In the place of first importance is the question of the very severe drought that is referred to in the newspapers. There is no doubt, Sir, that the very frank and useful report provided by Dr. Latsky, Nutritional Officer, must bring everyone of us to realise the most serious state of affairs existing in the native areas referred to, in the southern Ciskei areas of Kingwilliamstown, Peddie, Keiskama Hoek, Alice, Middledrift, Fort Beaufort and East London. The report says these areas—

I am not an alarmist. I have known long enough how a serious drought condition may occur in native areas and how relief may be accomplished after a fortnight, but no such relief can be expected at this season of the year in these particular areas. At one time, and not so long ago, I used to visit these areas annually. I was in a position to know the particular production capabilities of these areas and the conditions which arose after a dry summer, when the winter sets in. I know that a most desperate condition must now exist in these areas in view of the report placed before the country by Dr. Latsky, and I feel that the Minister should make a statement setting out what measures are on foot now to deal with the immediate relief of people who are today in an acute state of hunger, and who may in a fortnight be verging on starvation and death. Fortunately that particular area is inhabited, as far as the European population is concerned, by a singularly patriotic commensense and helpful type of farmer. I know of no community that is entitled to stand higher in the public estimation than the farming community of those districts. They are public spirited people who have been identified with the natives for one reason or another for the last hundred years, and in most cases they thoroughly understand the native; they know what measures of relief will be acceptable and most readily applicable, and all that is needed is for the pursestrings of the Government to be unloosened and for very suitable men to be appointed in every area, to bring relief to the people suffering at the present time. Only in one respect does one demur to the report of Dr. Latsky; it is slightly impracticable in one respect. He refers to the great use of Soya beans, but at the same time he indicates that the necessary supply is not available. That, I think, is commonly known to most of us. Soya beans are not grown to any great extent by the farmers of the Union, and therefore as an immediate remedy such as he indicates here, that type of food must be ruled out. Not only the farmers themselves, who have been more closely identified with the natives, but the faithful missionaries in those areas should be mobilised for the task of providing the kind of relief in ample measure which will save these natives from the depressing conditions illustrated by the report of Dr. Latsky. I know of many men who have outstanding qualities of organisation in those areas, men who know the areas from one end to the other, an area very largely existing of thorn country tending to have a short rainfall, and the men who have grown up in these areas are well adapted to come to the relief of these people. They have grown up with them. They have answered their appeals over a long course of years when food had been scarce, and on the whole the best possible relations exist between the European farmer inhabitants of those areas and the natives. I am not going to suggest what the Minister should do. In the person of the Secretary for Native Affairs he has an official who is heart and soul in sympathy with the natives in connection with their present position, and one who thoroughly understands what should be done. I feel if expenditure is authorised a good and satisfactory organisation could be established within a short time which will reach every remote corner of the area affected and bring the necessary relief. Side by side with what I suggest may I urge upon the Minister the desirability of taking an interest in similar districts throughout the Union. This district, as I have said, is very largely thorn veld, with a rather short rainfall from time to time, and there are innumerable other districts in the Union similarly situated that may not be affected to the same extent at the moment and which will sooner or later be on the short food list and require food from the Government. A big problem is ahead for the Minister during the next twelve months, and I hope he will realise that and verify beforehand the conditions existing in several similar areas throughout the country. I commend this matter to the earnest consideration of the Minister.

