. But I feel that the State is not getting its rightful share from these people in the form of taxation. Transfer duties amount up to 4 per cent. Stamp duties on transfer are the same, 6d. for £10; that is 5s. for £100. In addition, there are the stamps on the diagram, the 15s. registration and the power of attorney. Eventually, apart from the transfer dues, the same money has to be paid as is now paid on share transactions. I think the Minister should realise that we are fully entitled to feel he should make this equal to transfer dues. If he does so he will obtain a larger income, and then he will be able to give relief where it is necessary to give relief. I know that people also speculate with immovable property, but no one would do that today. What person would buy land today, to sell it a little later at a profit, when he knows that he has to pay 13s. 4d. in the £ on the profit? I do not ask him to impose this tax on the sharemarket. I do not consider it is a just tax, but he can at least make the stamp duty equal to the transfer duty. I consider this tax on profits on the sale of land is unjust, because people are obliged to buy land for their children. They do not buy it with the object of speculating, but nevertheless they are compelled to pay this tax. The position today is that land on which the tax is payable is simply kept out of the market, and the people who have to buy have thus a very small choice. A man wants to buy a farm for his son, but he cannot do it because the people who have the land will not sell because they have to pay this tax, or they sell it at a much higher price so that they can still make a reasonable profit. The choice of the man who has to buy is much more restricted than was previously the case. There is another point I should like to mention in connection with this matter. I realise this Bill has been drafted with the object of obtaining taxes, but I feel also that the Stamp Duty Act was passed in 1911, and that there are many matters in it which can be improved. The Act has been amended piecemeal and today we do not know where we stand. I think it is time that the Minister consolidated stamp duty legislation or that he should bring in a new Bill in which the necessary alterations can be made. Possibly he will, as a result of this, also receive a larger revenue than he is getting at the moment.

At this stage there is nothing new that we can say in connection with these taxation proposals. Nevertheless we are entitled to regard this Bill from the standpoint of the period through which we are passing, namely that the requirements of the Treasury will be less than they have previously been, and if we look at this Bill we see that apart from increases which have already been alluded to, new taxes are also being levied. In Clauses 2 and 3 provision is made for new taxes. I am sorry about that because there will be additional taxes on immovable property when transfer of bonds is effected. A tax is imposed on the transfer of a bond. Up to the present the transfer was not subject to tax. I would presume that the only reason why the transfer of a bond should be made liable to a tax equivalent to the original tax is that the Minister considered he required the revenue for the prosecution of the war, that he requires money for a transitory need. He is deviating from his principle and he is now imposing a new tax for a transitory need. A new source of income is being instituted, and the question is whether any justification exists for levying a new tax at this juncture. I want to ask the Minister in all seroiusness whether he cannot consider, in view of the changes that must shortly occur in the requirements of the Treasury, holding back this new tax. It is not a matter that really rests on sound principles. A person takes over a bond; it is not a transfer of a new source of income, but it affects the property when this tax burdens the property still further. I should like to have information on two other aspects. I am not clear how two kinds of transactions that take place daily will be affected by this. The one case is where a bond is ceded with a view to the provision of facilities for temporary requirements. It appears to me that the Bill does not affect cessions, but I should like to be quite clear on the matter.

No, they are not affected.

Then it is clear. Then there is another question. Where bonds are carried forward, beyond the date that they fall due, for the sake of facilities that may be needed, where the bond continues to exist when the first credit has expired, I should like to know what the position of such bonds will be.

It is the same position as hitherto.

Those are the two points on which I required information.

Various points have been mentioned in connection with the clauses of this Bill, but I should like first to say a few words on the point mentioned by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) in connection with Clause 1. It is not a question of a large amount of money being involved in this. It is principally a question of consistency. As today stamp duties are imposed in the case of cession of a bond it seems to me proper there should be stamp duties in connection with the substitution of a creditor in respect of such a bond. It is a defect in our law that in the case of substitution no stamp duties are payable. That is the reason for this clause. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) mentioned a point in connection with Clause 6, paragraph (a), referring to group insurance. He is in accord with the principle, but he considers that perhaps a lower tariff could be fixed for group insurance. I think the tariff is low enough and it is not necessary to extend any further concession. The main point of his criticism was in connection with the proposed increase of the stamp duties on broker’s notes. Various members would like to see a tax levied on capital profits, especially in relation to the purchase and sale of shares on the share market. I want first to refer to that. I have done so already in my Budget speech. As I undertook to do last year we have gone into this question thoroughly and obtained information from other countries. In America a tax on capital profits has existed for several years. It applies not only to profits made on the purcase and sale of shares, but generally in regard to capital profits. It is not, however, only capital profits that come under consideration, but capital losses. When we take capital losses into account as well as capital profits this proposition loses much of the attractiveness it would otherwise possess. What is also very clear from the experience of the United States in the first place is that, perhaps specially with an eye on evasion, their system of taxing capital profits has become more and more complicated every year. That is what usually happens when one endeavours to prevent evasion; the taxation system becomes more and more involved, and today the system in America is so involved that those people who complain about the complicated system of taxation we have here can safely go into the position that exists there in order to realise that we in this country are in a much more favourable position in every respect. It appeared necessary as far as concerns this taxation in America to differentiate between long-term arid short-term profits and losses, to vary the percentage of the amount regarded as profit or loss according to the period during which the asset was in the possession of the taxpayer. It was also found necessary to set limits in regard to the nett loss that may be taken into consideration in order to reduce the general taxable income. Furthermore, it appeared necessary to differentiate between individuals and companies. I mention this to illustrate how the system has become more and more complicated. In the second place, it appeared that the effect of these taxes was not altogether desirable. Because it was a tax on possible capital profits it had the result that wealthy individuals, who, if they wanted to sell their assets would have been subject to this tax, simply would not sell their assets. The less privileged individuals had to sell, whether they wanted to or not. The rich person held on; and the effect of that is not always good. What perhaps is more important, especially from the standpoint of the Treasury is the fact that the financial effect of this tax showed that in certain years the Treasury benefited from the tax because the profits exceeded the losses. But in other years again the Treasury had to pay out because there were more losses than profits. The difficulty is also this, that in those years when general conditions are flourishing, when the position of the Treasury is also flourishing, it is just in those years that the tax is productive. But the difficult years, when depression prevails and when the Treasury is in diffculties are just the years when the Treasury has to pay out. From the point of view of a taxation measure that must provide revenue, this is consequently not a very sound proposition from the point of view of the Treasury.

But cannot you arrange just as in the case of horse-racing that only the profits should be taxed?

The fact is that that taxation has reference to profits and to losses as well.

But cannot we merely tax the capital profits?

If we tax the profits we have to take the losses into consideration. That has been the experience Of America. And now I turn to the experience of France. There the tax was only imposed on capital profits in connection with shares, and I should like to read out the following in connection with the experience of France—

That was the experience of France. Now the other point that was mentioned was in connection with the scale of the tax we are now proposing. We propose doubling the present scale. The present scale works out at 5s. for every £100 of the transaction. We propose to double this, namely to make it 10s. per £100 of the transaction. A comparison has been made between the tax on the sale and purchase of immovable property and on the purchase and sale of shares. There is, of course, a great difference, in so far that shares change hands far more frequently than immovable property. It may happen that shares are bought and sold more than once in the course of a week. That is not the case with fixed property. There is therefore good reason why the scale should not be made the same in the two cases. But my hon. friend has stated that we should increase the tax to 2 per cent., and then we would get £1,500,000 more. That would not in any case happen during the current year because there is now only ten months left of the tax year. But we cannot assume that if we increase a tax fourfold we shall then obtain four times the amount. If the tax is increased to that extent the effect may be that many transactions will be eliminated.

That was not your argument in connection with tobacco and beer.

Here we are dealing with people who make a profit on shares on a very small margin. If they cannot make that profit they will not buy and sell. If we annex that margin of profit by a tax of 2 per cent. it will not be worth their trouble to let those transactions occur.

But 2 per cent. is still very little.

In many transactions the profit made is lower than 2 per cent.

But these are very undesirable transactions

That may be so, but my argument at the moment is that if a tax is increased fourfold we cannot say that it will yield four times as much.

Still, you doubled the tax this year, and last year the imposition of the tax did not reduce transactions.

Last year we imposed the tax and the people concerned adapted themselves to it. We have doubled it this year, and they will no doubt again adapt themselves to it. We shall see later whether this has happened. In any case I do not think the proposal of my hon. friend will have the effect he apparently expects.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 8th May.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

The war is practically at an end. Perhaps in a few days the slogan in South Africa will no longer be one of waging war but we shall be faced with the internal problems waiting for a successful solution. To that end all powers will have to be utilised to get co-operation in South Africa as far as possible, and in this connection I wish to confine myself to an organisation which was called into being as early as 1943. This organisation today has a membership of a few thousand. Before I plead further with the Minister for what the organisation expects, I just briefly want to give the historical background of this organisation. In 1943 an organisation of ex-soldiers was formed called “The Orange Flash League”. The work of this organisation is essentially to protect the interests of returned soldiers. The people who at that time belonged and still to this day belong to the Orange Flash League are honestly convinced that the Springbok Legion and the British Empire Service League do not fulfil all the requirements of their soldiers. The organisation had hardly been formed but it had a membership of approximately 700, but in June last year, Proclamation No. 116 of 1944 appeared, as a result of which all these war fund organisations had to be registered within a period of 90 days, which meant on 1st September, and the organisation had to comply with all the requirements of War Measure No. 48 of 1944. The Orange Flash League immediately proceeded to draw up its constitution and all other documents in connection with it in order to prepare themselves for registration. The application for registration was made within 90 days, and the constitution and other documents, as the Minister knows, I think, complied with all the necessary requirements. This registration was refused by the board on the ground that the Springbok Legion and the B.E.S.L. were already registered and that those organisations fulfilled the requirements of returned soldiers and already fulfilled the objects aimed at by the Orange Flash League. In the first place there was no just action here, because the date set down for registration was 1st September, and it would appear that when the application of the Orange Flash League came before the board, registration had already been granted to the other two organisations. The only reason given for the refusal of the registration is that the other two organisations fulfil all requirements of ex-soldiers. A few months later appeal was noted. The Orange Flash League insisted on it, and a few months later appeal was noted against the decision of the board and I should like to read the letter to the House. The Orange Flash League consulted their attorney and the following letter was written.

Who is their attorney?

I should not like to mention his name, but I am prepared to give it to the hon. member.

The House is entitled to it.

The letter reads as follows—

Koedoe Buildings, Pretoria.

Dear Sir, Re: Refusal of Registration: Orange Flash League. Your Ref. SW/WF. 1/4.

The Orange Flash League have consulted me with reference to your refusal to register that organisation as a War Fund pursuant to the provisions of the Annexure to War Measure No. 48 of 1944 (Proclamation 116 of 1944), as conveyed by you in letters to them dated the 6th and 15th ultimo. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 (2) of the said War Measure, I have been instructed by the Orange Flash League to appeal to the Minister against the decision of the Board as above mentioned on the following grounds:

1. (a) That in terms of Section 5 (3) of the said War Measure, my clients were obliged to apply for registration at any time within 90 days after promulgation thereof, i.e. by the 1st September, 1944.
2. (b) The B.E.S.L. and Springbok Legion referred to in your letter of the 6th ultimo, were similarly obliged to apply for registration by the 1st September, 1944.
3. (c) That you purported to refuse registration to my clients because the aims and objects of that organisation were adequately served by existing war fund organisations as mentioned in your letter of the 6th ultimo.

Now Í want to come to the most important part of the letter—

1. (e) Furthermore, and if registration was refused on the second ground mentioned in your letter of the 15th ultimo, a ground which was not relied on by you in your letter of the 6th ultimo, that having regard to the fact that you have granted registration to no less than 162 other organisations, many of whose aims and objects must have been adequately served by already existing organisations, the method of exercising the discretion granted to the Board under the War Measure concerned, bears on the face of it indications that it has been improperly exercised.

Here the Minster refuses registration to a very important organisation which now has a membership of some thousands on the ground that the two organisations I have already mentioned, namely the Springbok Legion and the B.E.S.L. are sufficient to fulfil those requirements. But the Minister proceeds to register 162 smaller organisations. I now ask the Minister why that injustice was done towards a large number of soldiers. All these papers were sent to the Minister and he upheld the decision of the Board. At this stage the Executive Committee of the Orange Flash League asked me for an interview, and I wish to say openly that I do not know one of the members of the Executive Commitee. I wish to say that the members who came to me were all English-speaking. Therefore the Minister must not think that there are any political side issues here. I met the Minister—I thought to rectify the matter with him— and he received me very sympathetically, for which I am thankful, but eventually I received a lettter from the Minister in which he wrote inter alia—[Translation]—

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that if it were an organisation which had racently been formed, I could understand it, but it is an organisation which came into existence in 1943. Therefore the Minister’s reply is illogical.

Please read the last paragraph also.

The last paragraph reads—

Here the Minister says: “Well, you can continue; we cannot prevent you, but you may not collect funds from the public.” I now ask in Heaven’s name if the Springbok Legion and the B.E.S.L. were subjected to those limitations, what could they do? The Orange Flash League today represents between 2,000 and 3,000 members, and they only want the rights enjoyed by the other organisations. Therefore this argument of the Minister also does not hold water. I have the constitution of the organisation here, and it complies in every respect with the requirements of the Act. Hon. members may look at it if they like. The Secretary of the organisation now informs me amongst other things that—

1. (a) The League has a present membership of approximately 2,000.

That is the membership, notwithstanding the Minister’s action in refusing registration to the organisation—

1. (b) The league considers and is justified in considering that it is well able to fulfil a function which cannot be satisfactorily fulfilled by either the B.E.S.L. or the Springbok Legion. As appears from the League’s constitution one of its primary objects is to obtain employment for returned soldiers. This object is one that the B.E.S.L., on its own showing, is unable to achieve and the need for an organisation able to achieve such an object needs no emphasis. The B.E.S.L. as is well known, confines its activities to such matters as the obtaining of pensions for disabled volunteers and the floating of housing schemes which are of very little value to the average returned soldier, whose primary need is employment. Although the Government has given certain indications of its intention to provide employment for returned soldiers, it is nevertheless felt, that an organisation of ex-soldiers having this aim as one of its primary objects, fulfils an urgent public need.

I should like to make use of this opportunity to put a few questions to the Minister. I thought that the Minister would rise first when his Vote came under discussion in order to make a statement to the House and to the country about how far we have progressed in connection with demobilisation. Last year, and even before, the Minister instituted machinery for dealing with this important work. Everywhere in the country he appointed his committees. The committees, I think, in general tackled the work very enthusiastically, and I think that the work of the central committee was assisted by the enthusiasm of the local committees, by the enthusiasm of each of these local committees to do the work efficiently. But what the Minister now owes to us is a statement as to how far the work has been efficiently performed, in the first place. Secondly, we should like to hear from him in how far he is now prepared to have general demobilisation immediately the war is over, because we consider that now the war in Europe is practically coming to an end a comparatively small number of ex-soldiers will be absorbed in the re-organisation of the army and in the continuance of the war against Japan, so that the large majority of men who originally joined up and who have not yet left the army must now be demobilised.

I now want to ask the Minister whether he can tell the House and the country which departments of State are prepared immediately te tell the Directorate of Demobilisation: “We want so many thousand men whom we are prepared to absorb”. Up till now it seems to me that it is only the Department of Lands which has machinery available for absorbing a number of returned soldiers. I now want to ask the Minister what the Department of Mines, the so-called great industry, is prepared to do in that direction. Have they told the Minister that they are prepared to absorb so many men? I do not speak about mineworkers who went on active service; I speak of the obligation resting on the mines to absorb a larger number of men apart from those men. What is the mining industry prepared to do in connection with its obligations towards the returned soldiers? As an industry which enjoys all the privileges granted to them by the Government, I think it is also their duty to tell the Directorate of Demobilisation that they are prepared to absorb a certain number of men. A little while ago we heard that the Department of Railways wants a number of men. Can the Minister tell the House and the country how many thousands of men the Department of Railways wants from him? I d<? not talk about railwaymen who are in the army. I speak about men who have not been in the railway service before. How many men is the Department of Railways prepared to take? We know that the Department of Justice say that they want to extend the police force. What is our position in regard to demobilisation? Are our coastal cities now going to be guarded by the army or by the police? Is it part of the work of Demobilisation to see to it that a pro rata portion of the army shall remain in the Perament Force to do that work? We expected that the Minister at the commencement of the discussion on this Vote would rise and take the House into his confidence and tell us: “We have progressed so far in regard to demobilisation”. We further expect that he will rise and tell us what difficulties are in the way and why the thing cannot go smoothly. We know what expectations are held in the country in connection with demobilisation, and it is one of the departments which will have to work very efficiently if things are not to go wrong, and therefore I thought that the Minister ought to make a statement before we put questions to him which might lead to unnecessary debate. A little while ago he submitted a considered scheme of demobilisation to us, and it is his duty now to tell us what Government departments are assisting him in the matter and which Govertment departments do not do so; which industries in South Africa do their duty to fulfil the high expectations in regard to demobilisation, and which industries do not do so. We are all prepared to help him, but then the Minister must tell us where we stand. So far we know about the demobilisation machinery which was called into existence, but we do not know what progress has been made and we do not know with what difficulties the Minister will have to cope. Then I shall be glad, if the Minister has the information available, if he would tell the House how many applications were submitted by the various locai demobilisation committees; secondly, how many of those have been dealt with, and how many of those which have been dealt with have been approved of and how many rejected by the Central Demobilisation Committee. We know many things are being asked for. Some applicants want money. Others want work, and there are others who want houses. I cannot expect the Minister to give the House all those details now, because it will involve a mass of figures, but I think that the Minister will be able to tell us how many applications have been made, how many received no benefits, and how many did receive benefits as a result of their applications. That will enable us to judge in how far that demobilisation machinery worked efficiently and how far it did not. I do not wish to say much at the present moment, because it makes the whole debate aimless and profitless, but I shall be glad if the Minister would reply to those points at the earliest possible opportunity.

