I move—

Mr. Speaker, this debate is the epilogue to a Parliamentary drama which commenced on September 4th, 1939. It marks the happy ending of that drama. In one respect it falls short of what we could have wished. I refer to the absence of the chief actor in that drama, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. It was he who when the drama commenced gave the lead which was followed. It was he who sustained the burden and inspired the achievement, and his should be the honour today. We regret his absence but we acquiesce in it because of the fact that he is at this moment playing a part in an even greater drama, a world drama, and because of the contributions he is making to the building up of a new world of peace and prosperity. In this motion it is sought to give expression to the feelings of the House and the country on the occasion of the great event in human history which has just taken place. First of all, in the motion we make reference to our desire to render thanksgiving to God Almighty. As a nation,’as a Parliament, we have ever sought to see the hand of the Divine Providence in the working out of our destiny, and in that spirit we today pay our tribute of gratitude to Him whom we recognise as the source of deliverance and of victory. For the rest, the motion seeks to place on record our appreciation of the victory which, under God’s guidance, has been attained, and our gratitude to those who have contributed to its attainment. Appropriately it is proposed that the channel for that expression should be an address to His Majesty the King, I say appropriately, because he is the head of our State, but it is appropriate also for other reasons, and I think when I say that of the inspiration which has come by precept and example from His Majesty the King and his Consort to all their peoples during the long years of this dread struggle. I have no doubt that as hon. members have regard to this resolution there will come thronging to their minds many memories of these last 5½ years. Those of us who were here on September 4th, 1939, cannot but recall the tense feelings of that memorable day. For many of us it was no easy thing to take a share in the responsibility of placing South Africa at war, a war the issue of which we could not foresee, and the sufferings in which many of us felt might be very great indeed. But we believed that South Africa’s interests were involved as a result of Hitler’s acts. We believed that principles which meant very much to us had been put in very grave peril, and so we felt that we as a nation should take our stand in support of those principles, the principles of freedom and of human dignity; and we do not regret that decision. We think today of some of the decisive moments of the war, of the German break through in France almost exactly five years ago, of the epic splendour of the Battle of Britain, of Hitler’s stupendous miscalculation when he attacked Russia, of the treachery of Pearl Harbour and the consequent entry into the war of the United States with all its majestic strength, of the defence and subsequent victory at El Alamein, which was the turning point of the war in the Mediterranean, of the crowning mercy of Stalingrad, which was the turning point of the war in Europe, of the landing on the beaches of Normandy and all the events which have happened since then. We think also of incidents of special moment to us here in South Africa, of such things as the advance of our small band of South Africans to Addis Ababa, the first of the liberated capitals, of the gallantry and the sacrifice of Sidi Rezegh, of the tragedy of Tobruk, of the last glorious trek of our men up through Italy, from Cassino to Rome and Florence, and the Brenner Pass. Now at last the end of the war in Europe has come. Mussolini and Hitler have fallen. Germany lies prostrate, her satellites dishonoured and her victims liberated; and South Africa has played its part worthily up to the very end. This motion seeks to deal comprehensively with all who on the human plane have played a part in making that victory possible, in every allied country, including of course our own South Africa. In the second and third resolutions which I shall submit today the House will be asked to pay a special tribute to our own men and women in the forces, firstly to those who are still with us and secondly to those who have passed on. But this resolution is conceived as a comprehensive resolution covering all. In this resolution special reference is made to the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is right that that reference should be made. It can never be forgotten that at the gravest crisis of the war the nations of that Commonwealth stood all but alone facing the victorious might of Germany, supported by their predatory Italian ally; and in that grave crisis, by its exertions and its example, it saved humanity from dire disaster. For that great victory the chief glory must needs go to the people of the United Kingdom who with splendid courage and heroic endurance withstood the main burden of Germany’s seemingly irresistible onslaught. But we think also in this resolution of all the United Nations who have made their contribution to the victory in Europe, each according to its capacity. We think specially of the greatest of them all, the United States and Russia. We think of the imposing deployment by the giant of the western world of its seemingly inexhaustible resources of men and material. We think of Russia’s resistance to invasion, its endurance of colossal material devastation, the draining of its very life-blood, and then the thrust back at the very heart of the enemy like an arrow from a bowstring drawn to the fullest extent. But, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is more appropriate at a time like this to think of individual men and women rather than of nations. This war has been not only a war of soldiers and sailors and airmen; more than any other war in history it was a peoples’ war, a war which affected all sections of the civilian population, a war which has taken heavy toll of men and women and children of every section of the community; and so, however great our debt is to the fighting men, appropriate though it may be that we should express our special gratitude to them, let us not forget the efforts and the endurance of the other groups. It would be impossible for me to mention all such groups. There are some that come to my mind. One thinks of the splendid courage of the merchant seamen. One thinks of the faithfulness of all the auxiliary services, men and women. One thinks of the magnificent achievement of workers in war factories, the makers of munitions and supplies. One thinks of those who rendered part-time servicé, it may be in home defence, it may be in dealing with the damage or the apprehended damage caused by air attack. One thinks of all those splendid women who took part in voluntary organisations, helping to maintain the home front to support war funds and to sustain and encourage the troops. One thinks also of those who have kept the normal services in the various countries going. I think here of our own public and railway servants in this country, of the men and women who have kept these services going deápite increased burdens, with depleted staffs, without any thought of recognition or reward. One thinks of women who were left behind in loneliness, sometimes perhaps on outlying farms, to carry on while their menfolk had gone to the front. One thinks of those who had no opportunity, perhaps, to render service, except by the endurance of the sacrifices and privations of war. For the contribution to victory of all these groups and others like them in all the United Nations, this motion is conceived as a measure of recognition and appreciation. And so, Mr. Speaker, the European war is ended. It is of course, too early to assess its significance for humanity, too early to draw a correct balance sheet of sacrifices and achievement. At the moment perhaps we are chiefly conscious of the tremendous losses which have been sustained, human and material; of devastated cities, of ruined countrysides, of vacant places in homes and families; conscious also of the very great problems, political, social and economic which lie ahead of humanity, the problem of establishing a secure peace, the problem of combating the ravages of famine and pestilence in Europe, the problem of re-establishing international co-operation and trade. But our consciousness of these things must not impair our gratitude and rejoicing for the deliverance of humanity from the Nazi terror. Nothing that even the most pessimistic could conjure up in regard to the future is comparable with what would have befallen us if it had been our fate to suffer defeat. And as regards our own South Africa, the balance in our case is a good deal more favourable than that of humanity as a whole. In comparison with other lands we have suffered far less. Sacrifices there have been, bitter and severe to those immediately affected, but in the total not comparable with the sacrifices which have had to be endured in other countries. Problems there are lying ahead of us, great problems in all conscience, but again we are fortunate in that regard too, in comparison with other countries. And on the other side of the balance sheet we have a good deal in our favour. I think, when I say that, of the increased industrial potential of South Africa, which is one of the results of the war. I think of the enhancement in our prestige and honour of our country amongst the nations of the world.

Hear, hear!

There is no lack of evidence of that at San Francisco today. I think of the enlarged vision of our young men and women who have made contact with the wider Africa and with other lands beyond, and I think no less of the splendid co-operation which there has been in this war effort, especially in the army overseas, between the two main stocks of our South African nation.

Hear, hear!

A great French writer once said that it is an essential condition of being a nation that it should have done great things together and desire to do more of them. In this war more than in any other period of achievement in our South African history we have done great things together. Those achievements have not been the achievements of the English-speaking South African nor of the Afrikaans-speaking South African; they have been the achievements of both together; and as we pass now from this phase in our history into a new phase, I could wish for nothing better than that the future should disclose that we are going forward with the desire of doing yet greater things together.

I second.

Before I voice any opinion in connection with the motion the Acting Prime Minister has proposed, will you permit me to make a few observations of a more general character, as he has done; and I should like at the same time to revert to the statements, or to one of them at any rate, that the Acting Prime Minister made on a previous occasion in this House, and in respect of which it was impossible for us to offer any comment in view of the circumstances of the case. It is fitting, I think, that from this side of the House such statements regarding the general position should also be made as were made on the part of the proposer of the motion. Let me say in the first place that the news that the war in Europe is over comes as a relief, a relief accompanied at the same time by great thankfulness. As we know this is the case not only in respect of one side of the House or in respect of one section of the community in this country, but the relief and the feeling of gratitude is there in general both on the part of those who were in favour of South Africa’s participating in the war and on the part of those who were against participation, against South Africa being drawn into the quarrels of other nations. That relief will be felt and is being felt by those who were directly concerned in the prosecution of this war, the various sections that have been mentioned in the motion by the mover, it is being felt by those who have been indirectly affected by the war and who have to bear the burdens of this war, even if indirectly. We do not think only of the soldiers who took part in the war and who will now have the opportunity and the privilege of returning to their homes, but we were also thinking of those who were dependent on them and who perhaps in another way found the burdens of war just as heavy. This war was of even longer duration than the world war of so many years ago, it was more prolonged, there is no doubt, than any of us visualised on the day this war was declared; the war has been more devastating in its effects than any of us could have realised when it was declared. It has been more protracted and on a greater scale and more destructive than any other, war in the history of the world. For that reason we can well understand there will be a general feeling of relief that this war has come to an end. There is also a difference —and even the proposer of the motion referred to it—there is a very big difference between this war and any other war that has hitherto been waged between civilised countries. It is that this war has more deeply affected and has been waged to a greater extent against the civilian population who have not been directly involved in the war than against the military forces on the battlefield. I think I am correct in saying that more people than those engaged in a military capacity, members of the civil population, women and children, innocent people, have lost their lives than those who have perished on the battlefield. I want to make a few observations on the statement by the Acting Prime Minister made by him on a previous occasion in connection with Holland. We wish to cordially endorse what the Acting Prime Minister said on that occasion in regard to our sympathy with Holland and our feelings over the liberation of Holland.

You are a bit late.

I think I cannot do better than read out to the Housse what I stated on the 14th May, 1940, in this House immediately after the invasion of Holland. On that occasion I made the following statement—

There was a motion on the previous evening that was unanimously adopted by the House that a sum of £100,000 should be voted for the relief of distress in Holland—

I went further and I referred to the fact that during the Anglo-Boer war a warship was sent to Lourenco Marques by the Queen of Holland, in spite of the general criticism that might be expressed by enemy powers and which was expressed, to bring President Kruger to Europe; and subsequently when he drew his last breath in exile she again sent a warship to bring his body back to South Africa to rest amongst his own people and in his own country. I do not need to add anything to the statement I made on that occasion in the House. I want to repeat it on this occasion, and I want to add this, that in respect of that £100,000—I do not know whether it was expended on relief in Holland—if it has not been expended it should again be voted by this House and should be increased by a substantial amount. In reference to what members on the opposite benches had in mind as to why we, as a result of the invasion of Holland should have departed from our attitude in connection with participation in the war, I can only repeat what I said on that occasion, namely that Holland although it was in the midst of belligerent countries had for a century pursued a policy of neutrality and had pursued it with success, and it departed from it only when it was compelled to do so. And if we adopted the same attitude in South Africa we were only following in the footsteps of Holland. Now there has been in connection with the present war a radical difference in attitude between this side of the House and that side of the House. The present is not the occasion on the termination of the war to go into that. There was this difference, this difference was perpetuated right throughout the war and the difference is still in existence today. We are prepared to accept the judgment of history on this attitude. I only want to say that war, whether it is lost or won, is judged by history not merely in reference to its motives and its causes, but also by the results that are achieved in general. The question is not only what conditions there were and what was intended by some to be eliminated through the war, but the question also exists what conditions were created by that war itself. It is in that way that this war will be judged, and this last question is one that is being asked today on all sides, even by the victors, with great earnestness. There has been a shifting of power as the result of the war, but it is a case today of a transfer of power without the possibility of domination in Europe by one great power being neutralised by a policy of maintaining the balance of power—a policy which with all its disastrous consequences, but also with its benefits, has been followed for 400 years and more. There has been today this shifting of power and the question arises today in the minds of hundreds of thousands even on the winning side, what the effect will be of this shifting of power that the war has brought about and whether in the future something can be found to counter-balance the dominating power. Europe has been dominated in the past by nations who form part of the western civilisation. Europe is dominated now—and all the signs are there —for the first time in its history by a Slav people with a different outlook in the spheres of religion, morality and freedom, and a different outlook to that of the Western Powers. I say we are prepared to leave the question of this contentious issue between us to the judgment of history not only in respect of the causes and motives for the war but also in respect of the results. But there is one matter in which we can associate ourselves with everyone else and in regard to which there will be no difference of opinion, and it is we can join in the hope that the peace that has come, and which we hope is still to come, will signify a permanent and lasting peace in the world. The signs in connection with it are unfortunately not encouraging. We have only to read the reports from San Franisco to realise this clearly today. But one thing seeing I am now talking about enduring peace in the future, that emerges above all other considerations is that a permanent peace for the wrold cannot be obtained only by paper agreements. It cannot even be obtained only by world organisation for that purpose such as the League of Nations which was a similar organisation with results we are aware of. A permanent peace can only be obtained amongst the nations of the world if there comes a change, a reform in the essential character of humanity, if there also comes purity of motives in international relationships. The question is whether in the future international relations will also be based on the principles of justice, justice not only on the part of the vanquished but also on the part of the victors. This is the most serious of all these questions I am touching on here, and it is on this point on which there is today every reason for concern and depression over the future. War from its very nature is demoralising. War unleashes the passions of destruction and revenge sometimes for years and generations. War suppresses, however necessary it may be for a time, the rights of the individual which are subordinated to the general interests of the State. In war blood is cheap and it has its repercussions too when peace returns. The clear line of demarcation that existed for many years amongst civilised nations between war and murder on a large scale —war between civilised nations had its rules and those rules imparted to war a certain degree of nobility, especially if they were for right and justice—but the borderline between war and large-scale murder, especially where war has affected to such a measure the civilian population, has become more and more obscured in the course of years. In other words, the demoralising and devastating character of war entails that the reconstruction of that character of humanity will be a slow process. The question is whether the dangers that have been created and which now constitute a menace through this demoralisation of war can be kept away from humanity. The question is, and this is the test question, and it is a matter of immediate importance, whether statesmanship at the termination of the war will be influenced by a feeling of revenge in its work and whether the nations and peoples will be; in other words, whether the State in the future will be able to base its existence on the foundation of justice and of Christian compassion and whether its statesmen will only apply this rule that nations exist amongst each other to live and to let live. On this question will depend whether humanity is going to sink deeper into barbarism and brutality. That question whether we can build on a Christian foundation will depend particularly on the church, on those who watch over the moral character of the individual and of the people, and on the relationship of the nations towards each other. They are today on trial. The future of the world depends on it. Just one word about our own country. As the war is now at an end we have been put in a position to concentrate our undivided attention for a long time on South Africa’s own interests. I hope the position will be that we will return to normal as soon as we possibly can. For this reason I only want to say this, that certain things will be necessary for that. The first is that the troops shall be brought back to South Africa without delay, and that they will be absorbed as quickly as possible into civilian life. The second is that as soon as possible all traces of the strife must be eliminated in South Africa itself that an end should be put as quickly as possible to everything that has conduced towards an embittered feeling, and that consequently the doors of the internment camps should be opened without further delay; and that the gaols where persons are being held as prisoners without any trial will also be opened to release them. We have seen that a few days ago it was announced by the Government that the gaols would be trown open for a portion of the criminals and that the punishments of a considerable number of others would be reduced appreciably. But I am very sorry that not a single reference has been made to the throwing open of the internment camps and of the gaols where people are being detained without any trial and without even a proper charge having been formulated against them. The mover of the motion has, of course, also referred to the reconstruction of South Africa to which South Africa should devote itself undividedly. There is much that has been put out of joint, and that must be set right again. There are expectations that will remain unfulfilled and that will be accompanied by disappointment. There is a new danger, especially in the relationships between European and non-European in South Africa, that has been created by the war, a great and serious danger threatens, and it will be necessary to apply all that patriotism and all that statesmanship that South Africa has at its disposal. I come now to the motion and I just want to say how we view this motion, and the other motions that follow. We want to deal with them in such a way that there will be as little unpleasantness and dissension as possible. But if that does happen we cannot do otherwise than lodge our objection, although on certain points if we accept the motion as it stands here it demands from us that we should abandon the attitude that we took up on the declaration of war, and have maintained throughout the war, that we should either directly or by implication place our seal of approval on the Government’s war policy which we have combated. I am sorry that the Acting Prime Minister could not manage to draft his motion in such a way that we could all vote for it, and that the points of difference between us could have been kept back on this occasion. Consequently I want to move an amendment to this motion. It is aimed at deleting from the motion that which would compromise us in connection with our attitude on the war policy. We want to delete that, and we also want to supplement it with what in my opinion is missing from the motion, and that is that with an eye on the future we refer to the foundations on which alone that lasting peace we so desire can be brought about in the future amongst the nations. The amendment I wish to propose to the motion is as follows—

