I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

I have no wish to begin a discussion on a Bill of which we do not know the contents, but this seems to me to be a suitable opportunity to point out the delay that has occurred in the submission of the report of the War Pensions Enquiry Committee. A committee was appointed last year, as we all understood at the time, to deal with cases of widows who were in great distress in regard to their means of subsistence, owing to their not having been awarded pensions. I think this House would hesitate to allow further amendments of the War Pensions Acts unless the objects of those amendments were to include relief to the people concerned, and I think it is right we should ask the Minister to what extent relief is intended to be granted by the proposed amending Act. In that connection we are aware that in the course of the evidence which has been laid before the committee very drastic changes were recommended by bodies of men who are representative of the serving soldier, and who have most to do with the maintenance of dependants of the serving soldier. I refer to the Governor-General’s National War Fund, the British Empire Service League, the M.O.T.H.S. and the South African Springbok Legion, who in a joint memorandum declare that a war pension should be claimable as a right and not be awardable merely as of grace. They then go on to deal with the basic conditions, and they say they are in favour of the entitlement clause the clause which declares who shall be entitled to a pension, to be applicable both to disabilities or deaths that have occurred both outside and inside the Union. Those represent forms of relief that will cause almost as much rejoicing in the Union as the arrival of peace itself. There are a large number of people who live today in great distress because of the absence of any such provision. Further provisions of a beneficial kind were recommended by the associations of which I have spoken, and I trust that the recommendations will be adopted when the Minister has considered them.

I do not wish to anticipate what is in this Bill, but I should like to stress one particular aspect of the survivors of the last war who were very grievously handicapped. We do know it is a reflection upon ex-servicemen’s organisations as well as the Pensions Department that certain indulgences were given to people who were physically terribly handicapped, people who suffer probably a 60 per cent. disability owing to war service and were subsequently permitted to have that 60 per cent. disability pension commuted. In other words, the Pensions Department commuted the whole of their liability for a cash payment of £225. Mr. Havenga, who was Minister of Finance some years after this, accepted the principle that it was an injustice to the serving soldier, but he laid down this by regulation or administrative action owing to the recommendations of the ex-servicemen’s organisation. If, he said it could be found that a war pensioner’s disability had increased he, Mr. Havenga, on behalf of the then government was prepared to restore the war pension at the increased percentage, provided the amount of the commutation was refunded or deducted from the restored pensions. That was a generous concession, despite the fact that very much more than the amount of commutation had accrued to the Department by non-payment of the pension.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but what has that to do with the motion?

I hope when the Bill comes before us there will be this indulgence to people whose pensions were commuted, whose physical condition has not deteriorated, that they will get the benefit of the increased pension that is paid to those whose pensions were not commuted.

I regret as much as the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that the committee to which he referred has not yet been able to finish its labours but, as the hon. member knows, its task has been a very big one, and I do not think we should take it amiss that it has not yet been completed. I have not had before me the report of the committee. All that this Bill deals with is the social security proposals in regard to old age pensions, and the amendment of the War Pensions Act is merely incidental to the matter. But the points the hon. member for Pinetown has raised and the point the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) has raised will receive full consideration when we are dealing with the question of the further amendment of the War Pensions Act.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 24th May.

I am glad to see that my friends on the other side are pleased that I am now going to speak after they raged yesterday afternoon and yesterday night because I was not prepared to dance to their tune. I am glad that I have the opportunity to reply to the accusations made against me and to all the mudslinging not only against my political career but also against my person. Before I reply to the merits of the debate I think it is necessary for the information of the House to state what happened since the Report of the Kakamas Commission of Enquiry was published. When the report was published I was, as far as I personally am concerned quite satisfied with the result. The Press of the Opposition declared that the report was definitely in favour of the Church, that Conroy came off second best, that he had to bow his head in shame and that the Church came out of the struggle with flying colours. I thought that if the Church is satisfied and if I am satisfied, then we should see whether we cannot achieve co-operation in order to put into effect the recommendations of the report. I kept in mind that this Kakamas affair is not a matter of yesterday or of last year but a problem which has been existing for the past 25 years. As a result of all the grievances and the conditions which have developed and which are existing at Kakamas, and as a result of the administration by the Church—I shall again refer to the Church because yesterday many things were flung in my face in regard thereto—as a result of all those things the position of the Church, not only in regard to its administration of Kakamas and not only in regard to the relationship between the colonists and the Church in social matters, has deteriorated, but even in the spiritual field the position of the Church at Kakamas has declined a great deal and the position at Kakamas is bad.

How can you give an opinion on that?

I came to the conclusion: Here is an excellent opportunity to try to remove the difficulties of the past and to give the Church itself an opportunity to recover the former confidence in it at Kakamas. We now have the recommendations of the commission. They say they are satisfied, for I have come out of it second best. We now have an opportunity to achieve co-operation and that will help us to bury all the recriminations, all the reproaches and all the bitterness of the past, and they will be able to make a new start at Kakamas which is absolutely essential for the Church itself, from a spiritual point of view, for the State, and for the colonists, and even for the whole community concerned.

And your accusations remain?

I shall come to those accusations. You need not be afraid. Just give me time. I will also come to you.

Who was ever afraid of you?

NO, you have never been afraid. Only you have always been running. If that is not being afraid I don’t know what it is. I thought that this would be a good opportunity and I on my part wanted to extend my hand of friendship and to ask for co-operation to give effect to the recommendations of the commission so that a new start might be made at Kakamas and so that the old confidence might be restored, as I said before. I therefore approached in the first place the acting Moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church and asked him to come and see me in connection with the Kakamas problem and in order to discuss the report. I informed him that what I should like to know was whether they would be prepared to co-operate. He was kind enough to come and see me. The reaction of the Moderator after I had made my proposal in accordance with my letter, was that this is first of all a matter for the Synod and that he could not commit the Synod. That I could well understand. But he also said that he thought it was a good idea to try to obtain co-operation but that I would have to consult the chairman of the Labour Colony Commission, viz. the Rev. P. du Toit. I said that I intended doing so and I did so. I believe that before replying to the debate which yesterday flared up again I should first give a brief survey of the background. We again had all the accusations and all the mudslinging and all the bitterness which does not remain within the walls of this House but which goes into the country and penetrates even into. Kakamas and which will not assist in the slightest to improve the position which exists there. I phoned the Rev. du Toit and asked him to be so good as to come and see me and he was kind enough to do so. I put the same proposals to him and the Rev. Du Toit then asked me to be good enough to put in writing what my actual proposals are. I want to read that letter here. The letter is dated 26th March, 1945—

The chief aim of my invitation to you as well as to the Rev. Louw was to try and find out whether we could not as soon as possible come to an understanding in regard to giving effect to the recommendations of the report and to prevent that further recriminations both from the public and the Press will take place.

My idea is that by means of discussions we can achieve co-operation in regard to giving effect to the report which, in my opinion, and I think you will feel the same, should be done as soon as possible in the interests of all the parties concerned. You promised to call your commission together and that thereafter we could have further discussions.

The main points on which I should like to obtain agreement are:

1. (1) To determine when the changes will be made;
2. (2) the composition of the control board; and
3. (3) the payment of the amount due to the Church.

In regard to the future carrying on of the business, this has been left in the hands of the colonists themselves and we need not discuss that point.

As I said, my aim is to try to forget the recriminations and the bad feelings which have been existing for years and to make a new start through co-operation which, as I said will be in the interests of the Church as well as of the State and the colonists. I repeat that it is my opinion that the sooner the proposed changes are made, the better it will be for all the parties concerned.

In regard to the basis on which the business would be managed for the future it was suggested to leave that to the colonists themselves and it was therefore not necessary to discuss it. As I pointed out it was my intention to try to forget the recriminations and bad feelings which have been existing for years and through co-operation to make a new start in the interests of the Church as well as the State and the colonies. I repeat that I was of the opinion that the sooner the proposed changes could be effected, the better it would be for all the parties concerned. I furthermore informed the Rev. Du Toit that I would be leaving for the Karoo on Wednesday and would be back on the 3rd of the following month. Allow me to read that too so that the hon. members will have the exact contents of my letter—

Nothing about withdrawing the accusations.

To that letter the Rev. Du Toit on the 31st March replied as follows—

On the 13th April I received a further letter from the Rev. Du Toit. He referred to my letter and asked for certain information or explanation in regard to my first letter. I do not think it is necessary to read that out. My reply to that letter contained only the explanations asked for. I do not think it is necessary to read this too.

In regard to the explanations, whose recommendations did you base them on, on the majority or on the minority in the Report? Please read it to us. It will be interesting to hear.

It will take time and although I do not think it is absolutely essential, I’d better read out everything—

1. (1) The changes which I have in view are set out in the summary of recommendations in Chapter IX, pages 69 and 70 of the Report of the Commission of Enquiry.
2. (2) The recommendations of the Commission which I had in mind in regard to the composition (establishment and representation in numbers) of the proposed New Control Board are referred to under Items (2) (c) (i) and (ii) of Chapter IX of the Report.
3. (3) This refers to the Commission’s recommendations under Item (6) of Chapter IX. The amount to be repaid will depend on the total amount of the debt on the loan account due to the Church by the Labour Colony Commission on the date on which the change comes into effect.
4. (4) This refers to the change in policy, which is recommended as an alternative under Item (3) (a) and/or (c) and which will depend on the final decision by the colonists themselves.
5. (5) The ccntents have been noted.

May I just explain that in the past “Die Kerkbode” has sometimes been used for the publication of letters from the other side and when we wanted to reply to them, our letters were refused. We are members of the same church. “Die Kerkbode” does not belong to the Nationalist Party or to Keerom Street but to the whole Church in South Africa and we therefore have as much right to make use of “Die Kerkbode” as they have. As far as this point is concerned I consequently replied—

The reaction of the Rev. Du Toit would be to start another polemic and he did so. In a prominent position in “Die Burger” he devoted, I think two or three columns, to his defence and to accusations against me and others in regard to the matter.

Not accusations but a defence against the charges you had made.

Accusations against me.

He only defends himself against certain accusations.

Let us leave it at that. I then asked the Rev. Du Toit in view of the fact that “Die Burger” circulates only amongst a section of the Church members, whether, if “Die Suiderstem” were to publish the replies to our explanations with all the charges made by the Rev. Du Toit against me and others, they would in that case, if I send them my reply and reactions to it publish the reply in “Die Burger”.

What say has he got in “Die Burger”?

He said he would consider it but he was not prepared to do so.

How on earth could he do it?

We then asked the editor of “Die Burger”. He was not prepared to say yes or no and ultimately we received the reply that they would use their discretion. That is quite impossible but they wanted to make their decision after having seen the reply. In other words if my reply to the Rev. Du Toit would be conclusive, they would not publish it.

If your reply would be libellous.

They need not take the responsibility for libel. We can do that ourselves, and we said that if there would be anything libellous in it, they would be allowed to take it out. In spite of that they did not want to accept it.

There you are, you wanted to be libellous.

That is a stupid remark. In spite of that, in spite of all the accusations and charges that were made, we published those two articles of Rev. Du Toit’s explanations in a prominent position in “Die Suiderstem”.

Who are “we” to whom you are continually referring?

“Die Suiderstem”. Surely you know who that is. Although it was directed against us, we published it. This reminds me of a story which I heard some years ago when I was in Australia and when they told me how the first Europeans came to New Zealand. The native population consisted of Maoris and they fought. The English came there and there was a fight and a very hard fight too. In those days the soldiers still needed gunpowder and lead for their cannons. The Maoris succeeded in encircling a group of Englishmen who could not break out again. They fought and afterwards the English ran out of gunpowder and lead. What happened then? Then the Maoris sent them I do not know how many casks of gunpowder and lead and told them “Come on, fight now”. That is what we are doing here.

We do not want your powder. It is wet.

I thought it advisable in the first place to give the House the background of the mudslinging which lasted for four and a half hours here yesterday and which will now continue, I do not know for how long. As far as I am concerned I accept the challenge and whatever may happen, we shall reply to all the charges and reproaches and accusations made against us in regard to this matter. Yesterday for four and a half hours from the beginning to the end it was nothing else but mudslinging against me. I was accused of everything under the sun. Somebody called me a vulture. They only did not call me a gangster, for that would have been a reflection on themselves since the gangsters are sitting over there.

On a point of order. May I ask whether a member is allowed to call another member a gangster? The Minister called hon. members sitting here gangsters. I just would like tp know whether this is in order.

I think it goes a bit too far.

May I just explain and if thereafter you rule that I must withdraw it, then I shall do so with pleasure. When I spoke of gangsters I made use of a term which their leader applied at the time to certain members over there who were members of the Ossewa-Brandwag, when General Sauer also still was an O.B. Then we heard about these gangsters.

The hon. Minister should rather withdraw it.

I withdraw. The Commission of Enquiry, the report of which we are now dealing with, was appointed at the request of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), supported by the whole Party on the other side.

A judicial commission.

On the same day when I accepted the motion I read out in this House the terms of reference and I think you will find them in Hansard. Why I mention that is because since that moment until after the publication of the report they never realised or stated that the terms of reference were not wide enough and that it was impossible under those terms to obtain certain evidence.

Did we ever have an opportunity to discuss it?

The terms of reference were so wide and so comprehensive that there was practically nothing which the commission could not enquire into.

And what does the Judge say?

Was the Judge wrong?

Order, order!

These are the usual tactics. They do not want to hear the truth and they now try to lay down a smokescreen. I maintain that the terms of reference were comprehensive but now let me tell you the truth.

So you told fibs just now?

That motion of the hon. member for the appointment of a commission was nothing but bluff. They did not want a commission but they thought that I would refuse to appoint the commission.

But you refused to appear before the commission.

They were stunned when I got up and stated that I was prepared to accept the motion and that these were the terms of reference.

You can no longer stun anybody; that is impossible.

Now certain objections are made against the terms of reference. One objection is that the terms of reference did not go far enough, that they were not sufficiently comprehensive. I replied to that. The second charge was that it was a prejudiced commission. I want to say at once that if I had had six angels from heaven on that commission they would still have taken up exactly the same attitude.

The angels would not have accepted an appointment from you.

Nothing on earth would have satisfied him in regard to those findings unless the members had been composed of four or five Broederbond members or Ossewa-Brandwag members; then they would have been satisfied.

We asked for Judges.

So they went against the persons serving on the commission and the first person against whom they yesterday made an unfair, unjust and reprehensible attack was Lt.-Col. Klopper. They say that Lt.-Col. Klopper is the chief accountant in my office. Just imagine the Minister taking his chief accountant and appointing him on that commission!

Yes, can you imagine it.

And still you did so.

Now that is a terrible crime. In 1940 I also appointed a commission on which I myself appointed the Rev. Du Toit.

Not a judicial commission.

I repeat that I myself appointed the Rev. Du Toit and I say then what I said at the time, viz. that the Rev. Du Toit drew up that report and was responsible for it. But the chairman of that commission—and I should like hon. members to note that—was my chief accountant in my office, Mr. Deas, a man who occupied the same position which Lt.-Col. Klopper occupied, but then everything was all right.

You did not like that report.

Was the task of that commission at the time to enquire into your accusations against Kakamas?

I will make my own speech and the hon. member can afterwards make his speech.

You need not reply if you are not able to.

I say again that at that time it was not a crime to appoint my chief accountant and I now will tell you why. Because the Rev. Du Toit drew up that report in spite of the chief accountant.

He denies it.

I maintain that he is the man who was responsible for that report. But let me proceed with my speech.

Why did you not lay that evidence before the commission?

What was the attitude of that chairman? For this enquiry they asked Mr. Deas, whether he— my chairman of the previous commission— would not be prepared to give evidence before them.

But he is no longer in the service.

I just want to point out that if it suits their purpose then everything is all right.

But now he is able to speak openly; he is no longer in the service.

It suited their purpose as far as the drawing up of that report was concerned, and they had so much confidence in his evidence again suiting their purpose, that they wanted him to give evidence now.

And Lt.-Col. Klopper suits your purpose.

The second person against whom they objected was Mr. Butler. Counsel for the other side objected to Lt.-Col. Klopper and Mr. Butler being members but he did not advance the reason which was advanced yesterday, namely that it was because Mr. Butler was the chairman of the co-operative society there. The reason which counsel gave why Mr. Butler should have excused himself was because he had relations living at Kakamas.

You did not read all the evidence.

I just want to repeat the reply which the judge gave to counsel. He said: “If you are now objecting also to Mr. Butler because he has relations living there, you should also object to me, for my grandfather was the first superintendent of Kakamas”. I think that is a sufficient reply.

Then you destroy what he has built up.

That is the commission which I appointed ….

What about the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg)?

What is your objection to him? He does not even belong to my Party.

He made a speech about Kakamas before the commission was appointed.

I remember Mr. Louw Steytler making a speech about Kakamas and I think I can still remember what he said in his speech. He said: “If half of what Senator Conroy has said in regard to Kakamas is true then I am ashamed of my Church.” Do you know what their reaction to that was? At that same moment they declared that Mr. Louw Steytler would of course be appointed as a member of the commission.

May I just ask this: In 1944 Mr. Van den Berg was ….

I am not under cross-examination here.

Of course not, seeing that you are afraid of the judge.

That is why you did not appear before the commission.

I am not going to be subject to cross-examination by the other side. They only want to waste time.

But you are afraid of the commission.

There was another objection and that is a serious objection. It was raised here in the House and it was also raised by advocate Conradie, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie); he also raised the objection. He said that in the terms of reference I did not give the commission the power to subpoena witnesses. The Rev. Du Toit in his statements says that I premeditatedly or on purpose omitted to give them power to subpoena witnesses and that probably I was afraid that they would subpoena me.

Hear, hear.

I am surprised. There are several advocates sitting on the other side. You can count them. They are all advocates. Some of them are briefless advocates but still they are advocates, and even their counsel who defended their case, did not tell them that in the Cape Province the Government has no right to give such power. No such power exists.