I should like to follow up a little what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has said. There is certain information I should like to have. Before I put a few questions to the Minister I want on behalf of the section of the House I represent, namely the soldier’s group, to express our keenest appreciation towards the Director of Demobilisation for the knowledge and the ability he has brought to bear on this great question. We had the privilige of having him with us for a few days and the information he gave us was of the greatest value and gave general satisfaction to members. In the first place I want to voice my appreciation to the Director for a certain measure of decentralisation that they intend to carry out. I positively believe this is one of the best things they have done so far. We have now come to the end of what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister described as priority No. 1. The war in Europe is actually past, and priority No. 2, that is to say demobilisation, has become priority No. 1. We must see to it that we make the same success of priority No. 2 as we made of priority No. 1. In the first place I want to ask the Minister what progress has been made with the handbook which will he given to every soldier for his information, and whether it will be issued before long so that they may become conversant with the work of demobilisation. Then there are a few points in connection with the question of policy in the demobilisation plan. Certain obligations rest on the Government as a whole and not so much on the Department of Welfare and Demobilisation. There are certain obligations that must be complied with for which the Government as a whole are actually responsible before the other Departments of State can operate under them. For instance, I should like to know whether the Government has yet worked out the number of soldiers to be discharged from the army who can be absorbed in the Permanent Force; whether they have decided how many they can take into service after the soldiers have returned. When the Government has decided on the number the Director of Demobilisation will be in a better position to see to it that the remaining returned soldiers are employed, then an important matter, to my mind, is the policy in regard to war industries. We are aware of the amazing number of people who are today employed in war industries. We know that the soldiers will be back here before long, men as well as women, and should we demobilise them simultaneously we would find it difficult to employ them all within a short time. Accordingly, I want to ask that the Government should not close down these industries too quickly, so that these people are not all thrown out of work at the same time. There is another big feature in connection with the Government’s policy. There is the question of housing. This question of housing is no longer a departmental matter. It appears to me it is the outstanding subject the Government has to deal with, and it is the most important matter with which the Department of Demobilisation has to deal. A little while ago the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation told us about certain plans in regard to housing. He told us what plans would be carried out to accelerate a solution of the housing problem. But as so much time will be occupied in carrying out those plans in view of the large quantity of material required, the question arises whether a commencement should not be made now with these plans the Minister has announced. I should like to know whether a start cannot be made with the plans not merely in the villages but in the towns, in the various universities, on the settlements, etc., and I should like to know whether the Minister will make use of the manpower he has in the dispersal depôts to erect houses for the returned soldiers. I should like to know something more about the university plans. We have heard 6,000 returned soldiers will need university education. I should like to know whether these 6,000 young people who are returning will find room in the universities. Will there be professors and lecturers to educate them? This is a demobilisation plan, but I should like to know whether this is in order. I should also like to be informed whether the other Departments of State, apart from the Department of Demobilisation, have prepared their machinery for absorbing returned soldiers. I should like to see all these matters in order by the time the soldiers return. The Government’s plan is that we should make use of existing channels to carry out the demobilisation plans. That underlies the whole scheme. I should like to know whether the other departments which are prepared to carry out the plan, such as the Lands Department, the Agricultural Department and the Department of Native Affairs and the Railway Administration, are ready and whether their machinery is in order. The Minister of Justice has frequently told us that about 3,000 more people will be required in the police force. I should like to know, however, whether there is accommodation in the police depôts to train these people for the police force. Then we come to land settlement. Take Vaal-Hartz, for example. I should like to know whether the Department of Agriculture has the necessary staff to train these people as agriculturists. Further information I desire in connection with Vaal-Hartz, where the Government is going to provide a home for a number of soldiers, is whether the Provincial Council is providing a school for them. Will the Department of Justice establish a magistrate’s court at Vaal-Hartz, seeing that thousands of soldiers are going to be located there? Then I should like to know whether the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will have a post office there. The Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation should inform us of what progress that department has made. If he does this the House will be somewhat more satisfied that the plans of the Government are well in hand. I know that at the settlement there are going to be about 4,000 newcomers. What about the machinery and implements required to carry these plans into effect? Has the Government yet decided whether there will be an adequate supply of implements, or will it be necessary to import further implements? To what extent are we prepared to carry out these things? I want to know whether other departments will employ on a large scale natives and coloured soldiers who are discharged. Where there is any question that matters are not progressing rapidly enough I should like to know what steps are being taken to expedite the execution of these plans. We know that the provincial councils are involved in the matter. Then I come to the Department of Social Welfare. As thousands of people can be placed at Pongola and Vaal-Hartz and Loskop, I should be glad to know whether the department is prepared with clinics. Will a hospital be erected later? I should welcome information that the provincial authorities will erect hospitals shortly at the various centres where numbers of people are going to be settled, so that we will not, after five years, hear that the demobilisation plans were not ready. The machinery of demobilisation is working excellently, but it appears to me there is a great shortage of staff in carrying out the demobilisation scheme, and we know, of course, that the ablest men we have are still largely in the North. The assurance would be welcome, too, that under a system that has been instituted the various categories which first went North will be the first to return to the Union. I should like to know whether certain people who held key positions should not come back earlier, and I would be glad to learn whether the co-operation of the Demobilisation Department and other departments is so good that those people will obtain priority in regard to their return to the Union. It is extremely necessary that we should see to it that the plans that have to be carried out reach finality within a short time. I therefore hope the first thing that will be done will be to give the right to the Demobilisation Department to bring these people down to the Union first. I hope the first thing that will be done will be to let these people return, so that they can make the necessary arrangements. Further, I should like to know, seeing that there is such a big shortage, whether there are sufficient buildings at the university to accommodate the people and whether, bearing in mind the great number of applications for farms, the Government is prepared and ready to make more land available. The soldiers will be returning to the Union one of these days. There is the question of clothing. What is being done to provide them with clothing? These people cannot wait for a week or two for a suit of clothes. There is a shortage of materials. Is the Department of Economic Development prepared to see that reserves are established in the country? We are convinced of the goodwill of the Government and of the goodwill of the Minister and of all the people who co-operate with them. But are they prepared?

If there is one Minister I sympathise with it is the Minister in charge of demobilisation. I must congratulate him on having taken steps so far to secure a staff as competent as they are to help him. We will naturally give the Minister every support we possibly can. When, therefore, I rise in my seat and make a few observations he may be quite sure it is to help. Then again the Minister has to carry out this work of demobilisation in conjunction with the responsibilities attached to the other portfolios he is in charge of. I cannot help thinking, bearing in mind our agricultural industry and various avenues of employment we found that before the war these forms of employment could not absorb all the people in South Africa who wanted work. I have always maintained, and I have urged most emphatically that industrial development is the only remedy that will be at the disposal of the Minister when it comes to finding employment for our troops on demobilisation. I have read a great deal about every nation in the world that has gone in for a policy of industrial protection. It is a contentious matter, but I am one of those who stand for protection in a reasonable way. I want to tell the Minister if he wishes industry to absorb a large number of the people coming back from the front, industry will have to be developed, and it can only be developed by the Government laying down a sound policy of protection. This policy must be expressed in no uncertain terms; it must not be the sort of policy we have read about in international statements that will leave people uncertain, not knowing where they stand. The Government has to declare its policy. The industrialists have to go ahead, but they cannot do so when they do not know what the future is going to bring. The Atlantic Charter has had an obscuring effect on account of the many different interpretations that have been placed upon it. I can understand how various nations are looking for export markets and how they are consequently disposed to interpret it on the lines of free trade. But if South African industries are to be killed for ever it will be through free trade. What is the result of the present policy, which is a policy of protection? As the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) has pointed out, there are war-time industries, not necessarily industries producing only war material, and with the war coming to an end their products will no longer be required. The question arises along what lines are these to be converted into peace-time industries? I know of several industries that can be changed over to a different line of production, but the industrialists want to know what the Government’s protection policy is. The people working in these industries cannot very well throw their present employees into the streets to absorb the returned soldiers. Nor is that what your returned soldier would like to see. If you absorbed the returned soldier and put the present employees on to the streets you would still have the problem of unemployment, and that is not the way I am sure the Minister wants to endeavour to solve this problem. I am confident he wishes to deal with it in a manner that will not have the effect of creating unemployment but that will at the same time provide a solution to this particular problem. My contention is a policy of protection is necessary. I know of several industries that people are prepared to start right away, and the money can be found for them, but it is necessary that the Government should first declare its policy in no uncertain terms. Co-ordination is required, and in this connection the Minister of Finance has a line of policy which industrialists regard as retarding the development of industry. He maintains that there is no other source of revenue, that we must have the money and therefore taxation must stand as it is. But the Minister of Demobilisation will have to take industry into that and make efforts to dissuade the Minister of Finance to modify his taxation policy in such a way that it will not retard industry. He can secure revenue from other sources but he must leave this one avenue of industry open for further employment. What is the Government’s policy in regard to industries that have been worked to a standstill through war production, not merely in the production of articles required for the war but in other directions? They have got to this pitch because they have been unable to replace their plant. Is the Government going to give them sufficient opportunity to replace the old plant? That is a question the Minister must be vitally interested in. Unless he takes action many of these industries so far from developing will have to close down. Therefore the Minister must see to it that a financial policy is adopted and control so extended that the industries will have a chance to replace their workedout plant. It may be some time before industry gets new plant, which in turn will open up new channels for the absorption of returned soldiers. There again I say it is necessary, as the hon. member for Potchefstroom has pointed out, that there should be co-ordination. The Minister must know what the other departments are going to do before he can settle the details of his policy for employment for the returned soldier. It is very necessary to have information on that industrial aspect. There are, moreover, going to be many semi-fit men back from the front. Where are they going to be employed? Industry would be glad to employ them, but industry cannot employ them at full wages if they are not going to get full results. I do not know whether the Minister is going to consider the industrial employment of semifit men at full wages by means of a system of Government subsidies, so that industry will not be the losers.

In America Mr. Ford has shown that you can use handicapped people at economic rates.

If there are sufficient vacancies industry would absorb them. I can imagine, for instance, if a man has one leg and he can do clerical work he will not be handicapped in that. But I am referring to thè prospect of there being more semi-fit people than can be economically absorbed in industry. In those circumstances will the Government be prepared to subsidise industries to ensure that these men will be employed? I mention this because it may be necessary—though I hope not—to subsidise people in that connection. The type of returned soldier I have great sympathy for is the young professional man, the man who when he concluded his studies joined the army and who has spent all the intervening years in it. He is now coming out of the army after having had five or six years experience. The question is to what extent the Government could give these young men preference. I cannot very well say subsidise them, but I think they should not be left too far behind the others who did not join and who have gained the experience that gives them a preferential position in regard to competition. The only other point I wish to make is that the Minister is going to get the blame as Minister of Demobilisation for any lack of efficiency or mismanagement of any description that now occurs on the part of the Defence Department. It is generally known that there is a lot of red tape in the Defence Department, and if the Minister could himself have the handling of these matters, especially in connection with posts to be filled in the Demobilisation Department, I have no doubt that parctical decisions will be taken, and it is necessary that in this connection we should think not merely in terms of the Defence Department but in terms of Demobilisation. I think the Minister should obtain the full assistance of the Minister of Defence in preventing unnecessary red tape in the Defence Department making his work difficult and embarrassing him in his operations. Where small things bearing on military discipline can be eased and relaxed this should be done in order to assist the returned soldiers to obtain employment.

We also in these benches realise the very difficult task which confronts the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, and we appreciate the efforts he has already made; and more than that, we believe in the energy he will apply to this great matter in the future. But before I make one or two criticisms, or suggestions, I want to remind the Minister that in a speech on the 28th April last year he did set the hopes of the people very high. If I may illustrate by a matter of housing, this is what he said—

These sentiments are very commendable, but relatively little has been done towards putting them into effect. Then the Minister quoted the Prime Minister himself in very generous terms and, as I said before, raising very high hopes—

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

On 28th April last year the Minister made a great speech on his “complete plan”. In my opinion it was too great a speech. It brought before my eyes John Drydeh’s description of Alexander’s feast—

In that speech it seems to me that the Minister was being swept along on the flood of his own eloquence, but floods have a habit of subsiding and leaving a great deal of wreckage on the beach, and that is what it appears to me we have had in the present instance. I am said to be a critic of this directorate and this Department’s policy. That is only partly true, and at least I do not go round the streets with a bell, like the town-crier in the Middle Ages, begging people to bring their grievances to me. But I am in touch with so many casés of difficulty that if I put the documents on the floor of this House the top thereof would be considerably higher than this bench. The Committee will be glad to know that I do not propose going into all of them, but I would like to tell you of a little conversation I had in the Toc H lounge at Wynberg no longer ago than Friday of last week. There were four people there. One of them was an English soldier, so he was all right. The other two gave me their recent experiences with the Directorate of Demobilisation. Case A was that of a flying officer who crashed while on duty in the Cape in 1942 through no negligence or fault of his own. He suffered very severe injuries to his head, broke his leg and had other injuries. For the next two years he was constantly in and out of hospital, and so the time came for him to be dispensed with. At the medical examination he was told that if he desired any pension it would only be a matter of 30s. or £2 a month, and he told them to keep it. I suppose that was not quite the right reaction, but it was his and a very natural one. I mention it because I am trying to prove that the Minister is mistaken in reading the psychology of the soldier. Well, he has not got a job even now. He has been out of the army for seven months and there is a matter of £45 still owing to him on his pay. He is personally paying medical fees for treatment of the wounds to his head, still unhealed. But at this very moment he is negotiating for an appointment as a conductor on a tram. It seems to me that this great machine is misfiring too often and too openly and too near me. The other member of that little party was a widow with two sons. They both joined the army. One has just come back from a prisoner of war camp in Germany. He was landed at Brighton and promptly put into hospital there. The other son was killed on 23rd September, 1944. I do not suppose this which follows is really the fault of the Directorate of Demobilisation, but it is someone’s fault and it is a rotten fault. She was asked whether she would like his effects, and said she would, but it was another man’s badges and uniform which duly reached this woman last week. Then, Sir, she applied for a gratuity which is mentioned under this complete plan, but she was told that no arrangements had been made so far for paying out dead soldiers’ gratuities to dependants, and she was told, which I detest very much, that she should read the press and listen to the radio for further information and instructions. Therefore I repeat at this stage that the Minister is misreading the psychology of the country. It is not that the ex-soldiers or seamen want so much in the way of material things, but they need very careful handling, and my submission is that they are not getting it. My submission is quite definitely that they are not getting it. The Ministry of Demobilisation, in my view, have not got a sufficiently tactful approach. We read in this speech a year ago that about 60 per cent. of the men are already provided for because their pre-war jobs are waiting for them. Sir, the returned soldier does not want his pre-war job, in a very large percentage of cases. He does not want to have a weekly pay envelope ever any more, nor a monthly salary cheque either. He has got it into his head that the time has ended when he must work for a master. He wants his own little business. He thinks he can make it pay. Perhaps in the great difficulties of the near future that will prove to be incorrect, but he wants to try it. It may not be practicable in all cases, but that is the point of view of the soldier, and it must be kept in mind by the Directorate of Demobilisation. The men are not satisfied. I would suggest to you that there should be jobs for these ex-soldiers on the staff of the Directorate of Demobilisation. The local sub-committees are composed of most estimable and experienced people, but very largely of elderly people. The returned soldiers are not elderly, and it would have been better, in my opinion, to have taken 5 per cent. of the army and allowed them to fix up their comrades during the next three to seven years, because it will take at least that time to do it. 5 per cent. of the army as it stands would be 10,000 men. We will want every one of the 10,000 men and women, merely in the social services of this country, within that period of seven years, and they should be trained meanwhile for that work. It is the psychological side I stress, what the ex-officer, the ex-sergeant-major, the ex-sergeant, and the ex-private feel like. These ex-servicemen will know. They know how to handle the ex-soldier. Excellent people have been appointed on the local committees, but they cannot correctly understand, as the ex-volunteer would, the position; nor are they sufficiently young to follow up cases and find what the history of each individual applicant has been. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has jus sat down has accused me, in making my speech last year, in introducing the Government’s demobilisation plan, of being over-enthusiastic, and perhaps having too great a measure of faith. Well, I would like to remind the hon. member that unless he had a certain amount of faith his profession would go out of business in a week or two, and I hope he will not hold it against me that the Directorate of Demobilisation has started out on a basis of hopefulness and optimism. We have set out upon that basis, but we realise there are difficulties. We are already experiencing them at the present time. We will have a great many more. What we want now is a little courage, and not undue and unnecessary pessimism. I know my hon. friend has very much at heart the cause of the ex-volunteer; I appreciate that, because many times he has seen me personally on these matters. I would assure him too that the Directorate of Demobilisation has that cause very much at heart. I shall try in the course of what I have to say, to give the house some details of what the Directorate has been doing since last I made an official statement on this matter, but there is one suggestion I think I should not allow to go without comment. The hon. member who has just spoken has said that the ex-volunteer does not wish to go back to his pre-war job. I would suggest to my hon. friend if he is going to preach that doctrine he is going to do a very great disservice to ex-volunteers as a whole. In the Directorate we estimate we shall require to find employment for something like 60,000 ex-volunteers who have no pre-war employment to go back to. In addition it is estimated that employment will also have to be provided for anything from 25,000 upwards of persons employed in a temporary capacity against posts formerly held by volunteers. In addition, we have large numbers of persons employed in essential industries who in the absence of special Government provision will go unemployed. If the suggestion or the hope were allowed to go out that every ex-volunteer should not go back to his pre-war employment, if it should be suggested the Government should assist ex-volunteers to take up with impunity employment other than they had before the war, we would be heading towards a state of labour chaos in this country. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Labour will agree with me on that. We have laid down as a matter of policy, so far as the Directorate is concerned, the Directorate cannot and will not give financial assistance to any ex-volunteer to abandon his pre-enlistment employment and take up new employment unless it can be shown as a result of war service he is not fit to go back to his preenlistment employment, or unless there are other circumstances which in his case would justify the giving of financial assistance to enable him to change his employment. That is the principle which has been laid down. I do hope my hon. friend will not create the impression throughout the country that every man who comes back should try to to find some other outlet for his activities. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) has asked me to give the House —he suggested it was my duty—a review of what has taken place in the Directorate since I last made an announcement in regard to this matter. I shall attempt to do that, but before doing so I would like very briefly to reply to the hon. member for Westdent (Mr. Mentz), who this morning raised the question of the Orange Flash League. He pointed out this is a body which has been formed for the purpose of representing ex-volunteers. That body applied last year for registration under a war measure which compels all war funds to be registered. The application was most carefully considered by the responsible board, the War Funds Board, and it was turned down. Eventually the Orange Flash League appealed to me in my capacity as the Minister administering the Department of Social Welfare, under which department the administration of the board falls, and after going into the matter carefully and receiving advice from the department and from the Directorate of Demobilisation, I felt that the proper course was to reject the appeal. This organisation has been formed for the purpose of representing ex-volunteers. Though the appeal has been rejected there is nothing to prevent that organisation carrying on; the effect of the decision, however, is that the organisation cannot appeal to the public for funds. In the view of the Directorate of Demobilisation, in the view of the Government, no good purpose is served to the cause of the ex-volunteer by a multiplicity of ex-service organisations. In the interests of the ex-volunteer, men and women, it is of the utmost importance that there should be unanimity, and it is not the policy of the Government to do anything to encourage the growth of new organisations.