I second.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have had the amendment, if it were possible for one to have it, but I rather gather from the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his object was to cut himself and his Party adrift from the motion couched in the terms used by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister. Although I would have liked to have it, no doubt one can have it later on. Now, I want to align myself and my Party and the Labour movement generally with the motion which has been so eloquently moved by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister, and I do so for many reasons. I do so because it is the crowning of our long association with the war effort, and it is in accordance with the attitude that we, the Labour movement in South Africa, adopted towards what we thought was the duty of South Africa in the very beginning. Like the hon. members over there, and more particularly like the Acting Prime Minister, one’s memory also goes back to those tense days in 1939 when the question of what attitude and action should be adopted by Parliament and the State swayed in the balance, and I have a very vivid recollection of the painful intensity of mind and soul which afflicted me on that occasion; and I am therefore the more delighted at the result which we are today celebrating. When we are thinking of the events—and it is very difficult, of course, to single out incidents; it is so difficult to survey the whole field of events of the last five and a half years, but some circumstances do stand out in our minds when we contemplate events—to me the most significant feature is that at one time we were facing defeat; not victory but defeat. And particularly there comes up in mind a vision of Dunkirk. The hon. the Acting Prime Minister said some very gracious words with regard to the country that originated me, amongst others, very kind words of praise indeed, and I must express myself as being very proud of the events at the time of Dunkirk. I think it is not inappropriate for me to make some mention of this. What were the circumstances and the times? Great Britain was standing alone; Britain was ill-equipped, having not a man, no equipment, no armour, no guns, bereft of its erstwhile allies in the field, faced with having to get across that strip of water, but not one man of those 300,000 faltered. And to that I ascribe very largely the present result, because it built up the morale of the defending nations, and when those nations came into the war, including ourselves, alongside of Britain, those other allies, America, Russia and the others, were imbued with the immediate tradition of Dunkirk, and I am perfectly satisfied that the example set them had a tremendous effect upon the psychology of the nations. But I do not wish to dwell upon that. Another circumstance of the war was Stalingrad, to which reference has already eloquently been made by the Acting Prime Minister. Russia was practically upon her knees—I know this is gall and wormwood to the hon. members opposite—but refused to surrender—another nation great in defeat; and they turned and eventually pushed the invaders back until a few days ago they signed the acceptance of the wholesale surrender of Germany in the centre of Germany itself, in its capital. There are others. Tobruk. What did Tobruk do for South Africa? We were defeated at Tobruk but we went on to victory. It was Tobruk which made the rest of the nation of South Africa gird up its loins, determined to be on the winning side. After Tobruk South Africa turned and pushed back the invader not only across the north of Africa, but across the Mediterranean and right up Italy until they were in the same position as the other nations because we did not surrender after Tobruk. It is very painful to hear the Leader of the Opposition. Surely this should be an occasion when there should have been no cavilling at language or any different sentiments set up from those expressed by the Acting Prime Minister. Surely this is an occasion when language of that description was completely and absolutely justified, but despite the attitude taken up by hon. members on that side in the beginning of the war in wanting to be neutral, surely now is the time to leave alone that attitude of mind and associate themselves whole-heartedly with the motion moved by the Acting Prime Minister. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted to leave the judgment of our conduct during the last 5½ years of war to the judgment of posterity. So are we prepared, and we leave it to the judgment of posterity with infinitely more confidence than the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Our attitude and our Party’s attitude have been justified. We have got our justification in the plaudits of the country itself, so we quite willingly leave it to the judgment of posterity. But what is worrying the hon. member apparently is the possible effect on the Councils of the nations of the world of the intrusion of Russia as a great power. Why? Why does it worry him? Because there is great danger to him and his Party, with the point of view they hold, of the overthrow of that capitalism of which those hon. members are such great upholders. That is, he fears the effect of the growth of the socialistic feelings shown by the Russian people upon South Africa and other countries of the world. Well, it does not worry me and I am perfectly happy in the possibility. Now, it is unnecessary for him to give us a lecture, as he did, about getting back to normality and about the high ideals that should guide nations in future in regulating the world. We are equally sensible of that, and he appeals for the exorcising of all bitterness that has prevailed in South Africa during the last few years. No one can do more than that hon. member and his Party in that direction, if they wish to. I appeal to him and to them to resolve at this wonderful moment in the history of South Africa, here and now, that no longer will they raise the head of bitterness and racial discord and all that goes with it and which makes things so unpleasant and so difficult for progress in South Africa. The Acting Prime Minister sets great store by the possibilities of racial mingling in the war effort and also in peace time. I sincerely endorse every word he has said, and one of the bright aspects of this war to me was how the Afrikaner of Dutch descent and the Afrikaner of British descent have associated and mingled and made their efforts together in the direction of winning this war; and what a wonderful association there has been between the 6th Division and the Guards Brigade. They have worked each as part of the other and I hope sincerely that that association and mingling will continue and that we will eliminate the bitterness which those people are so anxious to keep going rather than to remove. I do not wish to prolong this debate. I sincerely regret that they found it necessary to introduce this discordant note. Surely this was the time for combined rejoicing where we have got to the stage where the war in Europe, at all events, is no more, and determined to work together in the direction of building up, not only South Africa, but the whole world on peaceful lines and towards the attainment of economic prosperity. I want to support the tribute paid by the Acting Prime Minister to the war workers. We are supremely grateful to the armed forces. It was they who prevented the invasion of South Africa and contributed in a large measure to winning the war, and our expression of gratitude extends to all the armed forces of the Allies. But one must not forget, and never shall we forget the tremendous and successful efforts of our industrialists in the winning of this war. What were the constant messages coming from the North? “Keep us supplied with munitions of war and we will win the war.” Well, the industrialists kept them supplied, not only our own armed forces but also those of some of our allies. We kept them supplied and they won the war. On behalf of the Labour movement of South Africa, political and industrial, the trade union movement and the political wing of the Labour movement, I wholeheartedly support the motion moved by the Hon. the Acting Prime Minister.

Most of the hon. members of this House will regret the somewhat grudging attitude expressed in the amendment to the motion introduced by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister. We all feel that the speech of the Acting Prime Minister has sounded the right note on an occasion such as this. His generous recognition of all the forces that contributed in Africa and in Great Britain to the success of the arms of the allies will be appreciated by countless numbers of people in this country and in the British Isles who have felt that possibly there has been insufficient recognition hitherto of the part that has been played by the land and air forces and the Royal Navy of Great Britain. I was exceedingly glad to hear the Minister’s reference to the voluntary workers of the home front, all those devoted souls throughout the length and breadth of this land, who have, by their own efforts, done much towards encouraging and sustaining the morale of their kith and kin at the front. I should wish that the hon. the Acting Prime Minister would agree to the insertion of words in the motion itself which will express the recognition by this House of the magnificent work of these devoted people, because I realise that in the last war wide recognition was made by the award of decorations to a large number of women workers who were known to have laid the foundation and urged the continuance of the work of providing and sending gifts and comforts to our volunteers at the front. I am sorry that the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) should have connoted a certain amount of disagreement on his part and the part of those for whom he speaks in this House with the motion proposed. He seeks to exclude any reference to the defeat of Germany, or to the congratulations to His Majesty the King or the tribute to the valour of the combined forces of the British Commonwealth. This attitude only serves to proclaim his continued championship of Germany—and his hatred and that of his Party for our Sovereign and the British people. Great Britain, in this war, has proved herself the mother of the freedom of all the people throughout the world, and we feel a pardonable pride in this glorious chapter of her history. As recently as last night I was reading an account by a member of the 8th Army, that noble body which fought on all fronts to release the world from the tyranny of the Nazi power, of his experiences. That man, who was born in Britain, said that it was a strange thing that he had had to travel 16,000 miles to realise what he was fighting for in the present war, and that realisation developed in him an intense pride in being British. The Acting Prime Minister rightly referred to the fact that this was a people’s war, and this writer referred to the fact that Britain’s army today is a citizens’ army, comprised of men of all occupations known in that diversified country, and they all devoted themselves to the great task of freeing the world from tyranny. That is just a modest story by one single man in the whole of that body of the 8th Army. So one can go on paying tributes. But we must give an honoured place to the writings of men recording their own experiences in the war who fought to release humanity from the great threat with which it was faced. One can go on quoting but the hon. member for Piketberg who moved his amendment has from time to time indicated that he would shed no tear at the fall of the British Empire. One can understand, of course, that his attitude has always been based on ill-will towards Great Britain, and he has given rein to that feeling during the war. But that sort of doctrine he has preached, in regard to the Republic to which he looks forward, is that only those who are in favour of the Republic will have a voice. His views of Empire are likely to provoke a large number of South Africans to a reaction against his republican aims. If we have any movement in this country towards a Republic at the instance of the hon. member and his Party we shall have a counter-move on the part of the English-speaking people towards just recognition of their rights in the country and of the part they have played in South Africa as in the world. We are not afraid to have our record examined even by the hon. member himself. It may enable him to address with greater moderation those audiences who do not know the facts as he does. I realise that we have a proud part to play in this country. We have no intention of doing more than contributing our modest part to the welfare of South Africa. There are many serious tasks to be performed. We have to realise that there are many things that the people look to us to carry out. I was impressed the other day by a speech, not widely reported in this country, made by Mr. Churchill, who said: “Woe betide those public men who seek to slide into power” “down the slippery slope of vain and profligate undertakings”. He continued: “Control for control’s sake is useless. Controls are …. a fraud which should be exposed to the British public”. These things, I think, have their moral in this country.’ The time has arrived when we must realise the difficulties attaching to control and to much of the legislation of the recent past. I came across the other day in reading some war literature, the contribution of a soldier who lost two legs— the writer of the “Road to Avalon”—who was employed by the Pensions Department. It is appropriate for us to realise what the men of war experience are thinking about. This man wrote and said:

That is a hard indictment but we must not forget these things. We must realise that these are the convictions of the man in the street, and we must gird up our loins today determined to help those who suffer in an effective way and not merely by binding them up in the red tape of our war pensions legisation. I welcome the motion of the Acting Prime Minister and let me say that I tender to him a tribute for the patience and industry and high-mindedness he has shown in the performance of the task that has devolved upon his shoulders.

To have heard the hon. member for Piketberg’s speech this morning one would have thought that we had lost the war and not won the war. I would like to ask the hon. member in regard to the protection of small nations what does his Party propose to do about the present war the country is waging against Japan? Are they going to take up the same attitude? They have asked us to protect the small nations. We are a small nation. Will they come into the war against Japan as they came into the war against Germany? The hon. member has said nothing about the war against Japan and the country would like to know his attitude and the attitude of his Party. Now these hon. members are running away from the position. Some years ago when there was a menace from the East and a threat that Japan would strike at this country instead of Australia, the word went out from the hon. member for Piketberg to his friends: We are not going to defend this country against Japan even if Japan invades South Africa. The hon. member has this morning given us a long lecture as to what will happen to us when history records the story of South Africa. We are not afraid of what will ring down the corridors of history as to what this country and what its allies have done throughout this war. But if I were an historian and if I had to write about what our friends did during this war, history would have a very woeful tale to tell. Let us take the question of Holland, the mother country of the majority of the Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. The hon. member for Piketberg gets up here and he reads from Hansard and says that they suggested the country should give £100,000 to Holland. He may have done something of the sort in the House. But what did his newspapers do outside when Holland called on Hollanders in this country to go over and fight for their homeland. That Party, to a man, stood up and said. You must not go. “Die Burger”, “Die Transvaler”. “Die Volksblad”, all the leading newspapers belonging to the Nationalist Party said: “What right have you to take South Africans out of the country and make them fight for Holland?” When they had to go and fight under a well-known Free State Hollander they sneered and jeered at them and put up money to contest the point in the courts. That is what they did, and now they talk about Holland. Let them speak to the Hollanders. The Hollanders look on them with absolute contempt. The hon. member for Piketberg must not tell the House and the country that their heart bleeds for the Netherlands and for the Hollanders. The Hollanders know exactly where they stand in South Africa today. When Holland awarded an Order the other day they gave it to Gen. Pierre de Villiers, they did not give it to Dr. Malan. No, the Hollanders know where they stand, and our hon. friends cannot creep back into the goodwill and the good feelings of the Hollanders. In the old South African war Holland gave her blood, her men, her treasures to the republics, and these so-called republicans, when Holland was in danger, spurned Holland, they jeered and sneered at her and at her worthy Queen. I am not going to allow the hon. member to get away with that. Then the hon. member says he hopes and trusts that the soldiers will soon come back. He hopes that the soldiers will soon come back. He hopes that the soldiers will be given work. He, Sir, whose Party in this House refused to have anything to do with the Select Committee that had to give pensions to wounded soldiers. They called them red lice, they called them khaki pests, they jeered and sneered when they were caught at Tobruk. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition himself took off his hat and threw it into the air when our boys were taken prisoner. They hope now they will come back.

He is not listening.

The hon. member for Piketberg is listening to me all right. We remember their gibes and their sneers. They would have been very pleased had the South African Army never come back. They did not want us to send them and they did not want them to come back. These are the neutral gentlemen who went out of their way and endeavoured to make a sparate peace with the Germans. A separate peace was what they tried to make. They thought that Germany and Hitler would give them, what—a republic. The first speech I made in this House when I came back was not endorsed by some of the mild and meek gentlemen, but I repeat now that the English-speaking South African looks on the hon. member for Piketberg and on his friends with a most absolute contempt, and he is right. These gentlemen must not think that because we have won the victory today that we do not realise and the Empire does not realise what they want; we are not going to be caught by that sort of stuff. The stuffing has been knocked out of these gentlemen; they hold a caucus meeting now as to what they should do. We do not want the hon. member to get up and to lecture to this Party about the wounds of war. These wounds have entered into many of our homes. In many of our homes there are the vacant chairs of the boys who will never come back, and this sort of flapdoodle we have from the hon. member— well, we will look after that. We know what war means. The English-speaking people know what war means, and they do not want to hear it from the friends of Germany. If they are going to mourn let them mourn for Goebbels, let them mourn for Hitler, let them mourn for Mussolini; but let them not mourn for our boys because I do not believe they need it. I am speaking in this way deliberately because I feel the country is being fooled again and again by their speeches. Let me say this, we do stand for peace in this Party. If you go to the Desert today and open the graves you will find representatives of the English-speaking section lying alongside people of the Afrikaans-speaking section, entwined in that last embrace. Are you going to divide these people; you will never divide them; their blood is intermingled on the desert sand, in Sicily, in Italy and in France. You can never divide them. We know our friends there will take the first opportunity, as the country grows older and as times may get bad, to cause trouble between the soldiers and the people, to cause trouble between the soldiers and the Government and to cause trouble among the soldiers themselves. They are out for trouble; they are not out for peace. That is the history of the hon. member for Piketberg. When they get up and preach and say: We must have peace, we must work together for the future. I for one who have known them for years, would not believe a word they have to say. Dunkirk! Dunkirk will be emblazoned on the flags of the world for years and years. What did they say? They coined a new Afrikaans word which meant to run away, to fly, to be a coward and they threw it into our faces and the factes of our sons. And they celebrated Dunkirk: they drank to Dunkirk, and they jeered at Dunkirk. They said: The British are finished for ever. Dunkirk! You ask the men who fought alongside the British Tommies in France what they think of the British soldier. He never ran away. Ask the South Africans who were prisoners, and who are coming back, what they think of our friends here, ask them what they think of the British Tommy; they will tell you he is the most courageous man who ever fought in this war. These people flung Dunkirk in the teeth of the British section of the community, and I ask the members of this House today what would have been the position as we are sitting here today— if we had been sitting here—if Hitler had crossed the Limpopo River? What sort of resolution would then have been put forward by our friends on the other side? Where do you think the Minister of Lands would be sitting today? Where would I be? We have won the victory and we are proud of it and it is going to ring down the annals of South Africa. We have won the victory and we are going to bring back the boys as soon as we can, but before that we are going to pass this resolution, we are going to voice our thanksgiving to God and to the King. I am not a King’s man. I was a republican. And as a member of an old republican family I say we are proud we had at the head of our great family of nations a King and Queen who have done the remarkable things they have done. They have bound us together as one people—I am not now alluding to the little people, the scum, we need not take notice of them. I am referring to the real people of the Empire who are today standing together firmer and greater than they ever stood before. We are proud to pass this vote of thanks to the King. This has been deliberately eliminated by the resolution from the other side. We have the old republican cry—the cry of the men who refused to fight for the republics. I want to know first what these gentlemen think about Japan. I want to tell them if they think they are going to make trouble when the soldiers come back to this country they will find themselves in very great disappointment indeed. The spirit of the South African soldier stands today as high as it ever did. I want to remind the House of what Gen. Poole said—and incidentally not a word has been said about him today. I want to say, as an English-speaking South African, we thank God we had such good young men as Poole and Pienaar, Afrikaners of both Dutch and English descent, who have led this country under the great Field-Marshal to victory. We are proud and we are pleased to say our homes are everywhere rejoicing. We are a people who are going forward and further forward. We are not slinking behind like our friends on the other side, afraid to fight. We are a great nation and a new people, and as a new nation and a new people the sound will go up from this Parliament we rejoice we have a great King. We rejoice in our Government. We rejoice we have a great leader today in San Francisco shaping a plan for a new world. Together, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, we shall march forward and make South Africa a great and glorious country and look with contempt on the scum that has fought us throughout the war.