May I avail myself of the 30 minutes privilege? I make no apology for referring once again to a matter which I touched upon last year. I allude to the future of the Native Affairs Department—its reorganisation and the need through reorganisation to attract the best type of men into the service of the Department. I and others intimately associated with Native Affairs are deeply concerned by the deterioration in the personel of that Department. I do not wish it to be understood that I am making a general charge against the present administration staff of the Department. On the contrary, many members of the Department are admirably fitted for the discharge of their tasks. But I have observed, and it has not escaped the notice of other competent observers, that a deterioration has set in, a sort of creeping paralysis which, unless checked and corrected, will lead to considerable trouble in the future. I am not aware, Sir, of any steps having being taken to arrest this growth and for that reason I am repeating what I said last year in the hope that I shall evoke from the Minister a statement as to what his intentions are. In speaking on this subject last year I drew attention to the financial side which, I think the House will agree, is not unimportant when you are considering the administration of such an important Department. I compared conditions in the Department of Justice with those in the Department of Native Affairs, and I found the comparison very much to the detriment of the Native Affairs Department. This is the comparison. In the Department of Justice we have one magistrate in receipt of a salary of £1,450 a year, three are receiving £1,250, four £1,150, thirteen £1,050, thirty-nine £950, 223 from £500 to £850. You will observe, Mr. Chairman, however, in the Native Affairs Department there are only five chief native commissioners drawing £1,250, one native commissioner drawing £1,050 and seven drawing £950. There are therefore only six officers drawing more than £1,000 a year in the Native Affairs Department as against twent-one in the Department of Justice and seven drawing £950, as against thirty-nine in Justice. As I remarked last year, I find it difficult on comparing the duties of a magistrate with these of a native commissioner to justify this disparity in their salaries, and I am disappointed that more consideration has not been extended by the Public Service Commission to the native commissioners in view of the range and importance of their activities demanding energy and enterprise, the large areas of their districts, the great numbers of native people under their jurisdiction, which all constitute a responsibility superior to that entailed by what is practically the routine work of the most highly paid magistrate. After all, the work in the Department of Justice is very largely routine, and magistrates are by no means faced with the varied and complicated problems that arise in the course of administration in the native reserves. As I have emphasised on previous occasions the work of a native commissioner is specialised work. It requires a cultural background and a knowledge of the psychology and customs of the native people, as well as experience of handling people in the mass, and displaying qualities of tact, firmness and justice. In short, he is an administrative specialist. It is not sufficient when men are appointed to those posts without consideration to their qualifications and then by effluxion of time find themselves without the mental equipment to discharge the duties that fall on them. That is the sort of situation that must arise if we do not take this matter of appointments in hand at the earliest possible moment. The officials of the Department should be specially selected and carefully trained, but it appears that we are perpetuating a system under which, owing to the unattractiveness of the conditions, we are by no means attracting a suitable type of official, and we are failing to recognise the importance of the activities and the significance of the responsibilities they may be consequently called upon to discharge. Before passing from that apect of the administration of the Native Affairs Department I wish to emphasise the factor of personal contact. In my opinion there is no more important aspect of Native Affairs activities than personal contact between the native commissioner and the people. Years ago before the advent of the motor car it was the usual thing for the native commissioner to do the round of his district on horseback. In this way he saw for himself the state of the people, the condition of the crops and the lands and he gained a thorough knowledge of his district and of the activities in progress. If I may I would like to refer to a native commissioner who, in my opinion, had a high conception of his duties and used to keep in thorough touch with every part of his district. I refer to the late Mr. J. M. Young. He made a particular point of contacting the traders. That is an important aspect of administration, for it must be remembered that the traders in the native territories are in close contact with the natives and are bound to have an influence on them. The native commissioner, by meeting and conversing with these traders and by meeting the people themselves, is able to gain a thorough knowledge of the circumstances of the people. The native commissioners of those days were men of high integrity and they conscientiously tried to carry out their work to the best of their ability in the interests of the people as a whole. I would like to pass, Sir, from that aspect of native affairs to the question of employment. Of natives in the Native Affairs Department. I recall the days when the Native Affairs Department was an appendage of the Prime Minister’s Department, and when a visit was paid to the Transkei by the then Prime Minister, the late Gen. Hertzog. At a meeting with the natives he was eplaining the intention of the Nationalist Government in regard to segregation, and he made it quite clear the only hope the natives had, those of them who were educated, was in their appointment to positions of more or less responsibility in the Native Affairs Department. For many years we have been waiting to see practical effect given to that statement and the appointment of natives to posts which they are well qualified to fill. There is considerable disappointment that there has been no effective sequel to the promise the Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts) made three or four years ago, when he announced it was the intention to create posts of more responsibility and more pay for the native people in the reserves. That policy was subsequently enunciated by the then Minister of Native Affairs, the late Col. Deneys Reitz. I should like to enquire from the Minister how far we have travelled in the creation and filling of such posts. This is a matter of very considerable importance to the native people. Many natives have qualified in every way to fill these posts, and they are waiting to take up these posts of responsibility. The native is often referred to as lacking in a sense of responsibility. On one occasion when I was discussing with a native the question of this supposed lack of responsibility I received from him a rather astonishing reply. It was: “Do you realise that unless you give us responsibility we cannot appreciate responsibility.” That aspect of the matter has to be taken into account. If we wish to create a feeling of responsibility in the native people we must give them an opportunity of exercising responsibility. Another point I should like to comment on is this: Native clerks, however efficient they are in the discharge of their duties, remain for a considerable number of years at the top of their grade without promotion to a higher grade. If that practice is followed it will lead to a lack of interest on the part of these people. It is true of the African, as of everybody else, that hope deferred makes the heart sick, and these people are tired of waiting a long time for the promotion to which they are entitled. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared to tell us how far they have come in regard to the filling of these posts, and when they will be filled. I hope he will have good news to tell us that I can tell my people that they have not been forgotten by the Department. I would also like to refer to the position of chiefs and headmen in the reserves. As probably every member of this House knows, every district is divided into a number of headmanships. The duties of these headmen are multifarious. I have a book here issued by the Government dealing with the regulations applying to chiefs and headmen. It may surprise hon. members of the Committee to know that the setting out of their duties comprises three closely printed pages of this book. They cover every possible activity which can arise, including outbreaks of notifiable diseases, deaths by violence, and a hundred and one other things, and they are particularly enjoined to give all possible assistance to anyone who is in authority over them in that area. As I have said, these people have these multifarious duties, and they often live 30 miles from the nearest magistracy, but they must provide their own transport and must travel to the magistracy when they are called upon to do so on official visits. Apart from settling disputes about land they have all these other duties to perform, and for all these services the headman is paid the munificent sum of £1 a month and must find his own transport If he behaves himself very well for fifteen years or so he eventually gets £3 a month but still has to provide his own transport. It is not surprising therefore that “headmanship” has become a racket. It is simply impossible to appreciate all the bribery and corruption that exits. The giving out of land, for example, is subject to payment of money to the headman or his subordinates, anything up to £5 being paid. But the headmen cannot be blamed for that. I say that the circumstances under which they are employed must inevitably lead to this bribery. Occasionally the culprit was brought to court, but even the prosecutor is ashamed to prosecute, although he had a good case, because he knows as well as everyone else that this is going on. It is no secret. The Government tries to get work done without paying adequately for it. It is known, and it is almost connived at. But the circumstances under which these things happen are beginning to perturb even the Department itself, and I feel that the time has arrived when an improvement should be made. At the very least these headmen should receive travelling allowances. I know the circumstances only too well. The Minister will probably reply that when there is a headmanship vacant there is always much competition for the post, but I do not think it is so much for the £1 a month as for the perquisites. It is an unfortunate racket and on behalf of the Natives I feel that something should be done to improve these conditions by paying the headman more. I would ask the Minister to consider very carefully whether he cannot devise some means of more adequate payment for these people, so that they are not brought to book for bribery, and if they are so that they may be adequately punished by any magistrate who feels that he is not ashamed to punish them for what they have done. The headmanship is a very important aspect of administration, and the position should be improved. Now, the chiefs in the Transkei, with whom I wish to deal now, are in a different position. A Paramount Chief receives £500 a year. That may seem a large stun, but it has to be remembered that these Paramount Chiefs are venerated by their people and that they have to keep themselves fittingly and entertain their people in the way they are accustomed to do. He has a big responsibility, not only towards his own family, but for the families of his predecessors. He is supposed to keep the families of his predecessors in good state. I have no hesitation in saying that he cannot do it on his salary. It may be surprising, but a Paramount Chief rules over many thousands of people and he cannot come out on this sum of money. Without any exception these chiefs are in debt. I do not think they are guilty of any reckless expenditure. I know chiefs who are efficient at their jobs and careful with their money, but they cannot come out on the £500. These amounts were fixed at a time when money had a far higher value than it has today, and I think the time has come for the Department to reconsider the matter. I am informed that in the other Imperial territories on the West Coast they pay their Paramount Chiefs as many thousands as we pay them hundreds of pounds. I do not suggest that we should go as far as that, but I do say that we should reconsider the whole position and if possible pay these people a sum in keeping with their duties and responsibilities. It was the policy of the Government a few years ago to break down the power of the chiefs. It has now been recognised that that was a very unfortunate policy, and in recent years the Government has tried to build up their power again and to rule the natives through them. To do this effectively the chiefs must be given a certain amount of financial independence. He must not be dependent on loans from his people or tempted to impose fines which should not be imposed, or anything like that. It should be, as far as possible, a straightforward business, to enable him to administer justice properly. I am raising this matter in the hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to discuss it with his Department. I hope that in doing this he will also discuss the position of headmen and generally put the administration of the Native Affairs Department on a more satisfactory basis. I would like to say a few words in connection with what was said by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and other hon. members. I think it will be remembered that some time ago I warned the House that there was starvation and disease in the Transkei. I feel that a situation has now arisen which should not have taken the Department by surprise, and I do not think it really has taken the Department by surprise. Probably the inability to raise enough money to cope with the position was no fault of the Department of Native Affairs, but I do hope the Department will use its influence with the Treasury and induce it to open its coffers to prevent these people from starving. It is a terrible thing to find people dying of starvation within 500 miles from Cape Town. I know it is said that when these people have supplies of maize they use it for making beer, but the condition of life there should be realised. If everyone in Cape Town were to take his liquid nourishment in the street one would see a lot of beer-drinking going on, and if we compare conditions in the Transkei with those pertaining here, it is not surprising that the natives drink beer. I am not trying to defend the excessive drinking of beer by natives, but it is in fact part of their custom, and their lives are hard, and I am afraid it cannot be stopped. Finally, the Native Affairs Department has always been the Department whose duty it is to try to help the people. Their actions have not always been above criticism, and I have had to criticise them before. I am afraid we must face the unfortunate fact that in the administration of the Government everything which is asked for by the Native Affairs Department is looked upon with suspicion by the other Government Departments, and it is not always easy for the Native Affairs. Department to get the funds they need, but I think that so far as paying better salaries to these people I have mentioned is concerned, it is the duty of the Department to exert more pressure on the Treasury. I am not asking for anything extravagant, but I feel that in many cases, where remuneration is fixed, the position is hopeless. How can a person live on £12 per annum under any circumstances, as these headmen are expected to do? Whilst I know that the Department is sympathetic, in general, I think that they should use their influence more on behalf of the natives, especially as regards such things as raising the pay on the mines, and various other things. I do not think the Department is exercising its influence sufficiently, and it should do more in that direction. I want the Department to realise that they are the only people who can protect the natives, and that they should use their influence to that effect.