How many have you registered?

I am not in a position to give the hon. member a reply off-hand. I imagine there are the old standing organisations such as the South African Legion of the British Empire Service League, the M.O.T.H.S. and the Springbok Legion; I imagine they have been registered.

About 162 similar organisations have been registered.

Yes that is in connection with war funds, I do not know of 162 ex-service organisations in the country. But the fact is that in the view of the Government it is not in the interests of the ex-volunteer that there should be a multiplicity of these organisations The hon. member for Krugersdorp has asked me to give a review of what has been accomplished by the Directorate of Demobilisation. Just over a year ago, in April last, I asked the Government’s plan in relation to demobilisation. At that time it was felt by the Government the time had arrived for the production of a comprehensive plan to deal with all aspects of demobilisation. What was announced in the House in April last year was a plan. The next stage was to create the machinery necessary for the carrying out of that plan, and in the months following April of last year the newly formed Directorate was busy with the task of building up its machinery, collecting the necessary staff and making arrangements for the full plan to be put into operation. In December last I was able to announce that that plan, the full plan, would come into operation on the 3rd January this year. On the 3rd January that plan came into operation and simultaneously a wide network of demobilisation committees began to function in various parts of the country. Hon. members will remember one of the mainstays of the plan is an executive board. The executive board has been extremely active in the last few months. It has divided its attention between the co-ordination of the work of all Government departments for the welfare and reinstatement of ex-volunteers and the authorisation of payments to ex-volunteers, discharged since 1940, under the financial assistance scheme. In other words, the executive board acts as the authority for the purpose of approving or rejecting applications for financial assistance under the financial assistance scheme. On representations from the Secretary for Defence the board agreed, and the Treasury approved, that volunteers who attest for service in the South African Pay Corps after the war will, on the expiration of their existing contracts, receive the war gratuities for which they have qualified, cash and civilian clothing allowances and pay in lieu of leave. When their new contracts terminate they will be eligible for consideration of all reinstatement benefits. Hon. members will appreciate how necessary it is that the personnel of the South African Pay Corps is preserved until the Government’s obligations to all those serving men and women have been undertaken. The board has also accepted in principle that ex-volunteers placed in temporary employment in war industries or elsewhere become the responsibility of the Directorate when the stage of temporary employment ceases. There is a committee now sitting which is formulating recommendations for the Government as to the extent to which benefits under the Union demobilisation scheme, or other forms of assistance or facilities, may be made available to Union nationals who have served in the forces of Allied Governments; Union nationals who served in the Union or Allied armed forces but wish to take up or resume residence outside the Union; British subjects who are not Union nationals, and aliens who served in the forces of the Union, and non-Union nationals who served in Allied forces who wish to take up or resume residence in the Union. Hon. members will remember that the Government at once accepted its responsibility for the care of those Union nationals who might have taken up service in the forces of Allied governments. That was accepted in principle. In giving effect to that principle difficulties arose in regard to the grant of immediate benefits, the question of gratuities. The Union Government is not in the position to kow what all other allied goverments may be doing in the way of gratuities and until these matters are settled we cannot decide whether the Union Government will pay gratuities or not. We have accepted the responsibility for reinstatement benefits, but when the Directorate applied its mind to these various matters it was found it was linked up with the question of Union nationals, the problem of these Union nationals to whom I have referred. Tihs committee, which has been sitting recently, is also considering the question of the repatriation of military personnel and their families, more particularly in regard to Union nationals discharged outside the Union, and non-Union nationals who have served in the Union’s forces. It may interest the House to have some details in regard to the gratuities that have been paid out. Towards the end of last year there was considerable doubt as to whether it would be possible to begin the payment of gratuities to our Union nationals by the end of the war. The Directorate of Demobilisation made the strongest representations to the Department of Defence and eventually, with the collaboration of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, it was possible to set up the necessary machinery to enable these payments to be started. In this respect I might remind the House, South Africa is in the van of all the belligerent countries in the world. South Africa is the first of all the belligerent countries in the world to pay out any war gratuities before the cessation of hostilities. From November 15th, 1944, when the payment of war gratuities began, to March 31st, 1945, a total of £1,526,242 has been paid to 38,226 European ex-volunteers. Of the gratuities paid by means of Union Loan Certificates 76 per cent. have been converted into cash and, on representations by the Postmaster-General it has been decided that as from a fixed date European ex-volunteers will, on discharge, be given the option of taking their gratuities either in Union Loan Certificates or as deposits in post office savings bank accounts. Representations were made to the Treasury with a view to reducing from seven to six years the period of maturity of Union Loan Certificates issued to ex-volunteers in payment of war gratuities. The proposal, however, was not agreed to. Regarding the gratuities, this alternative was however arrived at, which I hope will meet the needs of many ex-volunteers who do require cash immediately on receipt of their gratuity. They will not be obliged to draw all that cash; they will have a deposit in the savings bank and will be able to draw according to their needs. As far as concerns gratuities to coloured ex-volunteers an amount of £133,022 10s. had, at March 31st, been paid to the post office for investment in savings bank accounts for 9,052 coloured ex-volunteers. A total of £32,170 10s. has been paid in cash and into savings bank accounts for 4,752 native ex-volunteers. Of the total amount invested for coloured and native ex-volunteers 69 per cent. has been drawn. There is still a number of coloured and native ex-volunteers who apparently do not realise they are entitled to these gratuities, but every effort is being made to trace them and to notify them that these sums are available. Then there is the question of pay in lieu of leave. As the present system of pay in lieu of leave to volunteers on discharge has resulted in some hardship, certain ex-volunteers having to return to their pre-enlistment employment immediately on discharge, and not enjoying any leave, approval has been sought to permit a volunteer to choose cash in lieu of leave or take the leave and have his discharge post-dated to the last day of leave. For Government servants, it has been ruled that the period for which pay was received will be regarded as civil leave; that is, if he so chooses, the ex-volunteer need not return to his civil department until the period has ended. In connection with the scheme whereby rail warrants are issued for the transport of an ex-volunteer and his family and effects to a centre other than his preenlistment domicile where employment has been obtained, the Directorate has obtainetd Treasury approval to extend this authority to cover cases where a volunteer’s family and effects are at a third centre at the time of his securing employment away from his pre-enlistment centre. The Directorate has put into operation the scheme recommended by the ad hoc committee for dealing in a special way with volunteers in dispersal depôts who refuse reasonable offers of employment made to them. Provision has also been made for ex-volunteers who in certain circumstances become unemployed within six months after discharge. Ex-volunteers who, through no fault of their own, lose their employment between six and 12 months of discharge, may now in exceptional cases be taken back on strength either at full or reduced rates of pay. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) has today put to me a number of points relating to the Government’s proposals for finding employment, and has asked me whether I was satisfied or the Government was satisfied it was taking the fullest possible steps to obtain employment for those of our ex-volunteers who would have no pre-enlistment employment to go back to or who by reason of their war service would not be fit to go back to their pre-enlistment employment. Well, during March the Directorate distributed more than 20,000 questionnaires to employers to gather information about probable post-war employment. To date over 5,000 have been returned. That is not altogether a good response. I realise, of course, that many employers are in a difficulty in regard to giving an answer to the questions put to them. But there was a special section of the questionnaire to enable the employer to give the conditions under which he might or would be able to give employment to a large number of ex-volunteers, and the Directorate is hoping that as a result of that a number of suggestions will be received which can be passed on to other departments of the Government if necessary. These replies are now being analysed, as is also the questionnaire returned by serving volunteers. The closing date for the return of the employers’ questionnaire has been extended to May 15, and I would appeal to employers throughout the country to complete the forms and return them to the Directorate as soon as possible. The Directorate is largely dependent upon the employers of this country for the information it must have in order to know where unemployed ex-volunteers may be placed in employment. Thus all, the information the employers can give, even though this may be qualified in respect of possible changes of conditions in the postwar period will be of the utmost value. The hon. member for Potchefstroom has asked me particularly in regard to Government employment. There is a special section in the Directorate dealing with the co-ordination of Government employment and the information that section has been able to obtain is as follows. The following vacancies have been notified to the Directorate with a view to their being filled by ex-volunteers: South African Railways and Harbours 3,700; Post and Telegraphs 1,800; South African Police 1,080; Native Affairs 2,260; Prisons 881; Forestry 840; Agriculture 311; and other departments 329, making a total number of vacancies of 11,201; approximately 8,000 of these vacancies are for European males. I want to emphasise that these figures are in addition to those ex-volunteers, public servants, who will naturally return to their pre-enlistment employment in the service. These are additional vacancies being kept open in order to absorb ex-volunteers who on their return have no pre-enlistment employment to go to. Nor does the list include vacancies in the clerical division of the public service in respect of which the Public Service Commission has stated that it will consider for permanent appointment all matriculated applicants who were 25 years of age at date of enlistment, or who are otherwise suitable, and all suitable unmarried women ex-volunteers who have passed the junior certificate examination. It is estimated that the public service will be able to absorb 11,000 volunteers according to those conditions. I want to remind the House that the Railways Administration has already absorbed a number of ex-volunteers over and above pre-war employees.

Will you in the course of your statement tell us how many ex-volunteers will come back to the various Government departments.

The MINISTER OF WELFARE AND DEMOBILISATION Unfortunately I am not able to give my hon. friend that information this afternoon, but for the purposes of our general discussion it seems to me that it is irrelevant, because all Government servants who are on active service at the present time have naturally their employment guarantee and they will go back to their pre-enlistment employment; their pension and promotion rights have been safeguarded, and they do not form part of the problem with which the Directorate of Demobilisation has to deal. Nor does the list I have given cover employment prospects on construction schemes such as those of the Irrigation Department, the National Roads Board or the Division of Soil Conservation, which are fields of employment of great potentiality, but in respect of which accurate estimates cannot be made until it is known when important items of machinery and equipment will be available from overseas. The Directorate has been informed that if technical services, labour and material are available, the Public Works Department expects to arrange for the erection of new buildings worth £2,000,000 per annum for some years ahead. This will, it is estimated, give indirect employment in the building industry to 2,000 skilled and 4,000 unskilled workmen. In similar circumstances the Cape Provincial Administration hopes to spend up to £750,000 annually for some years and the Transvaal Provincial Administration up to £900,000 annually, giving indirect employment in the building industry to proportionate numbers of skilled and unskilled workmen. The House is already aware that one of the schemes I am considering at the present time in relation to the housing problem is obtaining 5,000 ex-volunteers for the building industry under a short-term training scheme under arrangements with the trade union. That, if effected, will mean that we are tackling two problems at the same time. We shall be opening up a new avenue of employment for the ex-volunteer and we shall be making available on a larger scale a labour force in the building industry. Indirect employment in the manufacture of materials and in transport will also be created by these schemes. The Directorate, in its task of trying to co-ordinate the work of demobilisation, in trying to whip up that large degree of co-operation which is so essential in dealing with this problem—the co-ordination referred to by the hon. member for Potchefstroom—has also sought the co-operation of the provincial administrations in the employment of ex-volunteers. In January last the Provincial Consultative Committee discussed the following items submitted by the Directorate: (a) Ex-volunteers who are admitted or re-admitted to the service of provincial administrations or of bodies functioning under provincial authority should not suffer any disadvantage in their civil employment by reason of having been on military service. That is the principle laid down by the Government in regard to Government employment. The other point put to the committee was that ex-volunteers should be given preference for employment under provincial administrations and under bodies functioning under provincial authority. The representatives of the Cape, Transvaal and Natal Administrations agreed with the principles set out and promised to put them into effect. The policy of the Free State Administration is to reinstate its former employees on their return from military service, as is done in the other provinces, but in respect of new appointments it will treat each case on its merits. Following these discussions the Directorate has begun to collect details of vacancies for ex-volunteers in provincial establishments. The Cape Provincial Administration has notified the Directorate of 230 vacancies with hospital and school boards. The Directorate has arranged for the employment in various Government departments of numbers of ex-volunteers whom placement presented special difficulties. It has also made representations in favour of ex-volunteers whose reinstatement with their pre-war departments presented difficulties. In other words, we are bound to have a number of persons who may be cases for sheltered employment, but we may be able to divert them to Government departments under certain conditions. A number of difficulties have been experienced in regard to controlled commodities. Ex-volunteers have wanted to enter a business or start a particular trade or calling, and for that purpose it has been necessary for them to get some permit. I should like to emphasise even in regard to that particular problem that while the policy laid down by the Directorate is that an ex-volunteer must be given preference it does not necessarily mean that the mere fact that an ex-volunteer asks for permission to enter a new business or calling means that he will get that authority. Let me give a simple illustration of that point. In a small up-country town there may have been two taxi drivers before the war. One goes on active service and is away for five years; the other man remains behind and carries on business, and gets the business of his competitor. At this stage before the task of demobilisation has been completed, before the other taxi driver comes back, a third party may appear in the town, an ex-volunteer who applies for a permit to carry on the trade or calling of taxi driver in that town. Now the local demobilisation committee must, as a matter of duty to the ex-volunteer from that town who is still on active service, consider whether that town can bear another taxi driver. If they give a permit to an applicant merely on the grounds that he is an ex-volunteer they may be doing tremendous damage to the man who has still to return. So I would ask hon. members to bear in mind it is the duty of demobilisation committees to take these facts into consideration, and there are certain circumstances in which particular requests from ex-volunteers must be refused because they may militate against the interests of a man who has not returned. The fact that he has been turned down does not mean that he will not be helped in another direction. Of course he will. He must not feel that because he was turned down in one direction he is not receiving the justice due to him. In addition to the arrangements with the Minister of Economic Development and the Director General of Supplies that a certain percentage of all controlled commodities is to be set aside for ex-volunteers whose applications are supported, the principle was laid down that assistance may be given to manufacturers who, through engaging ex-volunteers need extra commodities to have full employment. The various controllers are giving preferential and sympathetic treatment to all who apply to the Directorate. That is the system as regards controlled commodities. The ex-volunteer goes to the Demobilisation Committee. That committee considers whether the application is justified, and if it is recognised it is sent to the Directorate, and we have the necessary liaison to ensure that the final decision is taken within 48 hours. That is the rule laid down. Hon. members will remember that from 1st April last year, the Directorate of Demobilisation took control of the special depôts other than those dealing with ex-women volunteers, and since that date a large number of volunteers, excluding women, have been discharged. The total number is 15,696. The total at dispersal depôts for release at 31st March, 1945, was 1,851. During the period 1st April, 1944 to 31st March, 1945, a total of 13,576 were discharged to employment. Of these 8,991 returned to former employment, 4,585 were placed in employment through the machinery of the Department of Labour, which has its representative on each of the Dispersal Depot committees. Generally speaking the employment position with regard to European ex-volunteers has been satisfactory, and in fact the demand continues to exceed the supply. The position as regards coloureds has not been so satisfactory. There are many vacancies which cannot be filled as suitable candidates are not in the depôts at present, and the small number of volunteers who have been in the depôts is accounted for by those who require sheltered employment, who although not skilled in any trade are unwilling to accept the daily wages paid to unskilled workers. For each of this class the Directorate is working out schemes at present. The Directorate had hoped by this time to assume control of the women’s dispersal depot, but owing to the fact that staff was not made available by the Defence Department, the Directorate was not able to undertake that control. I am hoping, however, that the necessary arrangements will shortly be made to allow the Directorate to deal with that matter. It has been found that there have been a number of anomalies in the discharge of women and as the result of representations by the Directorate discharges by purchase have now ceased. The Directorate has made representations in regard to reviewing the cases of women formerly discharged by purchase who in terms of the Defence ruling were nob entitled to benefit. In the view of the Directorate many of these women will be entitled to benefits and their cases will be reviewed. There were quite a few cases of that description. Cases under various headings of the discharges sub-section, having been discharged, are now being reviewed. Those headings include things like giving the wrong name of parents on attestation, giving false answers, conviction by civil power, services no longer required or a sentence under term of imprisonment without the option of a fine. Representations have been made in regard to reviewing some of these categories, like discharge in the interests of the service and discharge by purchase and I am hoping that these representations will shortly meet with success. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) has referred to the steps taken by the Government to co-ordinate the plans for land settlement. As the House knows, in December last year special machinery was formed to deal with ex-volunteers who wished to go in for farming, and at a later stage the hon. member for Potchefstroom was himself appointed as chairman of the special committee to deal with such cases of men who wished to go on the land. The measures taken to implement that and to carry out the recommendations made by the committee are as follows. It was felt that as the success of land settlement schemes depend largely on the provision of staff to guide ex-volunteers in taking up holdings on demobilisation, the Defence Department was approached to arrange for the release of suitable personnel who are accepted for training as instructors. We have obtained authority to create. 50 posts for ex-volunteers who will be instructors. These posts were created and salary scales laid down, and Defence has now been asked to supply these 50 people to the Department of Agriculture. Hon. members will recall that as the result of recommendations by the Directorate of Demobilisation agricultural colleges were opened as from the beginning of this year. This training which will be given to these men will be by way of courses at agricultural colleges and practical training at settlements. Some of them will also be trained as instructors. All temporary leases of Crown land were cancelled in order to prepare the land for general demobilisation, but as a number of ex-volunteers and some still on service leased Crown land, the Directorate made representations to the Department of Lands and the Minister of Lands agreed to consider certain specific exceptions in the cancellations of leases. It was also arranged that members of the Directorate and of the committee would meet members of the Central Land Board once a month in order to discuss these problems. This form of liaison is producing very good results. The Government policy in connection with the provision of financial assistance to ex-volunteer farmers is that such will only be made when no other existing State machinery exists for that purpose. It was agreed however that grants, as opposed to loans, up to £250 will be made available irrespective of assistance under existing State schemes, provided the merits of the case justify such action. While this is the basic policy the problem of financial assistance to ex-volunteer farmers has so many different aspects that it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules. The Land and Agricultural Advisory Committee considers each case strictly on its merits and recommends accordingly. With regard to the preparation of the land in settlements at one stage serious concern was felt at the non-availability of material and equipment, but the Quartermaster-General has now made equipment available, especially in the Vaal-Hartz and Loskop settlements. Adequate supplies of cement and building material were made available, but in spite of the fact that the Director-General of Supplies has supplied 100 tons of barbed wire and 40 tons of galvanised wire the shortage of fencing material still persists. The department has been told that the building programme is proceeding according to plan. Levelling and debushing of one-third of each holding is taking place in order to expedite occupation. I have no doubt that the Minister of Lands will also give information on these points. I do not wish to detain the House, but questions have been asked about proposals in relation to vocational training and university education. Plans for these things are all under way. The various national committees relating to the forms of vocational training have been established, with committees in all parts of the Union. We have gone out specially to enlist the help of employers and trade unions and a splendid spirit exists amongst those who are trying to map out the manner in which ex-volunteers should be retrained vocationally. As far as university training is concerned I can assure the hon. member for Potchefstroom that the Directorate appreciates the need of ensuring that there should be an adequate professional staff to meet the needs of these ex-volunteers who will be either returning to the university or going there for the first time. In addition we realise the need for housing them. Steps to deal with that matter are already under way. The hon. member for Durban (North) (The Rev. Miles-Cadman) has referred to the question of housing. Strictly the question of housing should be dealt with not under this vote but under the vote of the Department of Public Health, and hon. members will have an adequate opportunity of dealing with it also when I introduce a Bill to amend the Housing Act. But I can assure the House that we hope to have ready within a month or two nearly 1,000 of the cottages converted from military camps.