What about the Deas Commission?

The Deas Commission did not have that power.

You must not talk nonsense.

He does not reply to questions.

May I continue?

Order, order. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to Section 62 (2) of the Standing Rules and Orders which lays down that a member whilst present in this House shall not converse aloud, and to Section 63 (1) which lays down that no member shall interrupt another member whilst speaking, except for certain purposes. I am afraid that there is an increased tendency among hon. members to overlook these two particularly salutary rules of the House, with the result that it sometimes becomes difficult for a hon. member to make his voice heard above the general conversation, whilst at other times the delivery of his speeches is considerably hampered by continual interruptions. Suitable interjections may often be the spice of a debate and whilst I do not for a single moment want to rule that no interjections may be made, I still feel that there is a tendency to interrupt members too frequently. It will make the work of the House much easier and make the delicate task of the Chairman of Committees less difficult if hon. members will be mindful of the sections of the Standing Orders to which I have referred. This is a ruling by Mr. Speaker Jansen and I intend to apply that ruling.

I just wanted to say that even the advocate who appeared for them made political capital out of the request that the judge should call Senator Conroy to give evidence. The Press right through the country exploited this. Yesterday it was said here that I am a coward, that I have no backbone, that I ran away and all such things. I want to say quite clearly—I shall come to the indictment just now—I yesterday stated that I adhere to the points I made and I state here unreservedly that every charge or accusation which I made, whether in connection with the financial aspect or in connection with the administration or anything else, has been fully confirmed in that summary of the Report of the Commission. Every one of my charges has been confirmed 100 per cent. I accept that Report 100 per cent.

Have the charges been justified or not?

I shall reply to that just now.

What do you mean by “reply to that”?

I shall substantiate them.

But does the commission substantiate them?

The commission substantiates them in their findings. I have made certain charges and accusations and I shall not renounce any of these charges and I maintain that those charges, if hon. members will look at it without prejudice, are contained in that Report.

Quote it.

Do you mean that the Church has been found guilty by the commission?

Why do they make this objection? Of course the commission found the Church guilty. They, for instance, condemned the enormous profits made by the Kakamas Commission then they said We suggest that these profits should not be made in future.

In which paragraph do you find that?

It is in the report.

It is not in there.

He now wants me to go to school again.

Where is it in the report?

It is there in the report before you. The proof of it is in that report which confirms 100 per cent. that the matters which I said were wrong should be rectified. The question of ownership rights was one; then there is the question of the enormous profits, the huge capital ….

And the misappropriation of collections?

I will come to that. The finding also was that the profits which have been made should be used from time to time for the benefit of the settlers and not as happened in the past when, as I said, they did not spend a penny for the benefit of the settlers.

Refer to that finding in the report.

The report does not say so.

I wish hon. members would allow me to continue with my speech.

Order, order!

I maintain that it was not necessary for me to stay away from the commission, for every one of the charges made by me have been enquired into and the proof lies in the recommendations made by the commission with which I am completely satisfied. In a few moments I shall deal with the most important of my charges, one by one.

Twenty-six.

As I said, the whole position was exploited throughout the country for political ends. I was besmirched, I was slandered I was called a coward. Their Press in the Transvaal and the Free State and throughout the country took up the same line. The person who in the first instance accused me in this House of running away, as I am always supposed to do, is the Leader of the Opposition, because I did not give evidence before the commission. He said that I ran away, as I always do. That accusation came from a man who has a past, who from his youngest days started running and today is still in flight. The first time he fled was in the Transvaal during the war.

Where do you get that?

He did flee.

Prove it.

That was the first occasion on which he fled.

I say again, prove it.

And today he is the great republican who is enveloped in a Vierkleur. He is the future Fuehrer and he is still sitting there with the flag which he will have to use as the first Fuehrer in South Africa.

If you repeat again what you said just now, namely that I fled in the Transvaal, then I will say that you are lying.

I repeat it.

But then you are lying.

I maintain that he is always running away. When he left the pulpit he stood as a candidate for Cradock and the late Harry van Heerden gave him a licking such as he did not expect to get.

On a point of order I just want to know whether it is Parliamentary language to use the word “lying”? We should like to know.

You did not listen, you should listen better.

The Leader of the Opposition said that if the Minister would repeat it, he would say that he was lying.

The Leader of the Opposition said that “if you say that, you are lying”.

He said “if you repeat it, then you will be lying”.

I understood the Leader of the Opposition to say: “If you repeat it then you will be lying.”

Those were his words.

With all due deference, whether it is thus or the other way about, I still should like to know whether it is Parliamentary. After all, we have a reputation to keep up.

Hear, hear.

My ruling is that if the hon. member says: “You lie or then you lie”, then it is unparliamentary language.

But I understand that the Leader of the Opposition did not say so.

He said: “If you repeat that again then I will say that you are lying” and I repeated it.

You did not.

Then I repeat it now.

Then I say that you lie.

Order, order!

The hon. Minister has lied and I shall leave the House. I am afraid the position is that what the hon. Minister said there is untrue. He may not have known it. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition used these words. He said: “If you say that again then I say you lie”. Because what the Minister said was absolutely untrue. The Minister told a lie and I said he lied.

The hon. member must withdraw that and the hon. member must apologise to the Committee.

I shall apologise to the Committee for having said that, blit I do not withdraw it.

The hon. member must withdraw what he said and apologise to the Committee.

I apologise to the Committee that I had to say that but I cannot withdraw it because it is the truth.

The hon. member must withdraw it and the hon. member must apologise to the Committee.

I have apologised to the Committee that it was necessary for me to say this, but I cannot withdraw it because it is the truth.

I ask the hon. member now to withdraw it and to make an apology to the Committee.

The position is this that an imputation was made by the Minister….

Order, order!

An imputation was made here by the Minister of so far-reaching a character that it must be exposed, and if I have to withdraw this it means that what I said is not true, and what I said is the truth, and thus I am sorry that it is impossible for me to withdraw what I said. But I shall apologise to the House that it was necessary for me to say it.

I hope the hon. member will withdraw it and tender an apology to the Committee, but if the hon. member does not do so I shall be obliged to take drastic steps against him.

I know it is your duty, and I do not want to make it hard for you, but I cannot withdraw it unless the Minister withdraws the untruth he uttered. If he does not do that I am afraid I shall have to stand by my attitude, however difficult it makes your position.

I only want to ask this: Here is a case where something was said that is a decided untruth.

And the Minister repeated it.

If I may just enlighten you; I have never lived in the Transvaal. I did not have burgher rights there and I was not temporarily living there, and I think the Minister knows it is so. Yet here he makes a statement which is definitely untrue. Now I ask: What remedy have members got against implications or falsehoods of that character? What is the remedy?

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) is disregarding the authority of the Chair ….

May I point out….

Order, order!

The hon. member is disregarding the authority of the Chair and I think I ought to remind the Committee what is meant by “disregarding the authority of the Chair”. It does not mean a disregard of the authority of the occupant of the Chair. It means a disregard of the authority which the whole House has placed in the Chair for the maintenance of order and a standard of debate befitting the dignity and traditions of Parliament. During the Session it has on three occasions been my unpleasant duty to order members to leave the House for disregarding the authority of the Cair. I again ask the hon. member to withdraw the accusation he has made against the Minister of Lands and to make due apology to the Committee.

But the Minister as well.

I know the word I used is perhaps not a nice word to use, and I am sorry I used it, and I shall withdraw it, but what I must say is that the Minister stated a posistive untruth over the floor of the House. I do not know whether that is in order but that is as far as I can go.

The hon. member may not say that another hon. member stated a positive untruth.

It was definite, because it was denied by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and after the Hon. Leader of the Opposition denied it there was something the Minister ought to have done, and that is to accept the word of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and after that he repeated it, and consequently I cannot go any further. I am sorry, it is not out of disrespect for the Chair that I am doing this, but it is impossible for me to go further and to withdraw the word “lie” and to say it is a positive untruth.

In the circumstances I must ask the hon. member for Humansdorp to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Whereupon the hon. member withdrew.

On a point of order. I should like to know whether the Minister, who is not even a member of this House, has the right to say in effect that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a lair.

No, that is not a point of order.

After the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said that this was not so the Minister repeated that statement and we claim your protection against the meanness of the Minister sitting there.

Order, order. I understand from the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) that he denies what the hon. Minister said. It is a rule of the House that when an hon. member makes a statement another hon. member must accept it, and I ask the hon. Minister to accept that statement made by the hon. member for Piketberg.

Yes, I accept it.

You ought not to be here at all.

May I have your ruling in connection with the expression used by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). Is it Parliamentary or not?

It is not Parliamentary, but it is true.

On a point of order, in reference to the request you made to the Minister to withdraw his imputation and now that he has done it, I want to know whether it will be in order to ask the hon. member for Humansdorp to come back into the House.

No. Under the rules of the House I am not in a position to do that.

I ask your ruling please.

May I know what expression the hon. member for Stellenbosch used?

He spoke about the meanness of the Minister.

I do not think it is unparliamentary to refer to the meanness of an hon. member. I do not think the hon. member for Stellenbosch ought to use such language. It is not exactly unparliamentary but I do not think the hon. member should have used it.

In any case, it is very apposite.

The hon. Minister may now proceed.

I was saying that the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) went to Cradock, where he got a sound thrashing, and then he went again to Victoria West and there he got another thrashing.

And you came in by the back door.

How many hidings have you had?

And there was no other way out for him than to seek out one of the fortresses of the Nationalist Party at that time where he could get in unopposed, or where he could get a safe seat with a big majority, and that was at Calvinia.

You have already got two trouncings at Victoria West.

I lost to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and if he was present I would comment on that, but I shall not do that now. He, the Leader of the Opposition, fled to a safe seat, Calvinia, and do you know what happened? I do not know how many years it was but he was there for a number of years and then there was another election and Calvinia would not have him. He was obliged to ask Gen. Smuts to come and help him.

That, too, is untrue.

What has that to do with the Lands Vote?

I shall deal with the accusations of cowardice and spinelessness that have been brought against me, and I shall only show what my reaction to those accusations is, namely that the people who accused me prove for their part that they are cowardly. Yesterday afternoon they spent hours in throwing mud at me and in making accusations of cowardice and spinelessness and even more things of that sort, and after Gen. Smuts went to help him there he immediately tried to find some other safe seat. He left Calvinia and he went to Piketberg. Now his Party accuses me of cowardice. It seems strange to me—there are exceptions on the other side—that people who have never in their lives smelt powder now run around with powder horns.

When did you smell powder?

I know it is not pleasant for those members to hear these things, but they have accused me of trying to cause a schism in the Church. They said that we were inoculated with the Nazi germ and that we were Nazis, that I am trying to break up the Church. I want to comment on this. I was charged yesterday and I have been continually charged in their Press with having attacked the Church and having attacked the clergy. I want to say here that members on the other side have virtually deprived us of the Church so that I and others can scarcely belong to it.…

You don’t say!

Their policy is to cleanse the Church by getting rid of us. They want to hunt us out of the Church and seize the Church for themselves.

It looks as if you were very willing to leave it.

The Leader of the Opposition and most of the members on the other side were generals and commandants of the Ossewa-Brandwag. Many of the clergy belonged to the Ossewa-Brandwag. That was still during the period when the Leader of the Opposition declared that Hitler was going to gain the victory in the war and that we would have to adopt the Nazi system of national socialism.

That is again untrue.

I shall prove it in black and white.

Prove it then.

I say that he, many of the members on the opposite side and many of the clergy belonged to the Ossewa.-Brandwag. The army of the Ossewa-Brandwag was the army of national socialism, the army of the crooked cross and it is anti-Christian and anti-religion. Theirs is a heathenish religion. I pointed that out to my Church, and I said that where the clergy of the Church belonged to the Ossewa-Brandwag they were professing that heathenish religion and it did not fit in with the Christian Church. I attacked those clergy who were members of that movement with its heathenish religion and who stood up in our Church Councils and wanted to ban us.

Tell us about the circular you sent to the Church.

I attacked those parsons. I attacked them and I told them that the parsons who belonged to the Ossewa-Brandwag and who professed these heathenish beliefs knew before their Creator that they were taken up with a heathenish belief. I stated that there were congregations where the parson denied our people the sacrament.

That is not true.

Some of those parsons denied our people the sacrament of baptism because they were in khaki.

That is not true.

In Pretoria Johanna Jordaan, who is a member of the Church of which the Rev. Mr. Nicol is the clergyman, received a letter from him that she should not come into the Church choir to sing because the uniform annoyed other members.

Is a Church choir the sacrament.

I spoke to the Rev. Mr. Nicol about that and he told me that the reason for him having done that was because if he had permitted it the members of the Ossewa-Brandwag would have come to the Church in their long robes. I told him that the Ossewa-Brandwag had long since taken over the Church and were holding parades in the Church, but now Johanna Jordaan might not enter it in her uniform. There are tens of thousands of faithful members of the Church who have fallen away from the Church like leaves and who no longer have a place in that Church. During this war thousands of our sons in the North have been killed, and all the other sections of the population can find consolation in their Churches. Can our people find consolation in their Church? No, they cannot find it there. That is why I say that they want to make us strangers in our own Church. Thousands and tens of thousands have fallen away. I pointed out that that Nazi doctrine was infiltrating into our Christian Church, but at the same time I made an appeal to our people who did hot share the views of those clergymen not to leave the Church. I told them they would have to remain in the Church because the time would come when we could take steps to purge the Church of that ungodly element.

You told them that they should not give money to the Church.

Yes. I told them that the money must be set aside so that we could use it when we had to purge the Church and when we could drive out the Ossewa-Brandwag. This is the position in which we find ourselves as a result of the doctrine of national socialism which has been preached here.

Then you intend to split the Church.

I made an appeal to my friends not to leave the Church. In spite of that thousands of them left. Tens of thousands, however, remained. Now it is stated that I had left the Church. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, if I attack a clergyman because he belonged to the Ossewa-Brandwag then I attacked the Church. But heaven be praised those people do not symbolise the sentiment of the majority of the people of South Africa. Fortunately wé have the spirit of those tens of thousands who went to fight for freedom and for the freedom of the Ossewa-Brandwag and the people on the other side as well. But I am beginning to see daylight. Recently the Church Council here in Cape Town held a meeting and at that meeting it was decided with one dissension that they must regard Communism and national socialism as anti-Chrisitian and that they should fight it. Is that not a victory for me? [Laughter.] Yes, laugh. I begin to see the light. When the Church Council takes such a resolution we can begin to see the light.

Are you also opposed to Communism then?

I have always been against it. When this resolution was proposed Dr. Killian said that they could not accept such a resolution at that stage because it would give the German people who were at a low ebb another stab in the heart. The light begins to dawn, and I know the people of South Africa will welcome it. When the Leader of the Opposition thought that Germany would gain the victory he spoke differently. There is no one who more deeply regrets his past than he does, and he would certainly be prepared to give half his life if he could be dissociated from all his predictions of a German victory. I say now that he is not a national socialist. His life will be too short to wash himself clean of that. I say that this is the resolution that was adopted, and I can see the time coming when right will triumph. The time when the people were advised to look to Berlin for their salvation has gone, and South Africa will return to the old roads and again, as my leader stated on the occasion of the centenary festivities at Potchefstroom, although the Church had during the war fallen on evil days the time would return when we should all fix cur eyes on the Man of Gallilee.

And you talk about the man of Gallilee.

That is the resolution that was taken by the Church council. I say that those who agree with me and who have been true to the Christian principles of the Church, who have not bartered those’ principles for an old song, will watch the Synod to see what it does.

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

There are a few other points I should like to touch on before I refer to the financial position of the K.L.C.C. at Kakamas. Yesterday the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) charged me with having attacked the Church on account of their practically stealing the collection they had made during the initial stage of the labour colony. He said that I made a false accusation, because according to the auditors," Syfret & Co., the money was used for the purpose for which it was collected. Let me say at once that what I asked was this: How much money was collected. I wanted to know that amount. I can now say how much was collected, it was £16,700. I further asked how the money was expended. How did the K.L.C.C. use the money? On what account did it figure? Did they use it for benevolent purposes for the settlers? Now I am charged by one hon. member that it is impertinent and audacious of me to put such a question. When the labour colony was established in the early years the Church made an appeal to the congregations throughout the country to give contributions, to have separate collections in the congregations for the colonists at Kakamas. It was said that they were very poor people, that some of them were short of clothing, that some of them had come there hungry, and the Church asked for money in order to help these people and to put them on their feet. Money was collected throughout the country. I know of not only one occasion but of several occasions when an appeal was made by the parson for a special collection to be taken for the purpose. The impression given was that the request was being made in order to extend charity towards these people. Not only money but goods were given. I can recall that many people gave sheep and other things instead of money.

Right through the country.

Yes, pennies, and tickeys and sixpences, £16,700. That was contributed for this purpose. What did they do with that, according to the report? The amount of £16,700 was placed to the credit of the administration account. The administration account is the account that covers all the work done at Kakamas, development work or otherwise.

You are wrong again.

The object for which the money was given by these people was to help by way of charity the people at Kakamas who were in want.

You know yourself that is not in accord with the truth.

The hon. member was too young. He does not know anything about it. Many members here can stand up and say that it is the truth. They took the money and placed it to the administration account, and they used the colonists to make furrows and canals and for that they paid them 2s. and 3s. a day, and they had to earn the money once again that had been given out of charity. But what was done with the sheep and the other things? These were also converted into cash and placed in the same account. I say that the money was not used for the purpose for which it was given. It was not in conformity with the appeal that was made to congregations right through the country. Certain Sundays were set aside for a collection for Kakamas, and I say it was for charitable purposes and not to be placed in the Church’s administration account, and for them to have then made the colonists work at 2s. and 3s. a day. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) asked me yesterday whether I still stood by what he described as my accusations in connection with the Church, and I replied yes. I think he mentioned my imputation, that was one of the points in his indictment, that excessive profits had been made at Kakamas. I did not make the accusation that excessive profits were made, and in the second place that a colossal capital had been built up out of the profits. I said that the position had developed in such a way that the interest of the Church that the K.L.C.C. still had at Kakamas was practically only in the shops they have there. The shops were the greatest interest that they had at Kakamas. I added io that that the Church was using Kakamas as a taxing machine, and that they were farming with the colonists as I farm with my sheep. I repeat that; they farm with the colonists just as I farm with my sheep. I should just like to add that the only distinction is that when I have shorn my sheep I look after them, but did they look after the colonists after they had got so much out of them?