On behalf of my colleagues and myself and the people we represent, I wish to associate myself with the motion the hon. the Acting Prime Minister has brought before this House. I wish also to endorse fully and most sincerely the tribute which he paid to all those by whose efforts we have achieved all the glory of today’s position. In a spirit of gratitude and of humble thankfulness we record our appreciation of the great services which have been rendered by these men. Those of us who were responsible for the decision to take this nation into this war in 1939 acted, I think, in every case with the deepest heart-searching and anxiety. Everyone of us who cast our vote in 1939 to support the cause which has now been victoriously achieved, did so with a full consciousness from tragic experience, of all we were asking those who had to carry the actual burden to do for us.

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

We on this side of the House were faced with a momentous decision in September, 1939, probably the most momentous decision in the history of this country. That decision perforce involved many sacrifices, the sacrifices of others, sacrifices in some cases of life itself. That was a decision which none of us could have been prepared to make had we not been fully convinced that the issues at stake were of the greatest magnitude, as indeed they were. The issues at stake were in fact, in our belief, the whole direction and goal of that Christian western civilisation to which we are so proud to give our allegiance. The forces which we had decided to fight were in our opinion, and I submit correctly, the greatest heresy which western Christian civilisation had ever had to face. The basis of our civilisation is Christian, and this Nazi doctrine which we were called upon to contend with was in our belief the most dangerous heresy that Christianity had ever had to face. Had that doctrine survived and dominated the world there would today have been no Christian western civilisation to stake a claim for the control of Africa. There would be no Christian western civilisation to exercise influence anywhere in the world. The dangers which we saw and judged sufficiently great to bring in the whole resources of the nation into the war have been endorsed by the voice of our people. It is true, we are a small people and could, I suppose, have stood aside and let others fight our battles for us. That was a claim made by part of the country. It was implied that the foundations of the civilisation which we had inherited had come from other lands and that these lands should defend it. I am glad we did not decide in that way and that we are today not only entering into the heritage of civilisation but into a heritage which we have ourselves fought to maintain. One of the greatest historians of modern times, investigating the foundations of civilisations which have survived as against those which failed to survive has found the explanation to lie in the capacity of those civilisations to rise to the ordeals with which all civilisations are at some time faced. Those which rise to their ordeals survive to make their contribution to the common heritage. Those who do not, sink into the oblivion which they deserve. Today we are in the happy position of realising that we rose to face our ordeal and that by so doing we have shared in the victory that has been achieved, and are contributing to the further development of this civilisation to which we belong. That is ground for the greatest gratitude on our part. Now, I believe today that we are all conscious that probably our greatest trials are not over, that this is not the end but only a beginning. We all realise that we have great dangers to face in the future; but we do not all visualise them in the same way. We do not for instance, all place the stress where the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) puts it. Some of us are not so concerned with the danger he visualises as implicit in the relationship between the European and the non-European in this country, a danger which, he claims, has been aggravated by the war. Some of us think that the only danger in that regard is that Nazism which has been conquered in Europe may continue to flourish in our midst, that the seeds of Nazism may continue to germinate here; that when we approach the great problem of human relations and accommodations which is one of the great responsibilities with which Providence has entrusted us, we shall do so, not in the spirit of our Christian belief, not in the belief in the sacredness of human personality but along the disastrous road of the Nazi denial of the dignity of human personality and life. That is a very real danger for us. Temptation in that direction has long beset us and has not always been resisted. But this great trial through which we have passed should enable us? to see things in the right light and it has given us the opportunity to choose our path with the knowledge and strength which our Christian faith gives us to surmount our difficulties. But I submit that those matters are not our concern today. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to discuss the foundations of that lasting peace which we all desire equally deeply; but today we are concerned only with expressing our gratitude for our safe passage through our great dangers and our thanks to those without whom we could not have reached this goal. I feel that that is the purpose of this motion today. And I therefore wish to endorse the motion of the Acting Prime Minister in a spirit of full and humble thankfulness to those who have given us the opportunity to apply ourselves again to the pursuit of the highest goals of man’s endeavour, true freedom and justice.

I feel I must associate myself with the resolutions moved by the Acting Prime Minister, in words of tolerance and reverence. This historic occasion sharpens into vivid outline the services rendered to South Africa by the men whom this day we gratefully remember; men led by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and following the Dan Pienaar tradition. This occasion does more than that. It quickens our consciences into a realisation of the inescapable duty, the duty of this Parliament, to create in this country social conditions such as will ensure a high and secure standard of family life, in particular for our returned soldiers, and in general for all families of all races in our land. The war has set on foot a revolution in the hearts of men and in the very structure of society. That revolution must go on. It is our imperative duty to make a success of it. We must align our wills with its trend towards a social order in which there shall be freedom and security for alì men. Else, why the war? On this occasion we must ask ourselves what should be the social pattern according to which we can guide and harness these irresistible forces of change now manifesting themselves in South Africa. The men we honour at this moment are demanding an answer to that. I think, Mr. Speaker, we can say to them that there is a better way than the authoritarianism of the totalitarian state; better than the dictatorship of a communised state; better than the rigidity and often the ruthlessness of a capitalist individualism. There is a better way; it is the way of co-operation. That is the keynote, democratic vicarious co-operation, which has served us so well during the war, and which must be the basis of our post-war way of life. Such a way of life would mean that economic goods, which we and the men who are coming back, will require—houses, food clothing, hospitals, schools, transport systems and so on must, in future, be primarily for consumption and security and not as now for economic gain. I believe that on such lines, on co-operative lines of that nature, we can build, provided also we have racial’ co-operation for which we must strive with all our might,—we can build a South African co-operative commonwealth based on the broad will of the South African people, and on the law of God, and energised by the ideals of the young men who are coming back to us. I have asked myself the question, what is the best memorial we can create to the sacrifices that have been made in our national interest? I have come to the conclusion that it can be expressed, even in material terms, in a national policy; which first of all, will be a State policy determined to maintain full employment in peace as in the war—for them, our veterans, as well as for us; secondly, by a social security programme with family benefits, housing and health promotive services, and a guaranteed family income—for them and for us. Thirdly, a State financial policy of cheap money, using our national credit to create a peace economy, with work-creating power, comparable to the war economy. That way lies the new South Africa. That is the best memorial this country can, erect to our veterans. That is the answer to the pressing question which our fighting men and war workers have often posed for us: Whither South Africa? In conclusion, I want to emphasise this, that if we associate the national will, in co-operative effort, with the revolutoinary direction of these times, this great social good will come to pass, will be born of the world Gethesemane through which mankind is now passing, to what I believe will be a worthier and higher destiny. This is a testing time for South Africa. Let this Parliament, surveying the South African scene, acknowledging with thankfulness to God the great sacrifices that have been made in our interest; and in humility before the responsibilities now facing us; let this Parliament send to our people this peace message as enshrined in the immortal lines of hope and goodwill on the Statue of Liberty—

I feel impelled to associate myself with the terms of the resolution moved by the Hon. the Acting Prime Minister. I feel that with all the responsibility of the position which I hold outside this House no resolution such as has been framed for the acceptance of this House could be accepted by a silent vote on my part. This is an expression by this Parliament of its sincere and deep appreciation for all that unity has given to us. We have been identified in this war with the forces of His Majesty, the King, throughout the Commonwealth. We know how many trials and tribulations this country has passed through before it eventually attained the repose which is its due today after victory. We know of the taunts and the trials through which our forces have gone who had the honour and privilege of representing South Africa on the field of battle. They have been identified with the forces of His Majesty throughout the country and throughout the Empire. We know the reproaches that have been heaped upon the heads of those who represent South Africa in South Africa’s active forces. We remember at this stage how proud we are of the Hugos and Malans who have worn the King’s uniform—and I am not referring to D. F. Malan—and of their services through the Battle of Britain. We know their contributions have uplifted the name of South Africa and held it high. These men who served in the Air Force during the Battle of Britain have added dignity and lustre to the name of South Africa. They have helped to blend those sentiments which bind us with those others who are under the reign though not under the rule of His Majesty the King. We know what happened in this House when these boys who represent South Africa were fighting. We know the resolutions that have been taken in this House. We know how the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) wished to capitulate before the battle was won. He said repeatedly the only chance for victory was through peace. It was he who introduced the resolution hoping a Nationalist Parliament would make terms with the Nazi forces. We know how he dragged the name of South Africa into the dust and possible humiliation, and it was the forces who fought in His Majesty’s uniform who maintained the honour and kept the flag flying. We know how jeering were the references made to the attempts made by our South African forces to defend the freedom of the nations associated with the Allies. We remember when one hon. member over there jeeringly shouted in this House: “Where is the washing you were going to hang on the Siegfried Line.” We remember those things, and we are not going to forget them. Nor is South Africa going to forget them. Nor has South-West Africa, which has returned the United Party 100 per cent. South-West Africa is returning representatives who stood for the principles in respect of which this resolution has been introduced. The motion of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition by attempting to eliminate any reference to His Majesty and our association with him and his forces of the other Dominions is intended as a deliberate and active slur. What was the object, what was the need for the introduction of his amendment by the hon. member? Does it advance his cause one little bit? We are loyal and we owe allegiance to His Majesty the King. There is no member sitting on this side of the House who is not prepared to come before you, Sir, and humbly and reverently—we hope humbly and reverently—swear allegiance to His Majesty the King. This is an attempt merely to place upon record our thankfulness for peace. This House and this Party and this Government, associated as they have been with six years of war, are not prepared to eliminate from the terms of the resolution the words which the hon. member for Piketberg wishes to eliminate. What contribution has he and the Opposition made ….

Ya-a-a-

We know the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has a mouth as big as a boat when he yawns, but if he opens his mouth to express what he really felt he would probably be as ashamed of his Party’s record as I am. He can joke and he can laugh and he can yawn and he can be rude and insulting, but he cannot insult me. I know the man, and I treat his yawns as I treat his interjections. I take it from whence it comes.

Ya-a-a-

Again the hon. member shows his manners. This is an occasion when South Africa should pass a resolution on its needs, when it should pass a resolution in thankfulness for all that His Majesty’s forces have done. I understand that the hon. member for Piketberg has introduced into his motion a hope that an international organisation will be set up whereby the safety and independence of small nations will be safeguarded. Where was his indignation when the independent and small nations were raped and ravished by the German and Nazi hordes. He cheered and his Party cheered with him on the rape of Holland, on the rape of Denmark, on the rape of Norway, and on the rape of Belgium. He was one of those who led that spirit of Nazism. Today he has—I was going to say the damned impertinence—the impertinence to ask this House to pass a resolution in terms whereby we should run to the help of Holland. We will run to the help of Holland, but we will take jolly good care, and Holland will take jolly good care to remember that she has nothing to thank them for, that she owes no thanks to His Majesty’s Opposition in this House who sought to undermine the very principles for which her sons were fighting and dying. Let me say again I think the amendment moved to the resolution of the Acting Prime Minister is an affront and an insult, and I hope that South Africa will throw this insult back into the faces of those who were too ashamed and too frightened to fight for anything.

I do not think it would be in the spirit of the House that I should deliver a drawn out reply to the debate that has just taken place here ….

By your own Party.

…. nor to the drawn-out speech by the Leader of the Opposition. It is, however, necessary to focus the attention of the House and the country in general on the various points of difference between the motion as proposed by me and the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. There are five points of difference between the two motions. The first is that in the motion it is asked that His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government should express our feelings to His Majesty the King. In the amendment no mention is made of His Majesty the King. In my introductory speech I referred to the reasons why it is appropriate on such an occasion to mention the King in a resolution of this House. This is one of the most important occasions in the Parliamentary history of South Africa, and it is fitting we should convey our sentiments to the head of the State on an occasion such as this. The Opposition, however, will not do it. We can understand it. They are republicans, and they want to signify that clearly. They also intimate it in this amendment of theirs. Well, I hope the country in general will take note of that.

Hear, hear.

And especially those sections of the community who are not republicans.

Were you not also at one time a republican?

I hope that that section will also take notice of it, the section they are now courting for support.

Were you not also a republican?

Do you remember the letter that you wrote?

This is how the ex-republican talks.

The second difference is that in this amendment no reference is made to the subjugation of Germany though it is in the motion. There too our hon. friends have remained true to themselves. In this war they have been neutral, neutral with a soft spot, sometimes more than a soft spot for Germany. That soft spot is still there in their amendment of theirs. In the third place, our motion refers first of all to our appreciation of what was done during the war by the British Commonwealth of Nations, that at the most critical juncture stood alone and offered resistance to the fiercest blows of the enemy. The hon. Leader of the Opposition does not mention the British Commonwealth in his amendment. He has referred to Holland. I am glad that today he has shown his feelings towards Holland. He has also referred to what he said five years ago in this connection.

Hear, hear.

Five years ago he expressed similar feelings towards one of the mother countries of South Africa. Has he or his Party associates ever during this war ever voiced any sympathy with the other mother country of the population of South Africa? Have they ever in any way expressed any feeling of friendship towards those people who suffered so heavily and fought so bravely in this war. Even today they are not prepared to refer to the part the British Commonwealth contributed in this war. And then fourthly, in this amendment no gratitude is evinced to those who contributed, the human individuals who contributed to the victory. Just as we do, the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes, very correctly, to give thanks to Almighty God. But God uses human instruments, and our motion refers to these human instruments.

Surely not Stalin.

I should like to assume that when my second motion is before the House hon. members on the opposite benches will be prepared to extend their thanks towards our South African forces. Why then should they refuse through this motion to express their thanks towards the forces of the peoples of the United Nations, including the people of the Netherlands, with whom they have now so much sympathy? There is another difference between our motion and their amendment. They desire to add in their amendment something that does not appear in the motion. They refer to the peace that has yet to be concluded. We too desire a lasting peace.

You do not say that in the motion.

We also realise that righteousness exalteth a nation, but this motion deals with the termination of the war. It relates to the war. We do not say anything here about the war against Japan. I should like to know what hon. members have to say about that. This morning we listened to a long disquisition by the Leader of the Opposition about what the texture of the peace should be. May I say to the Leader of the Opposition that those who took part in the war have far more right to a say in the character of the peace than those who did not take part in it, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his supporters have not really earned the right to say anything in connection with the peace terms. When one draws a comparison between the motion and the amendment there can be no doubt what the decision of this House and of the people of South Africa will be.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—88:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie’, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge. M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludic’k, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and theamendment dropped.

The original motion was put and theHouse divided:

Ayes—87:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit; R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming. G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann. K.

Van der Byl’ P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludic’k, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart. C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.*

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Motion of Thanks to Union Military Forces.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, in a general resolution the House has just evinced its gratitude towards all who have contributed to the victory that has been gained. We feel however, that we have a special obligation towards those who have served in our own Union Defence Forces; and the object of the resolution I am now proposing is to express our thanks to them in a specific way. True the war has not yet ended. There are those members of our forces who will do further service in the war against Japan. But notwithstanding that I believe it will be fairly generally felt that at this juncture we should not neglect as Parliament to voice our appreciation of the services that have already been given by them. South Africa has always stood high in the eyes of the world in regard to its military achievements, but as a result of this war South Africa stands even higher than previously in prestige and achievement; and for this we have to thank those who served South Africa in our forces during this war. We have to thank them for that, and for the way in which they have comported themselves both on the battlefield and off the battlefield; to the way in which they have at all times maintained the honour and repute of South Africa. Our South African forces have indeed a proud record in this war. In Kenya, Somaliland, Abyssinia, it was that small band of Afrikaners who performed miracles against the overwhelming forces of Italy. Sidi Rezegh, Bardia, Halfaia Pass, Gazala and El Alamein —how worthily have they not played their part on the battlefields of the Western Desert. Then we have also the great contribution they made to the successful campaign in Italy. That is still fresh in the memory of us all. I would, however, express the hope that when we think about the land forces of the Union we shall not confine our thoughts to the men who served in the First, Second and Sixth Divisions. We are inclined to forget the troops who did service outside those divisions and are still so serving. We also have in mind the Medical Services, the Technical Services, the Engineering Corps, the Signalling Units,’ the Railways and Harbours Units and other groups who all acquitted themselves admirably in their tasks in this war. Moreover, our land forces were only a portion of the forces of the Union. Apart from them there is the Air Force. In the last world war the sons of South Africa furnished proof even then of their aptitude as airmen. In this war they have travelled much further as far as this goes; in this war we have built up in South Africa a great, a strong and a well-equipped Air Force which has made a very large contribution to the successful war operations in the whole area of the Mediterranean Sea; and which in addition has rendered service of great significance along the coast of South Africa in combating the enemy on the seas. But there is another element we think of. In this war a new element made its appearance in South Africa’s defence forces. At sea South Africans also made a valuable contribution to the war. Obviously that service could be only on a small scale, but on the seas our men revealed the same valour and staunchness as their comrades who fought on land and in the air. As far as concerns this aspect of our war contribution, we recall the traditions of our forefathers, and we desire to express the hope that from the new start that has been made great things may flow for the future of South Africa. Well, we thank them all, those who did their duty in the North, those who fulfilled their duty in the Union; we thank them, men and women; we thank them European and non-European; we thank all who voluntarily came to the fore, because our forces have always been comprised of volunteers. We thank them all at this juncture in our history that they should have come forward prepared to serve our country and our people on the field of battle and, when we address these words of thanks to them, uppermost in our minds is the Commander-in-Chief of our forces to whom they, as much as we, are indebted for his inspiring leadership— the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence. There is one further point to which I would refer. Amongst those serving in the forces of the Union and to whom reference is made in this motion there are others besides South Africans. Men from Southern Rhodesia also joined up in our forces. In this war there has been the closest and most cordial co-operation between us and our neighbouring colony of Southern Rhodesia. But perhaps the happiest aspect of that co-operation has been the hearty comradeship that prevailed between the South African and the Southern Rhodesian forces, and I am very glad that on this occasion I can also pay a tribute to the brave men of our neighbouring state. Southern Rhodesia, for their contribution to the victory. In this motion we wish therefore to express our thanks to those who are still here to accept our thanks. Those who are no longer with us, those who will not return, will be remembered by us in the resolution that follows. May I point out particularly that in this motion we wish specially to thank those who are sick or wounded or who are physically incapacitated from returning to South Africa, or are still due to return. I hope that the House will accept this motion, and should it happen that it is also approved by the Senate it will be possible for my colleague the Acting Minister of Defence (who is at present on a visit to the North) to convey this resolution personally to our Defence Forces.