There are a few matters I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention, the first being that there are today in our country a large number of natives who are starving, and that as a result of the method of rationing and the system of permits of the Maize Control Board. I see no necessity why natives should today starve when there is food enough in our country. Why should there already today be people who starve? We know that the native lives mostly on mealies, kaffir corn, beans, etc., and we still today have large quantities of those products in the country. If there were no mealies in our country, or a shortage, the natives would be the first to suffer, because the European population will always be able to find substitutes for mealie meal and maize products. The natives will suffer first. But I see no necessity why they should already now suffer from famine. If they have to die of famine, why now, already when there is still enough maize in the country? Let them then have enough maize until April next year, and let them then die of hunger, if it is necessary, but not now. I say that it is mainly due to the methods of rationing and the system of control that today already there is famine. I have recently returned from the Transvaal and happened to be in the area of Klerksdorp. It is well known that mining development on a fairly large scale has in recent years taken place in that area, with the result that a fairly large native population has congregated in Klerksdorp, and at Klerksdorp there is a large mill which daily mills from 3,000 to 5,000 bags of mealies. In spite of that natives in Klerksdorp are suffering famine. I want to explain what the method of the Maize Control Board is. Formerly they could purchase mealies or mealie products without permits, but today the position is that one can buy only one bag of mealie meal without a permit. Now we know that the native population is generally not in such a position that they can afford to buy a full bag of mealie meal, because it costs more than £1. The result is that they go to the shops, and buy mealie meal for 1s. or 2s. 6d., etc. But now the shopkeeper needs a permit to obtain supplies. He applies for a permit and it generally takes three weeks to a month before he receives it, and if he applies for 100 bags of mealie meal a month het gets a permit for about 30 bags. We can imagine what the result is. The natives rush to the shops in Klerksdorp. There are seven of those shops supplying mealie meal to natives. I happened to be present personally at one place where about 20 or 30 or 40 natives stood waiting with the money in their hands. One wanted to buy for 1s. and the other for 2s. 6d., and the shopkeeper had to tell them that he has no mealie meal. They had to turn round and go back empty-handed. The natives at Klerksdorp are starving, but there is a mill which grinds perhaps 5,000 bags of mealie meal every day. The natives walk right over it and still they die of hunger. What is being done? The shopkeeper sits with his hands in his hair. Everyone wants mealie meal. Then he says: “Good, 50 of you get into my lorry and let us go to the mill.” He arrives there with the 50 natives and says to the miller: “Here are 50 natives who must each receive a bag of mealie meal.”. The shopkeeper pays for it. But now the miller must make out a sales slip, or a delivery slip, for every native for a bag of mealie meal, and he refuses to do so. He tells the shopkeeper that he will let him have 50 bags provided he obtains a permit, but he is not prepared to make out a delivery note for each native. And where must he find the time to do all that work? Formerly it was still managed that a miller could kind-heartedly deliver a bag of mealie meal each to ten natives, but the matter now assumes such proportions that he refuses to do so. The result is that natives cannot get meal and go hungry. Seeing that our estimated crops is about 18,000,000 or 20,000,000 bags of mealies this year, I cannot see why the rationing should be so strict and the supply so meagre. After all, if there are 18,000,000 bags in the country, it is enough food for everyone. Why must people go hungry already? I know that the Maize Control Board under no circumstances will depart from the permit system, but cannot mealie products be rationed in a better way? I want to suggest that a large miller, for example, who usually receives 60,000 bags of mealies per annum to mill, should be told, if rationing must be enforced, that there is a shortage of mealies or that it is feared that there will be a shortage, so that he will not receive 60,000 bags of mealies, but must be satisfied with 40,000 bags. Let the miller then distribute the meal proportionately. He will always see to it that his clients more or less receive a proportionate amount. Rather let us ration the miller than ration every individual. I can see no necessity for natives now already going hungry. The same miller told me that the principal of one of the schools at Potchefstroom told him: “Man, in Heaven’s name, let me have a few bags of mealies.” He then said: Good, I will let you have four bags, one for the principal and one for each of the teachers, but he added to that that he could not continue doing that sort of thing. He will do it once but cannot continue doing it. He must receive permits. The permits are issued very slowly. Other hon. members will be able to bear me out that when one applies for a permit one is lucky to receive it within three or four weeks. I hope that the hon. Minister of Native Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture will put an end to the unsatisfactory condition in our country.