When will the first stone of the first house be laid?

There are already houses ready and they merely need furniture, in the Cape Province, under this scheme. I do not suggest that this scheme will meet the needs of every ex-volunteer, because one realises the tremendous housing shortage at present. But as far as the military camps are concerned, the schemes to convert certain of the camps adjacent to large industrial areas has proceeded and many of these houses have been completed. They will be, I think, model townships and not barracks and they will at any rate give a haven to those who need housing over a period of time. My own view is that these townships in any case have come to stay. They will have every modern amenity. There will be swimming baths and a communal hall and a communal restaurant, and far from being barracks they will be modern townships. But quite apart from that there is the question of national housing and giving ex-volunteers an opportunity of having their own house. If hon. members wish to have further information I can give it to them during the course of the debate, but I think it is more appropriate to discuss that particular matter when I discuss the Housing Bill. I have not, of course, attempted to deal with every aspect of the work which has been carried out by the Directorate since 3rd January when the full scheme came into operation. I do not wish to do that this afternoon. But I have tried to give a general overall picture in order to emphasise to hon. members that the Directorate does appreciate its responsibility of having to co-ordniate all forms of work and all plans in relation to the returned soldier. That task has not been an easy one. The Directorate has in many instances been working under grave difficulties. We have, in the course of the last twelve months, since I was last able to inform the House of our plans, been at war still. We have not had all the personnel that we would have liked and which we needed. I am therefore extremely glad to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Potchefstroom in regard to the Director-General, Major-General Brink. He has carried on under very great difficulties and has worked tremendously hard, and it is most satisfactory to know that the Chairman of the soldiers’ group in this House has paid a tribute to this soldier who is doing so much for the ex-volunteer. When I say that, I should also like to mention the name of Mr. Harry Welsh who is combining with General Brink and doing such splendid work, and who I know has the full confidence of the ex-volunteer. I am indeed fortunate to have at the top of this organisation two men in whom the ex-volunteers can have such complete confidence. Finally I would like to pay tribute to those other members of the staff of the Directorate who have in the course of the last few months been carrying on under incredibly difficult circumstances and whose determination and industry have enabled them to carry the matter through.

I think this House and the country are deeply indebted to the Minister of Demobilisation for the very comprehensive statement he has made to us this afternoon, but to my mind, knowing the amount of work the Minister is saddled with, and with the end of the war right before us, one feels that it is perhaps time that an Under-Secretary should be brought in to assist the Minister in his work. He has three important portfolios to carry at present. He has demobilisation, which is an enormous task; he has social welfare and he has public health, three very important portfolios, and it is far too much for one Minister to do. I would like to include also the hon. Minister of Finance and to suggest that possibly an Under-Secretary should be appointed to assist him also. I think he is another Minister who is overworked in this House, and I feel that a little assistance given by an Under-Secretary would be greatly appreciated and would possibly be of advantage to the smooth working of the House and of the country generally. The Minister, in giving us this very comprehensive statement about the work carried out by his department has given us much pleasure, but I must say this to the Minister, and give him this one word of warning. We know he is doing his best by the soldiers and by the country. But as regards dispersal depôts, let me just sound this little note of warning. Please, for goodness sake, put in charge of these dispersal depôts men in whom the soldiers and the public have confidence. If the Minister does no do that, it will be the first breakdown of his big scheme. There are men, unfortunately who have been placed in charge of dispersal depôts who have not got the confidence of the serving soldiers, and if our men come home and see these very unpopular officers in charge of these depôts there will be an immediate break in confidence as far as they are concerned. The Minister has referred to the number of vacancies which there are in the Public Service. I was greatly surprised. He quoted a figure of 11,000 odd, of which approximately 8,000 are Europeans. He mentioned the Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, the Police, Native Affairs and a few others. To my mind there is one very big department which he has forgotten about, namely, the Defence Department. I have for years advocated in this House—three years ago—that the members of the U.D.F. and Permanent Defence Force should be circularised to find out whether they want to make their careers in the Permanent Force. There is no doubt about it today that after the war South Africa will have to be the guardian of the whole of the African continent.

You mean now.

The hon. member has probably been in touch with Winston Churchill and knows more about it than I do. But we can still consider ourselves to be at war. We have spent millions to train air force personnel, engineers, signallers, and all the men of the 6th Division. The Allies are proud of what they did. The work of the engineers in the North and in Italy has been the pride of all nations. If these men wish to carry on in the Permanent Force why should we allow them to disappear after spending so much upon their training? Will we let them go into the dispersal depôts? The Minister says only 8,000 are required in the Civil Service. We should build up our Permanent Force now. There is our foundation. We could build up a fine Permanent Force and the sooner we do it the better. I do not think there will be many left to employ, after having built up our Permanent Force, which South Africa will need if we are going to assume the defence and be the guardian of the whole of the African continent. Actually, I am not very concerned about employment. This Government, the National Government, have always given the assurance that it has given a charter to the Minister of Demobilisation that no men will be discharged unless they can be put into employment, so we need not worry very much about that. But what is worrying me is the housing of these men coming back. It has been interesting to hear the Minister’s statement saying that roughly 1,000 cottages have been converted from barracks. Wonderboom was a barracks. Pollsmoor was a bar-racks. I think there was another one at Bloemfontein. Nevertheless, I feel a little upset about these converted cottages. I have had numerous letters from the North of men saying that if it is good enough for the refugees and aliens to own and live in houses in South Africa, surely they can too. I know this is an emergency measure the Minister is bringing in. He said he feels that possibly the communal hall and restaurant will be popular afterwards. To my mind there is no reason why it should not be popular, but he must remember that these soldiers have been living in a communal atmosphere.

It is not part and parcel of the scheme.

I know that, but unfortunately that atmosphere will exist. These men will come back. Sergeant Botha or Smith, who was sergeant of my platoon is living alongside me. It is the atmosphere I am talking about. The soldier wants to forget that atmosphere. He wants to be away from the communal atmosphere. He wants to get away from the man who was with him the whole time. Let him get away. He will possibly drift back into it, because as regards flats in South Africa there has been a drift towards the communal form of life. But when you get these letters from the men in the army saying that the aliens and refugees have houses and they want houses ….

Have you seen any of the houses?

I have, and I think they are a very fine effort indeed, but take the soldier who was stationed at Pollsmoor for six months. He would hate like anything to have to go back there and live with his wife and family. That would be the last thing in the world he would dream of doing. I speak as an old soldier who has lived in these camps. Even the name of the camp is quite enough to turn a man against it because he was there in barracks in the early days of the war. [Time limit.]

The Minister of. Welfare and Demobilisation made a long statement today which contained many interesting announcements. Nevertheless he failed to tell the House precisely how this large additional amount will be expended. He did not furnish the House with particulars how this money would be allocated, how much for this and how much for that. We are still absolutely in the dark, and we do not know whether the funds will be applied properly, and I trust the Minister on a further occasion when he is addressing the House will supply the House with full information as to how this amount will really be expended. As far as I am concerned, I want to point out that this vote represents a very large increase, namely more than £3,000,000 in excess of the amount made available last year; to be exact it is £3,316,000. This is the additional amount the Government is going to spend on demobilisation to enable our returned soldiers again to make a livelihood. I want to compare the amount that has been made available on another of this Minister’s votes, namely the vote for Social Welfare, where we had a decrease of about £500,000. To be exact this vote is £482,400 less than last year. While the Government is going to spend a lot of money in connection with demobilisation to bring the soldiers back so that they may again make a livelihood here, the Government is apparently going to do much less to meet the civilian population who may also be in need, whatever the reason. I have shown how much less will be applied this year. I regret that I could not be in the House when the Welfare Vote came under discussion, and I cannot of course discuss it here now. I only mention it in passing. One can only hope that the Government will meet the civilian population who are in need as the result of the drought and other circumstances. I am only pointing out that the vote is much less than it was last year. Take also another department, namely the Department of Labour, that is entrusted with this matter. There we have a small amount of £87,000 more than last year in connection with the providing of a refuge for those people who need assistance. It seems to me the Government is not making proper provision for persons who need assistance from the Government, and the need they are experiencing still exists in the country. The Government is not making the right provision for the civilian section of the population. I only mention this in passing. When we come later to the Department of Labour we can discuss the matter more fully. What I should like to learn from the Minister is how the expenditure on demobilisation is going to take place. Our atttiude has always been that when people are in need, whether they are soldiers or members of the civilian population, it is the duty of the State to assist these people who have no other means of being assisted, and who cannot manage for themselves. As the Government is making this money available for the returned soldiers in order to assist them where otherwise they might be unemployed, we have no objection to it. It is our policy that the Government should assist everyone when it is not possible for them to be otherwise provided for. But the serious side of the matter is this. The Minister informed the House today—and it is in conformity with the legislation already adopted—that the soldiers who return, whether they are in Government service or employed by private enterprise, will have to be reinstated in their positions. We make no objection to that, because unless you restore those persons to their previous posts they will be unemployed, but the result must necessarily be, when thousands of soldiers return and take over the posts they filled before they joined the army, that you virtually displace from employment the same number of workers, because the work the soldiers did before they joined the army has had to be done by someone else after they joined the army. In the Government service there will be thousands of these cases. The Minister has told us there will be thousands in the Government service, but those posts were not vacant while the soldier was in the army. The Government engaged other persons to carry out this work on a temporary basis. It is just the same in private undertakings. Where a man has left his job to join the army the private employer was obliged to substitute someone in his place. When the demobilisation scheme comes into effect and the soldier will again have to carry out his previous work it necessarily implies that in the majority of cases those people who took their places temporarily will be deprived of work. They will then be unemployed, and if thousands of soldiers return to their old jobs it means that thousands of ordinary civilians will be rendered unemployed. The Minister owes this House and the country an explanation of what the Government intends to do to assist those people who will be rendered unemployed, to make a living.

It is not the duty of this Minister to do that.

But of course it is the duty of the Minister. It is in the first instance the duty of the Minister to care for the people who are unemployed, and if there is no other means of finding work for them to take action to provide work for them. No one doubts this. Therefore it is the duty of the Government ….

But not of this Minister.

Of course it is the duty of the Minister. Is he not a member of the Government? The Minister is Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. As a result of his action as Minister of Demobilisation his Department is going to cause numbers of people to be put out of employment. He is the Minister of Demobilisation, he is the man who by his Act and this action is putting them’ out of work. The Minister may say now that some other Minister should see to it that these people should obtain employment, but he is jointly responsible because he is the Minister who has rendered these men unemployed by this Act. I maintain the Minister is responsible for the fact that these other people will be out of work.

The Government is responsible.

The Minister is responsible for a man being unemployed. As he is responsible for a man being unemployed he must say what the Government is doing to compensate that man.

I am not Minister of Labour.

The Minister cannot escape from his responsibility in that manner. He is the cause of these men being unemployed, and if he is the cause of them being unemployed he owes it to the House to say what is going to be done to assist these people to obtain employment. Accordingly I repeat that I hope when the Minister again intervenes in the debate he will tell us two things; first how this money is actually going to be expended, and in the second place he should tell us, seeing that he is the cause of thousands of people going to be unemployed, what his plan is to assist these people to obtain employment in one way or another. The Minister is not only Minister of Demobilisation, he is also Minister of Social Welfare, and when there is need in the country it is not only the Minister of Labour who is responsible but also the Minister of Welfare. He thus has a dual responsibility. In the first place he is the Minister of Demobilisation who occasions the unemployment, and in the second place he is Minister of Welfare, and in that capacity he is responsible for the actions of the Minister of Labour.

I want to say at the very outset that I think a very fine job of work has been done by the Directorate of Demobilisation, and I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation and the Director of Demobilisation. But I want to make this one proviso. My grouse today is against Treasury. I feel that certain narrow and restricted limits are being imposed on the Director-General of Demobilisation and owing to those restrictions we may be debarred from making the fullest possible use of the biggest asset we possess in this country, and that is our manpower. Let me explain what I mean. When a man makes application for financial assistance and that application is rejected, he is told that there is nothing arising out of his military service why his application should be dealt with in a special way. To me the emphasis is being placed on the man’s pre-war circumstances and not on the man himself. It is my opinion, Sir, that these men are coming back as new individuals with greater foresight and imagination and the loss of those valuable years which no one can hand back to them, and I want to know whether we are not in this way perhaps applying the means test in another form, the means test which, to my mind, is one of the most iniquitous principles in the whole of our social and economic system. I want to indicate these points because they are mighty important. I have stressed on occasions in this House that it is through careful, individual study of each man and woman that we can arrive at the true value of this asset we possess, that is, our manpower, and I do feel, with all due respect to the Minister of Finance, that his policy today with reference to the Directorate of Demobilisation is too hidebound, too restricted. After all, Sir, if a man after he has been studied is found to be a fit subject to set up a business for himself, why should he be denied that privilege and opportunity? After all, let us realise that these men have given up a great deal. I am not for a moment suggesting the wholesale disruption of industry and commerce but I want to emphasise that the men are coming back to us with new ideas and a new conception of life, and when a man has proved himself in the army, as thousands of men have done, then I think every opportunity and facility should be given to them to re-settle themselves effectively and along lines which appeal to them. After all why should our men play second fiddle to some of these parasites who have remained in the country and waxed fat and flabby at our men’s expense. I agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) that we must set up an industrial and commercial policy. Without that we shall not know where we are going; I am not suggesting that we should permit the men to do anything they want to do; they must be guided and helped; I want to emphasise that the men mean something to us; they are new material and I say that a man who wishes to improve himself should be given every opportunity of doing so, and that is why I refer to the restricted policy of the Minister of Finance. After all, we have incurred vast expenditure in the war, running into millions and millions of pounds, and I do feel that we should not begin to quibble now about the few pounds we spend on demobilisation. I realise too that there are many misfits in the army. The army is in a sense being regarded as a glorified employment bureau by a number of men— we know that—and we know that some of them have never been better off before, but we are afraid that we are going to disorganise our social and economic structure; I do not say that we should hand our men everything on a plate. But many of the men are coming back of us with a high sense of responsibility. I repeat that because I hinge everything I have said this afternoon on the man himself. Unfortunately we base everything on tradition and tradition is one of the most evil concepts of life, because we cannot think of what we are going to do tomorrow unless we get back to what we were doing yesterday. In that way progressive thoughts are clouded. Demobilisation now ranks as piority number 1. It is the pivot around which this country will revolve for generations. It is an integral part of our war effort. It is the final drive to consolidate the peace. It should be regarded by all of us as the jumping off place from which we can begin the road to economic and social salvation. I make this honest and sincere appeal to the Acting Prime Minister to provide the personnel which I know the Director-General of Demobilisation wants to urgently. I ask him too to consider the relaxation of some of the financial principles governing the demobilisation plan, in order that we may give these deserving men an opportunity of rehabilitating themselves effectively and efficiently, along lines that will appeal to them. Then I want to make another appeal and that is to the voluntary worker, to the man who has done a very fine piece of work in this war. We must not forget that we have been at war for five or six years, and the voluntary worker being human, will want to get back to his pre-war work. I am going to make this countrywide appeal to every voluntary worker to carry on the good work, because the volunteer worker is the key to the whole of the demobilisation plan. The European race has suffered great losses in this war. Its survival depends upon the individual and the manner in which we can encourage him to consolidate his heritage. He has the right to progress and the right to security which has been denied him in the past. I want to say finally that the little man has the right to live. He has carried the burden of this war. His aim is security and in the words of Mr. Churchill that is a right he has earned through blood, toil and sweat.