I second.

The contents of this motion have already been before the House directly and indirectly and under discussion in reference to the first motion that has been introduced this morning, and therefore it is not necessary for me to say much in connection with this matter. At this stage I wish, with just one word, to make clear what the attitude has been of myself and of this side of the House in respect of our combatant forces. The attitude we have adopted has been this, that although these troops have been employed to give effect to a war policy with which we did not agree, we honour all those who have been at the front in connection with the carrying out of the war, or who in other ways have been employed by the State to give effect to that policy and who faithfully discharged their duties; that has always been our attitude. In this motion we have to deal with the military aspect of the matter and not with the political aspect. The Acting Prime Minister says that this is so—we are dealing with the military aspect and not with the political aspect. In reference to our forces in general, our attitude has been made clear in this House from time to time not only by word but also by deed. We have regarded the soldier in this light, that he is entitled— whether he joined voluntarily or under pressure of one form or another—where he had to leave his business or his employment to embark on the service of the State and to remain away for a considerable period, he is entitled to be helped by the State to obtain employment so that he may earn his livelihood in a proper way. We have accepted in principle those measures that have been proposed for the reinstatement of our soldiers. We have gone further and where schemes have been laid before the House to make proper provision for those who have been physically incapacitated or who have been made dependent, we have from this side of the House given our co-operation in regard to those measures and we have supported them. May I say this as far as the present motion is concerned. Here we are acting entirely in accordance with our attitude up to the present. There is only one matter and it is that in this motion words and phrases are used which if adopted will expose us to the undeserved reproach that we have departed from our attitude in connection with the war as in the case of the previous motion. That should not happen, and consequently I should also like to move an amendment to this motion as follows—

This eliminatets only that part of the motion which presents our attitude in connection with the war in a wrong light.

I second.

I am glad that my hon. friend associates himself with us in our tribute to the South African forces. I regret, however, that he will not accept the motion in the form I have introduced it. I shall therefore merely refer to the difference between the motion I have introduced and the amendment he has proposed. In the motion reference is made to the services that our men gave and the contribution they made to the final overthrow of Germany. My hon. friend, faithful to the record of hon. members opposite, does not wish to say anything about the final overthrow of Germany.

That is very cheap.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—87:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie’, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman. H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming. G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R*Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. LVan Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss. E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Acknowledgment of Sacrifice made by those who laid down their lives for

South Africa.

I move—

The motion just adopted expressed our thanks to the living. This motion conveys our tribute to the dead. It needs no words of mine to commend it. Just one thing, however, I would say. In speaking on the last motion, apart from a reference to the Commander-in-Chief, I have of set purpose avoided the mentioning of any names of those who are still with us. I am going to mention one name here, the name of the greatest soldier that South Africa has produced in this war, the name of Dan Pienaar. But I do it not to do honour to him as an individual. I do it because he personified the finest qualities of the South African soldier. I do it because he was the great exemplar of the happy warrior who went out from South Africa and has not come back. Him and all those like him we wish to honour in this motion.

I second.

The fields of South Africa are covered with graves, the graves of those who have fallen in battle, the graves of those who have fought shoulder to shoulder, and the graves of those who have fought against each other. I think South Africa has travelled so far that whether we have stood on the one side or on the other side we are prepared to honour those who have fallen, and accordingly we accept the motion that has been proposed here by the Acting Prime Minister. We shall accept it.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I regret that at the Report Stage of this Bill it was not found possible to add the words we had on the Order Paper and which we intended to move but could not move due to our absence, namely to add the provision that not only should water be supplied to Saldanha South but also to the places Vredenburg, Langebaan and Velddrift. I now want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider adding these names in Another Place. I should like to repeat what we said on a previous occasion, namely that if no places are mentioned for which water must be supplied, there would have been something to say for the Minister’s point of view. But now he adopts the point of view that according to this Bill water will be supplied by the Government to various places.

We mention only one place namely Saldanha Bay.

That is my objection. My objection is that in spite of the fact that the Bill aims at supplying water to various places the Minister mentions only one place. Our request is that the Minister should mention Saldanha South, but that he should also mention a few others before he gets to the words “or any other area”, because the Minister admitted that the object of the Bill is not only to supply water to Saldanha but also to quite a few other places. We now want to ask the Minister to add those places. How does one for instance know that water will be supplied to Velddrift as the Bill now reads? The Minister stated that it would be considered, but the Minister is not always there and the Act remains in force. I wish to ask him whither for this reason he will not seriously consider also adding the names of the other places. The words “or any other area” can remain, but it is not clear to me why the Minister mentions only one of the places he wishes to supply with water.

I should like to press the Minister to lay this second clause on the Bill before his law advisers. I do not rise to speak about it just for the sake of, talking, but I should like him not to be so indifferent to the objection I made. I should like to tell him why I consider that he ought to consult his legal advisers. This clause is quite clear. It says—

This clause changes the rights determined by Act No. 8 of 1912. It is changed, because this clause reads—

do certain things. “Works” is defined. The Minister can—

The Government receives the right to pump water out of the Great Berg River by means of these works. If it refers to the water which flows in the river, it is quite clear that if there is not sufficient water they cannot pump it out; then they have no right to demand that the water must flow down to such an extent that they can obtain at least 1,000,000 gallons. But if the water comes down the river one man can take so many cusecs and another can take so many cusecs. The whole river is regarded as one entity in the division of the water. I raise no objection because the Minister is going to use the water not for primary, secondary or tertiary use; because I take it that the riparian owners below agree to this Bill; they had an opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee; but if a division is asked of the water of that river by the riparian owners above, the Minister and his Department must be summoned because this Bill gives them the right to that water. I am not asking him to do something of which I am afraid. I have so often seen injustices take place in regard to the division of water. To tell the truth, often one cannot foresee what will happen in the future. The Minister made the statement that he does not wish to detract from the rights of the riparian owners above the works. He gave me that assurance, but I should like the Minister to understand—the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) agreed with me in that regard—that when such an Act comes before the court, the court does not go to Hansard to see what the intention was. The court must look at the Act as it is. For that reason I propose that they can pump the water provided it does not affect the rights to water of the riparian owners above the place where the pump is situated. If one looks at the Act of 1912, which deals with water rights, one will see that everywhere in that Act were inserted the words “provided existing rights are not affected”. I take it that the Minister is honest; he only wishes to pump water if the water comes there and if it is there. I now wish to appeal to him to insert an amendment when this Bill goes to Another Place. I want to ask him to add by way of an amendment that the rights of riparian owners above the works will be protected. That is all I ask. The owners below appeared before the Select Committee. Their representatives were here, and I take it that they accepted the Bill. Therefore they have no more voice. Then I should like to explain something else to the Minister. It is said here that a certain amount of water will be given to certain persons or bodies. There is no provision in the definition of the word “works” which also includes not only expansion but the substitution of another work.

New pumps must be erected where the old ones are no longer effective. “Works” is defined as follows—

Extension there must be because at the moment they pump only 300,000 gallons. If they want a million gallons there must necessarily be an expansion of the existing works. I feel that provision should also be made for a substitution of pumps which have become obsolete. I think the Minister should also ascertain from the law advisers whether it is not necessary to add an amendment in this respect. I make these few remarks in order that the Minister may consult his law advisers. I do not do so in the spirit of wanting to cause difficulty. I do so simply because I think it is my duty as a member of Parliament to see that the Act is as clear as possible. I have knowledge of cases about water and difficulties about water and the costs in connection therewith, and therefore I direct a respectful appeal to the Minister to obtain legal advice in connection with it, so that it will not later be necessary, when other works are erected, that the rights of these people should fall away. I think the definition should be widened a little.

In the first place I just want to remove a misunderstanding which could easily arise. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said that if one pumps out a million gallons of water one is of course weakening the water in the river. But he forgets that where the water is pumped out there is a big hole; it is practically a big lake.

All I ask is that the people on top should be protected.

Long before that water stands still in the river the water which is pumped out is too salt for use. That happens long before the water stands still. Today the position is that about six cusecs flow in. Of that, about a million gallons is pumped out ….

It is two cusecs.

And the water pushes right up until near the pump. One can therefore understand that long before taking water from other people all that water is unusable and no more can be pumped.

There are times when there is not six cusecs.

Yes, that is quite right. We heard that in the Select Committee. As regards the works, one can erect the works only at that place.

My objection is that when the works are finished, it does not include new works.

Under no circumstances can one erect works anywhere else but at that place.

And when your pump becomes obsolete?

If you look at the preamble, you will see that mention is made there of subsidiary works.

Yes, but the preamble is not part of the Act.

Only at that given place can one erect new apparatus if the pump becomes obsolete. One can therefore not go up higher unless the approval of the House is again obtained. For that reason I do not believe it is necessary to add the amendment.

I do not think the proposal of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) is unreasonable. I think the hon. member just wants the assurance that those places will also receive water. But we cannot mention those places in the Bill. If we mention those places to which he referred, there is a whole number of other places which must also be mentioned, and it is impossible to mention them all in the Bill. We mention Saldanha because the main pipeline from where the pumping apparatus is in the river going to Saldanha South ends there. Therefore we mention Saldanha South.

Does it not go further?

No, it must still go further. We have only described the main line. Vredenburg and the other places must get pipes from the main line. Supposing the time arrives when we are prepared to give water to Velddrift, and they say they do not want it?

They only receive the right here.

I wish to explain why only Saldanha is mentioned. It is because only the main line is described.

Is the intention to give water to all the other places?

Yes, it is the intention to give water to the other places and we are prepared to negotiate with them at any time. Well, that community is comparatively poor and we will deal reasonably with them. The intention is absolutely correct as far as that is concerned. Then I wish to give the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) the assurance that this Bill was repeatedly scrutinised and approved of by the law advisers. The Bill is here on their advice. It will not help again taking it back to the law advisers. The hon. member is concerned about the position of the owners above the pumping apparatus. But the hon. member knows, and I again wish to remind him of it, that all riparian owners along the river above or below who have certain rights to water are protected We cannot take away their rights. They are protected under the existing Act. We have not the right to tell them that they must let the water flow past. If we want to do that, we must make other arrangements. I really think that after I have said this to the hon. member he will accept that the law advisers have indeed thoroughly investigated the matter. Then the hon. member wants a clear definition of the word “works”. If the hon. member looks at the preamble he will find a definition there. He says that it is not in fact part of the Act, but the preamble is part of it. It says—

The words “subsidiary works” covers it. Even this matter was submitted to the law advisers, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that the rights of the riparian owners have been protected in the Bill and that we will not derogate from them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I do not rise to object to the adoption of the motion. On the contrary I am glad that the motion as it stands here was accepted by the Select Committee on Irrigation, although I was in favour of further concessions to the irrigators concerned. The majority, however, did not vote that way, and I have to be satisfied. But what I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Lands is something in connection with the report of the Irrigation Commission which was laid before the Select Committee. In the report of the Irrigation Commission there was a recommendation from the Minister that the report as drafted by the Irrigation Commission is accepted by him, on condition that the tax will not be 5s. but 10s. That appeared to me to be an unreasonable action on the part of, the Minister. In other words the Minister recommended to the Select Committee how they should deal with a certain suggestion of the Irrigation Commission, and I think that the Minister will admit that by that he was doing something he should not have done. I do not say that he did it on purpose, but his action can be regarded as an attempt on his part to influence the Select Committee in their decision and as to what his wishes are. Whether he did it by mistake or not, I must protest against it. We hope that it will not become the Minister’s practice to do things like that. If he claims the right to do that, I must voice my strong protest against it. I do not think that when a matter is referred to a Select Committee the Minister should beforehand notify his point of view as to how the report should be treated. He undoubtedly did it here and made a recommendation in that regard. Perhaps he can explain it.

I can give an explanation. All the reports of the Irrigation Commission come before me and I make my remarks on the reports themselves. When I made the remarks on the report before me I did not for one moment think that this copy of the report would be submitted to the Select Committee on Irrigation. That was the report given to me as the Minister, and unfortunately the copy which was sent to me and on which I had made the remarks—not with the intention that this copy should go to the Select Committee—was submitted to the Select Committee. There was no other reason.

Recommendations put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to certain resolutions.

Report considered and adopted.

When this vote was under discussion earlier this week, the Minister of Labour spoke. He was the last speaker and it will be remembered that the galleries were packed with people, people who had come here, being interested in another matter. The Minister then instead of confining himself to the merits of the matter, evidently forgot that he was in the House. He forgot that he was here in the highest council of the nation where the interests of the nation must be discussed and considered in serious manner and he carried on here in a way which reminded one of a circus. I think that the manner in which the Minister of Labour carried on while this vote was under discussion is not only a scandal for him but for the House. Seldom in my life have I seen, either in this House or in any other place, such a scene as I had to watch that afternoon being made by someone who ought to have a sense of responsibility. I and other hon. members asked the Minister to tell us what his point of view was in regard to the demand of the mineworkers for increased wages. We asked him twice and he spoke twice, but not once did he have the courage to get up and tell us what his point of view was as regard the demand of the mineworkers. He mentioned not a word about the negotiations between the mineworkers and the Government. He dd not utter a single word about the negotiations which had failed, and he did not tell us what his share in that failure was.

Why did he have two chairmen?

I shall deal later with what the Minister’s share in that matter was. I now once again in all seriousness put that question to him. When he rises again, let him tell the House and the country what point of view he adopts as Minister of Labour and what the point of view is of his Party as regards what we consider to be the legtimate claim of the mineworkers.

He has often said it.

The other day, when another hon. member made the same foolish statement, I said that I would sit down if that hon. member would tell me when the Minister had mentioned his point of view in regard to the matter. I extend the same challenge now to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). It is not right for that hon. member who interjects so often to try to divert attention in this way. I again want to give the Minister the opportunity to reply. He did not make use of previous opportunities. On the contrary, what did he do? He launched one of the most unsavoury attacks, an attack such as is continually being made in the English newspapers on the “predikants”. That was his weapon. Instead of dealing with the matter on its merits, he launched an unsavoury attack on the “predikants”. Just note, such an attack is never made on parsons of the Anglican or of the Presbyterian Church, but only on parsons of the Dutch churches.

Because they do the harm.

Who said that? The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe)?

It is an untruth you are telling.

The Minister is one of those who continually says that he harbours no racial feeling, but he also continually makes himself guilty of unsavoury attacks, not only on parsons, but on the church of the Afrikaner itself. And what did his attack amount to? That there is a predikant, and he does not call him “the Reverend” seeing that he spoke in English, but to make it appear clearly that he referred to someone who belongs to the Dutch church, he calls him “predikant”. If I speak about somebody in connection with the English church I call him “the Reverend”. But the Minister, in order to let it appear clearly that he is attacking parsons of the Dutch church, speaks about predikants.

What should I have used?