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour privilege. In the discussion on this vote last year I gave a brief review of the undercurrents, partly from overseas, that are affecting our racial problems. I referred to a number of facts that make it necessary we should look the matter in the face. This morning I should like to dwell for a moment on the policy of the Government, but more particularly I wish to refer to the Minister of Native Affairs who is responsible for the policy. As we are this morning dealing with the Native Affairs vote there is one important question that we must put, and that is what is really the Government’s native policy? If we look at the position in the country we find three answers may be given to the question. In the first place when we look for a positive policy only one answer can be given, and that is that the Government has no policy. We look in vain for a positive and explicit policy. We look in vain for a policy which will give shape and guidance to the future. This is simply the old policy of letting things take their course, of letting things slide. It is a policy that simply leaves to opportunism the future of our country in so far as this big problem is concerned. In other words, it is a policy only in name, which is travelling towards certain disaster for South Africa, and when we have regard to the results of the policy, to the fruits the tree has produced—and a tree is known by its fruits—then you can only say that the policy South Africa is following is simply a policy of equality between European and non-European, a policy which is calculated to wrench the native by every conceivable method and process as rapidly as possible from the ways of his own people, to make him an imitation westerner, a policy that has cultivated in the native the complex that he must be treated on an equal footing with the white race, and that if that is not done he is being oppressed and unjustly treated. That is the thought that is being induced in the native that if he is not treated on an equal footing he is being oppressed.

Mention examples.

When we talk of separation in our country we must in the first place give the answer that the policy that is being followed here is a policy that has in particular three distinguishing characteristics, namely in that it is lacking in counsel, lacking in force and lacking in determination. These three are the distinguishing attributes of the attitude of the Government in respect of separation, but the most prominent of the three is its lack of determination. The Minister of Native Affairs is so fond of standing up in this House and making resonant declarations of being in favour of a policy of segregation and of carrying it out. Especially on the platteland he is fond of presenting such a declaration to the people. For a moment I should like very briefly to test that declaration and to project the searchlight on to the Minister’s policy during the past few years. When we have regard to the native policy of the last few years, and the policy that has generally been applied to the non-European races, and we accept that the policy of the Government is a policy in connection with which the Minister of Native Affairs will actually have been consulted, I maintain that if we look at this policy that is being applied to the non-European races we must put the question: Where is the Minister of Native Affairs with his segregation policy? What has become of the Minister of Native Affairs? Has he then gone astray? Has he no say in the Cabinet in the administration of the country? We must assume that the Minister of Nativé Affairs is responsible not only for the native policy as such but that he is also responsible for every detail of policy and conduct in connection with the non-European races. He must be held answerable for that. With the Minister of Labour he is responsible for the policy in respect of native labour. With the Minister of Education he is responsible for education as applied to the natives. With the whole Cabinet he is responsible and must accept full responsibility in connection with every aspect of policy and administration in connection with the non-European races. If this is not the case then the Minister of Native Affairs should stand up and say that he washes his hands in innocence, that he accepts no responsibility. Today I should like to put this pointed question to the Minister. Do you accept complete responsibility for the native policy that is being carried out by the Government of our country? Do you accept complete responsibility for the policy that is being applied to the non-European races? Do you agree with the policy of the Government? I am anxious to have clarity. At the outset let me say clearly that in my search for the segregation policy of the Minister of Native Affairs I have found nothing; the search has been absolutely fruitless. All I have got has been words and more words. I have sought in vain for deeds. In my search I have not been able to help wondering whether the Minister of Native Affairs has accepted the philosophy of Talleyrand that words were made to conceal our thoughts with just this alteration, that words have been designed to conceal the actions of the Minister of Native Affairs. Now you will get people who say: Have you not read how the Minister of Native Affairs attacked the agitators amongst the natives in scorching terms? Perfectly right. But what I have not been able to obtain is instances where the Minister has taken action against these agitators. I cannot find a single instance where he has taken action and where he has in fact applied any policy in respect of them. I find myself that time and again pressure has been exercised on the Minister of Native Affairs to take steps against these agitators, and particularly the Communist group, but the Minister has done nothing. People say: Have you not sat here and listened in this House to the Minister of Native Affairs reproachnig the native representatives in the sharpest terms? But in the same breath the Minister has not only excused them but he has justified them in a large measure as far as their actions are concerned. What people apparently forget is that the policy of the Minister of Native Affairs that is being administered in this country is one that closely approximates the policy that has been advocated by the native representatives in the House, and the policy of the Minister is not in conformity with the attitude of the established population of the country. I want to say furthermore that when we go more deeply into matters that have occurred during the past few years, then we find that from time to time a policy has been enforced systematically and deliberately, of undermining segregation, of bringing it into discredit, of letting it culminate in failure. We find shock tactics have been applied to the policy of segregation. We find attack after attack launched by the Government on the grand principles of our policy of segregation. I shall confine myself to a, few illustrations and I shall endeavour to be brief. In the first place, I mention the policy of this Government’ of enlisting non-Europeans in the army, and the policy that has now been proclaimed by the Government in connection with the demobilisation of the natives. We ask what the Minister’s attitude is in connection with that matter.

What matter?