Are you quoting that from the evidence?

The hon. member must be a little patient. He shall get it. From the statements made by the Rev. Mr. Du Toit and the facts presented to the commission hon. members there now make out that everything is in order. They say that the auditors, Messrs. Syfret & Co., who were appointed to audit the books gave the Church a clean sheet, and they say that Syfrets declared that everything was in order, that the books were in order and that the Church had come out of it with honour.

That is so; read the evidence and you will see it.

I shall read paragraphs 253 and 254. Syfrets reported to the commission—

We commenced with the accounts of the financial year ended 30th June, 1920, and concluded with the accounts of the financial year ended 30th June, 1943. The accounts for the financial years ended 30th June, 1944 were incomplete at the date of our visit to Kakamas. (N.B. These accounts were completed during the course of the enquiry and were subsequently placed before the commission—Exhibit 211). No good purpose will be served by delving into the books and records kept by the Labour Colony administration prior to the 1st July, 1919 ….

This was in 1919. The Labour Colony Commission was, I believe, established in 1907. It may have been earlier, I cannot remember exactly now but it does not make much difference—

In 1919 the Conroy Commission instituted an investigation and we also had an accountant. Mr. Conradie was at the time superintendent and he told us that the books in the first year were in hopeless confusion and that he had tried to make out a set of books to 1919. You see now that the auditors in their report state that before 1919 the books were absolutely unreliable and incomplete.

Were the figures also incomplete after 1919?

Give me a chance now. In 1919 the Rev. Mr. Botha was chairman of the Labour Colony Commission and when we got to the point that there were no books or reliable figures we went to the Church office and asked that the books should be submitted to us in relation to the reports that had been submitted to the Synod. Those books were submitted to us and the reports to the Synod did not correspond with the figures in those books. My words to the Rev. Mr. Botha then were: “You will agree with me that the reports to the Synod up to 1919 are not worth the paper on which they have been written”.

Would it not be as well to quote Mr. Conradie’s words?

I have not got it here. It was taken up in the report. I shall do him no injustice; of that you can be sure.

It is to be hoped so.

Thank you. Now I go further and I come to paragraph 254 which I wish specially to bring to the notice of the Committee—

In this paragraph reference is made to good fors, and here I want to pause for a moment. The Labour Colony Commission in the early years of its development until the time when I was there in 1919 kept no reliable books. One of the things I mentioned in my report was that they did not pay cash for the goods they bought from the colonists. The colonists toiled and sweated, and if they had a harvest and reaped so many sacks of wheat the commission could take almost as much as they wanted to set off against the colonists shop debt. One of the colonists declared to me that he reaped about 100 bags of wheat ….

Why did you not give that evidence before the commission?

There was evidence about that before the commission.

Statements were laid before the commission. One man told the commission that he actually had to steal his wheat by widening the outlet of the threshing machine for inferior wheat or by hiding wheat amongst the chaff so that he might have bread to eat. The person to whom I refer said that he reaped 100 bags of wheat. The commission took 94 bags of his wheat for the shop debt. He was credited with 16s. a bag for the wheat. When his six bags of wheat were finished he had to go back to the shop and buy back his own wheat at 30s. a bag.

What year was this?

I am not going to keep on recalling. That is there in connection with good-fors. No cash was paid. If a person delivered produce for £100 or for 1s. 6d. the clerk tore off a piece of paper and gave him an i.o.u. for the amount. Then the fellow put it in his pocket.

Was that evidence accepted?

In 1919 there was a clear mention of that. I am speaking now about the good-fors. No book was kept to record those good-fors. They did not know how much was outstanding, and you can realise how much waste there was. The man put it in his pocket, his wife may have lost it, if he had a good-for for £10 and he bought purchases for £1 it was taken from him and he got in exchange another good-for for £9. You can understand how much damage the settlers sustained by that. What is more, it meant that the Labour Colony Commission never knew what it owed to the people.

Is that not a method which was employed by many shops in the old days?

No, there never has been a shop or business in the country that did not pay for the products it purchased. This good-for system is not bookkeeping, because it did not record in the books what the liabilities of the Church were and what the credits of these people were. I have now given the background of these unreliable books in the developing years till 1919. During that period the Church advanced contributions to the K.L.C.C., sometimes big amounts, but the Church also drew big amounts from them, for example in interest. One of the instructions to the last commission was to go into that. We know that the Church in about 1940 resolved that the debt must be reduced to £90,000 and that that £90,000 should then be a permanent investment for the Church. One of the instructions to the commission was that they should trace the Church’s accounts from the commencement, that they should on the one hand set out the credit side of the Church and on the other hand the debit side in order to show what amounts have been pocketed through Kakamas. I say that colossal amounts were paid to the Church in rents, but for a long period no accounts were kept and now hon. members there say they accept the auditor’s statement. I come now to the excessive profits. A trust deed was entered into with the Church in connection with the business of Kakamas and I have read out in Parliament what that agreement was. There was a monopoly of the business at Kakamas given to the K.L.C.C. on condition that the business would not make more than 2½ per cent profit. If there was any surplus of profit it had to be expended for the social development and amenities for the colonists. For instance, reading room had to be provided. They were not long satisfied with the 2½ per cent. They then requested that it should be increased to 6 per cent. as it was not enough. The 6 per cent. was granted, and the Rev. Mr. Marchand gave a solemn undertaking, it was described as “solemn undertaking”, that they would not make more than 6 per cent. and that the profits would be devoted to the interests of the settlement. Did they keep to that agreement? They built up their profits, they made profits of from 9 per cent. to 12 per cent. They made twice as much as they were entitled to make under the trust deed, and from that they built up their profits. If you examine these figures of the auditors you will find that they give an account of the profits made between the years 1919 and 1943. In that period of 24 years a nett profit was made of £195,213. They were expected to expend them on local social amenities. They expended not a single penny in that way. My hon. friend opposite asked me last year—it was in 1940—why we would not give them a permit to build? Now he wants a permit to build a reading room! In those 24 years they made an amount of over £195,000 in profit, but that was not all. In addition there is deposited in the Church office £20,000 that Kakamas had to deposit there. I shall return to that. It was to serve as a fund against flood damage and other disasters, and it was to remain there at an interest of 4 per cent. If we add that to the profits we find that in those 24 years they built up a capital of £213,000 out of the profits. On a previous occasion I spoke of an amount of £129,000 capital that was built up, but during the investigation by the commission something further transpired from the books. They transferred £87,000 of their profits to the administration account.

What administration account, that of Kakamas or of the Church?

There is only one administration account, that of Kakamas. Everybody understands thoroughly what I am talking about. The sum of £87,000 was transferred to the administration account. The commission mentions that. They did not require that for the administration account. The administration expenditure was covered for a long period by the ordinary revenue from Kakamas and that money was not required. For a considerable period the deficit on the administration account was covered by shop profits. But in addition to that there was a further £51,000 of this amount that was placed to the credit of the administration account, and what was the idea of that? The commission mentions that. If we glance at the report that was given to the Synod in 1940 we find that an amount of £90,000 had to be left as an investment in Kakamas; the £20,000 had to be deposited at the Church office with an eye to possible disasters and the other funds that remained over had to be used for other purposes at other places. They might not do it.

What are you driving at?

I shall presently read out the report. They could not do it. The Synod took that resolution and said that they would have to take the balance of the funds and use them elsewhere. But they were faced with this difficulty that under the constitution of Kakamas the Minister of Lands was one of the contracting parties and they could not take the money away. Then there was another reason for it. When those colossal amounts were transferred to the administration account they were, of course, deducted from the profits, and consequently the profits naturally reflected a reduced percentage. They were not permitted to take more than 6 per cent. profit, and in that way they brought down the percentage.

What an imputation.

This is the new Hoggen heimer.

But they went further. It is here in the report and the commission also remarks on it. They also reduced their assets by £18,000; they wrote off £18,000 in depreciation. Can you see what the object was? It was to keep the percentage as low as possible. I will now turn to page 39 of the report. Yesterday when I referred to Kakamas as being a safe investment for the Church I said that the Church used the settlers as a taxing machine and to provide it with investments. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) then said; How scandalous. He followed that up by saying “sies sies!” In this connection I want to read out of the “Actae Synodi”. This is in the report of the Labour Colony Commission to the Synod in 1940. They give account of the purchase of Rhenoster kop for which they paid £15,000. The State lent them £10,000, £5,000 of which was written off. There was 1,000 morgen of irrigated land worth £75 a morgen. The commission reported to the Synod that when the scheme was completed—

In 1940 the Synod appointed a commission to bring out a report in connection with Kakamas and especially over the future financial policy. This was the Van Blerk Report. That report was unanimously adopted by the Synod. I know that if the Synod and the Labour Colony Commission could delete that report from their minutes they would thank goodness for it. The report appears in the “Actae Synodi”, and I should like to quote it—

1. (1) That the Labour Colony Commission be instructed to shape its course so that income and expenditure of the administration will balance without the assistance of the shop profits.
2. (2) That the capital debt at the Church office should be reduced to a sum of £90,000 which can be left there at a rate of interest of 5 per cent.

Rhenosterkop was not included.

This is what was recommended.

Order.

But he is not reading the thing correctly.

As I have already told the House the profits accumulated into a capital of £213,000, but the colonists were not allowed to pay off their debt to the Church with that. No, they were permanently saddled with the care of that investment for the Church. Have I not the right then to say that the Church is farming with these people? Are they not farming with these people when they are compelled to bear this £90,000 eternally at 5 per cent.? They are not allowed to pay it off. That investment remains there. I shall refer later to the 5 per cent.—

1. (3) That the shop business shall be carried on with an eye to—
   1. (a) To furnish all reasonable necessities to the colonists as reasonably and cheaply as possible;
   2. (b) to sell or to assist to market all produce of the colonists at the best current market prices.

I have already alluded to the fact that a capital of £213,000 was built up out of the shop business. Then it states further—

1. (4) That in the event of the capital debt being reduced to £90,000 the shop profits will be appropriated as follows—
   1. (a) for necessary expansion of the shop business;
   2. (b) for the building up of a reserve fund of £20,000 invested by the Church office, that can be used—
      1. (i) In time of distress and unforeseen disasters;
      2. (ii) for the development or expansion of the labour colony as the Labour Colony Commission of Kakamas may from time to time deem necessary.
   3. (c) That after this has been complied with and the labour colony has drawn all reasonable benefits from the shop profits the balance shall be applied on behalf of other Church uplift and poor relief activities in connection with the submerged section of the community as undertaken by the general Poor Relief Commission.

Note that the shops always go with it. I stated that the Church lays emphasis on the shop business. Further I want to point out that the Church wanted to use the money that they got from Kakamas for general poor relief work. Poor relief is preeminently the work of the Church, but it wants to get the money for that from Kakamas. I continue with this Van Blerk report—

In connection with (4) (c) in the above paragraph I want to point out that this is the paragraph in which it is recommended that the Church should use the money it got from Kakamas to carry out poor relief work elsewhere. The commission realised that under the trust deed of Kakamas it was not permitted to use that money in that way. I as Minister of Lands represented the Government in connection with that contract and the commission knew well that they could not take the money away unless the constitution was altered. That is why we had this recommendation that the constitution should be altered so that the Church could use for other purposes the money it had made with its investment at Kakamas. I should like to point out again that the Synod adopted this report unanimously. The Synod accepted it. May I not now be permitted to say that their greatest interest is in the shops? May I not say that they farm with the people as I farm with my sheep? I describe it as a sort of system of semi-slavery.

Is that justified in regard to the Synod?

Can you imagine that an organisation went there and made money out of that group of people while telling them at the same time that they could not get title?

You do not give title to your settlers.

And in the second place they go out and say that these people will for all time have to pay 5 per cent. interest on £90,000.

Was that the Synod’s resolution?

Now I come to the interest on the £20,000. They resolved that the £20,000 deposited with the Church should bear interest at 4 per cent. The Church paid to the colonists 4 per cent. on the £20,000 that the colonists had to deposit on a yearly basis, but for the £90,000 they had to pay 5 per cent. on a monthly basis, on the monthly balance. No one can say precisely how it worked out, but according to the report of the commission it worked out to about 5.7 per cent., almost 6 per cent. But the Church paid’ to the colonists only 4 per cent. According to the report of the commission the Church has drawn in interest since 1919—that is all we can go into—for the 24 years, £157,286.

How much has the State drawn?

While they received from the colonists in payment, etc. £252,178. That was paid in by the colonists. Now I want to point out what sort of business this is. Will the Labour Colony Commission or any hon. member there who has an overdrawn account at the bank, agree that they should pay 5 per cent. on a monthly balance? In 24 years they paid into the Church, as I have said, the total amount of £157,000.

Do you know the difference between a permanent investment and an investment that can be cancelled on a mothly basis?

It is a credit balance.

What is the difference?

I shah Say what the difference is. The difference is that they take the balance on the 1st of each month and not the balance on the 4th, or the 5th or the 10th or the 15th of each month. During the month thousands of pounds are paid in and they pay no interest on that.

What does Syfret & Co. say about that?

If the matter were thrashed out and you could go back through all the years you would find that thousands of pounds were paid into the account but the interest was only calculated on the balance at the end of the month. They get nothing for the money that was paid into the account after the 1st of the month. That makes a very big difference.

What is the evidence of Syfret & Co. about that?

The interest on the monthly balance calculated in this way was £157,286.

What do Syfrets say about that?

Now I come to Rhenosterkop. Rhenosterkop played a very big role especially in the battle that has been going on in recent years. You will recall the carricature of Conroy going round draped in a kaffir blanket.

Hear, hear.

They ridicule the people who they claim to be so anxious about.

It was the State’s poor people.

The blankets came just before the election.

I said that the subsidised labourers suffered starvation there. I confirm that again, and I shall prove it.

What paragraph?

But when the barrister for the other side had Mr. Collins under cross-examination he asked—

I spoke about Rhenosterkop. Mr. Collins’ answer was naturally no. But I had not referred to Kakamas but to Rhenosterkop. But it went right through the country that Conroy’s own witness said it was not true. There you have the political exploitation. At Rhenosterkop the Government subsidised the labourers to the extent of 4s. 8d. a day and the K.L.C.C. added a miserable 10d. which brought it up to 5s. 6d.

They were the Government’s labourers.

Who levelled thousands of morgen for them which will be worth £75 a morgen? Now are these the Government’s labourers?

Of course.

They added a miserable 10d. to that. A man came to me when I was there—and that is why I speak about starvation—and he said, “Sir, I am here with my wife and six children and we are getting 5s. 6d. a day, we are paying the K.L.C.C. 5s. 6d. for a bucket of flour, we cannot buy a pair of shoes, we cannot buy any clothes at all, we get only 5s. 6d. a day”.

Where is that in the report?

And the people who worked there slept at that time on woolsacks and under woolsacks.

What do you pay at Buchuberg?

What year was this?

And they lived in reed houses plaited together with clay, and do you know, it is almost incredible that they had to pay 6d. a 100 for the reeds, to be allowed to go to the Orange River to cut them and to make the houses with them, and they received 5s. 6d. a day.

That, too, is not correct.

And all this time the K.L.C.C. had an accumulated capital of £213,000 but they could not set aside more than 10d. for these people. Do you know that according to the report the Government paid out £47,000 in respect of these people? That was a fairly considerable amount. But as soon as the labourers came there the K.L.C.C. were at hand with the shop in order to get this 5s. 6d. And do you know, according to the report of the commission, the shop at Rhenosterkop in the six years between 1937 and 1943 made a nett profit of £10,500. But they could only contribute a meagre 10d., and the people slept under woolsacks.

When was this?

Rhenosterkop was started in 1937 and they did not give a brass farthing to these people. It was bitterly cold that winter. I saw the people were starving and I saw how they were living there, and I made enquiries to learn whether it was true that they were sleeping under woolsacks. I was travelling at that time somewhere near Calvinia. It was a bitterly cold night. I was sleeping under four blankets and still felt cold and the thought of the people at Rhenosterkop occurred to me, and then I sent a telegram ….

Ah!

They are so concerned about these poor people that they joke about them. They sit there with this capital and the people are dying of cold and hunger. I sent a telegram to Johannesburg: “Send 50 blankets.” I mentioned the names of two people. I said the blankets should be sent to the people at Rhenosterkop.

Who were the two people?

That is none of your business. You know who it was.

United Party agents.

Do you think I would have given them to you? Would I have trusted them with them? I telegraphed that 50 blankets should be sent but the hon. members are mocking these people whom they martyred in this way. Every newspaper that came out spoke about Conroy and the kaffir blanket. Well, let them carry on with that. The people at Rhenosterkop will deal with the hon. member there.

At the last election they would have nothing to do with you.