I will not save the Minister from his ignorance if he does not know what to say when he speaks English. And what was his attack? He mentioned the name of Dr. S. P. van der Walt, and he made an attack on the Reverend Van der Walt. That was his reply to our question as to what the point of view of the Government is in regard to the claims of the miners for increased wages. Instead of replying to that and saying what the point of view of the Government is he drags in the Rev. S. P. van der Walt and the Garment Workers’ Union which had nothing to do with the debate. He comes here and alleges that the Rev. Van der Walt not only is a parson but also an organiser of the Herenigde Nationalist Party. In order to get an opportunity to deny it that day I had to break the rules of the House on purpose so that you, Mr. Chairman, could call me to order, because that is the only way to make the Minister realise that what he said was an untruth. But it did not help. Nothwithstanding the fact that I, as the Co-Leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, firmly denied that the Rev. Van der Walt was an organiser of the Nationalist Party, the Minister with his usual lack of a sense of responsibility continued to say that the Rev. Van der Walt was an organiser of the Nationalist party. We could at least expect that as an honourable man, when he heard that that is not so, he should have had the courage, the decency and the sense of justice to say that he had made a mistake. But he did not even have the decency to say that unfortunately he had received wrong information. He continued to make this false statement. I leave the matter there. I only want to say this that it does not suit the Minister to launch such an attack without first having made sure of his facts. He did not even take the trouble to find out what the position is. He can easily discover who the organisers of political parties are. And if he does not want to do that he could at least have the decency to take my word for it when I said that this person was not an organiser of the Nationalist Party.

Will you tell me who the Organising Secretary of your Party is?

If the Minister wants to know that, his own colleague will be able to tell him, because he grants petrol rations to the organisers of the Nationalist Party.

I am asking you.

You see, the Minister still doubts it. He exhibits a complete lack of decency. He still doubts it when I tell him that the Rev. Van der Walt is not an organiser of the Nationalist Party and has nothing to do with the Party.

Has he never been an organiser?

Never. Is the hon. member satisfied now? But that is not all; the hon. Minister of Labour tries to drag the name of the Rev. Van der Walt into the mud as a parson of the church, and he goes further, and while we are busy talking about the demands for higher wages of the mineworkers the Minister drags in the Rev. Van der Walt as a director of a clothing factory and in order to bring the Rev. Van der Walt into disfavour he says that the Department of Labour had to summons the company of which Dr. Van der Walt is a director because they underpaid wages to a few employees. What were the amounts involved? In a few cases it was the trivial sum of £1 10s. 0d. or £1 7s. 0d. which was underpaid. Such instances happen almost every day in practically every factory. It simply happens by mistake that such small amounts are underpaid. It was not a case of hundreds or thousands of pounds which had been underpaid but a few trivial amounts, and that is used by the Minister to launch an attack. Why does not the. Minister rise and tell us how many English and Jewish factory owners have been fined for underpaying wages? The Minister has the data. But he does not do it. Why does he not get up and read the list of English and Jewish shopkeepers, and of coolies, who are fined for overcharging for stuff sold by them under the Emergency Regulations of the Government? Why does he select a parson of our church?

You never made an excuse for the others.

I am not dealing with that at the moment. Here the Minister of Labour brings in the name of a parson who is a director of a factory, and he attacks him because the factory had by mistake underpaid a few people by a few shillings. [Time limit.]

It was with a feeling of disappointment that I listened on Tuesday to the Minister of Labour and watched his behaviour. I really did not expect such an exhibition from him, and I never thought that the Minister would be such a bad actor. Such theatrical exhibitions can sometimes be impressive, but in the case of the Minister it was really deplorable. I do not want to enter into that further. I should like to have a statement from the Minister in regard to what his policy is going to be with regard to the labour problem on farms. As a result of the war and the recruiting of a large number of non-Europeans, especially coloureds, a very severe shortage of labour arose in my constituency. I think especially of the Ceres area, which is one of the chief fruit-producing districts, and of portion of my constituency which lies in the district of Worcester and where especially viticulture is practised. As a result of the large number of coloureds who joined up there was a severe shortage of labour. In view of the need for labour which arose, the Government then made available Italian prisoners-of-war as labourers. Many farmers employed an appreciable number of Italians, in places like Ceres, the Warmbokveld and in Worcester. A large number of Italians are in the service of the farmers, and they would not be able to do without their assistance. We are now at the end of the war in Europe, and I suppose that the. Italians will be sent back shortly. Then, however, the same problem would exist which existed before they were taken into service. I now understand that the Minister has completed a plan with regard to the making available of returned non-European soldiers. I know of course that he will not be able to say that this section must go here and that section shall go there, but as Minister of Labour he surely has a plan which will help to solve the problem when the coloured soldiers return. Is there a plan by means of which farmers can again expect to have coloured labour, by means of which the usual labourers will again return to the district? I speak now not of the ordinary labourers but of people who to a certain extent are skilled, people who can spray trees and prune trees and vines and pick fruit and pack it. That is not the ordinary unskilled labour, and with the return of these soldiers from the front it is important that this labour problem should have the attention of the Department. It is not only the primary duty of South Africa to provide for our own requirements, but I think that in view of requirements overseas, the shortage of food in Europe, it is expected from us that we should export food to Europe to help the nations who are in need. But there can be no talk of exporting if proper provision is not made for solving the labour problem. I should like to know from the Minister how far he has progressed with a plan to divide labour in such a way that the farmers, especially the wine farmers and the fruit farmers, will have the chance to get labour. I should now like to pass on and to make a few remarks about the rôle played by the Minister in the problem which arose in the mines. I do not wish to repeat what has already been said, but the action of the Minister in connection with the wage dispute of the miners makes an unfavourable impression on anyone who devoted close attention to the problem. As a result of the rise in the cost of living since the beginning of the war the Rand miners also felt the pressure, and eventually in 1943 they applied for an increase in wages. This increase of wages has now for a few years been considered by the Minister of Labour. Sometimes the name of the Minister of Justice was also mentioned in that connection, and also the names of other Cabinet Ministers. After approximately a year of negotiation, the mineworkers, when the negotiations had ended in a deadlock asked for the appointment of an Arbitration Board. This Arbitration Board was asked for on 3rd May, 1943. One would have expected that seeing that this problem had been pending so long there would have been no difficulty in appointing an Arbitration Board. In reality it was only appointed on 28th July, 1944, practically 15 or 16 months afterwards. Why was there this delay in connection with the solution of such a pressing problem? It should have been clear to the Minister and the Government that if the negotiations could not lead to a solution, an Arbitration Board would be the only way out. Why was there a delay of 16 months in connection with the appointment of the Board? Then there is a second matter. The mineworkers pressed for an increase of 30 per cent. in their wages, and seeing that the increase in the cost of living justified that demand—I do not act here on behalf of the mineworkers or on behalf of anybody—but seeing that the cost of living prima facie justifies the demand and the mineworkers had a good case ’for their demand for an increase of 30 per cent. in the wages, we should like to know what the attitude of the Minister war. It is clear that the Arbitration Board could give the only final decision with regard to the differences between the mineworkers and the Gold Producers’ Committee. The information is to the effect that the Government—whether it was the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice is not specified—directed an appeal to the workers through medium of the chairman of the Arbitration Board to settle the matter amongst themselves. What justification is there for the Government to take the matter out of the hands of the Arbitration Board, seeing that that Board for such a long time had been unable to find a solution? The mine workers’ committee were busy trying to find a reasonable solution, and then the Government or the Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Justice—or perhaps they decided together with their colleagues in the Cabinet,—gave expression to this request through the mouth of the chairman of the Arbitration Board that a private agreement should be arrived at. What prospect did the miners then have in any way to find a reasonable solution seeing that the Government stood so clearly on the side of the Gold Producers’ Committee that it did not even hesitate to ask the Chairman of the Arbitration Board to make indirect suggestions? I regard that as treason—I wish to use the word treason in this sense, that where the Government could not find a solution, it adopted an expedient which negatived the best interests of the mineworkers. What influence was brought to bear in his respect? Did the Government after this request to the Arbitration Board itself make suggestions; what was its attitude after this request had been directed to the Arbitration Board; was that the reason why the mineworkers were persuaded to agree to this ridiculous acceptance of that trivial sum instead of 30 per cent. increase in wages? It would have meant an annual increase of at least £5,000,000 on the average wages for that year. The average wage for that year was between £17,000„000 and £18,000,000 for the European mineworkers. In the year 1940 it was £17¾ million. After that it was increased, not because the wages themselves were increased, but because there were more workers. [Time limit.]

I regret that I must here attack the Minister of Labour squarely between the eyes. He has made himself guilty of something we did not expect from him, something with which he has reached a low water mark even he has never reached before in this House. Unfortunately on the previous occasion I came in rather late; I was informed the Minister stood up here and made an attack on me while I was out, but when I returned he remained absolutely silent about me. I object to the Minister of Labour developing such a pose, and it has been in progress for some time, that he refuses to accept proper responsibility for the department he administers. He is sitting in that Cabinet and he is sitting there today as he has done during all the years of the war, as a supporter of the war. Now we find from time to time his Party attacking the Government. They have done it more of late, and when they stand up here and shoot at the Cabinet because they have failed in their duty towards the working people of the country, we find the Minister of Labour standing up and taking advantage of every opportunity to award praise to the Government and to members opposite, so that in that way he may retain his place in the Cabinet. Last Tuesday the Minister burst out with this paean of praise so that even members on the other side could not stand it any longer. But the war has now passed. We now have peace. Let him find himself again, after what we have heard echoed all these years from his side and from the side of the Labour Party in the way of attacks on the Government because it has omitted to look after the workers of our country in a proper way. The Minister has frequently told us that he has taken only one oath of loyalty, and that is in connection with the war policy of the Government for the duration of the war. Now I want to face him with the questions that have been put here in connection with the workers in the country. The Minister of Labour discharges two functions. He is in the first place the leader of a Party that bears the name of the Labour Party, and he arrogates to himself the right to represent the interests of the workers in the country. His second function is that he sits in the Cabinet as Minister of Labour, and in that capacity it is his special task to evince his interest in the position of the workers in the country. But what do we get from him? Is that interest revealed in any way by the attitude that he and his Party adopts in this House? It is truly time that the Minister of Labour took up another standpoint. I want now to put certain questions to him. I am informed that on a previous occasion he was repeatedly asked what his policy is as Minister of Labour and perhaps also as leader of that Party, in connection with the wages of the mineworkers. If he has any standpoint in connection with it he should tell us what it is. It is not the first time that question has been put to the Minister of Labour. The question has been put to him repeatedly as to what his standpoint is in respect of the wages of the mineworkers. When this question is put to the Minister of Labour he finds two ways of escape. The first is that he overburdens us with promises on which we cannot rely very greatly because they are never fulfilled. The following year he comes to us with empty hands. The second way out that he follows is to stand up here and instead of answering the questions put to him in all reasonableness, in place of clarifying his standpoint, he utters a parrot cry. He gabbles off all the words he can put together to revile and taunt the people who have been helping him all these years. The he relies on the fact that members on the other side praise him for the Labour legislation he has piloted through. Well, if the Minister glories in that we on this side may point with pride to the fact that we have contributed in a constructive manner to placing that legislation on the Statute Book in a proper form. I ask the Minister of Labour, is that true, or is it not? I remember when we were engaged last year on a Bill for the reinstatement of soldiers we contributed our share to ensure that good legislation would be placed on the Statute Book and that it would also make provision for all the workers in the country, not only for those leaving the army as a result of demobilisation, but for those who, as the result of the adoption of that legislation might be discharged. When he was in this House with his Apprenticeship Bill, this side also made its contributions and put its case. Our attitude has always been that we shall fight to put our case strongly when we differ in principle from the Minister, but where we can make a contribution towards placing the best legislation in connection with Labour affairs on the Statute Book, we always do so. But this way the Minister now has of making misuse on all possible occasions whenever he cannot answer questions properly, of pouring his hatred on the Opposition, must come to an end. I recall that during the Sitting we were engaged on legislation to which I had an amendment to move. We were dealing with the daily conditions of workers in those circles. The Minister had to reply to that amendment. The only answer we could get from him was that he said to us: You do not mention anything about the wage. That was „the Bill in connection with the registration of unemployed. It was not appropriate to discuss wages in connection with that Bill. This is the right place for us to discuss the wages. This is the place where the Minister of Labour should reply to the question put by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), namely, what the Minister’s attitude will be after the war in connection with the conditions of employment of the mineworkers; and I repeat the question again to the Minister, what is his standpoint? I am very sorry that I only heard a portion of his speech, but I must say that that part was itself distasteful. To hear the Minister of Labour making an attack on the Dutch churches, as he did, was very distasteful. He is sitting on the other side with his representatives as a result of the Coalition agreement, with the assistance of the votes of people belonging to these churches he now attacks and wishes to humiliate. We expect from him while he is still sitting there—and we do not know how long he is going to be seated there—that he at least will give us proof that he will deal with our churches in a way we expect from him, and that he will reply honestly to reasonable questions put to him in connection with the interests of the workers. At the moment he is unfortunately not doing so. I can only point out that when last Tuesday members on his side rose to speak, the Minister would suddenly jump up and reply, but in his whole argument he remained silent on the questions put to him in connection with mineworkers’ wages. No, the Minister had only one argument, and it was that our interest in the mineworkers was a political interest—that we were taking an interest in them because we want their votes. The question is whether he wants their votes, and whether without their votes and without the coalition he could get a single seat in this House for his Party. And this is the man who makes this accusation that we only want these people’s votes. We ask again, and we are entitled to ask the Minister, and we give him full opportunity in the dual function he is vested with in this House, to reply to these reasonable questions and to tell us what his attitude is and what he proposes in respect of this large group of people, what prospects he can hold out for them in the future. What does he propose to do for the mineworkers in regard to their social security, of which so much is said at the top of his voice by him as well as by other members of his Party. Well, we must assume that the Minister of Labour is silent in regara to these questions for one of two reasons. He may have a policy but because that policy clashes with that of his colleagues, he dare not say here what his policy is; or alternatively he has no policy and consequently he cannot reply to our questions. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I also pester him for some statement of policy, but the kind of policy on which I want a statement from the Minister is a general statement in regard to his policy, or shall I say, the Government’s policy, on the whole question of unemployment. During the debate on demobilisation the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) referred to the fact that other departments than the Department of Demobilisation were vitally concerned with the matter of re-employing the returned soldier, and he made the suggestion that these various departments should give some indication of the part they were going to play in the general task of finding employment for the returned soldiers. I want to take that suggestion a step further and ask the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to issue either a comprehensive statement or better still, a White Paper, covering the whole problem of unemployment in the Union. There are a few suggestions I should like to make in that regard. In the first place I think the Minister, as well as the majority of members in this House, will agree with me if I say that certain propositions with regard to unemployment are axiomatic. In the first place they will agree that unemployment has been a chronic disease in South Africa as well as in other countries. In the second place I think the Minister will agree with me that this disease has in the past been closely, if not inseparably associated with our present economic system. Thirdly—this may not find quite such favour with the Minister—while it is the general policy of this Government to maintain the system which we know as private enterprise, to maintain it in so far as it brings social advantage, I think we are all agreed that while we will maintain the system which goes by that name, we will tolerate no system under which the human resources of this country, for large periods of time, are unproductively employed or unemployed. We shall tolerate no system under which large sections of our people are, for long periods of time, unproductively employed. And finally, we will all agree that in order to remove this chronic disease, in order to ensure that we shall not have a repetition of the state of affairs I have described, it is the responsibility of the Government to make the necessary provisions. Now, in these circumstances it seems to me appropriate, at this time, that we should ask the Minister, or the Government generally, for a very clear and comprehensive statement of what their policy is in this regard. Precisely what steps should be taken, I believe, is a matter for experts. I am sure the Minister will be the first to agree that it is not a matter for lawyers to give opinions about, and I do not propose to venture such opinions. I draw attention to the fact that as far as State responsibility is concerned, the State can obviously do a considerable amount of good work in the direction of public works. Public works is one of the instruments through which the problem of unemployment can be tackled. Financial policy is another. There are ways of organising financial policy to combat, at all events, the problem of unemployment. These are two instruments which are used in other countries and which we may expect can be used here, but we may find it hard to say precisely in what manner. But it is not for us, to lay down any policy. I think it is for the Government, on the advice of experts, to say exactly what they have in mind. But there are two points I should like to make in connection with this important matter. First of all I should like to expose what seems to me to be a popular fallacy in regard to unemployment in general. It has become a popular fallacy, at all events in certain quarters, that as we have had during this war and during the last war full employment in South Africa, there is no reason whatever why this condition should not obtain in future. It is frequently said that when the whole of the energies of the nation are mobilised for the effort of war one gets full employment, so why should one not have the same conditions when the whole of the energies of the nation are mobilised for peace? The fallacy that arises is with respect to the analogy between the conditions of war and the conditions of peace, and that fallacy should be exposed. The conditions of war, as we all know, are totally different from the conditions of peace. I would only mention one respect, as far as South Africa is concerned, in which the conditions are totally different. During this war, although I do not know that any figures have been given in this House or elsewhere, South Africa, in addition to maintaining to a large measure the export of her ordinary products, gold, etc., has exported in the form of various munitions and supplies of war to the extent of something in the neighbourhood of 30 to 50 million pounds per annum. The Minister can correct these figures if they are not accurate.

They serve the point you are making.