The policy that has been announced in regard to the demobilisation of the native troops. In regard to the first matter I wish to say this. I make here the first charge that this large-scale employment of native troops in the army was not essential for the requirements of the army. I make the definite statement that they were absorbed in the army with ulterior motives. I make this charge against the Government that the step was taken not so much from political considerations but with the ulterior motive of creating a destructive factor in the normal life of the native. No military achievements of any note have been performed by those troops, but the main result is the sequel of disruption of native life, and impairment of the relations as between Europeans and nonEuropeans such as we have never before witnessed. Is it surprising that protagonists of the imperial policy of equality such as Lord Hailey, Russell, Huxley and others do not mention a word about the military achievements of our non-European troops, but they are in the seventh heaven over the sequel of disintegration and process of equalisation between European and nonEuropean that this policy is responsible for. A man like Russell goes so far even to express not only the hope but also the conviction that those 100,000 non-European troops with their families will return and that they will form an organised bloc of agitators who will oblige the European to abandon his policy of separation and his colour bar. Now the Government comes with its " demobilisation policy and it guarantees to everyone of those soldiers that they will be maintained on full pay until they give them work, and if the Government finds work for them they can decline that work, and then they will be kept at a salary of £1 10s. per month until another offer of work is made to them, and only after that can they be discharged. I want to ask whether the hon. Minister of Native Affairs endorses that policy. What is to become of the labour forces of the country in face of such a policy? Persons who know the natives know that there is a large percentage of them who will not work if they can lie idle with a salary of £1 10s. a month. I mention, in the second place the policy of the Government in reference to pensions for natives. Next to the employment of natives in the army this appears to me to be one of the most formidable attacks the Government has made on the natural life of the native. That vote now runs into an amount of £1,268,000 and I want to make this charge against the Government, that this measure has been adopted not so much out of compassion towards these natives or on the grounds of a policy of caring for these old natives, but it has been adopted as one of the measures that will prove a disintegrating factor in the life of the native. One of the foundations of the native’s life has been built up on care being taken of the old people. Care of the aged people was for the native not only a tender filial duty but also a deep religious obligation. Now we are witnessing the phenomenon of natives neglecting their old people. They no longer feel it their duty to look after them because the State has assumed that duty. It was their bounden duty, and now the Government has come and bereft them of it. What is going to be the result? The vote now runs to an amount of £1,268,000. There are cases today where the aged natives are neglected, and it is our Christian duty to look after those natives. What is it going to lead to in a few years’ time? We are going to be faced with difficult periods, and if we cannot pay that amount what will happen then? Then we shall have the reproaches of the natives hurled at us. It is our Christian duty to look after these neglected natives; that is the attitude of this side of the House. But a policy that disrupts the national life, that destroys its principle foundation is not a Christian policy and is not one that makes for the benefit of the people, but it makes for the destruction of character and the fostering of idleness. I take, in the third place an extremely important matter, and I hope the House will take serious notice of it. It is the announced policy of the Minister of Native Affairs that he is now going to make a start with large-scale village settlement for natives. At the commencement there was always this difficulty mentioned here, that the native had not enough land. Some 7⅙ million morgen of South Africa’s best land was set aside for the native. Something over 3 million morgen was purchased for the native. Some 4¼ million morgen remained to be purchased. But listen now to what the Minister of Native Affairs says in his latest report on page 34—

On the scale on which the Government is working today, and with the plans the native representatives submit to the House, I want to agree with the Minister that there will never be enough land available for the natives in South Africa, even if we bought the rest of South Africa for them. On the basis of this excuse the Minister of Native Affairs comes with his village settlement policy. This policy is nothing less than a revolutionary attack on the established life of the native. It is nothing less than a dagger that is thrown at the heart of the native’s tribal life, and constitutes an undermining of his communal system of land tenure. We know that this communal system of land tenure is one of the foundations of native life. In fact, the whole of his economic and social structure is based on this principle. Take away this system and I ask hon. members what remains of the tribal tie and of the tribal life of the native? Virtually nothing remains. Now the Minister comes and he proposes these village settlement schemes. Villages will now be laid out for the natives on native lands. The natives who work in factories and industries will be settled there. These places will be subdivided into plots of a quarter morgen and the native will receive them at £2 a plot. Then a house will be erected at a cost of about £100. The native will be able to rent it at the rate of £3 per year, and he will be able to purchase it as his own property after a trial period of about five years. The purchase price may be paid over a period of 20 years on a basis of 2 per cent. interest. It is then registered in his name. Show to me where any such privilege has ever been extended to our poor whites. What worries me so deeply is that it makes an attack on the best principles of the policy of segregation. In fact, a policy of segregation was built on this system. What is more, the Minister comes now and he destroys the whole object and purpose of the segregation legislation. He is advancing the western idea of private land tenure amongst the natives, and he is destroying the cornerstone of native tribal life. This is nothing less than an attack on the established system of the native and on the policy of segregation. I want to mention, in the fourth place, the large-scale influx of natives to the towns. I do not want to talk about that, but I only want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister of Native Affairs must accept the responsibility for that, for instructions having been issued that the pass laws should not be carried out. The Minister of Native Affairs has now identified himself with this policy that native soldiers who have behaved themselves well in the army will have the privilege of not being required to carry passes for the rest of their lives. What feeling of dissatisfaction is this not going to generate amongst the natives? It is a wedge that has been driven into them and that will have unpleasant consequences. It is the Minister of Native Affairs who has not the courage to adopt measures to stop this influx. Take the question of native education. Look at the syllabi, look at the educational methods, look at the powers the native child develops, look at the whole object and tenor of native education, and you must arrive at the conclusion that it is not a policy aimed at making a success of total segregation, but on the contrary it is a policy designed to extirpate the policy of separation, root and branch. Does that carry with it the approval of the Minister of Native Affairs? There is the feature of the combined farming by Europeans and non-Europeans. I do not want to talk about that, but I should like to say a few words today in regard to the hostel erected by the Witwatersrand University for non-Europeans at a cost of £70,000. Does this meet with the approval of the Minister of Native Affairs? I mention this because that hostel bears the name of a man who was his chief official, the ex-Secretary for Native Affairs. Do we realise that that hostel is a dagger aimed at the heart of our policy of separation? I mention to you another matter, namely the employment of non-European messengers in the public service.

Are you referring to the Smit Hostel in Johannesburg.