I go further. As far as housing is concerned the houses were built by the State at both Kakamas and Rhenosterkop. You will no doubt say it is their land and under their trust they have to attend to the social welfare of the people. Did they have a penny to spend to improve those houses? In 1937 the government of the day granted allowances for bywoners’ cottages. At Kakamas they applied for houses for the settlers. The Department of Labour sent an official to institute enquiries and he recommended to the Government to give £50 apiece for 250 houses, an amount of £12,500. And now we come to the snag in the thing. The Department of Labour, I think, was entrusted with that, and at that time it drafted an estimate in respect of what every house would require in order to put it into a proper state. In many cases it was in respect merely of improvements, the addition of a room, a new roof etc. They asked for tenders, and the K.L.C.C. tendered together with other people. The tender of the K.L.C.C. was the £12,500, the full amount. There were other tenders, as low as £8,000. As soon as the K.L.C.C. learned that there was a tender of £8,000 the then superintendent chased up to Pretoria as is their habit—when they are in difficulties they chase after us to Pretoria or Cape Town—and he went to the Minister and the department concerned to make representations that they should not give the tender to a Jew: “Do you want to let the Jews penetrate into Kakamas?” they asked. “The Church has for all these years been throwing its bread on the waters and now you are giving the tender to the Jew.” The reply was: “But your tender of £12,500 is excessive.” The superintendent went back and immediately after that they sent in a tender for £8,000.

Why did you not give evidence before the commission?

They wanted to make £4,500 profit on the tender. Am I not then entitled to say that their interest is only in the shops and in the shop profits? Ten thousand pounds was spent by the State there on housing, and at Rhenosterkop the Government, as I have stated, spent £47,000 on the subsidised labourers, but the State went further and built houses for the aged and semi-fit people, and this cost £12,500. And the Government, do you know, paid to the K.L.C.C. £70 a year just for these people being looked after. The houses were built by the State. I think I have provided enough evidence to show that my accusation that the K.L.C.C., that the Church is more concerned about the shops and trading profits than the Kingdom of Heaven and the poor souls at Rhenosterkop. I also stated that the money came out of the pockets of the colonists, all the money. Even the officials had to contribute.

What is the Church doing with all the money it made there?

In 1919 when I was there I brought out a strong report about the way the people in the shops were being underpaid. The scale there is more or less £9. They have a big staff there and some of the people have families, and the average is more or less £9. I said it was impossible for the people to exist on that. Not once but several times the Church underpaid these employees. There were the three persons who were mentioned here. The Department of Labour said that these three persons were underpaid. It was a fairly large amount. Instructions were given by the Department of Labour that it had to be adjusted.

What is the finding of the commission in connection with that?

A year after that the inspector again visited the place. The amount had not been paid. He called the superintendent and said: Look, I warn you that these arrears should be paid; it must now be done on this very day. They then wrote out the cheques and gave them to these three people. The inspector went away and you know what they did? They took back the cheques from these people.

Where do you find that? What was the finding of the commission?

You know that is not in accord with the evidence.

Last year 41 charges were made against the commission in respect of underpayment and excessive prices under the price control. There were 40 complaints, and the 41st was that work was being done in the shop on Good Friday. I am speaking subject to correction, but I believe they pleaded guilty to all the 40 charges, and they had, I believe, to pay a fine of £270. They even took from the officials. They do not pay these people enough. I think I have adequately proved that my accusation that the Church’s biggest interest is in the shops is correct, and in the second place that the people were used as a taxing machine. I think I have adequately shown that they have shamefully violated their trust, the sacred undertaking they entered into.

And you say even that they virtually committed theft.

And, accordingly the finding of the commission is as contained in their recommendations on page 69. It is 100 per cent. substantiation of the allegation I made in connection with the administration in Kakamas. The sooner there is an end to it the better, and there will be an end to it. As I am now going to resume my seat, I want to make this announcement. I have endeavoured to secure co-operation with the K.L.C.C. I have endeavoured to work with them in a friendly way in order to carry out the recommendations. They will have none of it. They want to carry this quarrel further, in spite of the fact that I almost begged them to forget the past. They want to carry on. They will not take the outstretched hand. Well, now they have got it and they are going to get some more. If they will not co-operate, if they take the line that this is an insult on the Church I shall continue. If I am spared and this Parliament assembles again we shall introduce legislation. During the recess I am going to submit the report to the legal advisers of the Government and ask them to draw up legislation, and if I am spared I shall in January, 1946, introduce a Bill, without them and in spite of them, and I will push the Bill through.

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule? I want to begin immediately by moving—

After these distasteful, unjust and abominable accusations which are absolutely devoid of any proof, which the Minister has today flung across the floor of the House, it is sufficient for me that, as one of his supporters remarked to me personally during the lunch hour, “we are ashamed of such a man” and the Minister has behaved today in such a manner that I am certain that even his co-Ministers are ashamed. He ought to remain no longer a Minister of the Crown. Imagine, the Minister comes here and says that he offered the hand of friendship to the A.K.K. and the Church, after having made these abominable accusations, which he repeated here today. Does he think it possible to gain any co-operation on this basis? Any body, any person with self-respect, cannot interpret it otherwise than as a gross insult. I want, in the short time at my disposal, to deal with a few of the things which the Minister made manifest in his ignorance. Unfortunately I have not 2½ hours at my disposal like the Minister had, to reply to all the accusations. I hope I will be excused for not descending to such a low level, even beneath the mire, as the Minister has done. That I cannot do. Throughout the whole of this unsavoury affair, it was very clear to us that the Minister acted as the enemy and demolisher of the great work which has been done at Kakamas for political reasons or on account of certain sectional interests. And so again today he has for quite some time been drawing up the most slanderous deed of indictment against the Church, and even now he comes along and says that he stands by his accusations. And this is the man who wants to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of running away. The Minister has been running away since we challenged him last year. He ran away to such an extent that he never appeared near the commission, where he could have been put under cross-examination. A man who runs away to such an extent and has not even the courage of his convictions to justify his accusations, should not talk. His words were scarcely cold last year when he said that he still stood by his accusations, when he announced at the end of his speech that he intended to appoint this commission which we have now had, with terms of reference which in no way tallied with the abominable accusations which he made against the Church. Only perhaps in one case did he have the courage of his convictions to incorporate his accusation in the terms of reference, namely the insinuation that practically amounted to an accusation of dishonesty and fraud. Today he has still the audacity to repeat the accusations, while the only independent person on the commission namely the chairman, the judge, remarked, according to the report, that the commission could not go into the Minister’s accusations, because they were not referred to the commission. And then the Minister comes here today and says that his accusations were embodied in the terms of reference of the commission. The accusations were of such a serious nature that one would have expected to have a competent commission with full power to go into every aspect of the matter thoroughly. And imagine, this morning when the question was put to the Minister as to why he did not give that commission the right to subpoena witnesses, the Minister, who at least ought to know better, replied: “Did we not know that we do not enjoy that right in the Cape Province?” I ask you; did the Minister deliberately make that assertion which does not tally with the truth, or is he really so ignorant? I have here the report of the Commission of Enquiry of 1919 of which the hon. Minister himself was chairman, and in the terms of reference the following words appear—

These words appear here clearly. I ask again: Did the Minister deliberately proclaim those facts which he knows do not tally with the truth or is he really so ignorant? But that is not all.

The court threw it out.

Where, and when?

And that is not all, but we find the same thing in the Commission of 1934. That commission also had the right in its terms of reference to subpoena witnesses, and it was also a Lands Commission. How does the Minister come to tell us that they have no right in the Cape Province to do it? No, notwithstanding the fact that that right is there, we have had this commission, this lackey commission of the Minister, without the power to subpoena witnesses, for under pressure exerted by the Prime Minister the Minister of Lands had to accede to appointing a judge as chairman of that commission, and we know that the hon. Minister of Lands is not very keen on appearing before a judge. That is why he could not and would not grant the right to this commission of subpoenaing witnesses.

For then he himself would have had to appear before the commission.

This commission has already cost the country £4,000 and the Minister owes an explanation to this House why he did not grant the right, which his own commission of 1919 enjoyed, to this commission. We say it is simply because he is always on the run, because he is not man enough to substantiate this base accusation against the Dutch Reformed Church before a Judge. He has not the courage to do so, and we challenge him now, after coming here today and repeating ad nauseam those disgraceful accusations, to appoint a commission to enquire into the accusations which he has made, where he has directly accused the Church of fraud, where he has accused the Church of theft and dishonesty. We challenge him to appoint a judicial commission which will have the right to subpoena witnesses, and then he can also be subpoenaed to appear before that commission to try and substantiate these base accusations against the Church. Over and above this he as complainant, as the great enemy and demolisher of the Church in its greatest works which it has performed at Kakamas, has misused the power he possesses to appoint a commission for us, in connection with which we, in the first place pity the poor Judge who was chairman of that commission on account of the four nonentities who had to assist him on that commission. And in the second place he as Minister of Lands has rendered the finding of that commission valueless, for what right minded person cap attach any value to the impartiality of the four members who the Minister appointed to sit together with the Judge on that commission.

That is an unjust reflection.

Even the Minister’s own advocate, Advocate van Winsen, declared before the commission that if the findings of this commission were to be binding, then those people could not sit on the commission, for they were interested parties. His own advocate declared this, and the Minister comes here today and says that he is going to do certain things. He is even going against the findings of his own advocate. He told us that the findings of the commission were summarised on pages 69 and 70 of the commission’s report. But there are many findings, and what are the findings on the great question, the crux of the matter, namely the future of Kakamas? The Minister must explain to us why he does not accept the finding of the only impartial, independent person on that commission, namely the finding of the Judge, the chairman of the commission. Why does he not accept it? Why does he refuse to accept the finding of the commission where they were unanimous? Why does he not accept it? No, he has sought out that part of the commission’s report which his four lackeys compiled for him., Their findings are all he is going to accept. At the stage when it was clear what the whole idea behind this commission was, the Church could naturally very easily have withdrawn from the farce of such a sham court, but it did not do so, for the Church expected—a vain expectation—that the Minister would stand by his threat to come with his witnesses and prove what he said in this House against the Church. They wanted to settle the whole affair, and that is why the Church carried on; the Church hoped that the Minister of Lands would have the courage to bring his witnesses, which he promised to do in the House, so that the whole matter could be put right, and the Church remained before the commission, and submitted its case with the greatest of frankness, which put the holding back of the Minister’s department, as regards the furnishing of certain information to the advocate who represented the Church, in an exceptionally unfavourable light. It was once again proof to us that the hon. Minister was not desirous of being helpful and of further promoting the praiseworthy work of the Church, but that wholly and solely— it does not matter in what manner—he wanted to succeed in proving the deed of indictment against the Church. Now we want to put the question: Did the Minister succeed in proving those accusations against the Church? In the first instance we on this side of the House are taking no notice today of the groundless accusations, devoid of any substance, which the Minister has entertained us with for two and a half hours in the House to the shame of his own supporters. We will take no notice of them. We will only take notice of the things where people were placed under oath and where they were under cross-examination and appeared in the presence of a Judge. Did the Minister succeed in proving these wild accusations against the Dutch Reformed Church? No, in the first instance, he and his advisers only testified to their ignorance. The pivot round which hinged the whole charge against the Labour Colony and the Minister’s terms of reference to this commission of his, was the 1907 agreement. We can well imagine how small he and his advisers felt when they learned that that 1907 agreement had already been repealed by a wise decision of this House as long ago as 1928. The Minister did not know of that, and what is worse, he concealed it today in his reply, and what is still worse than that, his paid agent, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg), a person who often stands here and talks nonsense and who was a member of that commission, did not know that that agreement had been repealed. When we come to the only actual accusation which the Minister had the courage to embody in those terms of reference to the commission, then he suffers a still heavier blow. Let us take point No. 8 of his terms of reference to the commission. Just look at the insinuation which he makes here—

He discusses here the question of collections; it has already been dealt with by other members, and will be dealt with still further. What do we see in this? What does the commission tell us on the question of the correctness of the books, the base insinuation of the hon. Minister that the Church’s books reflected a false state of affairs. The commission says—

It does not say that they are correct.

They tally.

It still does not say that they are correct.

It goes further and says that there was, however, no suggestion made in the evidence or argument that the financial statements are or were incorrect.

That the Minister does not read.

Naturally the Minister completely conceals this type of thing. But so we could go on and we could take these points of reference throughout and indicate to the Minister from his own report how his own commission repudiated him and that he was absolutely incorrectly informed or deliberately said things against the Church against his own better judgment. But it is nevertheless striking when one examines the report of this commission of lackeys, as regards the four members who had to assist the chairman, to find that the commission refers no less than 15 times with the greatest commendation to the Church. I will only read three. On page 3 the commission says—

But he goes further. He tells us on page 7 in Paragraph 39—

And he goes a little further …

The Minister naturally read out of another book.

He says on page 55 in Paragraph 363—

And they are the thieves.

The Minister does not speak of those things. But let us go a little further. From the mouths of the Minister’s friends one comes to the conclusion that not the Church, but he is the guilty one and that a commission of enquiry into all his deeds and wild allegations could perhaps bring out a very useful report. We will take just a few. Let us see what his chief adviser says, the man who is always here when Kakamas is being discussed, and who comes and sits here in the gallery, as he has done since yesterday.

Who is it?

The defeated S.A.P. candidate in the last election, Mr. A. D. Collins. He is always here to furnish the Minister with advice. Let us see what this informant has to say about the Minister. He says this in his evidence: The following question was put to him. According to the charges of the Minister in Hansard, Volume 48, Column 4015, the charge is that those who participated in the farmers’ associations were victimised and prosecuted. Those were the Minister’s words. What does Collins say? He says: “That I do not believe”. The question was put to him directly—

His reply to this was “no”. He goes further. Now we will take the second accusation. It is contained in Hansard 48, Column 4034. I am not making wild assertions like the Minister. Collins was asked—

That appears in Hansard. And what did Collins reply to that? He said—

He could not corroborate that accusation of the Minister. The Minister did not have the courage to allow his accusations to be enquired into by a commission. His own chairman stated in the evidence, as I read just now, that it was not referred to him. We now come to the third one. According to Hansard the Minister said that in 1932 there were 330 cancellations and cessions at Kakamas, and that most of the cancellations took place because the lessees failed to pay their debts. What was Collins’ reply? He said—

The chairman himself put the question to him—

His reply was—

But the Minister who got this gossip from Collins, spoke of 30 cancellations during the year. In the same coloumn of Hansard we find this charge—

Collins was asked—

Collins’ reply was—

I think he at least ought to know more of Kakamas than the Minister does. Now we come to the fifth. The question was put to Collins—

His reply was—

That was Collins’ reply. He was asked—

Collins’ reply to this was “no”. Let us take just one more. The sixth is the charge that the Labour Colony Commission refused to allow settlers to establish farmers’ associations there to market their products. See coloumn 4014 of Hansard, vol. 48. Collins says—

Then Collins was not the great friend and informant; then he said that he had nothing to do with the Minister’s speech, and he is now sitting here in the gallery. And then we come to the seventh charge, and this appears in column 4029. Here is what an Englishman calls “the choice bit”. The Minister says—

What does Mr. Collins say? The question was put to him—

His reply to that was—

He was asked the further question—

His reply thereto was “yes”. But that is not all. Not only is the Ossewa-Brandwag together with the Minister in this fight, but let u take the evidence which the Minister called from his side, from the Department of Lands to come and give evidence against the Church, in the persons of certain Messrs. Vermeulen and Oberholzer. Do you know that they are really two officers of the Ossewa-Brandwag? The Minister has accused the Church of being inclined towards fascism and O.B., and he is the man who got hold of them to come and give evidence for him. No, I think the sooner the Minister gets rid of that false friend of his, Mr. A. D. Collins of Kakamas, the less he will fall into the mire as he has done today. My time is almost up. I just want to touch upon one matter. I wish I had the 2½ hours which the Minister had. I want to quote further from the evidence which was given before the commission. Here is one of the Minister’s own witnesses who says he spoke an untruth. What do we find here? Here I have the evidence of Mr. Benckendorff on page 2039. What did Mr. Benckendorff say? He said that according to Article 9 of Act No. 10 of 1909 every year a report should be laid before this House. By whom? Not by the Minister but a report which is made by somebody delegated by the Minister to enquire personally into matters at Kakamas. And what did Mr. Benckendorff say? He said that in 1940 this self same Minister of Lands did not want to accept that report, and he amended that report, a report which was not his property, a report which was the property of this House. But the Minister of Lands amended that report. If Minister Conroy could go and change a report in 1940 which was not to his liking, as confirmed by his own witness, then we say to him that we do not believe that this report does not also savour of the Conroy sap. In this report the Minister’s lackey, Col. Klopper juggled with figures, just as the Minister tried to juggle with figures. We say that a man who is able to juggle with figures was also able, before the provisional report of the commission came out, to discuss the report with the Minister without the knowledge of the judge, and then the Minister used that type of person as his lackeys on that commission to delete from that report that which was not acceptable to him. But notwithstanding all this I say that if you study this report you can come to no other conclusion, than that the Minister of Lands has come out of it with shame. And now we want to make an appeal to the Acting Prime Minister who perhaps has greater feeling for this type of thing than the Minister of Lands, to give him a dressing down for the sake of the cause which the Dutch Reformed Church stands for in South Africa. We would recommend to the Acting Prime Minister—I wish the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) would give me a chance of speaking to the Minister — I say if the Acting Prime Minister were to study this report himself, and examine the evidence, particularly that which deals with the direct, disgraceful accusations of the Minister of Lands, then we are confident that he who has a little sense for this type of thing, a man who feels that the Church must have a spotless record to retain its prestige, for the cause which it serves in South Africa, shall ask the Minister of Lands to cease at this stage with these base accusations which he is making against the Church and for which he has not the slightest grounds. If not, we would ask him for once and always to settle this matter. Appoint a really unbiased judicial commission to enquire into these base accusations which the Minister has repeated here today, and give the commission the right of subpoenaing witnesses so that the Minister of Lands can also appear before that tribunal.

Kakamas falls in my constituency. I am very interested in Kakamas.

That we can understand.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) should rather go and look after his Hottentots at Paarl. He does not even belong to our Church.

On a point of order, the hon. member says that I do not even belong to our Church. It is incorrect and untrue.