These munitions, etc., were sold to our allies in the war and they include direct munitions such as shells and bombs as well as considerable quantities of clothing and such like supplies. I do not know what the exact figure is, but let us call it £30,000,000. It is the next largest export figure apart from gold and it far exceeds the value of any export other than gold which we had before the war. Now, the whole of that export business will disappear when the war with Japan is finally completed. That export business has been maintained for the simple reason that during the war prices and costs are of no moment. The cost of production of some of our munitions has far exceeded the cost at which they can be produced in other countries, but they were sold overseas because they were needed overseas under war conditions. These exports will go, and we do not know at the moment what will take their place. The full employment which we have enjoyed during the war is very largely due to the fact that we have had this very large export trade in munitions. So that this is simply an example of the point I was trying to make, namely the fallacy of comparing war conditions with peace-time conditions, and assuming that because one can maintain full employment during a war one can equally easily maintain full employment in peace. The second point I wish to make touches the Minister of Labour more closely in his personal capacity as leader of the Labour Party and of the Labour movement. I hope the Minister will not quarrel with me if I use a phrase in regard to the Labour Party and say that its policy has always been to maintain a labour scarcity. I thought the Minister might cavil at that term. At all events, he will agree with me that his policy as leader of his Party has been very much concerned with ensuring that at no time shall there be an over supply of labour, and that his measures have been directed to that end. His Apprenticeship Acts, etc., were all directed to the end of ensuring that there shall be no oversupply of labour. I prefer to use the stronger term and to say that the policy of the Labour Party has been a policy of labour scarcity. Let me add that under the economic conditions which obtained prior to this war such a policy on the part of the Labour Party was natural and excusable. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) has risen twice to deliver a personal attack on me instead of endeavouring to reply to the questions put to him. As far as I myself am concerned, as a rule I take no notice of such attacks, for in the first place they are usually incorrect. In the second place my voters in my constituency know me, and those who do not know me—well, I do not worry myself about them. But he was naturally trying to draw a red herring across the trail so that anybody on the other side would not perceive what he was up to. If he had only attacked me on the first day, I would not even have taken the trouble to reply. It has to be a very much more important member who attacks me here before I take any notice of it. But on Tuesday the circus was performing here. I would almost say that it was a circus which had been prearranged, and when the member stood up here, he tried to insult me personally.

I will rise again.

If he wishes to insult me it is his affair. But by his attack on me, he has only deepened the suspicion which I had formed as a result of his actions as chairman of the Mineworkers’ Committee who met the mine owners. It is quite evident to me that he has not the brains of a goose and then I do not wish to insult the goose. For he has done nothing to further his case. Nothing in the world. He and the Minister raged and stormed here last Tuesday, and people who were sitting in the House, asked me later whether such things happened in Parliament. They thought it was Valkenberg. This is the type of person who does not even realise that with that agreement which he entered into with the mine owners he has sold the birthright of the mine workers to obtain better wages for a mess of pottage. He does not even realise it. What then were his accusations? He asserts that I came across Broderick in the passage and was refuted and that he won. I said that it was untrue. But he came along the second time with the same story. I met Broderick in the passage, and I am sorry that I did not meet him, for it convinced me all the more that a man with his mentality should not be representing people like the mineworkers when it comes to dealing with the mineowners. It is true that I met him, and the member said that I cursed. I did curse, certainly. I am entitled to curse if I wish to, and I shall not ask his permission. He says that I begged the lady’s pardon. I understand that it was Broderick’s wife. I do not know whether it was his wife or not, or how many wives he has. If he says that I offered an apology because I had cursed, then I deserve to be praised. He says that Broderick invited me to go outside and fight it out. This reveals to us that Broderick not only lacks brains, but that he has the mentality of a Cape scolly who would invite me in the passage to come to blows outside. I cannot fight Broderick, for were I to hit him the magistrate would not grant me the benefit of a small fine, for he would ask me why I should hit anyone so small who obviously is not my match. But my question remains this. The mineworkers should have been entitled to an increase of about £2,400,000 per year, and we know ourselves what those people obtained for them. Can any member of the Labour Party dr anybody on the other side stand up and say that the mineworkers received an increase in wages which was their due? Let them stand up here and tell us so. There is not one of them who would do it. That member and other members know just as well as I do that they cannot say so. The member for Mayfair was chairman of the committee which met the mineowners.

That is incorrect.

Their own newspaper says so. I will read it out—

That appears in the “Mine Worker,” their own paper. It was written by Mr. Basson, and there is a picture of him there as well. He is a handsome fellow. It is not what I say, but what his own newspaper says. It says so there. This man is trying to make it clear how they fought to obtain more and how furious they were, and how they went out of their way, and heaven knows what. But what are they doing? An attack has been made on the Reformers’ movement, the Action Committee which has nothing to do with that matter. It is quite another matter. The people wanted an increase in wages and they were dissatisfied about the executive; I do not blame them. I say, aware of what I am saying, that either the people who dealt with the mines were too stupid and not able to cope with the task of representing the mineworkers properly, or there was something else. I would not say that there was bribery afoot. But it must be one of the two, and I leave it to hon. members to draw their own conclusion. There can only be two explanations, one of which is that they were too stupid. They are not only taking the £100,000 to enable them to borrow money at a building society for the purpose of building houses, but the representatives have even entered into a contract and declare that the mineworkers cannot petition again for an increase in wages until six months after the war.

No, wrong again.

The hon. member cannot divert me from my point. He can himself stand up and speak. The contract states that unless an improvement comes to pass, they cannot again ask for an increase. Án improvement cannot come about for the State controls the price which is paid for gold. It has risen from 85s. to 180s. The only thing that can happen is that it will fall. And the agreement states that the mines, should a fall occur, can make representations for a decrease in wages. This is the contract they have entered into. In my time I have dealt with many agreements, but I have never seen an arrangement of this nature by which an increase of wages which would amount to an estimated amount of £2½ million, is forfeited for a pittance of £100,000 in order to build houses.

A sugar plum.

It is not a suagr plum. There may be a little sugar round it, but it is a bitter pill.

I am sorry to take the hon. Minister away from these invigorating questions, which are being put to him from the other side, to more humdrum matters, but I would like to complete the few remarks I started some minutes ago. I said that, broadly speaking, the policy followed by the party of which the hon. Minister is head, was a policy of scarcity of labour, a policy, by and large, which hampered rather than furthered the full use of our human resources, but I added that that policy was probably the fit and natural counterpart of what he would describe, I have no doubt, as the capitalistic policy of scarcity of goods. I have every sympathy with the kind of policy which was followed by the Labour Party in the old days. The Labour movement has had to fight many and hard battles to obtain the measure of security which it enjoys today. But I believe that the continuance of such a policy of scarcity of labour after the war will be fatal to the development of our resources in South Africa. And while I have said on the one hand that it is and should be the policy of the State to secure by every measure possible the full employment of our people, while the State follows such a policy, while it is able by the measures it introduces to accomplish such a policy, hand in hand with such a movement should go the abandonment by organised labour of the policy of scarcity of labour.

What a guarantee.

I am not debating whether the Government should give a specific guarantee to Labour that in all circumstances it will give employment to persons who were thrown out of employment. I think possibly that is the direction in which we should move, but I express no positive opinion there.

You should not mention the one side of the equation without the other.

The Minister must not misunderstand me. I am only saying that it is the State’s responsibility to provide full employment. While that responsibility is accepted and while it is furthered by every means at the Government’s disposal, hand in hand with that should go the abandonment of the policy of scarcity of labour. Hand in hand with that should go a policy by Labour of throwing open its doors and of giving to every section of the community—and I would like to mark those words—to every section of the community, the fullest possible opportunity of developing their latent skills and their latent capabilities. It is only by a policy of throwing open its doors, giving training wherever training can be accepted by every section of the community, that we shall be on the road to exploiting our resources to the full. I have no wish to develop that theme further. I started with the intention of saying only a few words in the form of asking whether the hon. Minister was prepared to make a comprehensive statement of his attitude in this regard, and I made the further suggestion, that in addition to a statement in this House, we would all welcome a White Paper on this vitally important subject, such as has been produced in other countries.

I have one fault to find with the speech of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) with regard to the Mineworkers’ Union, when he advances the criticism against that union, and pretends that it is being done in the interests of the mineworkers themselves. I personally deplore the fact that during the course of the war mineworkers have not been successful in advancing their wage standards to a degree comparative with the increased wage standards that have been achieved in other industries. I throw the responsibility onto the Nationalist Party for this, because they seek to divide the workers in the mining industry. And when they consciously seek to promote disunity and division amongst the workers they must accept the responsibility for the fact that disunity places these workers in a difficult position to secure advantages which they are entitled to when a comparison is made with wages in other industries. We are justified in questioning the motives of the members of the Nationalist Party when they advance this criticism and at the same time state that it is done by reason of interest in the workers themselves. We must examine what the attitude of the Nationalist Party has been not only to the Mineworkers’ Union but all other trade unions. Let us take the mineworkers to commence with. In the first instance an attack was launched on the Mineworkers’ Union on the ground that the late Charles Harris, who was then the general secretary, was a Jew, and for a long period that was the attack made on the Mineworkers’ Union. In other industries, in the garment workers industry, you have the attack on the union not just because the general secretary is a Jew but also by reason of the fact that he had declared and expounded the theories of Communism in the past. In the Textile Workers’ Union you find another reason, and you find the reason of the attack on the Textile Union is because it has non-Europeans on its Executive Committee, in an industry predominantly manned by members of the non-European population; that is the ground of the attack made there. In the case of the Mineworkers’ Union in 1945 they cannot make the accusation that Bertie Broderick is a Jew; they cannot make the attack that he is a coloured man; they cannot make the attack on the union that he is a Communist. So they find a new pretext, some other excuse is found, and the excuse is the constitution. But by reason of the very diversified attacks they make on trade unions we have sufficient to cause us to accept the viewpoint they are not interested in the workers but that they are merely seeking a point from which to launch an attack on the trade unions. As regards the remarks made by the hon. member opposite, I do not wish to anticipate what the Minister may have to say, the question having been directed to him, but I think as one long associated with the trade union movement I can state emphatically that the trade union movement will not abandon the policy it has adopted in the past, not to ensure the scarcity of labour, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) — an entirely new thesis advanced by him. The measures adopted by the trade union movement have been designed to promote and protect the wages of skilled workers, and they are not prepared to abandon their policy until such time as the very things which have made it necessary are first abandoned. If the hon. member for Parktown is really concerned with the position let him first advocate the abandonment of the very cause that gives rise to the effect which necessitates trade unions having to demand Apprenticeship Acts and similar machinery to promote the welfare of skilled artisans. I would like to take this opportunity of entering a protest against the interpretation of the Factories Act. I believe it is a correct legal interpretation but nevertheless it is one which has affected the workers, in the past year on Dingaans Day, and in previous years in relation to Christmas Day and New Years Day, when those days fell on a Saturday. A number of industries work on a five-day week. In those industries that work a five day week they were penalised on Dingaans Day in 1944, and on Christmas Day and New Years Day in the previous year. When provision was made for a paid holiday on those particular days, which are statutory holidays in terms of the Factories Act, I am sure it was never intended or designed to penalise those who work only a five-day week. Those who work a five-day week are entitled to secure the advantage of those days being declared a public holiday, and I would urge the Minister, on the proper occasion, to seek an amendment of the Factories Act to meet that position. It is true it will not occur again for a number of years, but in anticipation of this falling again in the years ahead I hope the Minister will, on an appropriate occasion, seek to alter the Factories Act so that those workers who work a five-day week will not be penalised in that respect.

Until such time as the Minister explains his standpoint in con nection with the matters which we have raised, I will not dwell on them any further. Perhaps I will revert to them again after he has made his reply. I want now to come back again to a matter which I raised a few days ago when the vote of the Minister of Demobilisation was under discussion. It is a matter which has been touched upon in passing by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), namely the question as to what the Government intends doing to assist people — it is going to be a large number— who are going to become unemployed as a result of the return of soldiers. Soldiers are returning not only to the Civil Service, but also to private employers. They must take up the posts which they occupied before they went on active service. It will inevitably mean that a large number of people will not only have to give way in the Civil Service, but also those in the employ of private individuals where they have been employed on a temporary basis. The soldiers will regain their work and the other people will have to go. Some worked in factories, others in businesses, others in shops, and I anticipate that the number will run into thousands. The question arises, what is the Government going to do as far as these people are concerned. As regards the Civil Service, there is a large number of people who were taken on on a temporary basis to do essential work, and they will now become unemployed. Does the Government intend simply to leave them to their fate, or will the Government take actual steps to provide these people in another way with employment, so that they and their families will not have to suffer and become beggars. What does the Government intend doing for those who were taken on by private employers and who must now also make way for returned soldiers? What is the Government going to do to ensure that they obtain employment? The Minister may perhaps rise and take the view which some members on his side adopt, that it is not the responsibility of the State to afford these people employment. The Minister knows that under the capitalistic system, championed by those people with whom the Minister sits today, it is not the duty of the State to ensure that the unemployed obtain work. We on this side, as well as the Minister, have adopted another viewpoint, namely that it is most definitely the responsibility of the State to ensure that the people obtain employment, and if they are unable to obtain work with private employers, the State must take action and ensure that they do find employment. There will be large numbers of such people, and I hope that the Minister, as far as the principle is concerned, will agree with me that the people must obtain employment. I hope that he will rise and acknowledge the responsibility. If it is the Minister’s policy and it is the Government’s policy to ensure that the people have work, how does the Government intend accomplishing it? We would like to know whether the Government has formulated a plan. It does not help to make all sorts of promises. We are now dealing with the matter as a topical question. It is real, it is here. The soldiers are returning and taking their place in civilian life, and the other people are becoming unemployed. I looked at the Minister’s vote on the estimates but I see that there is no provision for affording these people work. In comparison with last year, the vote shows an increase of only £87,000. It is therefore evident that as far as this vote is concerned, the Minister is not aiming at doing anything. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that on the loan estimates a large amount will be made available to make such provision. Perhaps he will say that on the other Ministers’ votes provision is made. If that is so, we do not only want to know what monies are being made available but in order to be able to judge what the Government has in view, to ascertain whether their aims are effective or not, I would like the Minister to inform us what the nature of the plans are, what their aims are, what they embrace and represent? The country outside and particularly the unfortunate people who are now becoming unemployed, have no need of words. They want the Minister to do something. Has the Government a formulated plan? Are there concrete proposals? Can he quote an example of what he intends doing, directly or indirectly?

Why do you not co-operate with the demobilisation committees?

When the Minister of Demobilisation’s vote was under discussion the Minister shrugged his shoulders and said that he had nothing to do with that. But the hon. member’s intelligence is unable to grasp that. The demobilisation committees have nothing to do with this. This is something for which the Minister of Labour, and perhaps other Ministers as well, are responsible, but at the moment we are dealing with the Minister of Labour who is responsible in the first place. May I kindly request the Minister when he rises to reply, in heaven’s name to say what he intends doing. Let him treat the matter on its merits. The Minister must not again seek out the one or other predikant to draw a red herring across the trail and so divert the attention from the question with which we are occupied. He must not again seek out one or other person as a scapegoat, to use him as a fig leaf to cover up his political nakedness.

I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) first of all question the sort of people who believe it is possible in peace-time to reproduce the full employment conditions that can be made possible in war-time. He said this had become a popular fallacy. I do not know whether he is satisfied that having said it is a popular fallacy he has consigned the idea to limbo. I rather imagine he is not quite satisfied. He invented a fallacy. Perhaps his hopes are strong as to what could be done to make full employment possible. We who sit here believe heartily and sincerely that full employment is just as possible in peace-time as in wartime. We believe that and act on that assumption. In that regard I want to say to the members of the Opposition that we have not come here at any time in our history merely to plead the cause of what is called the underdog. Do not harbour that idea so strongly as you have done. The members of the Opposition are fond of saying, what do these people, pointing to us, who represent the underdog say about this, or that. We do not represent the underdog; that unfortunately is true. If we represented the underdog the class is so numerous that we would be overwhelmingly the strongest party in the House. We would be the government. We do not represent the underdog, but we do come here to advocate the kind of govenment and political system that will ensure there being no more underdogs. That is the difference between what we are supposed to be and what we are. We can not pretend that these people vote for us in sufficient numbers to enable us to represent them, but we do stand by our broad line of thought, and we do not believe it is a fallacy that full employment can emerge in peace as well as in war. It cannot be a popular fallacy in face of Russia’s experience, because Russia did achieve full employment in time of peace. Germany also achieved full employment in time of peace; and we in South Africa can achieve full employment in time of peace. But our hon. friend went on to say he would not, or we would not —I am not quite sure which—tolerate whatever the system might be called, and he referred to the “capitalist system” though he called it by its other name, “private enterprise”. Whatever you call the system said he, we will not tolerate that there should be so many people out of work. On the question as to who represents the underdog, and therefore who is responsible for these people having been out of work, anyway it never was the Labour Party, it never was the people who preached socialism, however foolish they were supposed to be in the preaching of it. It has always been the people who did not believe in the policy of the Labour Party, and certainly not in socialism, who have been responsible for many people being out of work. The unfortunate fact that confronts us is this, that our hon. friend the member for Parktown is found in the ranks of the people who have from time to time had sufficient numbers in this country to form its government, and it is on them the responsibility for unemployment lies. He cannot here as a member of that party talk about the popular fallacy and the impossibility of doing things, and in the same breath to tell us he is not going to tolerate unemployment and that unemployment should be abolished. That would be an anachronism again. He would be pretending to be one thing when he is really something else. If he would seek his natural home, if his words are coming from his heart, he would join this little group and we would give him a job too, we would give him work that would keep him busy and he would be able to formulate his ideas to some purpose. We would be very glad to have him to join forces with us. The point is, we do not believe this is a popular fallacy, that unemployment can be abolished in time of peace, and if the Prime Minister meant anything by his statements during the war years, it is that when peace has partly come to us, now the war in Europe is ended, he would see to it as far as he can there will be in the peace those conditions that we were alleged to be fighting the war for. And one of those conditions was full employment. Because by no other means can you abolish what is called the underdog. When we have total employment it will not matter to me what you call the people who form the government. What will matter is that there is no longer a person you call the underdog. I want to end on this note. If you have any false ideas that the underdog needs any of us to stand up for him I want to refer you to history, and this is the fact emerging from history when—the underdog is satisfied he is not getting from the people who govern him those things that will satisfy him, amongst the people of every country he has shown from time to time that when he really became angry he did not want a chap like me to speak for him he spoke for himself. He spoke for himself and he spoke the language that the people who oppressed him understood. He reached up and hauled them down from the place they had and took them to the block and to the guillotine and those places. He created all the unpleasant circumstances for the people who oppressed him that they had in their un-genuine goody-goody way created for him in their turn, and it can happen again; so please do not think that we come here merely to représent the underdog. We come here to preach a policy that will abolish the underdog, and we stand in the light of history justified by the fact. Germany abolished her unemployment; Russia abolished her unemployment and we can abolish our unemployment.