Yes. I mention another matter, and that is the employment of nonEuropean messengers in the public service at a salary of £5 a month, plus uniform. Some 251 have already been appointed. Now they are trying to create educational facilities for these messengers. This is an injustice that is being done towards your European messengers. True they are being kept apart, but as far as status goes they stand virtually on the same basis as European messengers. I maintain this is not right towards the European messengers. I have no objection to the appointment of non-European messengers in the Department of Native Affairs. But this is not a policy of segregation, it is a policy of absolute equality. When I examine the policy of the Minister of Native Affairs I cannot discover that segregation he so frequently proclaims. In fact, the Minister has had an opportunity to suit his action to his words. What has he done? He has thrown his hands up and exclaimed: I am powerless. When the municipalities approached him in connection with the influx of natives to the cities, he had only one reply, and that was: I am powerless. When I search with my mind’s eye for the policy of the Minister of Native Affairs and for the policy of the Government, this is the policy I find. I see the Minister standing up like a flagpole with his two long arms in the air and over him waves the flag representing the Government’s non-European policy with its three stripes of witlessness, powerlessness and mindlessness. I want to refer him to the amount of money that has been spent on the natives during the past few years. I do not stand for a policy of repression; I do not believe in a policy of repression. Not only is it un-Christian—it is our Christian duty to give the natives leadership — but a policy of repression has always had but one result; it yields only one fruit, namely hatred. And hatred in the people arising from a policy of injustice and repression is more dangerous than all the armed force in the world. I do not believe in a policy of repression, but on the other hand we must be prudent and not lead the native too quickly so that in the end he will completely lose his balance. The natives must develop gradually and in conformity with his own national character and environment. For him to be led too quickly will present greater dangers than a policy of repression. The guidance the Government gives the native today is of such a character that 95 per cent. of them have so lost their balance that they are of no value to their own people and of still less value to the South African nation. The native must be led gradually. It is only along that road that his whole national life can be founded and constructed on a sound foundation. Only then will there be cultivated in him a feeling of responsibility, a conception of his duty and an appreciation of his prospects and opportunities. In other words, you will then be laying the foundations for the formation of character not only for the individual but for the formation of the native’s national character, and it is on that foundation we must build. I wish again to emphasise the fact that no country in the whole world treats its non-European races so justly as the people of South Africa. Everything is presented to them on a salver. I would like to mention a few figures bearing on this policy of the Government towards the natives. Amongst the items served on this tray are native education, on which an amount of £2,530.000 was expended; pensions, £1,268,000; cost of living allowances, £161,000; allowances to chiefs, £48,000; native land settlements, £155,000; native soil erosion, £110 000; school buildings, £76,000; wages of mineworkers, £1,850,000; Native Trust £944,000; various grants, £500,000; loans to 40 towns for native housing, £2,349,000—a total of £9,986,000. Add to that an amount of about £24,000,000 paid out recently in the form of salaries and allowances to non-European soldiers and then dependants; add to that an amount of something over £5,000,000 that has been devoted in the last few years to the purchase of land for natives; add to that the scheme for improving native stock, namely, 84 bull centres with 987 pedigree bulls and 16 ram centres with 200 pedigree rams; add to that the tremendous increase in native wages during recent years; add to that the gigantic contributions made in recent years for native housing — under the sub-economic housing scheme some 35,000 houses were constructed for non-Europeans; add to that all the public services which they utilised; and in round figures this amounts this year to about £10,000,000 spent on the natives. Even the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs intimated at a special session of the Native Representative Council on Friday that the Government within a short while would be expending £5,755,000 on direct services for the natives, excluding the purchase of land and the improvement of native areas. He added, too, that only 40 natives had in the past year contributed to the ordinary taxation of the country. The native contributes, in addition, in the form of taxes £1,933,512, in round figures £2,000,000. The amount applied to their interests is £10,000,000, while they bring in something under £2,000,000. As against that the taxation of the Europeans has been increased from time to time. Since 1925 native taxation has not been increased by a single penny. That fact is now confirmed in the speech made on Friday at Pretoria by the Under-Secretary for Native Affairs. On the other hand, European taxation has been increased from time to time and in many instances it has been doubled. We wish to meet the native as far as possible, but we must lay down this principle in the first place, that he must be self-supporting. This is the foundation of the policy of segregation. He must develop gradually and in accordance with his own nature and on his own foundations to comply with the requirements of his own people. Then we shall be laying the foundation for character formation not only for the individual but also in respect of the national life of the native, and it is our bounden duty and our ordained task to fulfil the requirement of the native in connection with these matters. I wish again to sound a warning that this Government has embarked on a headlong course in connection with its policy, the policy of offering services to the native on a salver. On the part of the native there is precious little exertion and concentration to surmount his difficulties and application and concentration provide the basis for a sound policy for any nation in the world.