Then I take it to be so. I am very glad to hear it. The Minister of Lands said that it was all a farce when I asked for the appointment of this commission. I regarded it as my duty to ask for the appointment of a judicial commission to investigate the whole matter. I deemed it my duty, after the misleading accusations which the Minister made against the Church, to ask for the appointment of such a commission. Since 1919 the Minister has always tried to make political capital out of the position at Kakamas until almost an unpleasant state of affairs developed at Kakamas as a result of his misleading accusations against the Church. When I asked for the appointment of a judicial commission I made a speech which was only very short, and the Minister succeeded me. I even proposed that the Minister should be granted an extension of time, and he spoke for two hours, and at the end of his speech he made known the terms of reference which we could not discuss at the time. The time was already up and we were unable to discuss the matter. He Wanted the House to believe that we agreed with those terms of reference. I still thought that a judicial commission would be appointed, and I repeat that if you had then had a Minister who had the interests of Kakamas and of the Church at heart he would have appointed such a commission. But then he would not only have compiled those terms of reference, but he would also have embodied the accusations, which the Minister has repeated afresh this afternoon, in the terms of reference. The Minister did not have the courage to appear before the commission and prove his accusations. We asked him time and time again to stand up and tell us where this or that appeared in the evidence or in the report, and he was unable to do so. He said he did not wish to be cross-examined by this side. The hon. Minister is terribly frightened of a judge. We know that since 1912 he has been very nervous of judges.

What happened then?

He is very afraid of a judge for his word has already been doubted before a judge.

That is absolutely untrue.

I repeat that the Minister is afraid of a judge.

Refer him to the court case.

I will quote it for him.

On a point of order, this is not the first time that that allegation has been made, namely that I am afraid of a judge. I challenge the hon. member to say that outside, and then I will teach him a lesson.

The case is reported in the 1912 C.P.D. on page 1. Anyone can read it there.

I challenge you to read it out and to prove that the judge said that.

Then I come to Rhenosterkop. I was there when Rhenosterkop was in its initial stage. It was commenced in the year when there was an enormous depression and when there were thousands of unemployed on the Government’s hands. At that time the Government together with the Church decided that a number of the unemployed could be absorbed there in order to afford them a refuge. The Government was very glad of being able to shift the responsibility of those people on to the Church. It was a wide expanse of veld with no houses. When the Government built Boegoeberg, there were also no houses there at the beginning for the people, and they had to live under the same circumstances as the people at Rhenosterkop. Then the A.K.K. came along and said: Look, we cannot give houses to the people. Let us get tents. And what was the position? Those poor people over whom the Minister is now so anxious had to pay 2s. 6d. per week or 10s. per month for those tents. And so Rhenosterkop originated, and all honour is due to the Church that it has developed Rhenosterkop to such an extent that today those people can make a decent living there. Some of them are making £250 to £300 per year. Does the Minister of Lands deny that? The Minister comes here and says that those people are underpaid. Why did he not also tell us what the circumstances were which existed in the country at the time when those people were accepted there, and when the Government itself paid those amounts to workers? The Minister could have given evidence before the commission, but he did not do so. But I want to come back to the accusation which the Minister made in column 4026 of Hansard of 1944—

In reply to this I would like to read paragraph 239 of the report of the Commission of Enquiry—

But they may not do it.

Not one portion of those profits has been devoted outside Kakamas. They have been devoted to the welfare of the people there.

But is it a Minister who could have said such things?

We can take the Hansard report of 1943. The Minister made a terrific song about the £200 compensation. I will refer the Minister to column 5863 of the Hansard report. It says—

Then he goes on—

He said further that they could only receive compensation up to an amount of £200 if they went away. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to talk about Kakamas because I know nothing about it, but I wish to correct the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). The hon. the Minister made a statement that he is unable to subpoena people to give evidence at a commission. He has the right, according to what is contained in the terms of reference of this commission to—

But he cannot force anyone to give evidence That the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who are lawyers, ought to know. They ought to know that the late Minister Beyers appointed a Diamond Commission and that they subpoenaed Sir Ernest Oppenheimer to give evidence under the same law which exists today. Mr. Graham MacKeurtan appeared before that commission and argued that in the Cape Province no one could be subpoenaed and forced to give evidence, and the court upheld that, and that is the law today, and the Minister was absolutely right. I want the hon. member for Fauresmith to listen to this because he based the whole of his argument on this statement made by the Minister, which he says was false. But he was wrong and the Minister is right. He was so right that the Cape Provincial Council today has drawn up a Bill which, if it becomes law, will give them the right to subpoena and force people to come.

That is the sort of advocate they have.

If all the statements of the hon. member for Kuruman are as true as the ones with which I have just dealt the whole of his speech is not worth anything.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will accept that the Minister of Lands would have made use of that provision in order not to appear before the commission. It was unnecessary for the Minister to make use of it; or should he have done so? If he had given his commission the right to subpoena witnesses, then I take it he would not have made use of this provision to refuse to go and give evidence. He could easily have arranged to go there to give evidence. But from the beginning he did not entertain the thought of appearing before the commission. I want to point out that the Select Committee on Crown Lands as far back as 1921 discussed the question of Kakamas and it was then decided as to how the future of Kakamas should be dealt with. It was said that the opinions and co-operation of the Church should be won before any final decision could be come to in connection with the future of Kakamas. One would have thought that, as a decision had to be made as regards the future of Kakamas, the Minister would have acted in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1921. That was the natural as well as the sensible course he should have followed in connection with Kakamas. What course has the Minister of Lands followed? First of all he burst forth here with flagrant accusations against the Church, true or untrue. He said things which made feeling run high; he slandered the Church, and he submitted a most unfavourable case against the Church. And then, after having done this, he was challenged to prove his calumny. He was asked to prove his accusations. And what are those accusations? He first of all slandered the body with whom he had to negotiate as to the future of Kakamas. We remember the things the Minister said in connection with the Church. It is unnecessary for me to repeat those things. He has repeated today that the Church wronged those people in all possible ways and did not promote their interests; he said here that Kakamas had long ago served its purpose and had reached a dead end. How the Church instead of performing upliftment work and improving the lot of those people, had swung round to become a capitalistic monopoly as had never been seen in the country before. That is his accusation against the Church. And then on the other hand he speaks of the poor people for whom rescue work must be done. He said the people are living in poverty and misery. This is the manner in which the Minister is dealing with the question of the future of Kakamas. He made this accusation, and it was only when he made those accusations that members on this side said that a judicial commission should be appointed to investigate that accusation. But instead of agreeing to such a judieial commission, the Minister appointed his own commission. He did not accept the challenge of appointing a judicial commission. He appointed his own commission. He appointed people who at the outset had taken the Minister’s part. Is this then an unbiased, objective and honest approach to the future of Kakamas? The Minister must not blame us when he acts in such a manner, for saying that he is hot manifesting a good will and motive towards the Church and Kakamas, and that he does not wish to solve the matter in the spirit and disposition which he signified here this morning. He said that he had approached the Church to co-operate with him and to forget the past, so that the future of Kakamas could be settled amicably. But he cannot expect that invitation which he has extended simply to be accepted, before he withdraws the accusations which he has made. Instead of approaching the Church in a spirit of kindliness and co-operation and making manifest that disposition towards the Church, the Minister comes here with a repetition of his accusations and says that he stands by what he said 100 per cent. Does the Minister think he can solve the matter in that spirit? As a younger man I want to tell the Minister that he cannot expect to solve the problem in that spirit. The Church is an institution in our country for whom a million people have the greatest esteem and love. The Minister must not think that he can simply treat the Dutch Reformed Church in that manner. He is slandering and injuring an institution in our country which exercises a great influence, and he cannot act in such a way towards the Church. He knows well that the Church at Kakamas had good intentions and that even his own commission had nothing but praise for that work, and if he wishes to manifest goodwill towards the Church and towards the colonists of Kakamas, he cannot act the way he has done here in connection with the matter. Let him act in a true spirit of co-operation, but not as before and as he has acted here again today. Then he cannot expect to gain the necessary co-operation. But what do we find even from this one-sided commission of the Minister? What were their findings as regards the Minister’s charges? Let me quote from the question of the allocation of the shop profits where the Minister made such a dreadful accusation against the Church. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) has already pointed out that that matter was brought to the notice of Parliament by the Fourie Commission and that the shop profits were dealt with with the approval of Parliament. That agreement was made almost 40 years ago and it no longer keeps pace with the circumstances of today. On the recommendation of the Fourie Commission it was amended with the approval of Parliament. But over and above this we know that the books and reports of. Kakamas were scrutinised each year by the Department. Nothing was done in an underhand way, and this accusation of the Minister falls away. We come to another point which he made. The Minister said here that money was being extorted from these people and that the money was not being used to their advantage, but in the interests of the Church. What does his own commission report? The commission says that the colonists undoubtedly obtained the benefit of the shop profits and that the colonists were exceptionally favourably treated in comparison with those outside. We find further—

Instead of the Church increasing the erf rent, as it was entitled to do, to cover the administration costs, it made use of a portion of the shop profits. It could simply have increased the erf rent and it had the right to do so. By keeping the erf rent low, the shop profits were used in the interests of the colonists. Then the Minister also made the accusations in connection with departures from the constitution. What does the commission say about that? The commission says that there has been a clear departure from the constitution in sectain respects—

This is surely a conclusive answer to that. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to speak about Kakamas. All I wish to say is that many of us on this side are thankful that we have a Minister like the Minister of Lands, who is out to do as much as he can in the interests and protection of the settlers at Kakamas. I think he has made out a case which members of the Opposition will be hard put to disprove. Many of us on this side of the House are satisfied that the case the Minister has made out is one which they cannot answer.

Do you also say that the’ judge was wrong?

All I am satisfied about is that the Minister is doing his duty with regard to the settlers at Kakamas.

How do you know that? You should not poke your nose into this affair.

Have you read the report of the commission?

I have heard what was said here today.

I ask you whether you have read the report?

I have heard the Minister’s statement and I accept it as a responsible true statement of facts, not irresponsible as the Opposition statements are.

You are just a whitewashing committee. You should not speak about things you do not know about.

I am now going to deal with something which has to do with the Lands Department. I wish to ask the Minister to make a statement in regard to land settlement for returned soldiers. I think that is most important, as our men are returning from the war. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) raised the matter of settlement for soldiers on the sugar estates and also at Pongola. He put a number of questions to the Minister to which I hope the Minister will reply. He told him that as far as we know nothing has been done to prepare the sugar settlements for the returned soldiers. The Minister has on many previous occasions informed us that the Government has a large expanse of land open for settlement in this country but that he is waiting only until our soldiers return before he allots it. I would like him to make a statement telling us what land he has for allotment and what settlements he has prepared for the ex-volunteers, because we have no information about it and the soldiers are coming back soon and we have to answer those questions and also give them advice. We would also like to know whether the Lands Department is going to be the department which will deal with these land settlements, or whether the demobilisation organisation is going to take a hand in it, and will have any control, or whether that organisation is only going to pass on the soldiers to the Lands Department for land settlement in those areas and then sit back. Now, I would like to know from the Minister what proposals and plans have been made for placing these men on the land. Are these settlements ready? Are there houses on them? Will there be schools? Are there implements? Has he got any trained instructors, or are the instructors and directors of these settlements still to be trained? As far as I know certain ex-volunteers are going to be trained as instructors, but I take it that this has not been done up to the present as they are only being advertised for. When these men come back, when they are to be demobilisted, will they be demobilised first before being placed on the land settlements, or will they go there before being demobilised? Will the men have any choice as to where they are going to, and as to what type of farming they would like to take up, or will the demobilisation organisation percel them out as they think best for them? I would also like to know from the Minister whether his Land Settlement Act which he passed last Session is going to be applied to the ex-volunteers, no matter under what scheme they are settled, whether our exvolunteers, when they are put on the land settlements, and on the land under Section XI, will have any hope in future of getting a clean title to that land, or whether they will be subject to the same laws which apply to the ordinary settler in the country. I think before they are induced to go on to the land for settlement purposes, or to purchase land, the soldier should know these things, because it is too late after you have placed them on the land then to inform them what the disabilities are with regard to land settlement. I think Section XI farms will never be taken up under restrictions. Many representations have been made to us about these land settlements and what the future of the soldiers will be when once they have been placed on the land. I hope that our soldiers are going to be treated on a footing a little different and more generous to that applied to the ordinary settler when the Government assists them with land. These men have made great sacrifices and I think it is only right to treat them properly and generously for the sacrifices they have made and the services they have rendered to the State.

Demobilisation has given that information on six different occasions already.

I do not think they have dealt with our land settlements. This is a Lands Department matter.

Yes, they have.

I am asking the Minister to give us that information and to explain it to us, because I am quite satisfied that our demobilisation committees do not know, and they should be able to warn men who wish to go into the land settlements as to what their position will be in future. If they are going to be treated just as ordinary land settlers I am afraid there will be a great deal of heartburning in future. [Interjection.] Perhaps the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) will later get up and give me the information I am asking for, but I am really asking the Minister and prefer to hear it from him. I am asking the Minister whether Demobilisation will take charge of land settlements and be responsible for the men on the settlements, or whether it is the Lands Department who will? Those are matters on which we have no information. I am told that the information can be obtained from the Soldiers’ Group, but unfortunately I was not present when this matter was discussed, if it ever was discussed. I would like the Minister to issue a White Paper on this subject so that we can all know what the exact future position of our ex-volunteers will be when they go on the land settlements. I can quite understand that on irrigation schemes where you have a number of men settled on a bloc of land in small adjacent farms, you have to apply some of the existing laws there, but I would like to refer to Section XI where the man has got to pay not less than one-tenth of the purchase price and after a number of years, when he has paid the full amount of the loan he got to purchase the farm which he is responsible for when having bought the land, whether that man will be able to get full title to that land, and be able to sell it or use it in any way he wishes. The Government has spent no money on the land, only made a loan. I am more interested about these men even than about the men on the settlement schemes as the Government can lose no money on these farms. I hope therefore that the Minister will make a statement and give us full information on these matters, so that we may be able to tell our friends when they come back from the North what the position will be when they take up land under the various land settlement schemes, and what it entails.

The hon. member who has just been seated, said that he knows nothing about Kakamas, but that he believes everything the Minister has said.

Yes.

And he does so while he has never listened to the other side of the case. I leave it there. Here is a man who is a member of Parliament, and he stands up here and says as a member of Parliament that he simply believes everything which the Minister says, although he knows nothing about the matter, and has not even listened to the other side of the case. I want to say to that member and to other members on the other side that we who are members of the Dutch Reformed Church are grievously distressed at what we have witnessed here. I want to say to both English-speaking and Dutchspeaking members on the other side: Look, it is painfully distressing for us who are members of that Church to sit and listen to how the Minister of Lands as a Minister of this Government has been bemiring and besmirching the Church. How members of the Church, such as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and others can applaud it, is a riddle to me and a distressing matter. But in any case it will be infinitely more distressing if members who belong to other Churches interfere in this matter, and I want to appeal to them, if they can say nothing good of the Church, to remain silent.

A member of Parhament has the right to discuss any matter.

I know the hon. member would do any unwholesome thing, but I am making this request in all friendliness to the other hon. members.

We can talk about the Church if we wish to.

If the hon. member has not the decency to comply with this request, it is his affair. In his misrepresentations the Minister said time and again that he appointed the commission at the request of the hon. member for Gordonia and other members. That is untrue. This side of the House demanded a judicial commission and not a commission such as he appointed, and he refused to grant our request, and appointed a commission which suited his purpose, and our accusation is that the Minister did not appoint a judicial commission because he was afraid of a judicial commission, for a person can be brought to account in a different way before a judicial commission than before an ordinary commission. If you appear before a court and a judge then the finding of the court and the judge carries weight. I have for example here before me the case of Van der Riet v. Steytler’s Executors. The accusation was that the executors in the matter falsely prevailed upon the heirs to renounce their hereditary rights under the will. The charge was that they persuaded the heirs to renounce their rights under the will. The finding of the court in 1912—it was the Cape Division, was—

The Minister of Lands was one of the executors. The executors were accused of having made false declarations to interested parties under the will, as a result of which the interested parties were persuaded to renounce their rights. It was not only the finding of the court, but the judge said further—

The judge said further—

They were persuaded by no-one less than Mr. Conroy, the present Minister. He is the person who appeared before the judge, and against whom the judge made this statement. The judge said further with reference to the declarations of the present Minister—

And the nett result was the finding of the court—

That is the Minister of Lands—

He and his co-executor made the poor old ladies believe that it was not the intention of the testator to leave these things to them. Now you can understand why the Minister was so afraid of appointing a judicial commission, for he did not have the courage to appear before a judge. Another fig leaf behind which the Minister of Lands is hiding, is that when he was charged for not granting this commission the power to subpoena witnesses, he did not give them that right because he was afraid that they would subpoena him to appear, and that if he had had to appear he would not have been able to make such ex parte accusations and distasteful statements as he has done here, because he would then have been put under cross-examination, something which the Minister is mortally afraid of. The Minister was then accused of not having given the power to subpoena witnesses to the commission for that very reason, but the Minister denied this and said that he did not possess the power to grant the power of subpoeaning witnesses to the commission. The Commission of 1919 has already been mentioned, of which the Minister himself was chairman. That commission, which sat in the Cape Province, had the power to subpoena witnesses in the Cape Province. Further, I have here before me the commission in connection with the relief of settlers which was appointed in 1934. You know why that commission was appointed. That commission also sat in the Cape Province and had jurisdiction here, and what do we find? The Department of Lands granted the power—it was another Minister of Lands at that time, but it was the Minister of Lands—to that commission, the powers, jurisdiction and privileges under the Commissions’ Powers Ordinance, No. 30 of 1902, of Transvaal, that is to say the commission was granted the powers, jurisdiction and privileges which Transvaal commissions enjoyed under that ordinance. The Minister could have applied it again in this instance. That Commission of 1934 sat in the Cape Province and received the powers which existed under the ordinance of the Transvaal of 1902, which empowered a commission to subpoena witnesses.

That does not appear here.