In 1918 we entered an unplanned peace heralded by jazz and hysteria; the result was thousands of forgotten men. We are about to go into a formal peace again. I believe, however, that this vote of £3,500,000 is an indication that if we will it, we can this time plan that there shall be no forgotten men. First let me pay a tribute to the Directorate of Demobilisation. I realise its difficulties; and as one who has personally represented many cases to the Directorate, to Gen. Brink himself, I want to place on record the sympathy and the efficient way in which my requests, numerous as they have been, have been received and dealt with. But I am not satisfied with the Directorate of Demobilisation yet. I know the Minister is not. There are large numbers of forgotten men in South Africa, completely forgotten in our demobilisation arrangements; it is time the plight of these veterans was made known to the country. In the first place, I take the case of men who are suffering from some disablement, severe or otherwise, and who, because of their disablement, are debarred from the social and economic advantages open to their healthy fellow-citizens, and to those who stayed at home during the war. For example, these men cannot get insurance coverage; they are denied what is the most valuable source of savings to the average man. They are not profitable propositions for the insurance companies, because of their low physical rating. They are denied insurance. Many more who are suffering from minor ailments, as for example, ulcerated stomachs, common among veterans, are also excluded from insurance, or the insurance is so heavily loaded against them as to be beyond their capacity to pay. These are some of the forgotten men in South Africa. In Canada, special legislation has been passed to provide for such men as these, giving them insurance through the Government without any medical examination and irrespective of age. We have no such legislation unfortunately, in South Africa; but I believe a scheme can be worked out between the Directorate of Demobilisation and the insurance companies in such a way—of course, the men will pay but should not pay heavily, or be loaded because of their disability—as to provide insurance coverage mainly for the dependants of such men. There are other forgotten men. If demobilisation went on the principle that the family is a unit and must be demobilised and not merely the man, we should find fewer forgotten men. I refer to the many men who are in hospital and who are getting some form of curative or rehabilitative treatment. A certain man in my constituency was placed in the mental hospital in Bloemfontein. He served up north. He has a wife and three children. Nothing is done for that family. They are excluded from the provisions of the Pensions Act. My contention is that demobilisation must see that in cases of that nature the provisions for the family are such that the family can lead a normal and decent life. That means that grants and loans and training facilities, and other facilities, must cover the family life if necessary. Then there are other forgotten men, men who have passed on, duty nobly done, leaving their families behind. There are often widows without any pensions. There are between 600 and 650 such widows of men in this country who served; have done military service. These widows are getting no pensions at all. Some 500 are getting a miserable relief grant of round about £8 per month. I know the case of a certain lieutenant who attended a party thrown by his commanding officer in his camp. He assisted during the course of the evening in making that party a success, doing a moral duty, if not strictly a military one. In the early hours of the morning, in taking one or two ladies home, he was killed in an accident. His wife— I do not know what the Minister is smiling at—should have all the benefits of demobilisation as if her husband were alive today. She has no military pension. We have callously forgotten this man, his wife and the child. These are not isolated cases. There are other cases of widows with very small pensions; they get no cost of living allowances. They are living on a lowered economic status. What else can it be for them but a lowered economic status in view of the fact that we have 2,000 widows in this country getting an average pension of round about £16 per month?

I would like to remind the hon. member that he cannot discuss pensions under this vote.

I therefore pass on just to say this: in my view the demobilisation plan should also provide for the widow and the child and so fill up the gaps left in the Military Pensions Act provisions. Finally, I want to emphasise this principle this afternoon: that our demobilisation plans must cover the families of disabled and deceased men, by making provision in economic opportunities, in social security, certainly not less, not even as much, but if necessary, much more, than such families would have enjoyed if the men had not made a great sacrifice, some of them the supreme sacrifice, in the service of their country in her time of need. The country willingly should come to their aid in their time of need.

I shall be grateful if the Minister will give us further information this afternoon regarding returned coloured soldiers. We have heard that the Prime Minister stated that things are not going so well in regard to the provision of employment for the returned coloured soldiers. When one notes in the report of the Department of Labour what progress was made with the employment of returned coloured soldiers until the end of the year 1943, one feels one is entitled to more information. It is stated here, for instance, what the number of volunteers is who were referred to employment officers; it is 9,025; returned to their previous employment 2,430; waiting for work till the end of the year, 1,398. We have noticed in various Press reports that many coloured people who previously had work are unwilling to return to their former employment. Bearing that in mind I should like the Minister to give me a reply to the following questions. How many of these returned coloured soldiers have been offered work; how many of them have refused to accept work; how many are there still, and for what period does the Government intend to keep them there? Then I should like further to ask the Minister whether if the people now being kept refuse the work that is offered them, how long is the Government prepared to pay them their salaries in the discharge depots and also to pay the allowances to their families and dependants? Bearing in mind the fact that there is plenty of work today for these people and also remembering that they do not want to accept this work, I think it is urgently necessary we should learn what the Government’s policy is in this connection. It is unnecessary again to go into the question of what the policy of this side of the House is. We warned the Government once, and it is now too late; the horse has already been stolen. We should like to know what the Government intends to do in order to escape from this dilemma. I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). When the returning soldiers come back and take the places of other people who did their work during the war, what is to become of these people? I should like to know what the Government’s policy is in connection with another matter. On a previous occasion I read out in the House what according to a Reuter-Sapa report the late Col. Deneys Reitz said in London while he was High Commissioner there. What I say here has reference to the Minister of Labour as well. While the late Col. Reitz was High Commissioner in London he made the following speech in Belfast in February, 1944. He used these words—

The Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation stated here this afternoon that he is occupied in training 5,000 building workers. Let me say immediately that if there is a shortage of building workers we have not the slightest fault to find with the plan. We should rather see our own soldiers trained as building industry workers, and that they should provide houses here in South Africa, than that we should accept the policy of the late Col. Reitz. But I think it is urgently necessary for the Minister to tell us today what the policy of this Government is. While he wants to have 5,000 building workers trained from the ranks of the returned soldiers, the High Commissioner at that time invited building workers to come to South Africa from overseas. We should like to know whether this is the policy of the present Government. I think that the people and the returned soldiers should know what the Government’s policy is in this connection.

I think it is rather appropriate that we should discuss demobilisation on an occasion like this particularly in view of the fact that good news is expected to be announced at any moment. It is also very interesting of course, to have listened this afternoon to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), so ably backed up that that “Rudolph” friend of ours. I am sure we all like the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) so much that we could kiss him. He is a lovely fellow.

Order, order, the hon. member must not be personal.

I am sorry I called him “lovely”. Let me call him nice instead, is that in order? Hon. members of the Opposition started the same song last year. They want us to put our foot into it. But one need not look back very far to discover their own attitude. I think the question the hon. Minister must ask those hon. members is what their attitude is towards returned soldiers, not what our attitude is towards unemployed people, if there will be any unemployed. That is the question one should ask: what is their attitude towards the returned soldiers? If we remember that the womenfolk of. South Africa who were in the army the Wassies and the W.A.A.F.’s, were called all sorts of names, when we remember the song that was sung in this House by the Leader of the Opposition of the money that was wasted on soldiers ….

Order, order, the hon. member must come back to the vote.

If we remember those things ….

Order, order, the hon. member must come back to the vote.

I say, Sir, then we can well imagine what will be the attitude of the Opposition towards the Vote that is under discussion today. I think our answer is this: Unemployment is a State function and as such will be looked after by the State. Re-introduction of returned soldiers to civilian life is the function of the Directorate of Demobilisation, and the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation and will be looked after by the State. But here is the answer; and I am reading this out today because I have been asked to bring it to the Minister’s notice. Incidentally it gives a real reply to the points made by the Opposition—

May I point out that there you have an example where as soon as a Nationalist majority got control the soldier was forgotten. Turn up the “Rand Daily Mail” of last Wednesday and you will find a prominent M.P.C. of the Transvaal accusing the council once more of not only not considering the returned soldier, but of discriminating against him, discrimination of the worst form. My question on this point is this, I have an idea there was an emergency regulation which provided for the protection of their jobs for returned soldiers. I know that the Johannesburg City Council has carried this out in the spirit and in the letter, but my point is: Should not the various municipalities covered by that emergency regulation be compelled to honour the pledge given by Gen. Smuts? [Time limit.]

As there may not be very much longer for me this afternoon in which to reply, I should like to say a word or two in regard to the matters that have been raised, and to express the hope that this Vote may go through. In answer to the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, I would like to assure him that apart from the emergency regulation promulgated some time ago there is also the Bill of my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, the provisions of which, inter alia, protect the position of the volunteer who has pre-enlistment employment to return to. That pre-enlistment employment is safeguarded for a period of 12 months. It is the duty of any employer of any ex-volunteer to take back that ex-volunteer into his pre-enlistment employment unless the special committee set up to deal with these matters has come to the conclusion that he is not fit by reason of disablement to go back to that employment. In that case it would be the duty of the Directorate of Demobilisation to make adequate and fair provision for that volunteer.

What about promotion?

The question of promotion so far as the Public Service is concerned has been dealt with on an equitable basis. The fact that a man is on active service has not prevented his being given promotion; there have been numerous cases of men promoted while on active service. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has asked for information as to the manner in which the money is being spent in re-establishing the ex-volunteer under the financial assistance scheme, and he has suggested that while the Government has been making money available for ex-volunteers it has reduced the social welfare vote. We are not discussing the social welfare vote now, but the hon. gentleman is incorrect. In actual fact there has been an increase of from £137,000 to £273,000. The financial assistance which has been granted to ex-volunteers is decided by the executive board on the local demobilisation committees. The circumstances of every individual volunteer who is an applicant are gone into most carefully. These commtitees are composed of persons sympathetic to the ex-service man and woman, and their recommendations, with the exception of 2 per cent., have been acted upon by the executive board on demobilisation. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Waterberg that the Government is responsible in regard to those civilians who are in danger of being displaced when volunteers go back to their pre-enlistment employment. We estimate there may be as many as 25,000 of such persons who have been placed in temporary employment to take the places of those on active service. I admit the Government has a duty to those persons. In many cases these persons were refused’ permission to join up.

Your statement of an increase of £137,000 is on the original vote.

I am quite prepared to go into the matter with the hon. gentleman, but we are not discussing that at the present time. He has asked me what, as Minister of Demobilisation, I am going to do for the civilians who are displaced. My answer is, it is a Government obligation to secure employment for the people of this country, but my position as Minister of Demobilisation is cocerned with the question of employment and reinstating in civilian life the ex-volunteer when he comes back. That is my primary duty as Minister of Demobilisation. The Government has, however, set up machinery. There is a Cabinet Committee dealing with this matter at the present time, consisting of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour and myself. It has to deal with general plans for finding ways and means to absorb in employment the surplus civilian population. But I emphasise once again that as Minister of Demobilisation I am responsible for the ex-volunteer. The hon. gentleman has suggested that I, as Minister of Demobilisation, am responsible for putting people out of work. That is not so. These men who have joined up, who have pre-enlistment employment, left it and they are going back as they are entitled to go back, to their pre-enlistment employment. There is no question whatsoever of putting any man out of a job. They are not putting any man out of a job. They are going back to their rightful jobs.

And what about the man you engaged to perform that temporary job?

The man who enlisted and went oh active service goes back to that employment as a right, and he does not turn any person out of employment He goes back to his original employment. That is the approach of the Directorate of Demobilisation to that matter. At the same time the Government, as such, has a responsibility to provide employment for the population as a whole. Therefore it is my task with the Minister of Labour to take such steps in conjunction with other departments as will ensure finding employment for the civilian members of the population who may be displaced. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Nigel (Maj. Ueckermann) and I appreciate the manner in which he has put forward the particular aspect of the case of the ex-serviceman. The House knows the great attention which the hon. member for Nigel has always given to this ex-volunteer problem, and I shall certainly see that the points he has raised receive the fullest consideration. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) has suggested certain facilities may be given to disabled volunteers to ensure their not being mulcted in special premiums. I shall go into that; it is an interesting question and I shall follow it up. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) wishes to know how many ex-volunteers have been offered employment and how many have refused, and how many we still have in our dispersal depôts. I am not able to give him the exact figures today but I can give him the principle on which the Directorate is acting. It was laid down as a matter of policy last year when the Directorate of Demobilisation assumed responsibility for dispersal depôts that in future if a volunteer were made a reasonable offer of employment and refused, he should be allowed to remain in the dispersal depôts for a further period of four months. It was for the Dispersal Depot Committee to decide in the special circumstances whether that offer of employment was reasonable or not. If it was considered reasonable and refused then the volunteer would be told: You may accept this, but if you refuse you will be kept here for another four months on a reduced rate of pay and given a second chance of refusing to exercise the opportunity of having reasonable employment. That system applies to both Europeans and non-Europeans. The rates of pay are, of course, different for Europeans and nonEuropeans. In other words, under the system which now operates in our dispersal depôts, whether the volunteers are Europeans or non-Europeans, if they wilfully refuse to avail themselves of a reasonable offer of employment they are given another opportunity, and if they refuse the second offer they are placed on a reduced scale for a limited period.

What is the maximum period?

The maximum period is four months.

Is that after he is on a reduced scale?

It is four months.

After he has refused employment for the second time?

The maximum period is four months. Finally, the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg asked whether it is the policy of the Government to encourage building artisans from overseas to come to South Africa to meet our needs. I thought I had emphasised sufficiently it is the policy of the Government to create vacancies for some 5,000 of our ex-volunteers in the building industry. We hope to augment our European labour force in the building industry by ex-volunteers who, with the collaboration of the trade unions will be put through an intensified course in order to train them. I think that, Mr. Chairman, deals with the points which have been raised. As I said when I began my reply, it is unlikely I shall have another opportunity this afternoon of speaking on the subject.

Why so pessimistic.

I am not pessimistic. In all the circumstances I would express the hope that perhaps under present circumstances the House might like to feel it is an appropriate moment in which to pass this vote.

I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I did not again touch on a matter which I referred to this morning. The Minister, in his reply, uttered a true word. He said, “We do not want to be unduly pessimistic”, and I should like again to make an appeal to the Minister. When the executive committee of the Orange Flash League came to talk to me the discussion was very frank. I have conveyed some idea of what the position is. I explained to them what might happen as the result of such a step, but the executive committee had decided that this matter should enjoy the attention of the House. Now I want to tell the Minister that I asked the executive committee what their real objection was to joining the Springbok Legion, and I am convinced that their real reason, as I have stated, is that they have conscientious objections. The executive committee told me that they could not join that body because the Sprinkbok Legion is controlled by Communists. We all know the leaders, and we know who the leaders are, and I now want to ask the Minister what his objection is to acknowledging them. Why does he not accord recognition to the organisation?

It is too late now.

It seems to me that what the executive committee alleged is true. We saw what happened at Pretoria shortly after that. Numbers and numbers of members of the Springbok Legion dropped out and would have nothing further to do with it. We saw about two weeks ago at Rustenburg the leader and the deputy-leader of the Springbok Legion left that organisation. These people want to find some niche. What is the Minister going to do? There is a motto that says you can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink, and that is what the Minister is attempting to do. I want to appeal to the Minister now —it is not too late—to give these few thousand people the right to collect funds from the public if they can. The funds will be under proper control. This ought not to worry the Minister, and if the public want to contribute let them contribute. Then the Minister will at least have unanimity among all the soldiers when they return. We want to help the Minister in this matter and I ask him not to be obstinate. These people say that they do not want to join the Springbok Legion because the control is under Communists, and they do not want to have anything to do with it. They want to have an organisation of their own and an organisation that is European. They believe in the maintenance of the colour bar. We are saddled today with this difficulty, and consequently I would again urge the Minister to allow this. It is not too late. Before I close I want to touch on another point. Today another serious attack has been made on the Town Council of Brakpan. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) again attempted to create the impression that the Town Council of Brakpan would not provide work for returned soldiers. Why are these attacks made? Just because it is one of the few municipalities with a Nationalist Party majority. Brakpan does not want to exclude the returned soldier from a single appointment. He has the guarantee of work. We on this side of the House desire to see everyone obtain employment, but we go further and say that not only soldiers but everyone in South Africa is entitled to a decent existence. This is all that Brakpan has done. I hope that this sort of attack on Brakpan will now cease.

I should like to pay my personal tribute to the way in which the Directorate of Demobilisation have been tackling the matter of native soldiers. If there is one criticism I have to offer it is that the Minister has been hiding his light under a bushel. It would be far better if he had more publicity.

The annual report will be published very soon, as well as various other documents.

I hope the Minister even if he has not the opportunity on this occasion to make reference to it, will take the opportunity at some future date of making a public statement.

I shall also deal with it in the Senate.

The only question I have over is that question of the gratuity; I hope the Government may yet find some opportunity to grant this gratuity.

I should like to read out an advertisement that appeared in a newspaper and that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. It is in connection with the activities of the chairman of his demobilisation committees. He is a major. What I should like to know is whether the work in connection with demobilisation is a Party matter or not.

No.

Then I hope an end will come to this sort of thing. I will just read out the advertisement—

T. I. Ferreira, Major, Chairman, Demobilisation Committee.

What is the date?

The 25th January, 1945.

1066.

The hon. member is still living in the primeval period. When one observes his long ears and arms ohe is surprised that he survived to the year 1066. The hon. member is more used to his orange trees. I have no objection to a meeting being held of supporters of the Government, but I want to point out to the Minister that if officials are concerned in it it is no longer a Party matter. It is a public matter.

I am glad to have an opportunity of explaining the position in regard to demobilisation committees. We look upon them as the core of the demobilisation machinery, but when it was decided how to constitute the personnel of these committees it was decided that not a single man or woman would be placed on them unless they had been actively behind the war effort. We will not appoint a single person to the demobilisation committees if that person was against the war effort or sitting on the fence. Many people in this country took a chance and backed their horse, and we are appointing to demobilisation committees those persons who actively supported the war effort. But those committees are not Government bodies in the sense of being paid bodies; they are voluntary organisations. I cannot instruct a chairman of a committee not to hold a meeting if he wishes to have such a meeting. On the other hand, those committees have to look after the interests of every ex-volunteer whatever his political beliefs are; when an ex-volunteer comes before a committee he is not asked whether he is a supporter of the Nationalist Party or the United Party or the Labour Party; he is treated as an ex-volunteer, and if my hon. friend can show me there is any discrimination against a volunteer on Party political grounds, I shall take action at once; I will give him my assurance of that. But in view of the constitution of the committee, only people actively behind the war effort, I cannot intervene in this.

The Minister has now used a defence in connection with the matter which was not brought up. It is not here the question of a committee, but certain officers came to explain how the demobilisation plan of the Government was io work. They wanted to make it clear to the public. Let the Minister tell me if he wishes to have the co-operation of the whole of the public for his demobilisation plan or not. Does he want the co-operation of the general public or only of the Saps?

Naturally, of the general public.

If he wishes to have that co-operation how is it that a Party meeting was held to explain in what way these people will be discharged from the army and what is expected from the public in connection with providing employment, and what obligations rest on the public under the laws of the country to give work to these people? Why then should there be merely a meeting of his own supporters? I do not mind if the Minister or one of his followers holds a Party meeting of his followers, but as a major, a liaison officer and a colonel were going there to explain how the scheme of demobilisation was going to work, it is absolutely wrong for them to ask that only Government supporters should be there, not supporters of the war but of the Government.

If the executive of the Nationalist Party wanted a meeting at which the demobilisation scheme could be explained, they could have had it.

It is not the United Party of Humansdorp that asked the officers to come, but it is these officers, officials of the State, who invited the South African Party members to a meeting that they were going to address.

Perhaps they did not get support from the other side.

The Minister should not dance about now with “perhapses”. Here they are advertising in a newspaper that certain officials who are being paid by the State would hold a “hole-in-the-corner” meeting on this matter. Other people who do not belong to the party have the same responsibilities as United Party members in regard to the reinstatement of individuals in their service. Many people were opposed to the war, but they would also like to see these people back in work in normal life. But these officers paid by the State are holding S.A.P. meetings and making propaganda.