I should like at the outset to express my deep sympathy with the hon. Minister on his having had to listen to the speech we have just heard, and which presumably he will at some stage have to reply. We have been treated to half-an-hour of the most acute obscurantism I have ever heard in this House. For half-an-hour the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) has served up every reactionary view that any section of this House has ever expounded on Native Affairs. If it reflects the attitude of the Nationalist Party truly I am justified in my analysis of the political situation when I say the Nationalist Party is so completely out of touch with the development of South Africa that the sooner they recognise the shop is shutting down on them the better. At this stage in our history a supposedly responsible spokesman of one of the major political parties in this country stands up here and says: “You have no right to introduce old-age pensions for natives because you will undermine the Christian basis of family responsibility, that it is ridiculous to talk about not having enough land for all the native population when the Government is buying up 7¼ million morgen for them, that we are spending and have spent far too much money on native housing, that the establishment of villages to relieve the pressure on over-crowded reserves is a revolutionary and costly plan, that the natives should not be allowed to come to the towns;” all that is the most fantastic record of reactionism that I have ever heard. The sum total and effect of his views would simply be to leave the native population in their over-crowded reserves of which apparently the hon. member knows nothing in spite of his years of study—to rot. That is the only conclusion we can come to. If that is the intention of the Nationalist Party, if what we have listened to is in fact a statement of their policy, what is going to happen to the farmers while the natives languish in the reserves I do not know. Nor do I know what is going to happen to the gold mines, on which the whole standard of living of those hon. members sitting on that side of this House rests, while the native population is rotting in their reserves. But I am certain we are not going to witness the implementation of that policy as a positive factor in our national situation. I can only hope, however, that the Government spokesmen will be as emphatic in their repudiation of this type of policy and of the appeal to prejudice which is latent in the whole of this speech as they should be. That is exactly the sort pf appeal, an appeal too frequent which the hon. member made when he spoke about the villages it is proposed to establish to take the surplus population of the reserves, when he said: Where has there been any plan of this kind put up for Europeans. It is the same old story; do nothing to save our native population for our own good. He exclaims: Look at the money the white man is spending on the native population; regardless of the fact that the whole national income of South Africa has been built up on the work of the native population. It is all so unreal and unrealistic that it is absurd to get angry about it. The only thing is that the essential injustice in such a speech is in itself a spur to deeper emotions than we should feel in this matter. Having got that off my chest I wish to turn to matters which I trust have some practical value. First of all, I wish to do something I am accused of not doing very often. I wish to express my appreciation of the speedy reaction of the Government, no doubt urged on by the Native Affairs Department, to the news of the situation which has arisen in the Ciskei. That matter has already been brought before the House this morning by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). It is a fact, as I understand the reports from that area, that the Government has been extremely expeditious in its response to the statements made in regard to the situation developing there; and I believe it is at the moment engaged in organising food relief services for the drought-stricken areas. I am gratified at that action and at the specific circumstances of this immediate relief. But I am also glad that the spotlight has at last been focused on the Ciskei, though I regret it has necessitated an unfortunate situation of this kind to bring this about. The Ciskei is one of our main native areas in this country. It is the area which I represent in this House, and therefore one I know fairly intimately. It is, in my opinion, a very tragic area, the needs of which have been far too long overlooked and put aside. I am hopeful now that these circumstances which have arisen and which have called for this emergency action will mark the beginning of a more careful consideration of the needs of this area and that there will be an attempt to organise the area in order to save the people and the land alike from the very grave deterioration which has set in there. This is, I suppose, the most over-crowded of our native areas. It is as a result of that circumstance proportionately the greatest of our labour reservoirs. It provides more labour proportionately to its population than probably any other native area in the country; but allied to that circumstance is a standard of living and conditions of public health which are a tragic reflection on the public conscience of this country. I know from long experience that these circumstances have been represented time and again in the report of the Public Health Department, that typhus and plague are endemic over great areas of the Ciskei. Last year, as the typhus epidemic developed, the Ciskei suffered quite as acutely as the Transkei, if not more acutely. The Glen Grey area is riddled with disease; it is one of the most beautiful areas in this country, it has magnificent possibilities, but it is the home of an overcrowded population whose standard of living is disastrously low. I would like to refer the hon. Minister to a statement, which in my experience is absolutely justified, on this very situation. It appears in the issue of the South African Medical Journal for May 22nd, 1943. It is a statement by Mr. De Villiers, who was an inspector of schools and was largely responsible for the establishment of the Freemantle school in the Glen Grey area. On the facts Mr. De Villiers knew, and which I am certain are sound, he told his audience —it was an audience of doctors endeavouring to deal with problems of health—that on his experience of this native area—

That is possibly not a completely fair reflection of the whole of the Ciskei at this moment, but it is steadily becoming a fair reflection of the whole of that area. In the Glen Grey district the holdings originally established on the Glen Grey basis of five morgen have steadily been reduced in size, a development which is progressively happening all over the Ciskei. [Time limit.]

I will not detain the Committee for long, but I deem it my duty to say a few words in reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). He delivered an eloquent and lengthy argument—I could almost call it a sermon—in which he spoke of the aimless policy of this Government which is heading for disaster. Those were his words. If he had named one single example, we would still have been able to grasp at it. But he failed to mention one single instance where this Government with its aimless policy is heading for disaster. I listened carefully and the hon. member only propounded the general supposition that the Minister of Native Affairs is engaged in bringing about equality between Europeans and non-Europeans. Here once again we have the old habit of distortion—I would not say that it was wilful distortion— but the old habit which exists on the other side of talking of equality between Europeans and non-Europeans. He wanted to say equality between Europeans and natives, but with premeditation he omitted to use the word “natives” and spoke of non-Europeans. When they talk about it in the Transvaal, they speak of the non-Europeans in the Cape Province who have the vote which brings them onto the same level as the Europeans. The Transvaalers then think that there is equality here in the Cape Province between Europeans and non-Europeans, and in their minds they include the native as well; in other words equality of natives and Europeans. That is where I find fault with members on the other side ….

Are you in favour of equality between Europeans and coloureds?

Definitely not. I am simply drawing attention to this distortion, whether it is done deliberately or not. As I say, he did not mention one single example to substantiate his accusations. What then must one think of his argument? He beat about the bush and eventually his most important charge was that which we have heard in the last few days, namely Communism. He argued at some length until he came to the agitators who encourage Communism. I do not know whether now is the appropriate time to discuss that, for much has been said lately on that subject. I repeat that the hon. member ought to quote instances for his accusation that the hon. Minister has deliberately failed in his duty in this connection. He said further that this Minister’s actions are purposely directed at undermining segregation. Those were the express words which he used. I want to ask him again to quote one single instance thereof. If he can prove to us and to the public that this Government, through the Minister of Native Affairs, is deliberately out to undermine segregation, very well then, we can start arguing about the matter. But this he has also not done. As an agriculturist who makes a living out of farming, I must also reply to what the hon. member said when he drew a comparison between the taxation which is levied on the native and that which is levied on the Europeans. He said that since 1925 no increased taxation has been levied on the natives. Naturally, on the other hand he wanted to make out that the European has to pay increased taxation. That I don’t deny. But what the hon. member forgot, or what he failed to say, is that the native pays the same indirect taxation as the Europeans. He pays the same indirect taxation in proportion to his income.

The Europeans do that as well.