Naturally it does not appear in the terms of reference to the Kakamas Commission. That is precisely our charge against the Minister, namely that he had the power to grant the commission that power, but that he deliberately failed to do so. He deliberately failed to do so, because he was afraid to appear before the commission. The Minister is afraid of being cross-examined before a judge.

That is cheap talk.

Now I want to put a question to the Minister. When he was speaking just now, he charged the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) for deliberately or not deliberately putting this question to the witness Collins—

The Minister said that the hon. member for Fauresmith must have known quite well that he (the Minister) was not talking of Kakamas, but of Rhenosterkop. Is that correct?

Yes.

Here we have an example of how the Minister plays with the truth. I would like horn members on the other side to listen, then they will realise how this Minister juggles with the truth. [Time limit.]

May I just say this. The hon. member has referred time and again to this case, as other hon. members have done, and he accuses me and my co-executor of having given false evidence before the judge and that the judge said that it was false. I say that it is absolutely untrue.

What?

What they have read, is the argument which was advanced by the advocates of the opposition party.

What I read was the finding of the judge himself. The finding of the court appears here.

The first time they brought this up I said that it was never said by the judge that it was false, but by the advocate. And the then Speaker, Mr. Joel Krige, said to Advocate Beyers: “Bring it to me, so that I can see it myself.” He then said: “What you are reading is the argument; the judge did not say that.” The judge perhaps said that the evidence was incorrect, but that he accused me and my co-executor of having given false evidence is untrue, and if the hon. member would say that outside the House, I would teach him a lesson he would never forget. In connection with the Government’s terms of reference to the Tom Naudé Commission of 1934, empowering the commission to hear evidence, my information is that that commission went right through the Union and included the Cape Province. As regards the Commission of 1919 of which I was chairman, I do not remember ever subpoenaing a single witness. According to my information the Act has been amended.

When?

We have not the right.…

Name the Act?

When the terms of reference were given to the commission, we went into the matter thoroughly as to whether we had the right to extend this power to the commission, and the decision was that the right did not exist in the Cape Province, but only in the Transvaal. The Tom Naudé Commission went right through the Union and that is why it was granted the right.

I would like the House to listen carefully and there must be no misunderstanding. The Tom Naudé Commission received the powers of the Transvaal Ordinance, for the precise reason that it had to sit in the Cape Province. In the Transvaal it was unnecessary to grant these powers, and we maintain that the Minister of Lands could have extended the same powers to this commission. And now I want to make a further appeal to the fairness of hon. members on the other side. The Minister accused me of reading out, not what the judge said at the time, but what the advocate in the relative case was supposed to have said. I did not read a single word which was uttered by advocates, but here is the finding of the court on page 3—

That is to be found on page 3 of the Cape Division, 1912. And the Minister of Lands was one of the executors.

To a point of order, may I enquire what this has to do with the Lands Vote? It is utterly irrelevant all the time.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is trying to show why the hon. Minister of Lands did not appoint a judicial commission.

Has the hon. member a right under this particular vote to quote what took place in a court? [Interruptions.] I am not asking for hon. members’ opinion. They know nothing about procedure. I am asking your opinion, Sir, if the hon. member is right under this vote to quote what took place in court 33 years ago. Has the hon. member the right to quote it, and if so, for what reason does he quote it?

That is not a point of order. I have given my ruling on the point raised.

May we have the Speaker’s ruling? It is very important from my point of view, because if one side of the House is going to be irrelevant on the matter the other side is also going to be irrelevant.

I do not think the Speaker’s ruling is called for.

You are laying down a ruling that may go far. I think for your own benefit and the benefit of the hon. Committee we should call in the Speaker.

Order, order. I have already given my ruling.

[Inaudible].

Order, order.

I move we call in the Speaker.

Order, order. If I had any doubt on the point I would have acceded to the request, but I have already given my ruling.

I have very grave doubt.

The Minister said that I was quoting from the advocate’s argument. There is not one word of truth in that. The judge also made the following declaration, and not the advocate—

All from the mouth of the judge. And further—

The Minister has accused the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) of having falsely put the question before the commission as to whether the Minister had said that the people at Kakamas were suffering starvation, while according to the Minister he (the hon. member for Fauresmith), knew quite well that the Minister had said “Rhenosterkop”. Now I would like once again to ask the hon. member to pay attention, so that they can see what value can be attached to declarations which the Minister makes in the House. According to Hansard of last year, column 4034, the Minister of Lands said—

Now I ask any hon. member of this House what value one can attach to these statements of the Minister, now or in the future. The Minister himself is accused here of having made false statements by a judge, and I have proved that he has falsely accused another hon. member. We cannot deal with all the false and incorrect statements of the Minister, but I give the assurance to hon. members on the other side who say that they know nothing about the matter, that if they compare what the Minister has said with the findings of the commission, they will discover that practically every allegation which he has made was just as false as this one. They can put it to the test themselves by examining the report. They must ask the Minister why he continues with these things, the things which, as the commission says, for the most part did not come before the commission because the chairman of the commission maintained that they fell outside the commission’s terms of reference. The Minister declared that the terms of reference were so wide that the commission could practically investigate any matter. That is not true. The judge who was the chairman of the commission ruled time after time that the accusations which the Minister had made could not be dealt with and investigated by the advocate acting on behalf of the Church, that the commission could not go into them because they fell outside the Commission’s terms of reference. Just one more point. The Minister has come along once again and cast aspersions at the Church. He did not only accuse us, but ministers of religion as well, and he said that we were Nazis, that we were National Socialists, and at one time were all members of the O.B. What are the facts? The facts are that the break between Advocate Pirow and ourselves and between the Ossewa-Brandwag and ourselves came about precisely when Mr. Pirow and the Ossewa-Brandwag adopted National Socialism. Those are the facts. He can investigate them. At our congress at Bloemfontein as far back as June, 1941, we adopted this standpoint without beating about the bush, and the federal board of our party as early as April of that year issued a statement which was published far and wide that the Nationalist Party could not adopt National Socialism because we wanted to maintain the democratic foundation in accordance with the historic traditions of our people.

They were National-Socialists from the beginning.

The hon. member must wait a moment. When Mr. Pirow came along with his National Socialism, this side reacted immediately.

What has this to do with the vote?

I am going into the accusations of the Minister. Immediately after Mr. Pirow came along with his National Socialism, we reacted.

What has this to do with the vote?

I am going into the Minister’s accusations. Immediately after Mr. Pirow came along with National Socialism, we repudiated him, and when Dr. Van Rensburg introduced National Socialism into the Ossewa-Brandwag, the break came about between us and the Ossewa-Brandwag in 1941. We reacted immediately and throughout we have kept to the traditional democratic past of our people. All our statements throughout have been true to that past. I challenge any hon. member on the other side to furnish a statement of this party which links us up with National Socialism in which we declare ourselves against the democratic system. But that is not all. This Minister is now trying to lay at our door the National Socialism of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and he says this, notwithstanding the fact that we have broken with the Ossewa-Brandwag when it took part in politics and became National Socialistically inclined. The Minister wants to make out that we are still today the allies of the Ossewa-Brandwag. It is just the other way round. During the 1943 election it was this Minister who supported the Ossewa-Brandwag. Mr. Nel was the S.A.P. candidate at Beaufort West, and on his instructions Oosthuizen, the secretary of the Minister’s party, sent a telegram to that candidate of the United Party at Beaufort West, in which he requested him to stand back in favour of the O.B. candidate. [Time limit.]

In regard to what has been said by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) I just want to tell him that I am just as much a member of the Dutch Reformed Church as he is and I want to say that my father and my forefathers have just as much helped to build our Church as I hope his forefathers did. As a person loving his Church and to whom the Church is dear, I am the last one to be dictated to by the hon. member for Waterberg as regards my duties towards the Church. I know myself what my duties are. We who belong to the Dutch Reformed Church know what our duty towards the Church is, and the hon. member for Waterberg need not come here to teach us what our duties are. Yesterday afternoon I listened for 4½ hours to a display of vicious, tyrannical bitterness such as I have probably never before witnessed in a debate in this House. I have never before listened to an attack more scathing, more slighting and provocative than yesterday afternoon’s exhibition of 4½ hours, when a serious attempt was made to provoke the Minister to such an extent that he would lose his temper and would intervene and would do something which the Opposition might have used for their political ends. The attack was so devoid of all courtesy and decency that I honestly think it was unbecoming to the dignity of this House. I had the feeling that we had another example here of the hand of Esau and the voice of Jacob. It was obvious to me that we were dealing once more with the voice of the Broeder bond. [Laughter.] Yes, the voice to which we have so often listened in this House when the late Gen. Hertzog still was our Prime Minister and when the same tirades were made against him because he dared to say something against the O.B. Church Ministers. Afterwards he also attacked the Broederbond. Yesterday I listened to a similar debate and at this display the same tone was heard as I heard in the days of the late Gen. Hertzog, when he was attacked in the same manner as the present Minister of Lands is being attacked now. He also was accused of more or less the same things which the Minister of Lands is being accused of today. The late Gen. Hertzog also attacked the O.B. Church Ministers and then it was also said that he attacked the Church when he attacked the ministers belonging to the Ossewa-Brandwag. They seem to believe to be above all criticism. The Church may be above criticism, but I must say in all modesty and with the highest regard for the Church that the Church ministers are not above criticism. I say this with all due deference to the Church which I and my forefathers helped to build up. At the time the Broederbond started a campaign against Gen. Hertzog and we know with what results. As far as love for my Church is concerned I need not stand back for anyone, but I do say that the Church is not a Papal Holiness. Nobody should hide behind the Church in regard to some wrong deed done by any individual or any minister of religion. The Church, in spite of all the esteem I have for it, is not above criticism. I am grateful to know that we have worthy, God-fearing ministers in our Dutch Reformed Church, people for whom I have the highest regard, people for whom I have the greatest veneration and who compel our respect, people to whom we look with the greatest esteem, people to whom I take off my hat as ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church, but I am sorry to say that unfortunately I cannot say that of all of them. Whilst I am gratefull that we have such men in our Church who occupy the ministry with so much dignity, I am sorry that I cannot say so of all the ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church. The Broederbond selected the late Gen. Hertzog as a victim and we know with what results. We know where he got landed through them, because he took up the same attitude which is now being taken up against the present Minister of Lands. Now the present Minister of Lands has been selected as a victim most probably by the same people who at the time acted in that way against the late Gen. Hertzog. Five or six years ago the present Minister of Lands warned the Church seriously against National Socialism. On that account the Minister of Lands was accused of having attacked the Church, of daring to attack the Church, and we know what accusations were levelled against them because he had supposedly attacked the Dutch Reformed Church. Five or six years later however, the same Church issues a warning against National Socialism and a few weeks ago the Church Council here in Cape Town condemned National Socialism, the exact thing against which the Minister of Lands warned the Church five or six years ago.

Did they not warn against Communism also?

I condemn that just as much. We are not prepared to accept any of these isms. They fit in better with the hon. members on the other side, and I leave it to them. Last year the Opposition asked for a Commission of Enquiry. They made a terrible fuss about the appointment of a Commission of Enquiry. The Minister agreed to appoint a Commission of Enquiry. That was a serious blow to them for they did not expect that he would agree to that. Then they said that it should be a judicial commission. Well, the chairman of the commission was a judge, a judge who is very highly esteemed in the country. We think that they should at least have expected that, although it was not entirely a judicial commission, seeing that a judge was the chairman of the commission, he would if he had differed in opinion from the rest of the commission have brought out a minority report. Was a minority report brought out by the chairman or by one of the members of the committee? Even if a judicial commission had been appointed and if it had brought out the same report as this commission did, it would have been condemned just as much as the Report of this commission has been condemned. Nothing will satisfy the members on the other side; no report of any commission whatever might have been its composition or the contents of its report, would have satisfied them unless they had been put in the right. Let us go back to another matter in this connection. When an impartial court found a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church guilty on a very serious charge everything was done to find some excuse, but it did not help. What did the Leader of the Opposition thereafter say in the City Hall of Cape Town in regard to the judgment of that court? What can we expect from members on the other side and what satisfaction can we give leaders of the Opposition when we are faced with such things?

What did your Leader, Gen. Smuts, say about that person; did he not take up the same attitude as the Leader of the Opposition?

What is their attitude towards the present commission? It is precisely the same as their attitude will be towards any commission—it will not be able to satisfy them unless it puts them in the right. They have lost and now they feel embittered and that is the reason why we get here these venomous and underhand attacks against the Minister of Lands to which we had to listen in this House yesterday and today. They condemn every commission appointed by the Government as soon as the Report is issued but still they say that this Government is a Government of commissions; in spite of that they ask the Government to appoint commissions and when the Government at their request does appoint a commission then they say that they do not want to abide by the findings of the commission and they question the Report of the commission. What is more, they then try to hide behind the Church. Every possible attempt has been made to try and provoke the Minister of Lands to make an attack on the Church, to make him say something against the Church, to make him start a campaign against the Church and to make him act in an embittered and underhand manner against the Church so that they may have a chance to drag the Church into the political arena and, if possible, make political capital out of the Church. Here we were sitting perfectly quiet and we listened to the members who launched all those attacks against the Minister of Lands. They attacked him in force and dug up things from the past which have long ago become obsolete. The Church was dragged in and the Minister was provoked in every possible way in order to try to make him put his foot into it so that they might be able to say that he attacked the Church. We have had enough of this kind of speeches; we have too often heard the same arguments from the Opposition side and they no longer carry any weight with us. We no longer take any notice of it. For the people who use these arguments they may sound very convincing but we on this side of the House have already become so accustomed to them that they no longer make any impression as far as we are concerned. [Time limit.]

I intervene in this debate because of the interpretation which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has now given to the principle of democracy, It is rather astonishing to hear from him that for so many years he was such a political infant that he ‘did not realise that Dr. Van Rensburg was a Nazi.

You did not understand what I said.

You told us how you found out he was a believer in National Socialism and how you repudiated Pirow when you discovered the same thing about him. I say that if that story is correct the hon. member for Waterberg and other hon. members there are political infants, because I know that he was warned about their being National Socialists, and about Dr. Van Rensburg being one when he was Administrator of the Free State and when he became leader of the Ossewa-Brandwag the hon. member for Waterberg looked forward to the O.B. as an underground Nazi movement which one day would bring his party into power. They were quite preoared to catch hold of Pirow in order that Pirow might also assist but the trouble was that so many of them wanted to be Prime Minister when they were eventually wafted into power that thieves fell out; and that is the story we get today. There is no doubt that the Minister of Lands is quite correct in the charges he has made against the Opposition, and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) in paying my mead of admiration to a Minister who comes out and talks to the Opposition in the only way they understand and makes it clear to the country what the Opposition are. How can this party pretend for one moment that they stand for the Christian religion in this country? How can this party whose leader the other night at Stellenbosch said that if the British Government adopted the same policy at the end of the Anglo-Boer War as they adopt now Paul Kruger, General Smuts and Botha would have been shot, pretend to stand for the Afrikaner, when they are busy prostituting the memory of probably one of the greatest leaders they ever had for piffling political advantage? That is the kind of party they have.

You have been reading and have been misled by the “Cape Times”.

Well, I cannot read toe “Kruithoring” and I do not want to read it. I have read the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in the “New Era” and that is quite enough for me. If they write anything like that in the “Kruithoring” there is only one place where the “Kruithoring” should be taken. To revert, this argument has centred around the rights and wrongs of the Kakamas Commission. Hon. members are obviously not interested in discussing the actual findings of the commission, because that was a responsible commission appointed to find out toe facts, and the facts have been investigated. So far as I can gather they have not been denied but hon. members are still trying to use this position for political propaganda, namely that the Minister of Lands attacked the Dutch Reformed Church. That is their story and they use it for political propaganda. Now, if there is anyone bringing the Church into politics it is the Nationalistis, and there is no doubt about it that they are using their own church for it and are prepared to prostitute their own church, the church about which they wax so eloquent on occasion, just as the hon. Leader of the Opposition the other night prostituted the name of the greatest Afrikaner they have ever had. It is all right in this House. We understand the principle of the Nationalist Party and their members, but this kind of stuff is repeated in the country districts and it is time, I think that the Government should take a stronger line in dealing with the kind of arguments and propaganda they put, forward in this House. The hon. member for Waterberg is now a new-found convert to democracy. He tells us pathetically that he has been a democratic all the time and in the sacred name of democracy he will defend his Church. I do not remember him as a democrat when Holland was overrun, or when Denmark was under heel or Belgium overrun, but I do notice that when Holland was freed’ not by the efforts of those gentlemen but by the efforts of the United Nations, they got their Church to call a day of prayer for the liberation of Holland. The hon. member protests against National Socialism. This is the first time I have heard him in this House—I have never heard anyone in this House in the Nationalist Party say that they detest National Socialism—but the hon. Leader of the Opposition now says that we must not be beastly towards the Germans and the policy of the Nationalist Party members and of the party now is not that National Socialism is wrong, not that they committed the terrible horrors about which we have read and can see before our eyes, but the new policy is that the Allied Nations are in the wrong. The Leader of the Opposition was talking about chivalry. A fat lot the Nationalist Party knows about that. They said that in the olden days after a war, the victor having accepted surrender, calmly handed back the sword. He forgets of course that what we did in 1918 was just that thing, but what did we get in the next twenty years? The war from which we have suffered for the 5½ years. Now, this debate has extended far beyond the bounds it should have. It has shown us the essence of the new policy which is going to be pursued by the Nationalist Party in peace time, pretending to be democrats and throwing back on us in peace time the very things we were prepared to throw back on them during the period of the war. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) entered the lists against me today because, he asserts, I neglected to give the commission power to summon witnesses. I give him the assurance that we consulted the legal advisers and their advice was that that power no longer applied to the Cape Province but only to the Transvaal and that consequently we could not do it.

When was that right revoked?