If you so desire we shall arrange for a meeting of the Nationalist Party.

That is not the point. The Minister should not now try to disclose the mental development of a small boy. I should like to know this from the Minister. When he was a member of the Opposition in this House if the Nationalist Party Government at that time employed officials to insert advertisements in the paper to the effect that at this or that place they would address a meeting exclusively of supporters of the then Government, what attitude would he then have taken up? I shall tell you what his attitude would have been. It would have been the correct attitude, that he would have taken strong exception to it. If it was a question of erosion, drought relief or anything of that sort and officials of a Nationalist Party Government went to a place like Carnarvon to address a meeting there comprised only of members of the Nationalist Party, the Minister would be the first to take strong exception to that, as he can take strong exception, and he would be entirely right.

You were opposed to the officers who held the meeting.

I know that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) finds it very difficult to keep his mouth closed, but it is nevertheless not necessary for him to make a noise when he opens his mouth. The Minister would have been the first to object to anything of the sort, and so he should not come now and approve this action.

My information is that the chairman is not an official of the Government. The chairman of the local committee is not in the Government service.

Correct. What right has an official then to go and address a meeting of the Minister’s party?

He has the right to go and give information.

The Minister should not try to make excuses now. I want to know from him whether it is right that when his party holds a meeting an official should be there to address the gathering.

Yes, of course.

Yes, in certain circumstances.

Do not try to be evasive. You know that is quite the wrong principle. Should we now commence to employ officials as election agents of the party that is in power, South Africa will be moving towards the greatest corruption that any country in the world has ever had. That is why I say that the Minister, when he was in the Opposition, would have made the strongest objection to that. But because he was right at that time it is no reason why he should do things now to which he would have objected when he was in opposition. I regard it as a disgrace. When an official visits a town to expound a scheme he ought to do so at a public meeting which all can attend who are interested in the subject. It should not be a “hole-in-a-corner” meeting, a practice the Minister is evidently introducing throughout the country, and where the officials of the State will be used to make propaganda for their party. I know that their party needs that propaganda, but it is defintely not in the best interests of the country and of clean and decent administration that we should allow anything of that sort.

A point upon which I would like information from the Minister is this. I would like to know what the future policy is in regard to our Navy. Two years ago a committee sat in connection with the policy to be adopted in regard to our South African Navy, but no policy has yet been announced in that regard. According to the figures given there are something like 1,170 boys in our own Navy, many of whom are in doubt as to what is going to happen to them, as they want to carry on in the Navy. There is no policy, as far as I know, laid down, and we would like to know what the Government intends in that regard. One other point on which I should like to have an explanation from the Minister is this. As he is aware, amongst our returning soldiers will be hundreds of professional men. He knows what the difficulties are of obtaining accommodation in the larger towns. I would like to know what the attitude of the Demobilisation Department will be in getting professional suites of rooms for these men, because it is a vital matter to these professional men that they should get back their suites of rooms, without which they cannot carry on their professions. It seems to me that it is the least the country owes to these men, doctors, lawyers and dentists, to see to it that some provision is made, whether by way of emergency legislation or otherwise, for them to get the accommodation which they had before the war. Further, there is this: As regards the gratuities to soldiers who have been killed in action there seems to be some difficulty and some delay in paying out to the widows of these soldiers the gratuities earned by the men when they were alive. I would like to know what the Minister proposes to do in that connection. Then I want to make a final appeal to the Minister, seeing we are all anticipating joyful news, as to whether he could not even at this late date, consider paying better gratuities to our serving women. I still maintain that it is a disgraceful blot on our demobilisation organisation that women soldiers should be given only 15s. for each month of completed service, and I feel that a grateful country should do better for these people as a reward for the services they have performed.

I do not know why there should be this objection to people discussing the ordinary business before the House. If some of our odd gentlemen on the other side know more than we do here I do not see why they should not tell us. If there is any special announcement to be made to this House there will be no one more pleased to hear it than we are, but we have been given no indication whatever that that is the case. I propose to say, whether it is popular or not, what I still have to say on this vote. It has pleased the Minister to suggest that he hopes I will not preach throughout South Africa that the soldiers coming back prefer in large measure to have their own businesses rather than work under other people. It is not a sermon which I have preached in any way or place. It is a sermon which has been preached to me, and I merely report to the Minister a fact which I still think he will be wise to keep before him in the next few months or years. He also mentioned faith in connection with the profession to which I belong. It seemed to me to be an entirely unnecessary thing to do, but since it was mentioned I would say that what I have faith in is truth, and not in representing things as indeed they are not.

Do you suggest that I have done that?

If that is not what you did I am entirely unable to say what it was.

Will you give me chapter and verse of what you say I misrepresented? If you suggest that I misrepresented things I would like to know, so that I can have an opportunity of meeting it.

I do more than suggest. I state that the Minister misused the word faith, and erred at least in taste in dragging into argument the profession to which I belong. What I think we must all have faith in is the truth. I do not think the word faith can be properly used as lightly as the Minister used it, or good faith be shown anywhere better than in statement of facts as they exist.

Give the facts.

I have given facts, and now intend to give more. What the Government appears continually to want is a “hear, hear”, from every direction and praise without limit. I merely wish to put forward the point of view of a considerable number of serving men, and I think it will be for the good of this country that that point of view shall be observed. I still think that the Minister should allow us to make suggestions, which are not made with any view to impeding his efforts but to facilitate. them. What has been represented to me by soldiers, first of all, is along these lines, that it should be possible for the Government, as they have given great contracts for the manufacture of clothing to firms during the progress of the war, to ask these firms now to make civilian clothing under precisely the same terms, so that the £30 clothing allowance given to the ex-volunteer will enable him still to buy, as he can now, a shirt for 7s., a pair of shoes for 10s. 4d. and boots for 22s. If that suggestion were followed it would be possible for an ex-volunteer to clothe himself for his civilian life adequately on the grant he now receives. If we are not allowed to make suggestions, what are we to do? I think it is the bounden duty of a member of Parliament to make suggestions. The next point is in regard to the matter of gratuities. At present, when a soldier leaves his unit and goes to a dispersal camp his service ceases as far as gratuity is concerned. Now the very minimum average time spent in the dispersal camp is two months, and at 1s. a day that means a loss of £3. Many of them, my information is, are kept in dispersal camps, much longer, under military discipline but without military privilege. Some are there for six months, which means that they lose a gratuity of £9. The men who are hard to place in employment will often be the very men who need the money most, and to them £9 is a very serious sum, and they should have it. I want to add a plea for the women volunteers, particularly those who for some or other reason had to purchase their discharge, and have been debarred from gratuities. I know of one case, which is probably typical of hundreds, of a volunteer who was in Egypt for 3½ years and throughout the whole of that period her health suffered very severely, and at the end she simply had to purchase her discharge. I understand now that such cases are to be reconsidered, but the ex-volunteers do not know to whom they should apply. If, as I suppose, such application should be made to the local demobilisation committee, possibly the Minister will be willing to say so explicitly. One other point, with regard to education. It is, I think, clear, that if within six months the ex-volunteer decides that he wishes to go to a university to obtain a degree as a preparation for his career, he will receive a grant of £250 and have a right to a loan of £350.

No, £600. That is, £600 in addition to the grant of £250.

That is very much better.

I am still waiting for those misrepresentations you were going to point out.

The Minister is persistently interrupting, Mr. Chairman, but this time I regret to say I did not hear what he was pleased to interject. Another representation I am going to make is ….

Misrepresentation.

No, it is not a misrepresentation.

You said I made a misrepresentation.

I said you made one and you did. Whether inadvertently or not, you misrepresented my attitude and referred without much respect to my profession. The suggestion I make at this moment is that many of the men will not be able to make their decision within the period of six months laid down, and that many ex-volunteers later on will discover that they really do need a degree, and they will proceed to study for it under the University of South Africa. The request I make to the hon. Minister is this …. [Time limit.]

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 30.—“Labour”, £860,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I have half an hour? On 16th February certain questions were put to the hon. Minister of Labour in connection with the Mineworkers’ Union. He, on that occasion gave certain replies, and I shall first of all address myself to that. In the first place he said that the Mineworkers’ Committee had no right to alter the constitution, that the constitution could only be altered on the recommendation of the Council, or any amendment to that constitution; that the Council had the only right to alter it, and that the Council was represented by a direct choice made at an election by the shaft. Well, I just want to tell the Minister that my information was to the contrary, but to satisfy myself I got a copy of their constitution and I also received a telegram from the members of the Mineworkers’ Union who are dissatisfied with this present Council. This is the telegram—

This telegram was sent to the hon. the Minister and I repeat it here.

When was that sent?

On 9th March, 1945. There is the postal mark and you can see it.

Surely that was not done deliberately by the Minister was it?

I have the constitution before me and what this telegram states is correct. It is quite correct that the committee has the right to change the constitution, but what I also alleged at the time was that the alteration made to that constitution was made after the Minister’s Department had given its consent or had recommended it. The Minister said that that was not so. This constitution provides that it cannot be altered without the consent of the Minister’s Department. That is the position. When they alter that constiution they must get your consent.

No, they must not. I have nothing to do with it.

Your Department has to consent to any alteration. In fact, you said that they had consented to it. You said you were going to consent to it because of the war. Now, I have these alterations that were made and there is not the slightest doubt in my own mind that the alteration was not made in the general interest of the Mineworkers’ Union. That is my interpretation of it and the Minister will probably ask me why I think so. I would just like to say this to him, that the actions of that union have been such that I have no confidence in them, and I do not expect the Minister to have confidence in them. He knows that a couple of years ago their balance sheet was laid before this House by me and he knows what the position was at that time in connection with their financial matters. He knows that this body has a huge membership, being the biggest union in the country. They have huge sums of money which they handle and now they are probably going to get another £500,000, which will also go into their coffers, and seeing that at that time the Minister agreed with me—if he looks up Hansard he will see that is correct—that some steps should be taken and that one of them should be prosecuted—he was not prosecuted because he joined the army, but seeing that is the position of this union as regards their financial matters—I understand from him and also from what I have read in the newspapers that this £500,000 is going to be used for building—I now find from a copy of the “Mineworker” that they can use the money for any purpose and are not obliged to use it for building.

But they are actually building.

They may be, but they are not obliged to use the money for that purpose; they can use it for any other purpose. I feel perturbed about this matter. If you give this large sum of money into the hands of people who show that they are not capable of looking after it, that seems to be wrong.

They are not the same people.

I think the General Secretary was there.

No, he was not.

He may not have been the Secretary at the time but he was there in their employ. Now, there is much dissatisfaction on the Rand, and I am sorry to say that I agree with these dissatisfied people; I agree that they are correct and I think that the Council and the Executive Committee know that if there had been an election today they would not be elected and for that reason they are afraid of an election. The hon. Minister will also remember what took place at the last election. We had one of the ballot boxes here in the House. They had a little hole underneath. By pushing in one’s thumb one could push up the lid and introduce other votes. That was shown to members here. That was the condition of things, and they have shown no desire to alter those conditions, and this is the body which is controlling 18,000 members who pay 2s. 6d. to 5s. a month as subscriptions. One can imagine what a huge sum of money they have at their disposal, at the disposal of these paid officials. These people are in the employ of this organisation. They are on the committee and apart from them actually the Finance Committee consists just of these paid people who deal with all the money. If any organisation of this sort had been proved to do what they did, surely it is the duty of the State to see that things go straight. There is provision made in the constitution that the Labour Department or the Government can control these elections, and if an election is held I take it that the Department will do so, otherwise one does not know what will happen, what sort of ballot boxes they will have and whether the election will be straight or not. I feel that a huge body of people, working where they are, should have the protection of the Government. I do not wish to keep the House by reading the reports of the various meetings held from time to time, but there is not the slightest doubt that there is a large amount of dissatisfaction, and when I was on the Rand last I spoke to these people about it, and as you find happens in any industry run by capitalists, there is always the threat that they will be put in the road if they do anything the mines do not like. That is usual in capitalistic concerns. Where a man has a wife and family they simply take away his means of existence if he does anything wrong in their eyes, and for that reason these people are afraid to talk, unless they can talk to people whom they know and can trust. Unless they know that they do not say anything and they are afraid of their lives. Now there is this dispute, this difference between these people. I do not for a moment wish to say that the one or the other side is correct. I leave that to be decided. I do not wish to be prejudiced. I do not wish to argue one way or the other, but there is this dissatisfaction. That there was huge dissatisfaction is shown by the fact that 700 to 1,000 of these workers came together and decided they had no confidence in the union and the officers running the union. After all, this is supposed to be a free country and a man is entitled to think as he pleases. I have a copy here of the “Mineworker”, and this is what the leading article states, in January, 1945—

This is from Mr. E. B. Broderick. I can understand trades unionists being expelled when they are not faithful to their union. But where a man feels that his council at the head of his organisation is wrong, surely he is entitled to organise opposition, or is this council of such a character that nobody is allowed to criticise it?

They can defeat them at the General Council.

They are agitating to get an alteration in regard to the control of the union, it is quite reasonable.

But trade union constitutions make provision for that.

I have a constitution here. The position is that any constitution, no matter how good it is, can become phut. The members of the council may become useless. I do not say they have done what is not right, but I have a feeling in my heart everything is not right. Now the general secretary says to the members who have been working up opposition: We will take your work away from you and you will starve.

There is reason for that.

The statement made by the Minister was not correct, but apart from that what I am to understand is this, these people are now using force. In any court of law a man who threatened another that he would lose his job and lose his bread would be regarded as acting illegally. When a man makes a threat like that he should go to gaol. The whole attitude is: I am Mr. Broderick, the master of the Mineworkers’ Union, and any worker who tries to do anything to get me out of that will be put out tomorrow. Now he calls them Nazis because they do not want him. A man like that is a menace. The Mineworkers’ Union is a large concern, and you should have people of a different calibre running it. I unfortunately did meet this man, and I am sorry I met him, because I now understand why people object to him. He says: I think these people should be put up against the wall and shot or be sent to a concentration camp. And this from a responsible man who is general secretary of a large concern and a servant of these people. They pay their subscriptions to this Union and he is in their employ. I can understand these Labour representatives here not feeling very happy about the business. That is why I am speaking in English. They are trying to recover their prestige. These gentlemen are supposed to represent the labouring and the poor classes. What on earth have they done for them? Apart from that, just look at them. How can you expect anything from them. They no more represent the poor people and the working man than the United Party does. I say that 90 per cent. of the people who voted for them are either bilingual or Afrikaans-speaking. The poor people and the labourers and the trade unionists are as a rule either bilingual or they can only speak Afrikaans; there are very few English-speaking people amongst them; yet they represent them. I could understand that in a place like Durban, which is preponderately English-speaking. These people have to realise that in the Union of South Africa capitalism and imperialism are practically one; or very close to them; I can almost call them Siamese Twins. This was recognised in the early stages of the Labour Party’s organisation and among trade unionists. That is why you had other sorts of action in the old days. It was not a unilingual English-speaking South African who in 1913 bared his breast and shouted: Do not shoot women and children, shoot a man. And he was shot too. Those people have borne the brunt of the organisations, and they have the right to rule them again. If they are in the minority they have to be satisfied. But why make these threats? Why call these people Nazis and tell them they should be put up against a wall and shot? As far as I can see this is a highly-paid official who knows if his society loses he will not be in this position any longer. Trouble is brewing. If the hon. Minister and the general secretary do not think, as we think, that these people have not got a square deal from the mines there must be something wrong. These workers are today receiving the same pay as they got before the war, but the price of gold has gone up enormously. You must remember that these workers contract silicosis and have a working life of only 15 years. But since the war though their work has increased their pay has gone down. The white man gets less now despite all these things. These miners ask for a 30 per cent. rise. Any reasonable man must agree that is due to them. All other classes of workers have got increases; I am not talking about the cost of living allowance, but their wages have gone up. These people have put up a good case. Eventually that committee accepted the Chamber’s offer of £100,000 a year for five years. A man asks for bread and they give him a stone. The men get nothing out of it. They say they are going to build houses; but how many houses will they be able to build for £500,000? If you could build a house for the low figure of £1,000 you could only build 500 houses in the five years, and the Minister knows there are 18,000 miners. The whole thing is so laughable that if it were not for the prejudice on the Rand everybody would have seen the whole business was not worth looking at. Why did this council accept the offer? What is wrong? That is what I want the Minister to find out. He should not just say because they are a trades council and represent the miners everything is right. Let him hear what these people have to say who opposed the acceptance of this offer. You must remember the mines are a closed shop, and if a man is not a member of the Union he cannot get work. The people who look after the trades council and its funds should be above suspicion.

Do you say that the disaffected section is disaffected because of the acceptance by the General Council of that offer?

That is one of the reasons, but the postiion is quite plain; these people have not had a square deal. Tomorrow or the day after you will have a strike, because even the present council are trying to get out of it. They feel they have done something which is not quite right. In this magazine they tried to make out that it was not generally accepted, that there was a difference of opinion. As far as the Minister is concerned, why is there this dissatisfaction and why are they trying to intimidate people who are already frightened out of their wits because they do not know when they will lose their jobs. We know that the Labour members here went so far as to recommend a reduction in the taxation of the mines so that the mines might pay the workers more. Do they honestly believe that? Although these men are fighting against—you might almost call it a ….

A Colossus.

No, a devil more than a Colossus. Whilst these members say they are fighting against this they know they are sitting in the bosom of the Government, which has been more capitalist than any other government at any time in the Union. That is why they cannot open their mouths and say anything against the mines. Some of these mines are making 100 per cent. dividends.

Which one?

If you do not know do not ask me. [Time limit.]