I want to say a few words in connection with what was said here the other afternoon and again today. I think the hon. Minister of Labour gave such definite replies to the accusations that were made against him that hon. members of the Opposition are unfortunately not prepared to take him up and they have on no occasion in the past been prepared to take him up. I do not know why the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) attacks the Mineworkers’ Union every time he gets up in this House. I think the Mineworkers’ Union is the last body he should attack, since he knows so little about it. In fact I think the hon. member for Swellendam is finding his position in Swellendam in jeopardy and he is looking farther afield. Every time he gets up in this House he tries; to find a field farther up north. The hon. member denied the accusations which were made by the Minister of Labour in connection with what transpired a few days ago, and I want to read this to the House—

Out of what document is the hon. member quoting?

I would like to prove that the statement made by the hon. member for Swellendam in regard to Mr. Broderick…

Is the hon. member quoting from a newspaper?

No.

Then the hon. member may proceed.

From what are you quoting?

From the document I have in my hand.

On a point of order, if the hon. member is not quoting from a newspaper, is he allowed to read his speech?

Is the hon. member reading his speech?

No, this is a letter I am reading to the House.

Is it a love letter?

No, this is a letter the writer of which is prepared to make an affidavit, if necessary, to swear to these facts. The letter goes on—

These are the tactics of Opposition members, and I must again say that language of that description does not become a member of Parliament or anyone else. The writer of this letter is prepared to make a sworn affidavit to this effect. We are here representing members of the public in our respective constituencies, and I do think that if we know nothing about a particular subject, as the hon. member for Swellendam knows nothing about the Mineworkers’ Union, we should not discuss those subjects. I have been a member of the Mineworkers’ Union for many years, and I know the condition of the mineworkers. I would like to say at this stage what has been done for the mineworkers by the Union. If the hon. member for Swellendam only knew half the truth he would be pleased. My experience is that the Mineworkers’ Union represents a body of law abiding men, but naturally they are out to get every advantage they can for their members. The hon. member for Swellendam does not know anything about organised labour, and that is why he adopts the attitude which he has adopted in this House He knows nothing about the Mineworkers’ Union.

The speech we have just heard is, of course, a disquisition on the Labour policy of that Government. One does not know how to analyse the speech of that hon. member — and I am not referring to his English. He would be well advised to have respect for his own language and not to mutilate another man’s language.

I speak both languages. You cannot even speak one.

That is a weak argument.

We shall have to get someone from Valkenberg to explain that speech of the hon. member to us.

You should go and pull out teeth.

Order, order.

For five and a half years the Minister of Labour has sat entrenched with the wealthy people. Whenever he has brought anything forward he has said: There is a war on. From today that is no longer the case. From this afternoon not only members on this side of the House but the general public will tell him that they are no longer satisfied with those trifling circus speeches of his.

Try another word instead of “circus”; it will sound better.

Anyone will tell him that my speech sounds better than the speech the hon. Minister made the other day, a speech that would have been more appropriate in a circus than in this House. The Minister tries to make out there is no unemployment in South Africa. I want to join in the questions put to the Minister by the hon. member for Waterberg. He asked what the Minister’s policy is. I want to ask the Minister to take his courage in both hands in connection with the increase of wages to the mineworkers. The second question we want to ask is this: What is his policy in connection with unemployment in South Africa, because he is the Minister of Labour. The other day we had those terrific figures from the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation when he told us that 60,000 of the returning soldiers will be without employment, and that is indeed the case. The Minister has told us they made enquiries from 20,000 firms who could possibly provide work, and of the 20,000 firms, or individuals, who could provide work, only 5,000 replied. The other 15,000 did not even reply to the questionnaire. This means that about 15,000 soldiers will be unemployed when they return. But the hon. member for Waterberg asked further what the Minister’s intention was in regard to providing work to those who would be without work when the soldiers return and take their places. If those soldiers are to be placed in shops or in attorneys’ offices, or wherever it may be, these other people will be thrown on the streets.

We shall look after them.

The Minister told us the other day of a small group of people who are unemployed, but in the report of his own department we read that in the year 1943 6,686 men, women and children made application and 2,671 were placed. In other words, the Department could not place 4,016. It does not help the Minister to say: There is a war on. The war, thank God, is over.

There is another war in progress.

It is indeed wonderful how some people will shield themselves behind the excuse that a war is in progress.

You always thought there was no war in progress.

All I would say to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) is that he should rather concern himself with his people who cannot obtain labourers.

Look after your own constituency and I will look after mine.

Good heavens!

You see what he looks like now.

While the farmers cannot get labourers for their farms there are numbers of coloured people in the dispersal depôts who refuse to accept work. Yesterday afternoon I was in the Malmesbury district and I drove around the district with a farmer. We drove past five farms and he showed me how many of those farmers had labourers. On the first farm there were five houses for coloured people and there was not a single family in them. On the second farm there were three houses, and the farmer had not a single coloured person working for him. On the third farm the farmer had one worker.

What can you expect? 2s. 3d. a day and two tots.

I should like the Minister of Labour to tell us what he intends doing in connection with that question while the farmers cannot get work and while the coloured people in the dispersal depots get their full pay as well as allowances for their families.

Pay them 10s. a day and you will get all the work people you require.

You have only to mention the tvord “coloured” to that member for him to exhibit his love for them. The Minister of Labour always believed that if a Labour Government came to power we would not have any more strikes. I should like to put the figures to him. We find in the report" of the Department that in 1943 there were no fewer than 52 strikes, and in 42 of them the natives were involved. Let us see now what strikes have occurred since 1931. From 1931 to 1933 there were 14 strikes; during the years 1934 to 1936 there were 17 strikes. During the years 1937-’39 there were 25; from 1940 to 1942 there were 39. But in 1943 within one year —not over a period of three years— there were 52 strikes under this Minister, and this is the Minister who believes there would be no strikes if the Labour Party came into power. Here we have the alarming figure of 52 strikes during the year 1943 and in 42 of them natives were involved. Now I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether he realises that this is a result of communistic agitation in South Africa.

No, it is largely to be ascribed to the Broederbond.

To the Broederbond?

Yes, you fellows and the garment workers.

I have said that the Minister spoke the other day as if he belonged to a circus, but I know that today I must qualify that. He speaks as if he should be in a madhouse. [Time limit.)

For the successful running of any business concern, it is necessary periodically to take stock. It is also necessary for a nation to take stock. Now that the war in Europe is ended and, pray God, may the war in Japan end soon, I feel it is time for us again to have an interim stocktaking. I will not be permitted by you, Sir, on this vote to discuss our national assets, but I can for a moment or two get down to our national labour assets. We have a population of over 8,000,000 nonEuropeans and 2,000,000 Europeans. We have to find work for them. We have to use that labour force. I trust that we shall not be satisfied merely to use that labour force in order to increase the earnings of a few, but rather that we shall use that labour force for the general good of the people of our country. But let us get down to tintacks. What is this country really dependent upon? Mining and farming are the two foundation industries of our country. All our secondary industries depend upon our mining and our farming. Unfortunately we have a Wage Act which allows our Wage Board to determine the wages in secondary industries but it takes no notice of the wages which are paid in agriculture and mining. You definitely cannot have a structure which is going to be sound unless the foundation is sound. Today we have a state of affairs where we seem to be building the wages that we can pay from the top downwards, instead of from the foundation upwards. I would suggest to the hon. Minister that we should investigate what our farming and what our mining really can afford to pay and in that way we will then be in a position to decide what our secondary industries can afford to pay in the form of wages.

The member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) suggested 10s. a day.

It does not matter what the hon. member for Green Point or anyone else said. We should examine this thing scientifically and see what these industries can afford. Secondary industries will crumble the day that farming and mining crumble in South Africa. It is a false idea that you can have a foundation of mud even if you try to fix marble bricks at the top of your building. They won’t stand, but when we do get down and when we do examine the possibilities, let us see that we do not exploit labour merely for the sake of a few of us when the great majority suffer. A man is entitled to what he earns. If he works for his bread he is entitled to that bread and he should get it. It is our responsibility to see that he gets it. It is no good promising a man that later on he will get cake when he now needs bread. We should provide him with the wherewithall to live. As a rural member I know that industry has an advantage in the rural areas due to the lower cost of living that appertains there. Unfortunately the same cost of living allowance is paid in the large cities as is paid in the rural areas. In the rural areas where living is very much cheaper, the industries are handicapped today by differential railway tariffs. Their finished products have to be carried to the towns and therefore they are at a disadvantage in comparison with the towns. But the cost of living is cheaper in the rural areas and therefore the wages in the rural areas should be lower than they are in the towns. The result of having the wages in the towns very near the wages in the rural areas will be that industries will not start in the rural areas, and we know today, more especially as regards native labour, that the town conditions as regards food, housing, transport and social conditions, are terrible. We can provide better living conditions in the rural areas. This should be an incentive to start up industries in the rural areas. I would like to suggest that when wages are fixed in any rural area, the wages that are paid on the farms should be taken into consideration, also those in the surrounding industries because it is no good fixing the pay in one particular industry at a very high rate and causing the repercussions that must occur and which will affect all other industries. We should therefor have a regional examination, if we are going to be successful. I wish to pass oh for a moment or two to the cost of living allowance. It seems to me that our cost of living allowance is also given in the wrong way. We base the cost of living allowance on the pay the man earns, and the more he earns the greater his cost of living allowance. It seems to me it should be just the other way round. It costs the wife of an assistant just as much extra to buy a loaf of bread today as it costs the wife of the chief to buy a loaf of bread. The cost of living has gone up as much for the person on the lower level of income as for the person on the higher income level. There is one thing we will have to face in this country whether we like it or not, and that is the colour bar problem. We are now just switching over from war industry to peace industry. For those industries which have been making blankets and boots and canned food, etc. it will be comparatively easy to switch over, provided they can get the orders. I repeat, provided they can get the orders, it will be comparatively easy for them to switch over. But for those who have been making ammunition, it will not be so easy to switch over from the manufacture of munitions to the manufacure of ploughshares. [Time limit.]

It was very interesting to hear the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) arguing that the Labour Party was no longer the party that represented the underdog, and that was why the mineworkers had recourse to the Nationalist Party, because the Labour Party had absolutely failed in their actions on behalf of the interests of the mineworkers. On the one hand we hear the reproach that we are only interested in the trade unions for political purposes. That reproach has been hurled at us by the Minister, but then he is also interested in the trade unions for political purposes. Has he the monopoly in regard to trade unions? Is it in the constitution of the trade unions that every member of the trade union must be a member of the Labour Party? When we see that 18,000 of our people are deprived of their rights because of a party which in the past has not acted in their interests we have the right to plead for them. In the past I have heard how that Minister, when he was an ordinary member, pleaded for the workers. There we have a great community of workers who demanded more than £2,000,000 for the improvement of their wages, and today the Minister is absolutely satisfied with £100,000. Would he have been satisfied with that sum in the past? He still owes us an answer as to why he is satisfied with that amount. That is the question. We were not arguing the other day about the garment workers. We shall return to that in this debate. We should like to know where the Minister stands in connection with the demand of the minerà for an increase in wages, and we have the right, like any other member in the House, to interest ourselves in the whole political and economic life of the people. The Minister can play the clown if he wishes to, but he will not dampen my interest in the labour question. I am one who has always regarded the Minister with the greatest affection. I know that recently he has had a fairly rough time; but what is he doing? When he stands up he tries to play the fool with us and he tries to make out that he is the great apostle whom we are trying to thrust aside, but the workers in the country are beginning to find him out. He must devote his attention to the questions that are put to him. He knows that we on this side of the House have always exercised constructive criticism on the labour position. The other afternoon I put certain questions to the hon. Minister in connection with apprenticeship, and he shoved me aside as if I was no one. But he cannot say anything about what he has done. He read out the names of the individuals selected for the National Apprenticeship Board. I did not ask him only about that. I asked him about other things, but he simply brushed those questions aside. I have my speech here, and I can read out to him what I asked. In the first place, I asked him in how far this departmental board has decided to recognise the courses in the various trades taken by apprentices in State institutions, in trade schools, etc. He made a joke about that. He trifled with the bread and butter of the sons and, daughters of South Africa, about whom he talked here in such a belittling way, and on whose behalf we stepped into the breach. The Minister thinks only of the position in the towns where they have all the facilities and where the young folk can enter the various trades as a result of influence. We are also concerned over the lads from the platteland who must be provided for. We want to know from the Minister what regulations he has issued and if he has done nothing in this direction why he has not had the courage of his convictions to tell us plainly that the law has not yet been proclaimed to full effect; and why he did not say that he could not answer the questions we put. I also broached the question of the age limit. I put this clearly to the Minister—

He must know that we are not dealing with an old industrial country, but with a country that is on the eve of industrial development. We need all forms of labour. If our laws are such that we cannot train the labour forces that would lead eventually to the building up of South Africa then we should adopt every measure to obtain this. And the Minister of Labour—I am not annoyed about it because he was carried away by the full gallery—waved his arms about here as if he was in a circus. We talked about co-ordination and asked whether co-ordination existed between the trade school courses and the period apprentices are required to serve. I also mentioned another matter to the Minister, and I asked him, in all courtesy, to tell us something in connection with the position of the smaller mills in the platteland. He has not yet given any reply in connection with that. Does he resent our standing up here and pointing out to him all these things? The Minister is an old Parliamentarian, he has had more than 25 years experience in this House.

And Barlow has only had nine.

He knows that if members stand up here and put such questions they expect an answer. If he used his time that afternoon to reply to the points that were put here in a proper way, he would have secured our co-operation. But instead of that he irritated us, insulted us, and abused us. He also told us that we took the lead in regard to that union in the Transvaal. If we had anything to do with it we would not have been ashamed of the fact, because those people had to fight for the mine workers on account of those whose duty it was to fight for them having been in the hands of the big mine owners, and consequently powerless. The hon. member for May fair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) was like a baby in Hoggenheimer’s lap. These are matters we should like to know from the Minister. Now the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) stands up in connection with the matters we have mentioned and he also wants to know what the labour policy will be for the future. That is what we have asked on every possible occasion. Even at the commencement of the Session we asked the Minister of Labour to inform us of the position in regard to labour in the country, whether proper co-ordination existed, and whether he had discovered from the departments what their requirements would be in the future. Has he, for example, discovered from the Minister of Public Works how much labour he will require over a considerable number of years in the future? Has he discovered from the Department of Forestry how many people they will require; has he obtained that information from the Minister of Lands? Hitherto he has not been able to furnish us with a reply to a single one of the questions we have put to him, and now the hon. member for Parktown puts the same questions; and we are glad that members opposite are now becoming more alive and awake. We on this side want to insure that we do not witness a repitition of the scenes enacted after the last war in Cape Town when able-bodied men roamed the streets and begged from us so that they might buy a piece of bread. [Time limiti

The hon. member who just sat down accused the Labour Party of playing into the hands of Hoggenheimer. It is an extraordinary thing that at the last election the only mineowner, and a very rich mineowner who stood for Parliament was Mr. Boshoff of the Primrose Mine and he stood for the Nationalist Party. He is Hoggenheimer. And the only stockbroker in the House is the chief whip of the Transvaal Nationalist Party, the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé), a close associate of Hoggenheimer. I would like to ask the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) to lend me his ear. He has caused a good deal of disturbance in my mind, and I know him to be a man who is a leading member of the Bar, and, I take it, a truthful man. He made a statement which I took down, that Broderick has been bought by the mineowners. Now, that is a very serious statement and I would like the member to prove to me that that is so, so that I can go back to Johannesburg and assist to put Mr. Broderick into prison. He is a responsible man and I take it he is one of the shadow cabinet. I questioned him at the time and asked him whether he would say so outside. It is in his speech unless he has scratched it out.