The member said that I took that line intentionally because I wanted to save my skin and not appear before the commission. There has now been laid before me the terms of reference of a commission that was appointed in 1935. The proclamation was signed by Lord Clarendon, and by Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr as the Minister. It was the Douglas Buchanan Commission in connection with coloured people and Malays. In these terms of reference it was clear that authority was given to the commissioner to summon witnesses in the Transvaal Province. They could not do so in the Cape Province. I cannot furnish clearer proof than that. If my hon. friend believes he knows better than the legal advisers that is his affair.

Why did the Naude Commission get that authority?

If my hon. friend was not present in the House when I gave an explanation of that I am not going to repeat it. I have stated here today that a question was put to Mr. Collins by counsel appearing for the K.L.C.C. The question was whether he agreed with Senator Conroy that the people at Kakamas were starving. He replied, No. That was absolutely correct. But the barrister must have known when I spoke about starvation I was referring to Rhenosterkop and not to Kakamas. [Interruptions.] Members on the other side are now making a noise because they do not want to hear the answer. I say the advocate must have known I was alluding to Rhenosterkop. Mr. Collins naturally replied no people at Kakamas were starving, but if they were hungry they could take food and eat it. I should like to prove this from the Hansard report. I have the English copy before me and I shall quote out of that. It is the Hansard report for the 22nd March, 1943, column 3040, I say clearly—

Then I began with my speech in connection with Rhenosterkop and I said this—

Then I went on to say—

It is perfectly clear that I made those statements in connection with Rhenosterkop.

Here we have really had the spectacle of the Minister again denying that he said in this House that people at Kakamas were starving. Can one imagine it. How in heaven’s name is it possible that hon. members on the opposite benches can still accord their support to such a man? I will now give them the volume and the page of Hansard and they can examine it themselves. It is Volume 48, Column 4034. Take the Hansard report, read it and study it and when I have read it to you tell me whether an honourable man can still follow that Minister and take his word. He has again denied that he stated the people of Kakamas were starving. Let me read the passage—

That was Rhenosterkop.

The Minister examined his speech. He read it out here, and now I want to say here that if anyone with any sense of honour can still accept that Minister’s word I do not understand him.

You do not need to take my word.

I read out the Minister’s words and I ask any person who reads these words what he must think of such a Minister.

He also mentioned Rhenosterkop.

I ask the members to read over that column in Hansard and then to ask themselves how that Minister can come here and accuse the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) of having made a false statement. The Minister has repeated that he had not the authority to give the commission power to summon witnesses. I refer again to the commissions of 1919 and 1934 that sat in the Cape Province and to whom powers were given under the Transvaal Ordinance of 1902. But the point is this, although this commission did not have the power to summon witnesses the Minister could himself have given evidence if he had the courage to do so. I shall revert to the Minister’s accusation in connection with the Ossewa-Brandwag. On a previous occasion I read out the telegram he had sent to the United Party candidate at Beaufort West to stand aside for the candidate of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and I should like to read it out to him again—

Now this is the man who launched an attack here in connection with the Ossewa-Brandwag, but he asked his own candidate to stand aside so that the United Party supporters could give their support to the Ossewa-Brandwag candidate. That was before the election. But what happened after the election? I hope the reporter of the “Rand Daily Mail” is here and also the reporters of the “Cape Times” and the “Cape Ärgus”, papers that maintained unbroken silence over what was said in this house against the United Party—I hope that they will have the decency to publish what I am now saying. After the election as well we saw who were the allies of the Ossewa-Brandwag. On the 31st July, 1943, the “Rand Daily Mail” wrote the following in a leading article—

There we have the allies of the Government. I go further and say for the benefit of the Minister of Lands and of the Government what happened up to 1944. Leaders and chairmen of this party could not get petrol in their constituencies to enable them to travel around. But the Ossewa-Brandwag generals got all the petrol they needed to drive throughout the length and breadth of the country.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) got petrol to travel 10,000 miles through South-West Africa.

This was during the elections, and the Minister knows that during the time of the elections petrol was being given. But I am referring to the leaders of this party who were unable to get petrol to travel through their constituencies while the Ossewa-Brandwag generals obtained petrol to travel through the country. I now want to direct my remarks to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside). I am glad that he has taken part in the debate because it reminds me of the Latin tag, in vino veritas. We should like to know the truth. He said here that we on this side are returning to democracy. I challenge every hon. member on the other side to produce a single proof that this party has ever departed from democracy. Dr. Van Rensburg became leader of the Ossewa-Brandwag in January, 1941. Within a few months he had converted the Ossewa-Brandwag into a political organisation and he brought up National Socialism. That caused a clash between the Ossewa-Brandwag and this party. We said immediately that we could not agree to that. In 1941 a pronouncement on the position was made on behalf of this party. That member does not know about it. But the Leader of this party, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) made the following statement—

It is in our blood. Nor may we forget that if our forefathers would have been prepared to have adopted a dictatorship or an enforced one-party system, problems might have been solved much more easily, but it would only have been for the benefit of those who had the power in their hands and not for their benefit. Not a page of our glorious history would ever have been written. And there would have been no Afrikaner nation.

And what was the resolution of the party itself in April, 1941, on this—

This is the standpoint that this party has maintained through all these years, nor have we ever deviated from it.

I think the House might well take a little time in this debate to discuss topics other than the Kakamas Colony. I want to associate myself with the request made to the hon. Minister by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson)—a request that the Minister make a public statement in this debate in regard to the provision to be made for the settlement of ex-volunteers on the land. Last year we set up in this House a co-ordinating committee to investigate schemes of land settlement for ex-volunteers. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) was the chairman. I understand this committee has already submitted certain interim reports and that a final report has been submitted. As members of this House are not likely to have an opportunity to read these reports before the House adjourns, I feel that it would not be inappropriate to discuss, as the two hon. members whom I have mentioned, have done, some aspects of our land settlement scheme. I have been able to get information as to what has been done in this respect in other parts of the Commonwealth; and from what I know I feel that we in South Africa are indeed very much behind. Perhaps the Minister himself may be able to assure us—I hope he can—that that is not the case. I take it that the co-ordinating committee has decided to recommend individual tenure as against communal tenure or communal schemes for land settlement. The Minister himself, in public, said he preferred individual tenure as being more in keeping with South African traditions and outlook. I assume then that some system of categories in regard to the men who are to be settled on the land will be necessary. This seems to me to be a matter of importance, and I would like to suggest that categories of the following nature might be acceptable; firstly, men who own their farms, and who are adequately trained as farmers; that is to say, these men would require only grants or loans in order to help them to develop their land. The second category would consist of men who do not own their own farms but who have sufficient training. There must be quite a number in our forces coming under this category. The third category would be men with a very limited farming knowledge who would therefore have to be given some short course of training before being selected for the settlement scheme; and the fourth category would consist of those—and this is an important category—who, irrespective of their age happen to be the right type for farming and who require full training. In that category we would have young men with no previous employment, or disabled men with some sort of disability that might prevent them from returning to their pre-war work. It would be of great interest to the country if the Minister could tell us whether categories like these have been arranged by his department. No doubt the co-ordinating committee has gone into the question of the training that is necessary. I hope the scheme will include training on the farms of selected farmers. If so I trust that some system of allowances to these selected farmers will be made, say £40 per annum in the case of a single man being trained; and £80 for a married man. The trainees should also get allowances, including allowances for wives and children. The arrangement of loans is very important in the case of men who may go on to Crown land, or those who may go on to land now acquired for settlement. I trust that not only will the purchase price of the land be included in the loan and also the capital equipment for the farms, but that some system of loans can in addition be arranged whereby those men can get assistance for their maintenance until they are approved as being satisfactorily established. The Rhodesian scheme is of very great interest to South Africa in this respect. There the land settlement scheme makes arrangements for loans up to £3,000, up to a maximum period of 25 years, free of interest for the first five years, and therefarter carrying interest at 3½ per cent. It is an interesting feature that the scheme includes certain expenses that would be included in the loan, i.e„ the total loan covers the purchase price and certain other essential requirements for development. I would like to mention them to the House. They are interesting, progressive, and very suggestive to us in South Africa. In the loan, household expenses are provided for up to £75, a living allowance up to a maximum of two years of £9 per month for the man, £7 10s. for the wife and £2 for each child. Then provision is made for livestock up to £250; there is provision for farming equipment up to £375; —and this is rather interesting—monthly advances to cover wages and operation expenses up to a period of two years. Then a further very valuable feature of this scheme to encourage the men to make a success of their land holdings, is that at the end of the no-interest period, i.e., at the end of the five years, if the farm has been properly developed, the cost of the land up to an amount of £750 is regarded as a grant from the Government, and the balance of the loan then becomes the long-period debt to the State. It would be in the public interest if the Minister could give the ex-volunteers in the country and the soldiers who have not yet been demobilised as well as the general public, some idea of the scheme for loans and grants that he has in mind. Finally I assume that the Lands Department has gene into the question, with other departments like the Railways, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Social Welfare, of providing social amenities for the men when they are settled on the land. But in addition to that there is the question of provision for communications, mechanical transport, proper supervision and guidance for the settlers; and methods for dealing with those men who, unfortunately, may have to be rejected from the scheme later on. I hope the Minister will assure the ex-volunteers in the country and the public by making a full statement as to the land settlement schemes he has in mind for our ex-volunteers.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has referred a great deal to the policy in Rhodesia. I am unable to make any comment on that report, but I may give the hon. member the assurance that in reference to the settlement of returned soldiers our plans compare very favourably with any others anywhere in the world. I greatly regret the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is not in the House. I shall be glad if someone will call him. The hon. member attempted this afternoon, waving his hands in the air, to prove they had nothing to do with the Ossewa-Brandwag and National Socialism. We recall the days when they were hand in glove with the Ossewa-Brandwag and the Stormtrooders and the whole lot of them rejoiced when National Socialism threatened to overwhelm the world. One and all they then rejoiced. It is little use for them now to try to overcome that. I should just like to read what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) said, according to “Die Burger” of 14th March, 1941—[Translation]—

What else is that but that the Opposition identified themselves with the Ossewa-Brandwag and with National Socialism? The hon. member for Waterberg has recently arrogated to himself the right to assume in this House the role of a moralist. He, and he alone knows what is proper in this House, and what is not becoming. The other day he adopted an unpleasant attitude towards the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) when he said: “A young member like you ought not to be so uncouth.” In other words, only old members like the hon. member for Waterberg may be uncouth. Again, this afternoon he made an odious attack on me. He first stood up and said that hon. members who did not belong to the Dutch Reformed Church had no right to poke their nose into this matter. In other words, they had to keep quiet. Then he went on to say: “Members like the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) laughed and showed their delight when the Church was slandered.” As truly as I stand here I shall not allow myself to be told by the hon. member for Waterberg what my relationship should be towards my Church. If the hon. member for Waterberg is a sincere member of the church I too am one. The attitude he has adopted is unworthy of the Afrikaner people and it is this sort of attitude that causes the foreigner to ridicule us.

Did you not laugh?

No. It’s the sort of attitude he has taken up here that has caused the division in the Church, and nothing else; and then hon. members on that side accuse the Minister of dividing the Church. The Minister this afternoon put his position very clearly. The whole attitude of the other side is this, that the Minister’s object with the commission was merely to besmirch and slander the Church. That is their whole attitude. Well, the Minister made a statement this afternoon. He told them that next year, if he is spared, he will introduce legislation to improve the condition of those people at Kakamas. This is the object of the Bill that will be introduced. I should like now to know from hon. members on the opposite benches whether they will have the courage to support that Bill that envisages the uplift of those people. They now want to beat a retreat from Kakamas. [Interruptions.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) feels that his feet have been caught in the jaws of the trap. I repeat again: When this Bill is introduced to improve the conditions of these people I want to see what the attitude of hon. members opposite will be. The attack they levelled today was made purely out of hatred of the Minister and with a view to making political capital.

We are glad to hear that the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) maintains that he did not laugh when the Church was being slandered.

I did not do so.

I say we are glad to hear that at least he did not reveal any joy in regard to the imputations the Minister made against the Church.

Why show such bad taste as to pick me out?

We on this side of the House have always when we have made a statement supported it with chapter and verse. We have not stood up here and fenced as the Minister has done. I might almost say at this stage that I have numbers of exhibits to prove that the things the Minister repeated in the House today are not correct; and these are documents which are not conjured from nowhere but which were handed in to the commission as evidence. There are two which I would like to dwell on shortly, and I want to say that I do so with hesitation, because if I was in the position of the Minister of Lands, if things were disclosed here which I did not know about, things that were a disgrace to me, then I should resign my seat not tomorrow but today. In years gone by in order to show in what way the Church was functioning the Minister made the accusation in the House that the Church was always doing underhand things. He stated that they got the officials to sign a white-washing letter and he said: “I shall bring the evidence that a man had to leave Kakamas because he refused to sign that letter.” I have here the evidence of that same person. He gave evidence before the commission, and he admits here that he left Kakamas and he is the man the Minister is referring to. He was asked—

His reply was—

At this stage he was asked—

His reply was—

The following question was—

His reply was—

If that is the sort of evidence that the Minister wants to produce, what value can be attached to his word? The witness says here that the statements the Minister made were erroneous. That means that the complaints the Minister repeated here ad nauseam were without foundation. I want to go a little further and I should like to refer to the financial side—things that the Minister, of course, will not read and things that the lackeys he appointed on the commission would not put into the report. Things that were testified to by persons who had not the slightest connection with Kakamas. I refer to the evidence of Mr. Corder, the representative of Syfret and Co., who was appointed by the commission to go into the financial side, and here Lt.-Col. Klopper was very careful to preserve silence over it in the report. The question was put to Mr. Corder, through the chairman—

The answer is—

The question went on—

And the answer is—

These are the colossal profits.

He says further—

But he goes further. He was asked what exactly he meant by his answer and his reply was—

Then the question was put to him—

Here he answered in the affirmative. The chairman asked this question which summarised the man’s evidence—

It is true the Minister by insinuation accused the Church of dishonesty, of having presented false books—

“Yes” was Mr. Corder’s answer. Then the chairman asked—

And do not forget that Lt.-Col. Klopper, the Minister’s lackey, put certain things into the report which were supposed to have been left out of the books. The question was put to the witness—

And he replied—

What is the object then of making this comparison in the report, to juggle with figures, when you have this evidence of an absolute expert in this sphere, and then remain absolutely silent? But he goes further. The question was put to him by the chairman—

Mr. Corder’s answer was—

This was under cross-examination by Adv. Van Winsen, the Government’s advocate. He tried to show that the profit was extremely high. He asked again—

And Mr. Corder’s reply was—

Mr. Corder tells us on page 4120 what the position is. He says emphatically that everything that was made at Kakamas was returned to Kakamas. Not a penny went out. But here Mr. Corder stated further in connection with the books, in reply to this question—

Here the witness of the firm that was appointed by the commission said that “from an extensive test made” the books at Kakamas were absolutely correct, and notwithstanding this evidence the Minister still comes today and repeats these crude implications. Can a man who professes that he stands up not only as a member of the Church but that he is well disposed to that Church, believe that? As far as I am concerned I cannot believe that a person can be well disposed to anything and then make such implications as were made here by the Minister not only today but in the past, when he told us that he stood by them and would persist in them.

I want to commence by putting a question to the Minister. The Minister knows that I represent Pretoria (District) and as he is aware we have a settlement there. We know those farmers have had to contend with many labour difficulties, and I would like to suggest that the Minister should make plans to obtain suitable labour to relieve these people from their difficulties. He must make some plan to find labour for them. It is highly necessary to meet these people because today the position is such that the women and children have to jump in to help during the harvesting and we find women and children in the wet cellars. The position is critical. I therefore request the Minister to give the position his earnest consideration. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) asked for something here and I want to concede he is right. I make bold to say that if anyone can talk about the Church I can do so. I belong to one of the Protestant churches. Though I do not belong to the Dutch Reformed Church I belong to one of the Protestant churches. As soon as a person touches my church it hurts me. But when I look at the blue book, the report about Kakamas, I cannot judge that the Minister has attacked the Church in any respect, but it is my honest opinion that he did attack individuals who are in that Church. We must be honest, and I want to emphasise what the Minister has said here. There are people in our churches who are doing these things, and this is the cause of all the unpleasantness that has passed across the Floor of the House. There are certain persons who have been driven away from the Church by these people. Why? Because they wear a uniform. They were turned away at the door of the Church. Who drove them away? It was not the Minister. Those persons who have the government of the Church in their hands struck their fists on the table and explained: You will not come into the Church in that uniform.

In what town was that?

In Johannesburg as well.

I am speaking under correction, but I think it happened in the town that the hon. member for Waterberg represents.

In what church did it happen?

Is it necessary we should mention the church? It was done in the Enkel Gereformeerde Kerk. Do not let us drag in the Church. The Church is the Lord’s and when you touch on the things of the Lord you are on highly dangerous ground. But there are individuals who exploit the Church for political purposes. I am very sorry to say it, but the Opposition are bankrupt politically and what do they do? They go now to the All Highest and they exploit the Church. When I take this blue book and I read out of the report of the commission and I see the imputations made against these persons, persons who stand high in our regard as Chrisitians, namely the judges of the country, then I cannot help being shocked. I have in mind the allegation made yesterday by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) against the chairman of the commission.

He said nothing against the judge.

What did he say? He said the judge was only human; but he fills a much more exalted position than the hon. member, and if we are going to belittle our judges in this way what is going to happen to the administration of justice in our country? I feel it is reprehensible to attack persons who sat on this commission, and who cannot defend themselves in this House. I want to ask those hon. members: Is it human to attack your fellowman in that way? Is it human to say of a person who was a magistrate that he had been an interpreter? No, this commission was appointed by the Government and the commission brought out its report. The commission gave all honour to the Church but the commission in their Blue Book also gave what was his due to the Minister, and it does not help for hon. members to be against it. I believe that if the hon. Minister had transgressed against the Church the Church would have called him to account.

But they are calling him to account.