We have learned a lesson during this war to put the most important things first, and that is why I want to ask the most important question first from the Minister of Labour. In March of this year a document was sent to the Government by the South African Trades and Labour Council, a document drawn up at the specific request of our Prime Minister who invited the council to draft a charter, which was submitted to the Government in March of this year. I hope that every member in this House received a copy of it. It deals with the following topics in various chapters: (1) Labour laws; (2) agriculture; (3) housing and town planning; (4) national health service; (5) education. I should like the Minister to tell the House what he thinks of this document as submitted by the Trades and Labour Council, whether the Government is going to act on this charter, and what the official reply of the Government will be. This, to my mind, is a very important document. It deals with the problems that confront the Government today, and which will confront us more in the future. The Trades and Labour Council who drew up the document spent a lot of time and energy on it, and they expect the Government to inform the country what they think of the document and whether they are prepared to accept it. I do not want to deal with all the points raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) but I want to ask him this: Whether he thinks it fair, for him, representing a farming constituency, to keep on quarrelling with the trade unions of the Witwatersrand You can imagine what an outcry would be raised if a mine-worker, one of my colleagues, would start quarreling in the House with some farmer’s organisation, say the K.W.V. Would he consider that fair criticism? If it was left to one of the members who deal with trade unions one could understand it. Then you hear from the lips of this hon. member that he has done more for the workman than all the trade unions put together. That is his conception of the work that has been done by the trade unions in South Africa. He thought fit again to attack the Mineworkers’ Union and he expects the Minister to deal with its general secretary. He ought to know that the secretary of a trade union is simply placed there by the men themselves who are members of that union. If they have quarrels amongst themselves that certainly is not a matter for a representative of a winegrowing constituency to meddle with. The question of the general secretary of the union is a matter for the men themselves not for Parliament. The Minister of Labour cannot dictate to the men who their general secretary shall be. He has sufficient sense to know that the Minister of Labour cannot dictate to these men who their general secretary shall be. It is not a matter for Parliament, and I think the general secretary is man enough to have a private scrap in the press or at a public meeting, and he will be able to inform the hon. member about all these accusations, and enlighten the hon. member much more than the Minister can. The hon. member ought to know that the Minister would consent to any reasonable request by any trade union, but why the hon. member always makes use of the Minister of Labour’s Vote in order to attack a certain trade union official I cannot understand. I am not going to defend Mr. Broderick, because I know he will deal with this matter at the proper time, but whether it is the hon. member for Swellendam or Mr. Broderick or anybody else, if a man is appointed by the Mineworkers’ Union I am prepared to assist that trade union official, whoever he is, the same way as I would assist the secretary of any agricultural society in South Africa. It is the bounden duty of every member of Parliament not to attack the secretary of a trade union, or the secretary of an agricultural union, but to support him, and to leave it to the members of the Union to say who their general secretary should be. I think the hon. member has done a great disservice by mentioning this matter. If he has a private quarrel—and that is all it is— Parliament is not the place for him to vent it.

I have nothing personal against Mr. Broderick.

It is quite clear …. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has now spoken for a full ten minutes and said practically nothing in the interests of the mine-workers. In the first place he attacked the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). Here he now comes with a few arguments, and the first is that he asked the hon. member for Swellendam where he gets the right to concern himself in mining matters. Does the hon. member not know that the point of view of our Party is that the mineral resources of the country belong to the nation and not to the hon. member for Krugersdorp? That is no argument. Every man who regards South Africa as his fatherland has the right to speak about this great matter. Then the hon. member goes so far as to say: Why do you attack our leader so; he is not the man who can dictate to the mineworkers who shall be their secretary.

And you know that that is so.

But then my question is where the Minister got the right, as the hon. member for Swellendam said,’ to concern himself with it to such an extent that he passed emergency regulations to be taken up in the constitution of the Mineworkers’ Union without the mineworkers knowing about it. If he assumes that right it is only a proof that the Leader of the Labour Party is firmly anchored; he is bound fast to the United Party and he must do what that capitalistic party tells him to. He may not deviate from it. Has the Minister that right? If he assumes that right we will get precisely what we did get, namely that the Hon. Leader of the Labour Party is firmly tied, firmly bound to the chain of gold which binds him to the party. He may not deviate from that. What happened? During the late difficulties on the Rand interviews were granted to all the relevant parties by the Minister of Labour, and not by the Minister of Justice. I want to know from the Minister of Labour today what he did as Minister of Labour last year when the mineworkers reasonably claimed the 30 per cent. increase in order to let justice be done to the mineworkers? I will tell you what he did. Some of his own Party members went from platform to platform and praised that £500,000 alms to the mineworkers for houses, instead of helping the miners to obtain the increase of 30 per cent. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) laughs; he is one of them, and while he did that the hon. member for Krugersdorp jumped on to another platform and tried to salve the wound by saying that he wants to obtain the increase for the miners. I wish to state here that that £500,000 over a period of five years is a safe investment for the Chamber of Mines. That is of no assistance to the miner. They could have got the money themselves. But the great trouble came—I immediately wish to say that I am not against the increase they did receive—when the mines received £1,800,000 with which to increase the wages of native miners. At the time they received £1,800,000 for that increase from the Gold Realisation Fund not a word was said on the side of the Labour Party to the effect that the miners should also receive an increase. Now I wish to ask the Minister, if he is in favour of increasing wages in these times, by how much were the wages of miners increased since the beginning of the war until today? I say it is a glaring scandal. When we come here with proposals in the interests of the mineworkers, in the interests of the poor man, our Labour friends plead with us with tears in their eyes, but when they have to vote they run over to that side. I want to ask the Minister whether there is a gentleman’s agreement between his Party and the United Party, a gentleman’s agreement whereby even the bread and butter of the poor man must be sacrificed. Because we have had proposals here pleading for the lower income groups against which his Party has voted. I just wish to refer to what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said here in connection with the changing of the constitution. If today we hear members of the Labour Party speaking, members like the hon. member for Krugersdorp, one would say that there is harmony amongst the mineworkers, that they are satisfied and happy. On the contrary, everyone knows that the miners are up in arms as the result of the amendment to their constitution. I make bold to read a few extracts from a circular in connection with a letter written to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister with regard to this matter. It reads as follows—

This letter was written recently. It is dated 2nd February, 1945—

Who wrote that letter?

It is written on behalf of the Action Committee of the dissatisfied mineworkers.

Who is Van der Schyff?

He is the secretary. He does not belong to the Party as far as I know. I read further—

And this is what the hon. member for Swellendam refers to, that the mineworker is ruled with a rod of iron—

It is “detrimental to the interests of the Mineworkers’ Union” if a man pleads for his bread and butter. I read further—

The letter continues—

And then with reference to what the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) said to me here, I just want to say this. I shall read more of the letter—

I think the hon. member is right. I am not criticising him. I have in front of me the paper “Transvaal Chamber of Commerce: Reports of the Executive Committee, Gold Producers’ Committee and Collieries Committee”. I have already used it. Instead of the Minister acting and assisting the mine workers, what does he do? He sits in a Cabinet which is now forcing a decision and when the arbitration was appointed in connection with the difference one of the members resigned. They did not want to do it. But what happened then? It says here—

[Time limit.]

On this vote, I want to raise some matters in connection with the administration of the Wage Board in which I am particularly interested. I could, as a matter of fact, spend a good deal of my time discussing the slow progress of the Wage Board’s activities towards something approximating to a uniform standard of wages within our main industrial areas, and as between one town and another. But that is a subject which we have placed before the Minister on many occasions, and as a matter of fact, there are other urgent aspects of the work of the Wage Board and in regard to what is happening behind the work of the Wage Board that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister on this occasion. The first is the question of the position of the smaller towns, the semi-rural areas. Within the large range of small local government units, the Wage Board has so far found it almost impossible to cover the field with any minimum wage regulation at all, and we have been waiting for a considerable time for some extension of their activities which would enable them to establish some legal minimum standards in those areas where the need is extremely urgent. In all the very small urban areas, i.e. in all the areas which are local government areas, there are numbers of people employed on worse than starvation wages. They are not only natives; there are Europeans also, particularly European girls whose standard of wages is a gross reflection on any claim of this country to have a civilised standard of living, at all. I do hope that it may be possible for the Minister to devise some machinery whereby the Wage Board may be able to extend its activities to those areas fairly rapidly, because the pressure on those areas has become increasingly great during the war. And in fact, the absence of any lega] minimum in those areas has countered to a very large extent the effect of the one effort that has been made by the Department of Labour to meet the rising cost of living, i.e. the cost of living allowance. The compulsory cost of living allowances which have been imposed upon employers in small urban areas as well as in large urban areas by war emergency regulation has, I am told on reliable authority, in many cases completely circumvented in its intention by the reduction of the wage to counter the increased costs involved in the cost of living allowance; and so far as I can see there is no legal sanction against that. Unless there is a legal standard of wage imposed by the Wage Board, the employer has it in his own hands to use this means to counter the effect of a measure that was intended to supplement the wage and to alleviate the pressure of wartime rising costs. I want to impress upon the Minister the urgency of this matter, the necessity for establishing some sort of control in the smaller rural areas which will give some relief to people who were well below the bread line when the war started, and for whom even a cost of living allowance, had the wage been maintained, would not have covered the increase in living costs. I think the Minister knows that for the people at the bottom of the economic ladder the increase in the cost of living has been much greater than for the people who had a living wage before the war began. I contend that the reduction of the wage is one of the ways in which the activities of the Department of Labour are being circumvented. Now there is another direction in which a circumvention is apparently taking place, which came to my notice quite recently and which I may say occasioned a very great shock to me. I have reason to believe that, as a result of the progress of wage regulation, there is coming into existence an extended use of convict labour. I have reason to believe that convict labour is being used in these days in the field of commercial employment. I think in the past this pernicious system did not extend to commercial employment. We have the lamentable circumstances in this country that convict labour can be used by private employers but at least that had not spread to the commercial field. Now, I am told, it is being used by agricultural co-operative societies. I was told this on the very best authority, and I shall be glad to hear that this is not the case. But I have reason to believe that there are cases in which convict labour is being used by agricultural co-operative societies in the conduct of their commercial activities, and I wish to refer that matter to the Minister for his careful investigation. I am hoping sincerely that one of these days in the not too distant future, we shall get the whole system of convict labour revised. In the meantime, I think the obligation rests upon the Department of Labour to see that the legislation which it administers, which is intended to improve the standard of the living of the people, is not circumvented by that means or by any other means. Finally I want to ask the Minister what the policy of the Department of Labour is in respect of works defined as works under the Mines and Works Act. I raise this issue because in the past we have had reason to believe again that although the Department of Labour has control over works defined as works in the Mines Act, in so far as wage regulation is concerned, it has tended not to use those powers. It is a fact that the Factory Act does not apply to works defined as works in the Mines Act, and therefore the Department of Labour is not involved to that extent, but wage regulation machinery does apply to the mining industry and to any works defined as works in the Mines Act but there seems to be an increasing tendency on the part of the Department of Labour not to use its powers in that field; and if it is not going to do so, we have definite grounds for alarm thereat. I have in mind the situation which first of all was allowed to develop on the Victoria Falls Power Station and the final conclusion of the negotiation by native workers in the V.F.P. for improvement of their wages and conditions of employment. That dispute was eventually referred, not to the Wage Board unfortunately, but to the Mine Native Wages Commission which reported last year. That commission reported that they could see no reason whatsoever for not applying the standards of wages to the V.F.P, workers which had been established for ordinary industrial and commercial activities by the Wage Board in the Johannesburg area. They considered that the conditions of work of workers on the V.F.P. were sufficiently similar to the conditions of work in industrial and commercial employment to justify the claim of the workers to the establishment of wage and other conditions of work comparable with the best wage standards in the rest of Johannesburg, and, they recommended accordingly. The Government did not accept that recommendation. They decided in their wisdom that in fact the conditions of work in the Victoria Falls Power Station approximated much more closely to the conditions of contract labour on the mines, with the result that, instead of giving to these workers the privileges such as they were, of the improved standard of living established by the Wage Board for other employees these workers were given merely a very meagre improvement in conditions, which was all that the mineworkers got in Johannesburg as well. I want to know why the Minister has allowed his authority in this matter to be abrogated in favour, in the first instance of a commission, and secondly of a Government which was not prepared to take the sort of remedy which would have been in line with the work of the Wage Board. I would like to add that it has always been a very grave disappointment to us that the hon. Minister has not taken firmer charge of the whole mine native wage position. He was quite entitled to do also in terms both of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act, but he agreed two years ago to put the whole matter to a commission of enquiry, on the arguable contention that the issues raised were much wider than those normally dealt with by the Wage Board, and that there was something to be said for having a full enquiry into the situation. But I wish to remind him that those of us who are concerned to see the establishment of a living standard of wages, for native workers in this country, are very much disappointed at the concessions which were granted to the native mine workers last year. [Time limit.]

I feel impelled to say something in connection with the attack that has been directed today by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) against the secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union.’

Are you afraid?

I am not afraid, nor is the secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union afraid. The hon. member for Swellendam burnt his fingers in the Lobby this afternoon and that is the origin of this attack on the secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union.

That is untrue.

He thought he could frighten Broderick. Instead of that he later got so beyond himself that he used bad language in the presence of ladies, and from that there arises this attack by the hon. member for Swellendam. To go into the affairs of the Mineworkers’ Union as they stand today, it is necessary to go back to the years 1922-’24. In the year 1922 they destroyed the Mineworkers’ Union by the power of their money. If a man opened his mouth he was put on a black list and you virtually could not get a post anywhere along the whole of the Reef. In 1924 the Nationalist Party rode into Parliament on the back of the mineworkers and with their sweat and their blood to form the government of that day. Unfortunately the mineworkers who were largely Afrikaners at that time, had too much faith in the Nationalist Party Government of that day and they were not very eager to strengthen their organisation again so that they could fight for themselves. The whole of their trust was placed in the Nationalist Party Government. Unfortunately they did not obtain from the Nationalist Party Government what they expected, and they were consequently compelled to create a new organisation out of the ashes of the old one.

What did the Minister of Labour do then?

I shall leave it to the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) to talk about diamonds and diamond diggers, and through you, Mr. Chairman, I now ask the hon. member to desist from his quacking.

It appears to me you are afraid.

I have never flown with ducks. The mineworkers again built up a strong union despite all the opposition they encountered from certain sides. In 1938 Harris was at the head of the mineworkers. Harris was an able person and he tried to make a success of that union. That did not suit the purpose of a certain political party, and consequently an effort had to be made to break the Mineworkers’ Union and take it over.

What Party was it? Was it the Labour Party?

Supposing it was the Labour Party; what difference does it make? If hon. members exercise a little patience we shall hear what Party it was and what Party it still is. Certain interests that adopted a certain political doctrine persuaded a young man named Hugo, injected him with drugs, brought him in a car to near where Harris was, and said to him: “There he is, shoot him.” What happened? Harris was shot dead, but fortunately for the mineworkers there was a man who could step into Harris’ shoes and keep the union going.

Who defended Hugo? It would be interesting to know that.

That is a matter I would rather not discuss. He was a Worcester boy.

Your information is wrong.

In any case, he was a good fellow who now has to spend his life behind closed doors while the people who incited him went free and are sitting in varoius councils in the country. After the liquidation of Harris another man stood in their road by the name of J. A. van den Berg, and £1,000 was offered by a certain organisation to a Mr. De Wit to kidnap Van den Berg the evening before a general meeting of the council was to have been held. De Wit would not allow himself to be used as Judas Iscariot and he did not do this. After that one Boshoff was also offered money to eliminate this man. Boshoff also did not do it. De Wit was attacked in the dark and given a thrashing. He was so trampled upon and kicked that he had to spend a couple of days in bed. A little while afterwards Boshoff was taken out and thrashed with a sjambok, and even today he is suffering from the effects of that thrashing. Now the hon. member for Swellendam asks how it comes that Broderick is entitled to call these people Nazis? Are these not Nazi methods; are these not the methods that were employed in Nazi Germany?

In Russia also.

What about the Reichstag fire?

What about the 16 Poles?

Does that Party agree that the order of the sjambok should be introduced into South Africa? Are they in accord with that?

Of course not.

That is not a question you should put to us.

I hope that they do not agree with that, and I know that the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) does not agree with that. He has said so. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has resumed his seat talked about the bell-wether sitting behind here or the “bull-wethers” as he described them. I do not know what bell-wethers he talked about but I know that lad and I know his father well. He was born at Worcester and he grew up there, and when his father had this trouble we stood by him. The hon. member stated here that people incited him and brought him to the state of committing this deed. If all the other information that has been given to us is just as erroneous as this information we can really take no notice of what is stated here. But he has always spoken here about certain bell-wethers. He did not mention names and the intention was naturally to intimate that the Nationalist Party were behind this. If I had to say what I think about that member you would not allow me to continue, Mr. Chairman. Fortunately we may think what we like although we may not say what we like. I do not want to pay any further attention to him. I should like to address a few words to the Minister of Labour. During the Budget debate I asked him to inform us what his policy is and what the Government’s policy is in connection with separate working places for Europeans and nonEuropeans. We also took the opportunity to introduce a motion in this connection, but the Minister’s reply was that he would not say anything about it and that he would not accept the motion because this was always his policy in the past. There could, of course, be no greater nonsense than this as an argument. If he always agreed with it he could have accepted the proposal. But the real reason why he could not accept it was that he changed his politics. I pointed out to him what happened in connection with the Bill regarding factories, machinery and public buildings that he introduced into this House some years ago and how he altered that Bill. I have been to the trouble of examining that Bill. The first Bill was introduced in 1941, and the second reading was to have taken place on the 26 th February, 1941, but the Minister withdrew that Bill and he brought along another Bill for the second reading. What was the amendment that he brought in; what is the difference between the two Bills? I want to read it out to the House so that the whole House and the country can see how the Minister has changed. In Clause 24 (3) of the original Bill that the Minister introduced and which he then withdrew we find the following provision—

Then there follows a whole series of things that the Minister can do and it amounts to this that in respect of certain classes of workers the Minister can define certain work places in the same factory or in separate factories, and then we find the following important provision that in order to allot these work places to specific classes of workers—

Here it is very clearly laid down that the Minister can make provision for separate work places for Europeans and nonEuropeans. He has the right to do this. The Minister will remember that at that time there was an incident. He then stated that he would not alter the Bill, although he actually did that later on. I received later information about that, and the Minister can deny this information if he wishes to. My information is that the High Commissioner of India made an objection to this, and the native representatives also made objection. The Minister then withdrew the Bill and introduced a new one wherein we find the following is substituted for the clause that I just read out. The original clause read—

In the new Bill it read as follows—

There is a great difference between the two Bills. That change was made by the Minister and he is the man who now wants to come and give us a lecture on separate working places. We have pressed here for separate work places for European and nonEuropean, and the Minister has simply told us that he cannot accept our proposals because it has always been his policy that separation must be applied. I told him that he had altered that policy. He denied this and therefore I have turned to this Bill today. He can himself go to the Clerk of the Papers and read it in this Bill. But he knows very well that on this point he has changed. The power he assumed in the original Bill to provide separate work places for Europeans and non-Europeans was deleted by him when he introduced the second reading. I now want to ask the Minister of Labour, and he must give us a clear answer, what his policy is and what the policy of the Government is in connection with separate work places. As matters stand today we know that there is intermingling. Natives work alongside white girls and the white girls alongside coloured people. I should like to know from the Minister very clearly what his attitude is. I do not want him to quibble about it, but he should tell us what the policy of the Government is in this connection. I do not want the Minister of Labour to try to be funny about this. We want a clear and definite answer from him. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) read out certain things here about the position on the Witwatersrand. The Minister knows just as well as I do that the position in Cape Town is much worse even. Here the people are all mixed up at their work. We know that in East London only white people are employed in the sweet factory, and they have proved there that much better work is provided than when the working places are used indiscriminately. It is a fair question to put to the Minister: What is the policy of the Government? I do not Want him to obscure the matter with queer expressions. I want him to give us a clear answer. If he cannot tell us what the Government policy is and what his policy is, he should admit it plainly, or otherwise he should tell us what it is. I should like to have a clear answer from him, and I appeal to him to give us that answer. [Time limit.]