I do not do things like you do.

I ask Mr. Conradie to prove to the country that Mr. Broderick, the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, has been a thief and a scoundrel and has taken money from the mineowners and sold out the miners. The hon. member does not reply.

You are not quoting my direct words.

I challenged the hon. member at the time he made that statement. I am not standing up here in order to defend Broderick. I am standing up here to challenge him to prove the statement he made, that a prominent Trades Union Secretary has done the lowest thing he can possibly do, which is to sell out his comrades. Well, he does not reply. The country will know, and the country will judge, not only the Government side but also the large number of Nationalists who work on the mines. They will pin the hon. member down. I want to ask the hon. member why he and others on that side, who have every right to speak, as Members of Parliament, go out of their way to disorganise a big trades union. They know the history of South Africa, how Johannesburg has been upset by miners’ strikes. They know how the late Charlie Harris came along and negotiated, following a policy which was preached by the late General Hertzog, and preached by everyone on that side, namely negotiation, and which was also preached by Tielman Roos. Now they come along, most of them representing farming interests, and quite entitled to speak as Members of Parliament, but not knowing much about it, although pretending that the Minister is keeping the mineworkers in such a position that they are dominated by one man. It is absurd. Do you think I am afraid of the Chamber of Mines? Is any member over there, or the Minister afraid of the Chamber of Mines? Forty years ago I fought that Minister, and I have followed his life right through and I have remained friends with him. The whole of his life has been for better pay and shorter hours for the workers. That is the whole of his life. As a young man he was banned from working on the mines because he led a strike at the Kleinfontein Mine. He was thrown out at Kimberley because he led a strike at De Beers. He was thrown out of the Cabinet for looking after the interests of the workers. That is his life. But hon. members come here and accuse the Minister of Labour of playing up to Hoggenheimer. That is not true, any more true than the statement about Broderick. Then they ask the Minister what is his policy. Will they show me one law or one regulation or one resolution taken by this House which gives them the right to ask the Minister what his policy is as between the trade unions and their employers? What right has the Minister to do that? What right has he got to say what wages must be? The hon. member for Gordonia may be the Minister one day. If he were asked that question, what would he say? He would say that wages must be fixed between employer and employee. But the Minister will tell you quite openly, as Leader of the Labour Party, that the men must get better wages and improved conditions, but what can he do? How can he interfere with the mineowners as the Minister? Can he interfere with the garment workers or the building workers? That is not his job. Hon. members have no right to ask the Minister that question, and they know it full well. They are just trying to tease the Minister and to pretend that they are looking after the interess of the workers. The history of the Labour Party shows that for the last forty years they have suffered and fought and been hanged for looking after the interests of the miners on the Rand. These hon. members come along here now. What did they do in those days, when the hon. member sitting in front here was put in gaol fighting for the miners, and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), and many others were put in gaol? What did hon. members do then? Those hon. members helped to put them in gaol. What did they do when the Tramway workers were attacked by the police with batons in Johannesburg when their party was in power? They did nothing. No, do not come to old hands like us who know all about what happened for many years and say you are the friends of the trade uniops. On the question of strikes; we had a war for five years, but I guarantee I am right when I say that there have been less strikes in South Africa than in any other part of the world, during that time; and what have those strikes been? Small strikes of natives. Have we had a big strike like those in England, America or Australia during the war? No. The Minister and his friends and the trade unions have said: We have to see this war through, and if anyone suffered in this war it has been the skilled artisan who worked hard in order to produce. But my friends grumble. What have they done? Have they put up wages for their native kitchen servants? I do not suppose so. [Time limit.]

I think I had better intervene now. I want to say how very sorry I am that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), for whom I hold the highest regard, could find it within him to accuse me of discourtesy. No, not by any means. I have no desire to be discourteous to the hon. member. In point of fact, I think he made the accusation under the mistaken idea that I did not reply to him. But I have, and I will reply again.

Only in connection with one point.

The point I replied to was that the Board, under the Apprenticeship Act, has been composed of certain personnel, the names of whom I read out. I told him who it was particularly from the rural areas who had nominated the rural representatives on the Board, and I told him what the Board was doing. I told him that the Board was considering the question of uniformity of treatment, and all those matters to which he referred. They have only had three meetings. One was the inaugural meeting which I opened when I went up to compose the Board in Pretoria. They have had two meetings since and they are busy and I can assure hon. members —and I say this with the utmost pleasure— that these representatives of all sections of the community on that Board are bringing to bear in their examination of the whole problem and all its serious sub-problems, the greatest possible earnestness. I am delighted with the manner in which these representatives of all walks of life on that Board are bending their devotion to solving the problem as far as they can. Now, I think the hon. member will be satisfied with that, and please do not accuse me again of being discourteous. I do, Sir, hit some members, and I hit them hard. I am prepared to be hit, and I take it; I always take the hits that comp my way. I cannot say the same for those I have hit. However, that is unfortunate. I do not want to develop a vendetta, a constant hurling of interjections across the House, because it does no good. Now, I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). He also joined in that, for him, extraordinary attitude in the stupid charge that I turn myself into a circus. If I may say so without giving offence, it is the refuge of a fool to accuse someone who hits him, and that with some humour, of having started a circus. A good many circuses are very proficient, so I take it as a compliment to me. But my hon. friend is worried about the labour position on the farms, and more particularly — and this is where I take exception to his method of examination — because he deals only with a couple of industries in which he happens to be interested, not personally but as a representative. He mentioned specifically food and wine, I think.

Only as examples.

All right, I will take them as examples. He is worrying about the labour position. Now, the labour position on the farms is a development of and associated with the general labour position right throughout the country, and the position is this, that whether the employer gets labour or not depends on what he is prepared to pay and the condition he is prepared to give. That is inevitable. You cannot complain of not getting sufficient labour — and incidentally the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) complained about the probability, the grave danger in future, of not being able to find work for those who are returning and amongst whom there are a large number of natives, and my hon. friend said that they would be unsettled in mind and in economic outlook, meaning of course that these returning natives who would want to go on the farms, because that is their usual life, will not do so. Again I emphasise the point that they will be prepared to do so if you pay them. My hon. friend I think will be able to recognise the justice of that claim. But I may ease his mind considerably if I tell him that the Social Welfare Department — that is not my business though—is busily engaged in discussions with farming organisations with a view to seeing how they can adjust labour. So, although that is not my particular job, I am interested in a general way. I want to see the farmers going on, just as my hon. friend. I have said it before, and that with complete sincerity, that the fundamental industry in the country is the farming industry, because they feed the population; and I have also said that the farmers have a right to demand from the State they feed, concessions which they need.

Tell the Minister of Agriculture that.

He agrees with me. But, again, it is a question of organisation. It is our economic system which also makes the farmer worry about his economic future. It makes the employer of labour in commercial and industrial circles equally afraid of what is going to happen to him in future. In fact, you have the most complete chaos, no complete and thorough organisation, within the capitalistic system such as we are living under today. My hon. friend the member for Ceres agrees. He is a student of things. He has a wider vision than some of the narrow people who take up the attitude they do. I have a very vivid recollection of the satisfaction I used to experience in listening to the hon. member in this House when he sat over there. I listened with rapt attention to the particular views that the hon. member for Ceres expressed in this House, and I respect him and know he will express some of the views he did before. Now, I hope my hon. friend will not accuse me of attacking him in his absence. He is not here. I refer to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), but the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who is the co-leader with him of their party in the Transvaal can convey to him what I am going to say. He accused me, as did one or two other members, of drawing — I think those are the words used — a stinking herring across the floor of the House.

No, that was I; but I did not accuse you.

Well, that puts us all on-side again. Now, what was the bad smell?

I was referring to the drawing of the red herring across the trail.

Anyway, what was the stinking smell I drew across the path? What was it? Because they saw fit to attack the administration and the officials of the Mineworkers’ Union and brought in as an associate matter the question of their intrusion, in a disintegrating sort of way, into the Mineworkers’ Union, I considered that I had to protect the union. There were these two things together, because it demonstrates the whole attitude of the Opposition, of the Nationalist Party, in relation to the trade unions. They were anxious to disintegrate the Mineworkers’ Union. They failed signally. Then they had a go at the Garment Workers’ Union, but they failed signally; but in the course of my discussion of that question the hon. member for Waterberg says that I attacked the church. I never did.

You called Van der Walt a political predikant.

And so he is and so is every predikant who tried to break up the meeting of the Garment Workers’ Union.

You know they did not break it up.

I say it is so.

Why did you run away? Why did you refuse to meet them?

I refused to see them.

Why?

Because I knew of their machinations. I go further and I say that Mr. Du Pisanie, secretary to the Church Committee, is the recognised organiser of the Nationalist Party in Germiston. Do you deny that?

Go on.

Thank you; your gracious permission is appreciated. But I do not want to pursue that subject further.

Why not?

What more is there to say? Surely it is a damning indictment, and when they talk about my attacking the church they know perfectly well that is not correct. But I am talking about these people who are prostituting the church for political ends. I am accused of drawing this red herring across the trail. I shall come back to the Mineworkers’ Union, so the pointer pups on the other side do not have to follow the trail.

It would be better if the hon. Minister addressed the Chair.

You see, Sir, I could not very well call you a pointer pup; you will forgive my momentary lapse.

Nevertheless it would be better if the Minister addressed the Chair.

I will address you with the utmost pleasure, because I love addressing you. Now we come to the hon. member for Waterberg.

Will you please repeat that last statement. You said that Mr. Du Pisanie was an organiser, was an organiser of the Nationalist Party in Germiston.

Where do you get all this from?

Who gives you all this trash?

The same people who gave me the information ….

If I tell you it is not so, will you accept my word?

No, I know better.

Mr. Chairman, should not the Minister accept the word of the hon. member?

You will pay for it?.

Pay for it?

Yes, because it is untrue.

It is true.

/

I say it is untrue.

I say it is true, and I maintain my opinion.

Do you mean to say if I tell you a thing is untrue you will not accept it?

But this is a fact.

As Co-Leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal I make the deliberate statement here that Mr. Du Pisanie is not an organiser of the Nationalist Party and never has been.

Will the hon. Minister proceed.

The hon. gentleman and his colleagues on that side of the House are so concerned in the welfare of the Mineworkers’ Union ….

We are more concerned with the truth.

Are you?

You are not.

Order.

Let him say it; I do not claim the protection of the Chair.

I withdraw it, but I say again as Co-Leader of the Party in the Transvaal I made the statement and the Minister has not got the decency to accept my statement.

I have not asked for his withdrawal, and I do not care what he says.

We do not care what you say.

All right, then we are mutually tolerant of each other. Once again I say hon. members opposite express the utmost concern as to the welfare of the mineworkers on the Witwatersrand. Why do they concentrate their attention on the miners? Are there not other workers in a far more parlous condition financially, economically and in every way? There are thousands of workers, hundreds of thousands of other workers in whom they display no interest whatsoever. Amongst those are the workers on the farms.

What right have you to say that?

We are concerned with you as Minister, not with you as Madeley or the Labour Party. When you are dealing with farm labourers are you stating the policy of the Government?

I am stating my own policy.

We are concerned with you as Minister.

Mr. Chairman, will hon. members permit me to make my own speech. I did not interrupt them. I let them go on in all their ignorance, saying just what they wanted to say, and I am now replying to it.

You are not replying. You are talking about the farm labourers and not about the miners.

I can talk about the farm labourers as well as the miners, I can talk about the bywoners as well as the miners. It is certainly pertinent to the discussion. That hon. gentleman who keeps on interrupting me pooh-poohed my reference to the underpayment of the Afrikaner “dogters” in the garment factory partially under the control of Mr. van der Walt. “Small sums” is what he said, but they are big sums to those lowly paid girls. He, however, is concerned about the mineworkers. He is concerned about the £30, £40, £50 mineworkers. He wants a straight answer and he will get it. I entirely agree the mineworkers should get more money.

You let them down.

I did not. It shows what little grasp they have of public affairs and how incompetent they prove themselves in advance to govern this country.

You sold them for a mess of pottage.

That is not the point. Numbers do not count at present, though they are equal in number. What can I do?

Nothing.

Nothing at all, no more than I can make you pay the man who does your work. When it comes to that you are the first man to squeal, then without legal authority, without the possibility of having the power to do so I insist on the hon. member paying better wages than he is paying today. [Interruptions.] There is no distinction, they are all workers. When an agreement was arrived at between the employees in the textile industry and the employers in that industry, and when there was an agreement in the canning industry between the workers and the employers, and the wages in that industry were not very high, a deputation of the Nationalists came to see me to complain that the wages were too high.

What was their request? Tell the House that.

That we should make the wages in the agreement lower. You should know.

I should know.

Exactly; these are facts that have become known. They are so interested in the wages of the mineworker, but what do they do when an increase in wages is granted to workers on a much lower wage level such as the workers in the textile industry? I will tell my hon. friends this too, the Government is committed to finding work for all. I cannot understand why the hon. gentleman questions that. No less an authority than the Prime Minister made a definite statement from these benches.

What provision are you making?

The provision is being made now.

Where?

“Where” asks my hon. friend. Not under you.

Do not be a clown again. We ask what provision is made in the estimates.

I must ask the hon. member not to be so personal.

I do not mind them being personal. What I do object to is the row that goes on so that I am unable to speak. I have to shout to drive through the noise.

You were shouting all the time on Tuesday.

Let Strydom carry on in his own inimitable way Do you think, Sir, I might now proceed?

Perhaps if the hon. Minister addressed the Chair instead of hon. members opposite he would have fewer interruptions.

I fear you are too optimistic. However, I bow to the suggestion. I say through you to the hon. member for Waterberg that the Government’s settled policy is work for all. There is going to be introduced into the House a Bill which is already on the stocks, and which I hope and trust they will be prepared to support. And on that I want to say to the hon. gentleman who sits behind me when he talks about the cost of living in the rural areas being less than in the towns, and that therefore the workers in those industries should be prepared to accept lower wages, I ask him whether the employers are prepared to accept lower profits for the same reason, and that their drawings from industry when they employ others shall equally be less on acount of the lower cost of living in the rural areas? We are busy at present expanding the engineering industry. We are opening a tremendous engineering industry in Vereeniging.

Who is “we”? Is the Government running the industry?

Hon. members there know perfectly well we have to adjust our policy within the circumscribed scope of the capitalist system, and until private enterprise fails; and the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister has indicated that if private industry fails the State will do the job. More particularly is that to take place in housebuilding, one of the first necessities in South Africa. So “who is we” is rather ridiculous in the circumstances. We are encouraging private industry, and this is one instance of the success of that encouragement. If it breaks down the State will step in and do that, and I hope we shall have their support, in the urge that their consciences impose upon them to increase the financial receipts of mineworkers, when as a result of that expression of opinion on their part I come into this House and move, as I shall when the opportuntiy serves, that there shall be a minimum standard rate of pay below which no man shall fall in this country; will they support it? I should like to say to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) when he wants to know what we are going to do about unemployment, that under the capitalist system—and I must keep reminding the House of the situation ….

You have a seat in a capitalist government.

So had you. Yours was a capitalist government, and you then found no difficulty in having me as a colleague.

You forget that you were kicked out.

Exactly, for doing what you are pretending I am not doing now, improving the conditions of the workers. What I want to say to the hon. gentleman is that I hope he will be prepared to support what we have already introduced. That also applies to the question of a 10s. a day minimum which the Labour Party has already introduced in this House and will do so again. We intend, as we have done before, to introduce a resolution calling for the progressive shortening of hours in industry until everybody is employed. I hope that hon. members opposite will support us in that too. They did not do it when it was moved before. I say this without fear of effective, contradiction, under our present system of private enterprise there is no other way than those two points to establish complete employment in our country. The re-opening of the Premier Mine is about to take place. The extension of gold mining to the Free State is on the move. The railways will be employing several thousands additional to those who went to the front. They will absorb all their personnel who went to the front and they are prepared to engage thousands more. Irrigation requires more men, and all the other State departments require more men. Then there is the development of the engineering industry; we are making electric motors today, and we were not doing that before. They will absorb a large number of people. Above all is this outstanding fact, that perhaps a couple of hundred thousand houses will be required by this country at least, and when that task is properly tackled, and we are properly tackling it, when we limit the profits ….

When are you going to tackle it?

The Bill is coming in this Session.

On paper.

If the hon. members over there oppose it that is their lookout. The Bill is coming in to limit the profits of the building merchant, it will limit the profits of the person selling the land, it will limit the profits of the building contractor, and it will give the guarantee to the workers for a period. As a result of that they are prepared to agree to watering down, to what is called dilution. I hope that we will be able to count on the Opposition for their enthusiastic support of that measure. I now move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 12th May.