No, they are not calling him to account. I only want to tell hon. members that I think we should be careful when we are dealing with the golden treasury. As an hon. member has said, when we have to deal with that we should be very careful. It is a delicate matter we are handling but the Opposition do not regard it as such. The Leader of the Opposition descended from the pulpit into politics and proved thereby that the Church no longer meant so much to him. Now a judge and the members of the commission that were appointed are attacked for having done their duty. They cannot come here to defend themselves. That s not just.

I am sorry that the hon. member who has just been seated said that we had attacked the Church. I do not believe that any member here has said a word against his Church, still less against the Dutch Reformed Church. But what we are doing is to try to defend, the Church against the attacks of the Minister of Lands. That and nothing else. There is just one other matter I want to raise because it concerns the rate of interest charged by the Kakamas Commission. An accountant was appointed to investigate the accounts, and Mr. Corder, the accountant, was under cross-examination. I have his evidence here on page 4131 of the verbatim report of the commission. He said that Mr. Silberbauer furnished a list of interest rates which were in force during the course of the years, namely 6 per cent. in 1905, 6 per cent. in 1915, 6¼ per cent. during 1925, 5½ per cent. during 1935, 5 per cent. in 1940, 4½ per cent. during 1941-’42 and 4 per cent. in 1943-’44. Mr. Corder says that the rate of interest fell in the year 1944; he says that in 1940 the rate of interest fell to 5 per cent. in the following year to 4½ per cent. and to 4 per cent. in 1943-’44. The average rate of interest for the past 40 years was from 5¾ per cent. to 6 per cent. That is the evidence of the experts. In all the 40 years the Kakamas Commission asked a rate of interest not exceeding 5 per cent., but it loaned £15,000 to Rhenosterkop at only 4 per cent. If the Church had asked the ruling rate of interest for the 40 years, namely 5¾ per cent., they would have collected £25,000 more in revenue. I mention this because the Minister has said time and again that the Church had invested money at colossal profits. What, however, does the Kakamas Commission pay to the colonists as regards the money which is invested by them at the Kerkekantoor? The Church still pays 4 per cent., while the ruling rate of interest today is 2 to 2½ per cent. when one invests money at a bank. Thus the position is that where the Church invests money at 5 per cent., it pays 4 per cent., despite the fact that the rate of interest today is between 2 and 2½ per cent. I think this is sufficient proof as far as this is concerned. I now want to revert to another matter, namely the manner in which the Minister of Lands treated a group of farmers of the Reunited Nationalist Party who requested an interview with him. I am doing this for I was personally involved in the matter. On the previous day we telephoned his secretary and asked whether we could see the Minister on the following morning at quarter to ten. The secretary said that the Minister was very busy, but that he hoped that the Minister would be able to see us. The following morning the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter), the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and myself arrived there at a quarter to ten. The secretary said that the Minister was very busy and that we should take a seat for a moment. We sat there until five minutes to eleven, and still the Minister had given us no opportunity of seeing him. And now I would like to correct a mistake which was made here, The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) said that the Minister sent a message to us that he did not wish to see us. That is incorrect. But the Minister made just as incorrect a statement in the Press, namely that he had a letter dated the 6th which had not yet been replied to. When the deputation was there, the Minister had not yet received that letter. We took the letter with us when we went to see him. I had the letter delivered to the Minister on the afternoon of the 8th. But our grouse against the Minister is that we as members of Parliament have a status in Parliament, and when members of Parliament make an appointment with the Minister, as we are entitled to do, then out of courtesy he should let us know if he is unable to see us. No word was sent us that he could not see us, but we sat there like simpletons from a quarter to ten to five minutes to eleven. The Minister did not let us know: “I have urgent work which I must lay before the House this afternoon, or there is another deputation which I have to meet now”.

You know that there was another deputation, so my Secretary says at any rate.

Supposing that is right. Then the Minister should have had the courtesy to say that he was sorry that he had made the appointment, but that he was unable to see us at that time. Instead we sat there like simpletons from a quarter to ten until five to eleven, until we left of our own accord. There were three questions we wanted to put to the Minister in connection with temporary lessees who had received notice to leave their land. Now I want to point out that as far back as the 13th February I put the question to the Minister—

The Minister’s reply was that it would involve too much work and expense to give an answer. The Minister has five local land boards and each of them has a list of people to whom notice has been given. The Minister could easily obtain the answer from the land boards, for they have the lists. But the Minister does not want to give an answer, for the country would be shocked to learn of the number of people that he has sent packing. Questions have been put, the answers to which have involved far more costs and trouble than the answer to this question. The Minister does not want to give it, for he knows that people would be shocked by his actions. We asked how many of the people had held the land under lease for more than five years, that is to say people who leased the ground before the war, and before there could ever have been any thought of returned soldiers who would have to receive preference. Our first question to the Minister was therefore to give preference to people who had held the land under lease for so long, if they made application for the land. This was a very fair question. Our second question was that the lessees on the leased ground should remain there until such time as the land was actually allotted, either to returned soldiers or to other people who had made application. If then they were not for the fortunate applicants, they would have to leave, but we asked him not to force them to leave perhaps two or three or five years before the ground was allotted. This will send the people packing and they will have to roam round and the farms will deteriorate. In the third place we asked that if the people who are now leasing the ground, are not the fortunate applicants, that the Minister should then pay reasonable compensation for improvements on the ground. We have heard the whole day how unjustly Kakamas treats its people, how it has the right to pay only £200 compensation for improvements—by the way there has never been such a case where only £200 has been paid out—but the Minister does not even pay out a bean to the people who have leased the land and who have erected improvements to the value of £100 or £500 or £1,000 or perhaps £5,000. The Minister is chasing them off the ground without a single penny of compensation. Dare the Minister then attack another body when he himself is chasing people away without a penny’s compensation? No, I would remind the Minister that example is better than precept. The Minister may not come here and attack the method in which another body manages a settlement if he cannot indicate that he treats the settlers of the State and his lessees in a better way. We want to ask the Minister while it is not yet too late to withdraw the notice to the lessees. The people are at their wits’ end. I am glad that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is here. He said yesterday that he was anxious about the settlers but not about the lessees. He is not worried about the large number of lessees of his own flesh and blood. I hope that the poor people in the country, those lessees will take note of the remarks of the deputy leader of the Labour Party. I hope that they will take note that he, who is supposed to be the champion of the less privileged, approves of these poor lessees being sent packing. [Time limit.]

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to an offer that has been made by one of the municipalities of my constituency, namely an offer to give holdings under very advantageous terms to returned soldiers. This will suit more especially soldiers who have a small pension. The idea of that municipality, and I am referring to the municipality of Dundee, is that there will be holdings on a farm just outside the town which belong to that municipality. These holdings will be about 12 to 15 acres each, and men who have a pension, men with a slight disability, will be able then to increase their pension and will be able to live there in reasonable comfort. The idea the municipality actually has is that these people will go in for farming on a very small scale there. They will be supplied with the electric light and the necessary water for household purposes, and they will not have to pay any ordinary rates and taxes but they will merely have to pay the charges for these services and these will be meted out to them. Just above the town I believe—I have seen it, but I am not an engineer so I have to say I believe—that there is adequate water which could be brought down so as to allow this area or these holdings to be put under cultivation. I do feel that the Minister is most sympathetic towards returned soldiers, and I do hope this afternoon that he will state here that he is prepared to give that scheme, and all similar schemes, because I understand a number of other towns are prepared to come along with similar schemes, that he will give those his serious consideration, and that his department will help in whichever way it can to see that these schemes are put into operation. ‘If I can have that assurance from the Minister I shall be very pleased indeed. I do know that the returned soldiers, those soldiers to whom we owe so much, will be thankful to know that their comrades who have been wounded will have an opportunity of living close to town, close to other people under reasonable conditions. We do not want to isolate these men who have been wounded, these men who are suffering these disabilities entirely on our behalf. We want them to move amongst all the other people. If we isolate them too much on their own they will probably > get the impression they are not wanted, that they are not like other people. But if we can get any holdings like that where they can take part in the activities of the towns, where their disability will not seriously affect their living and their children will be able to attend the schools in the towns, we will have done a tremendous lot for these men, and these men will be pleased—I was going to say they will be thankful. They will be thankful, but we owe these men a debt we can never repay, and it is our duty to see that we do make the lives of all returned soldiers, but more especially those who have been wounded, more comfortable and more endurable.

I regret that the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is not present, because he made a venomous attack on the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and his explanation in connection with the Ossewa-Brandwag that we left it as soon as it became national socialist. The hon. member for Rustenburg denied that. I am sorry he is not here, but I only want to say that every word the hon. member for Waterberg stated in respect of the Ossewa-Brandwag is absolutely correct, There was an agreement that they should refrain from any subversive activities. As soon as the agreement was broken and the movement took on a political colour and became national socialist we withdrew our membership. I hope it is now clear what standpoint we adopted. In regard to the Minister, he has today had such a trouncing that he will not forget it for the rest of the time that he is on the surface of this earth. I am sorry that he probably will also have a very bad night, and I think as far as Kakamas is concerned it is not necessary to chastise him any further. He will remember his chastisement a long time. As far as this is concerned we shall leave the Minister for the moment. We only regret that the Minister has sullied and slandered his own Afrikaner Church while standing up here and asserting that he wanted to co-operate with the Church, but he is not prepared to admit that he accused the Church dishonourably and improperly by those things that he hurled against them. It is as clear as can be, as has transpired in this enquiry, that the accusations were entirely baseless. What the Minister ought to have done as a member of the Church was to have stood up and stated that he regretted that he had said these things. But he refused to do so. A man who goes against the Afrikaner Church will be smashed on the rocks.

So say the Broederbonders.

Now we come to another point in connection with the Minister of Lands, but I should first like to put a few questions to the Minister. Last year the Minister told us in reference to settlement: As far as the land is concerned the State will retain the property of the settlers for all time, and we shall not allow a subdivision because then the plots will become too small. Nor shall we allow sales, because otherwise the land will only belong to one man. I think I am interpreting the Minister aright, and I only want to ask if he still stands’ by this policy that land must not be sold to a company or to individuals who later may then have all the land comprised in the settlement in their possession. Is it right that the Act also now lays that down?

I shall reply later.

My second questions is whether the Minister at the same time stated that as far as irrigation lands are concerned he will not grant more than 15 morgen to a man, because that is quite sufficient for one man to work. I do not think I am doing the Minister an injustice when I say that this is the standpoint he has taken up. Now I want to add to that the following questions which I shall put to the Minister: Is the information I have correct that the Minister has himself bought a certain farm “Koppieskraal” with 100 morgen under irrigation?

What irrigation scheme is this?

Rietrivier. The second question I want to put to the Minister in connection with the scheme is whether apart from this 100 morgen under irrigation, 50 morgen of which was granted to another person, he has now allotted to himself an additional 50 morgen of Koppieskraal which he refused to a certain previous owner, so that he has now 150 morgen of irrigable land? I want further to put this question, whether he bought a further 299 morgen under various transfers, 200 morgen having water rights, but where there is scarcely 50 morgen of irrigable land? Then he bought the farm Bloubank as well. I am only asking.

What have you to do with my private business?

We want to know.

It is a State settlement.

The irrigation was done with State funds.

We want to know, in view of the statement by the Minister, that persons could not have more than 50 morgen under irrigation. The Minister, however, bought this farm Bloubank with 50 morgen of irrigable land and he is conveying the water that he cannot use on the farm of 200, morgen to the second farm, again contrary to the policy the Minister has laid down. I put these questions not that I have any bad feeling against the Minister, but I only want to ascertain whether the Minister is consistent. Is it not a fact that under the Rietrivier scheme it was decided in conformity with the Minister’s policy that no more than 50 morgen under irrigation should be given to one man, and whether the Minister, for instance, bought up much more land there under irrigation. If the Minister says it is not so I do not intend to take the matter further, but we should like to know whether he has acted consistently, because the Minister stated definitely that it is unjust that one man should have more than 50 morgen under irrigation, because he could not work it. If it applies to other individuals how can the Minister go and gradually buy up a whole irrigation scheme with his money?

It is no longer an irrigation scheme.

Was the scheme lot bought with Government money, so then is it not a Government scheme?

Is your farm at Pongola not also under an irrigation scheme?

Of course, but I have only 50 morgen under irrigation.

But it is also an irrigation scheme.

Of course; you granted it to me yourself. Another scheme was constructed namely, Lindleyspoort, for certain people who were poor and who were the owners of the ground, but now they have been driven off because the Minister, now that the scheme has been completed, has expropriated half the owners’ land. I do not want to blurt out any Cabinet secret, but we know the circumstances under which the scheme was constructed. What is the Minister doing*? He goes along and he himself takes a large portion of the land at veld prices. He does not pay for the water on the land but he pays prairie value. If people may not have more than 50 morgen under irrigation where is the consistency if the Minister can buy up to 400 morgen under irrigation? I am putting a question and I should like to know.

That is my private business.

The Minister of Lands has now made certain statements. He intimated that he was sympathetically inclined towards the settlers at Kakamas, but I want to ask whether he is also sympathetically inclined towards the lessees whom he notified to leave their farms. I want to ask the Minister to allow those lessees to whom he gave notice to remain on their land in any case until he requires the land for returned soldiers or other applicants. It would be very wrong to chase these people from the farms now. They are desperate and do not know which way to turn. In my own constituency there are quite a number of these people and they ask me to bring this matter as earnestly as possible to the notice of the Minister. The Minister also realises that he has not done anything to give the temporary lessee anything so that he will know where he should go if he has to leave the leased lands. I asked the Minister at that time how many lessees there were and he said that owing to shortage of staff he was not able to give the numbers. Perhaps he will now be able to give us the figures. I take it there is a large number of people. I have not got the correct figures, but it is a considerable number and I want to ask the Minister to reconsider allowing the people to remain on the land until it is allotted to someone else or granted to them. They have as much right on those lands and even more than other people. I only want to say these few words and I hope the Minister will take a resolution in connection with it or rather that he will take it into reconsideration. I feel an injustice is being done to these people and that the Minister should at least allow them to remain on the land until it is allotted, and as I have said I feel they have a much better claim to the land than these other people.

I should like to raise a matter in connection with the lessees of ground. In the first place I should like to know from the Minister whether there is a difference between the soldiers who returned in 1945 and those who returned in 1918. The Minister issued a circular in which he notified lessees to vacate the ground by September. Some of those people have already gone. And amongst those people who have left there are returned soldiers of 1918. I know of one who received notice to vacate his ground immediately, and I should like to know from the Minister whether there is differentiation between those soldiers and the present soldiers. If that is so, the Minister must think of the future. The soldiers who receive ground today will know that in future it can also happen to them that they will receive notice to vacate the ground. If he does that with the soldiers of 1918, he can also do it with those of 1945. This man fought from 1914 to 1918, and he has been given notice and must leave. Then I should like to know from the Minister what will happen to all the lessees who must vacate the ground. A fortnight ago I had the honour to be at the irrigation scheme at Olifants River and to visit the lessees. There are people there, who spent money to improve their ground. They built houses and developed the ground because the former Minister of Lands, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) gave those people the assurance that they would receive preference when the ground was allotted and if they were to any extent rehabilitated. In view of this promise of the previous Minister of Lands those people went and built good houses and improved their ground. It was explained to me that it cost £50 a morgen to get it under irrigation properly. That is the minimum cost. Must they now vacate that ground just because the Minister sent round this circular; must they be put on the street? I want to know from the Minister whether he is allowing those people to go, and if that is so, what compensation will be paid to them whether they will just be compensated for their buildings or also for the expense they had to get the ground properly under irrigation. I should like to know whether those people who set to work in all good faith because of a promise of a former Minister will now be put on the street. I feel that if the Minister does that he will be committing a greater injustice than that of which he accused the Church when he said that he treats his sheep better than the Church treats its settlers. If the Minister does that he will surely never again have the courage to rise here and say such things as he said here today. I also want to bring this to the Minister’s notice, that in the lowveld there are lessees who have been living on leased ground for the last 45 years. Those people have already thought that the ground is theirs. But after 45 years they now receive notice to abandon the ground and everything else. They have become very attached to those farms, and it was a death blow to them to receive the circular saying that they must vacate the farms. Therefore I wish to ask the Minister whether he has already withdrawn this circular and whether he will give those people the opportunity to remain on the ground longer. Does he intend to give those people a refuge somewhere else, or are they simply put into the road? I should be very glad if the Minister would make a clear statement, because those people are very anxious about the situation, and therefore they want to know what the Government will do for them if they are put on the streets. I also want to say a few words about the settlers. The Act which the Minister had passed here deprives those people of the right ever to become the owners of their ground, although they have paid for it. Some of them have come to me and asked me what the intention of the Government is, whether they will never be allowed to be the masters of their ground, although they have paid for it. I told them that to a certain degree they would become the owners of the ground, but they can only sell it after obtaining consent.

That was already contained in the Act of 1937.

No, it was not. I also told them further that although they have paid for that ground they have not yet the right to allow a major son or their parents to live with them. Is that also in the 1937 Act?

Yes.

Then why was it necessary for the Minister last year to introduce an Act? That is the manner in which the Minister treats the settlers. It is one of the worst things which can happen. The man pays for that ground by his labour, but has no right to let his father and mother live with him. That is the greatest injustice which has ever been done to our settlers. Give the people the opportunity to take them in. Why must the rights of ownership be withheld from them when they have paid for the ground.

And then thereare people who have 400 morgen underirrigation.

Yes, that is so. The Minister so often tells us that they fight for democracy and for the right of existence of all nations. I now want to ask the Minister whether it is democratic to withhold from people the right to take their parents into their own houses, and to chase people away from their ground. I want to tell the Minister that in the dictator countries Governments have never done such things as he is doing here in South Africa, except perhaps in Russia, which is the ally of the Minister of Lands. I should now like to move, with the permission of the Acting Prime Minister—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 19th May.