We have listened to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and his significant elucidation of labour conditions on the Witwatersrand. One would have expected his half hour to have been taken up by a member from the Witwatersrand, but strangely enough it was monopolised by a member from the platteland. Well, when a person does not understand the workings of a trade union, he runs the danger of running amuck. We have heard the hon. member for Swellendam talk continuously this afternoon of the capitalistic system of the closed shop principle. It has nothing to do with the mines as such, and still less with the mine owners. I think that the Chamber of Mines would quite possibly be opposed to the closed shop principle if the trade Unions were not to insist on it. The mine owners would perhaps be the last people to want the closed shop principle.

I was not talking of the Chamber of Mines.

You said that the Chamber of Mines today applies the closed shop principle, and I say that they probably do not want it at all.

I did not say that.

You spoke of the capitalists and you raged vehemently about the Mineworkers’ Union and the so-called discord in that organisation on the Witwatersrand. Last week we sent three members of this House on a special trip to the Witwatersrand to hold a discussion with the mineworkers, in view of the proposed legislation. Those members did not belong to the Opposition.

Was there an agreement between you?

The hon. member is now fishing on dry ground. He is not sufficiently awake to catch the member for Johannesburg (West). But during that week and still less during this week did we see representatives of that organisation who are so terribly concerned about the dissension in the Mineworkers’ Union, representatives who came here to Cape Town to make representations to the Minister of Mines in connection with the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. Why did they not come here? This brings us back again to the old thing that members on the other side want to apply the policy of divide and rule. An attempt has been made to drive a wedge into one of the most important trade unions in South Africa.

No, that is not so.

I know the history well. I know of the money which you have obtained from Stellenbosch to do your work on the Rand.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I shall do so out of respect towards you, Mr. Chairman. We know the whole history, and we will enlarge on it somewhat. An agreement was reached with the Mineworkers’ Union to set an arbitration going. Personally I admit that I was disappointed that that arbitration went through. I think that the Mineworkers’ Union should not perhaps have allowed it to begin. But they accepted certain proposals. That other section, however, endeavoured to use the same proposals to bring about dissention. Then there is still something else which will also be used by them in the near future. They simply want to create dissension in that organisation so that they can govern. The hon. member for Swellendam made certain assertions here about the constitution and I asked him to read it out. If therë are people who are against the management, then the highest authority is there. In any trade union there is a general board possessing the highest authority. If there are so many members who have no confidence in the management of the Mineworkers’ Union, then they can get rid of them if they gain the majority on the general board.

They cannot hold an election now.

Why not?

Because they have amended the constitution.

But for what reason has the constitution been amended? The reason is because this trade union has sent practically the greatest percentage of members of any trade union to the front.

That is not true. We have the Minister’s reply.

I repeat. As a trade union, this one has allowed the greatest percentage of members to go on active service. In view of this and in view of the sabotage which has already taken place to create dissension in that trade union, can we blame them for having amended the constitution in that manner? They had to protect the interests of those 2,000 and more members of the trade union who had gone on active service and who for that reason could not record their votes. The Opposition would have been very glad if there could have been an election held, if the soldiers could not have voted. We know how they challenged us here to hold an election, but when they heard that arrangements had been made for the soldiers to vote, they became alarmed and said that we wanted a khaki-election. If the Minister of Labour under the existing legislation could have made provision for those mineworkers who were at the front to vote, then it would not have been necessary to bring about that change in the constitution. It is very easy to try with all these things to attack the Government for the purposes of political propaganda. I said as early as two weeks ago that if members desire the friendship of the mineworkers, then they must not use them as a political football. I am now coming again to the other matter which was tossed about over the floor of this House with reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). It was immediately used by members on the other side. A law exists against those things. But the lawyer members in this House will admit that one can drive à span of oxen through this kind of legislation. There are today houses on the Witwatersrand which are being used as factories. Why? Because there are no factories. Just as there are cases where factories are not built and controlled strictly according to law. I can take the hon. member for Swellendam to the factory on the corner of High Street and Main Road. That fellow did his level best and got a beautiful factory. He now wants to sell the old factory, but he cannot do so because the factory was not built in accordance with the law. It has not got separate entrances for Europeans and non-Europeans. There are not separate apartments for Europeans and non-Europeans. In accordance with what laws was it built? Was it built under laws which were made by this Government, or under old existing laws? [Time limit.]

I would like to say a few words in connection with the mines. I have listened to what other hon. members have said here about the mines, and I am bitterly disappointed to find that they know so little about the mines. If they had known something more of the mines, they would probably have been able to say something more about a movement which exists there and which is known as the Reformers. I give the House the assurance that for many years I worked together with those people. I know the type of person they are and the lead they want to give to the mineworkers. They try every day to cause a split in the Mineworkers’ Union. I have letters here which I can show to every hon. member which will indicate who those people are, what their occupation is, etc. I want to mention this letter again which was written by McDonald. He wrote the letter when he resigned from the committee of dissatisfied mineworkers. It makes us realise what those people plan to do. He states emphatically that his resignation is due to the fact that he is not going to allow himself to be used for political purposes. He says that that body stands for political purposes. That is all they want to do. They act with only one purpose in view, and that is to create dissension in the Mineworkers’ Union for political purposes. If the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) had known something about it, he would not have had so much to say in connection with the mineworkers. We know, as the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) stated here, what has happened recently to people who have performed outstanding services to the Mineworkers’ Union and who have built up the union to where it stands today. If we had had the help of the Opposition in building up the Mineworkers’ Union, and not this sort of thing, then that organisation would still have been giving 100 per cent. more satisfaction. But unfortunately we find that the Mineworkers’ Union is always used for political purposes by members on the other side. They have always been out to create discord among the mineworkers.

I do not want to refer to the speech of the hon. member who has just been seated, but I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy), and to the point of view which he adopted here this afternoon. He asked the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) why the people in the Mineworkers’ Union do not elect their own representatives. He said that the general board has the right to do so. The hon. member for Swellendam then pointed out to him that the executive board of the Mineworkers’ Union had amended the constitution, and they are not allowed to vote now.

Why?

The hon. member is now trying to get out of it. He has mislead the House, for he said here that the people can elect their own representatives.

I did not say so.

I heard that the member did say so. When the hon. member for Swellendam had pinned him down, he sprang loose and said: Yes, but at present there is a war on and most of the people are away at the front, and that is why an election cannot be held. Can we then take any notice of anybody who makes it understood that he is speaking with authority on behalf of the mineworkers, if he brings the House under a wrong impression in this way? He came here and said that the majority of the members of the Mineworkers’ Union are on military service. On the 15th February of this year the Minister of Labour gave the figures in reply to a question. He said that of the 18,000 mineworkers there are 5,000 who have joined the army. How then does the member come to say that the majority of the members of the Mineworkers’ Union have joined up? We must surely give credit to the Minister of Labour that he knows what he is talking about.

He said the greatest percentage.

Yes, now those members are talking of percentages. That hon. member as well as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) has made out a ease for the management of the Mineworkers’ Union. The fact is that the management of the Mineworkers’ Union have amended the constitution to such an extent—I have all the clauses here before me—that an election cannot take place before six months after the war. If anybody should fall out in the meantime, then the executive board appoints somebody else in his place. The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) wants to pretend that they, and he among others, as a member of the management, stepped into the breach for the mineworkers. Let me read out what that member did. You will remember that the mineworkers rightly demanded an increase in wages of 30 per cent. That hon. member was on the executive board of the Mineworkers’ Union, and he then entered into an agreement with the Chamber of Mines. Why? Let me read out what the agreement was—

1. (1) The Chamber will provide a sum of £100,000, per annum for a period of five years as from the 1st October, 1944, to be used for the purpose of assistance towards the housing, co-operative or other schemes agreed to mutually by the Chamber and the Union for the benefit of the members of the Mineworkers’ Union, subject to the conditions to be laid down by the Union and the Chamber in consultation.

What then are the terms—

1. (2) The Chamber will make available in addition to the amount referred to in Clause (1) hereof an amount of £25,000 for immediate use for the purpose set out in that clause.
2. (3) The Chamber will defray the cost of calling together the General Council of the Union for the purpose of considering this agreement, such cost not to exceed £750.

And then we come to par. (4) which was entered into by this man who has the interests of the mineworkers so much at heart—

1. (4) Immediately the General Council of the Union ratifies this agreement, the Union will withdraw its application for arbitration in connection with the dispute arising from the demand of the Union for an increase of 30 per cent. in wages.
2. (5) The Mineworkers’ Union agrees that neither as a Union or an affiliated member of the Joint Mining Unions will it make any claim for a general increase of wages or any general claim equivalent thereto unless and until existing conditions undergo a very material change.

He has sold his soul, and that is why we find him standing up here this afternoon to make personal attacks, in the same way as the hon. member for Krugersdorp has delivered personal attacks. But they did not step into the breach for the mineworkers. Is it then surprising that the mineworkers have made representations to members such as the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and other members who do not even live on the Witwatersrand? Their representatives have left them hopelessly in the lurch.

They have sold them.

It amounts to that, and in addition they have sold their own souls. I still want to read the last one—

1. (6) The Gold Producers’ Committee agrees to maintain the existing minimum wage scale and the present benefits, including those set out in Clause (1) hereof, unless and until, compared with the existing position, there has been a very material alteration operating to the disadvantage of the mining industry.

This is then the sort of agreement which that member contracted with the Chamber of Mines. The Labour Party is no longer only the lap-dog of the Government. It has also become the lap-dog of the Chamber of Mines.

And that from a tooth-drawer

Tooth-drawer or not, I wish that dentists had the right not only of extracting some people’s teeth but also their consciences as well, if they possess one. I do not think that I need enlarge any further on this subject. We know the Minister of Labour. When he leaves joking aside, he still has a conscience. Although he is perhaps the fifth or seventh wheel on the wagon. He thinks everyday of the time when he will have to leave the Cabinet. It may yet be this afternoon, when that most pleasant moment arrives for him. May he then have the courage of his convictions and also break away so that members such as the hon. member for Krugersdorp and the hon. member for Mayfair will no longer enjoy such solitary company. I hope that the Leader of the Labour Party will have the courage to leave the Party for good, and that he will once again represent the workers and not the capitalists.

When the last speaker discovers I have a conscience I find it necessary at once to examine that conscience. I am not one of those who object to dentists, or to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), whose versatility is remarkable. I have no objection to his adding to his numerous activities that of investigator of mineworkers’ unions. I welcome it; because it must have been very clear, to other hon. members that the hon. gentlemen over there were giving effect to the old adage, “Speech is given to us to hide our thoughts.”

And you are using speech instead of thought.

When you are talking twaddle I let you talk. Why not let me talk my twaddle? Only my twaddle is much more effective than that of the hon. members on that side of the House. What is the real reason for this terrific onslaught? Why are these hon. members year after year trotting out the same old talk, especially about the Mineworkers’ Union.

Because it has got worse.

No it has not. From your point of view, yes. The real reason is they have been completely and entirely unsuccessful in capturing the Mineworkers’ Union. They talk as if it is something new, this trouble in the Mineworkers’ Union. They now call this an Action Committee; they used to be called the Reformers.

The union’s Broederbond.

It is the mineworkers’ Broederbond; my hon. friend is perfectly correct. And the trouble started long before this, in the effort made by hon. members on that side of the House to capture the Mineworkers’. Union by sabotage.

And by murder.

Oh no; I resent that imputation and I will not subscribe to it, not for one moment. It was the inevitable consequence.

On a point of order, did I understand that hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) correctly, that when the Minster accused us of sabotaging the Mineworkers’ Union the hon. member said by way of interjection “and with murder too”?

†The CHAIRMAN The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) says that when the Nationalist Party were accused of sabotaging the Mineworkers’ Union, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) interjected “and with murder too”. Did the hon. member use that expression?

I referred to the movement known as the Reformers which started with the murder of the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union. Charles Harris.

The hon. member for Troyeville must withdraw that.

I withdraw it as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned.

I am sorry for that little interlude.

You see the sort of people you are living with.

I even lived with you, that is worse.

You and I never had to apologise to each other.

I thought you were beyond apology. I want to drive home the fact, a fact that has been patent to me for years. My own experience, not as a Minister, but as one associated with the trade union movement, as a member of the trade union movement and a close watcher of the conditions and interests of the trade union movement of South Africa, is this. I have been alarmed at the manner in which the Nationalist Party have endeavoured to nationalise, politically, the Mineworkers’ Union. Their attitude can be ascribed entirely to the fact that they were unable to induce sufficient numbers of the members of the Mineworkers’ Union ….

That is quite untrue.

Quite untrue ! That hon. gentleman has just intervened at this late stage in the existence of the Mineworkers’ Union. He has just seen fit to intervene. He knows nothing at all about it, except this—that it is fruitful ground for the growth of the seed that has been implanted by other members on his side, on this question of the Reform movement.

You charge me with trying to get political capital?

I have not said that. I have said you failed with the Mineworkers’ Union and consequently you are annoyed and your annoyance is to the same degree as your disappointment.

If I lived on the Rand that might have something to do with it.

If the hon. member lived on the Rand they would soon shoot him out of it. I have no objection to the hon. member intervening, I welcome it, because he has been able to show, not by design but by accident, how barren of argument they are in regard to the question of the Mineworkers’ Union. It is not my business to defend the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, but it is my business to traverse the facts when they are not facts. It is most interesting, and at the same time amusing to hear those hon. members, metaphorically speaking, placing their hands on their hearts and anathematising the Mineworkers’ general secretary for dictatorial methods—the devil rebuking sin. It does not reflect in an amusing way on the attitude of members on that side of the House during the past six years when they object most strongly to the exercise of dictatorial methods in the Mineworkers’ Union. I do not want to pursue that subject, but my hon. friend did bring up a question I found it necessary to answer. In fact, he blamed me for having introduced what he is pleased to call a war measure into the constitution of the Mineworkers’ Union. In the first place I did not introduce it; in the second place it was not a war measure. So the hon. gentleman is wrong on both points; in legal parlance he is thrown out of court on both counts.

What about costs?

He will never pay costs except on the political field. Whatver may happen to him politically in his own constituency certainly the rest of his Party will be made to pay for his conduct today. [Interruptions.] I am trying to find some text to preach a sermon on what was said by the hon. member. I know we are in a state of anticipation at the moment and cannot bend our thoughts completely to the subject before the House, and perhaps the hon. member may try later to bring order out of chaos. I did not institute that reform nor the alteration of the constitution, and it was not by war measure.

I never said it was by war measure.

What did you say?

Look up Hansard and you will be able to see.

I will accept my hon. friend’s statement, but he blamed me for having introduced it.

I said you could have put a stop to it.

My hon. friend just a little while ago was complaining about the dictatorial methods in the Mineworkers’ Union, and now he complains that I did not use dictatorial powers.

You said you wanted it.

I will come to that if my hon. friend will allow me.

You said it on the last occasion.

My hon. friend knows perfectly well that under the law of this land the Registrar is the man who decides whether an alteration to the constitution shall be agreed to. The Registrar, and the Registrar only, is the statutory official, and the Minister has no control over him.

The constitution makes provision that no alteration can be made without the Department’s consent, without your consent.

I am saying that no alteration can be made to the constitution, or that the original constitution cannot be varied, cannot be instituted, cannot be controlled, cannot be agreed to by the Minister; it has to be done by the Registrar, and what I did was to say, and I repeat it now, I was in entire agreement with that alteration of the constitution. Let there be no misunderstanding again. I did not accept the amendment. I did not have the right to agree to the amendment officially and therefore did not. But personally I entirely agree with the alteration to that constitution. And why? My hon. friend may decry it but the fact is there were 5,000 members of the Mineworkers’ Union at the front—and not one of them a Nationalist.

How do you know?

He asked them before they went.

And if there were only 2,000 and if there were only 1,000 you have no right to have an election while those 1,000 members are deliberately deprived of recording their votes. That brings me to the reform movement itself. The hon. member read out a letter, from the Action Committee, I presume, as it now calls itself.

It was an agreement by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers).

You do not know what I am talking about; you never do.

It is a telegram.

No, that is not the same thing either. I have the telegram. That telegram was not sent to me, it was sent to the Prime Minister. You have got mixed up again as usual.

You are a bit mixed too.

I certainly am getting mixed up between the three of you. But I am coming back to the fact that the hon. member for Swellendam read out a communication from the Action Committee in which he says they say that I met the Action Committee; is that correct?

No.

Your interpreter is hopeless.

Oh, no.

I read out a telegram to you; here the telegram is. I read no letters. I was not here when you spoke.

I accept the statement that it was the hon. member for Westdene who said it. But not one of them would accept the soft impeachment.

It was from Van der Schyff.

He was the man who signed this communication. They say I said I would see what I could do. Do you know what I told them? I would endeavour to arrange a meeting between them and the Mineworkers’ Union.

They funked that.

But at the moment they accepted that. Then I made an arrangement with the Mineworkers’ Union to meet them; they agreed to meet the Reformers, or the Action Committee as they call themselves now, on any day or at any place they wished.

What happened?

What happened was this. I wrote to the address given to me by the secretary, Mr. Van der Schyff, and told him this arrangement was made. I got no reply, but a fortnight later he wrote and asked me what I had done. I wrote and told him. They said they were intensely disappointed.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 8th May.