But that was concealed. In other words, it was professed that since 1925 the natives have not paid one single penny more in taxation. I object to that type of distortion. The hon. member also said that it is the policy of the Opposition to treat the natives in a Christian manner. He declares explicitly that it is the policy of the Opposition to look to the needs of the old natives, in other words to grant them a pension if they deserve it. That is quite right, and I agree. But then he went on and said that by granting that pension the Government is undermining the tribal life of the native, because by so doing it is relieving the native of his responsibilities towards his child. Where we have done it in the past with the Europeans, I can find no fault with this. I deny that it is the cause of undermining the tribal life. But presuming it is so; what is there to say against it when it has already been done in the case of the Europeans? These kinds of suppositions and allegations are only made in order to mislead and deceive those who are less well-informed. It amounts to that. I do not say that it is done wilfully, but it is the only construction we can put upon it. If today we regard the natives as useless inhabitants of the country for the simple reason that they do not pay more taxation, then we are wandering away from reality. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has already made mention of this fact, and I just want to emphasise it, for I cannot neglect to do so. Let us remember that our agriculture in the country has been built up on native labour; that our mine industry has been built up on native labour, and that our industrial life has been built up on native labour—if we remember that, then it is really, I can almost say a wilful concealment of facts to lead astray uninformed people. I think we must make it clear that we could not have made such progress in this country were it not for the fact that we were able to make use of the working power of the natives. We obtained those working forces in good will and without force and up till now we have lived in peace, and we can continue to do so, but then we must not make speeches of that kind. For it is those arguments which bring about estrangement and bad feeling.

Has the white man any need to reproach himself for his treatment of the native?

Up till now, generally speaking, no. But when we conceal facts of this kind and we harp on the opposite, namely that he does not pay taxation, that we have to pay him a pension and provide him with education, then we will of necessity be creating bad feeling. I want to touch upon another matter, and that is to make an appeal to the Minister of Native Affairs to expedite the sinking of boreholes in the native reserves. There is much ground in my district which has been purchased but which is uninhabitable because there is insufficient water. The grazing lands there are of the best, and I want to urge the Minister to expedite the sinking of boreholes there without delay. It will prevent the congestion in the locations and the consequent trampling down of the veld to a large extend. Now I want to quote an instance where it appears to me that the Government does not enforce the law strictly. It is not exactly to undermine segregation, as my hon. friend over there said, but it creates the impression that we are not serious about segregation. It is in this respect. During the war there was much money in circulation in the country.

Business men made a lot of money and they started buying up farms. The practice is now that in many cases instead of placing white bywoners on that land, they are placing natives on those farms. In other words, those natives are drawn out of the locations and placed on land in European areas. The native, therefore, is taking the place of a white man. I find fault with that. I want to appeal to the Minister of Native Affairs to realise what the outcome of this is going to be. It affects us in two ways. In the first place the natives are taken there out of the reserves, and in the second place the bywoners are in that way sent packing. I would like the Minister to give this matter his attention.

We have involuntarily formed the impression that the native representatives desire to appropriate all native privileges as falling within their special province and that they take exception to members on this side betraying any interest in native affairs. They object to such interest as if they and they alone are socilitous for the welfare of the natives. I think both sides of the House support the view that the native should not be repressed and that the best measures should be taken to help the natives along in life. You almost feel that you owe them an apology if you want to say something about the interests of the natives, for they think that they are the only people who stand for the interests of the natives. I will leave it there. I say this in view of the criticism which has been hurled at the eloquent, strong and sound viewpoint advocated by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) in his speech. I would like the Minister to declare his policy in connection with an important matter which we will have to face in the future, namely a ban on native polygamy. This policy has been laid down for European civilisation in the world. It is a proved principle which is regarded by the whole world as sound and not to be improved upon, namely, one man one wife. The result of that principle has been proved throughout the world to be a sound and strong foundation for the advance of humanity in the world. Particularly where the Christian world has adopted this principle 100 per cent., we must take the matter into consideration with relation to the natives. In South Africa for the last 300 years the principle of one man one wife has been propagated by all the various churches and missionaries. Good results have been achieved, but it still remains a stumbling block to religious work mongst the natives. Only a very small percentage of them have adopted the Christian civilised viewpoint of one man one wife, and I feel that the time has arrived for us to assist the natives in this respect to reach this civilised conception. The native desires it. He is desirous of adopting civilisation but this polygamy stands in his way.

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

Before the adjournment of the proceedings I was endeavouring to explain that it is the world-wide opinion and also the acknowledged basis of Christian peoples that one man shall have one wife. It is not alone the world-wide opinion, but it is also accepted by the whole Christian Church. I cannot understand why in this civilised country of ours, or in this country where so much is done to civilise the natives, why he is still exempt and why polygamy is permitted. I feel that we have reached the stage where, while the native lays claim to civilisation, and while he wishes to participate in civilisation, we can no longer allow polygamy to take place in the country. Apart from other considerations, there is the balance between European and non-European which threatens to become even more disturbed. We have no less than eight million natives and two million Europeans, and where one native can keep from five to ten wives at his pleasure, the tempo of the increased birthrate among the natives is terrific. I know of one native who had no less than a hundred children during his lifetime.

Slowly!

I know what I am talking about, but there is a restriction imposed by civilisation on the European population and the balance becomes more and more disturbed. That is why I feel that where the native is laying claim to European civilisation, he should no longer be allowed to continue to live in this uncivilised state. I feel that this matter deserves serious attention. Already we have not sufficient room for eight million natives. As the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) explained, even were we to give the natives the whole Union, there would still not be sufficient ground for them. Why then allow free scope to that enormous increase of the non-Euproeans? I think that the matter merits serious consideration. I want to deal with a second point, namely, the desirability of segregation between coloureds and natives. Intercourse between Europeans and natives is forbidden by legislation. It is a criminal offence if any such thing takes place. Why cannot that Act also be made applicable to our coloured population? I think this also merits serious consideration, especially in view of the fact that this ban between Europeans and natives has been a great success and worked well. It was a step ahead. If it is good for the Europeans, then it ought also to be applied to the coloureds who in large measure have accepted European civilisation and are inclined to imitate the standard of the white man. I consider that the legislation should be extended to coloureds, otherwise the streaming in of thousands of natives, especially for example to the Cape Peninsula, will again create further big problems. It will lead to interbreeding between coloureds and natives, and that is certainly undesirable. We must endeavour to avoid it, and we must help the coloureds to maintain a highr standard. [Time limit.]

I regret very much that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) should have barged in to deal with matters affecting a constituency about which he knows nothing and was not able to give the House the full details, affecting drought conditions in that area. I feel it incumbent on me to describe to the House the conditions that do exist and to offer, as far as I possibly can, some remedy for the present conditions. Four or five weeks ago it became necessary when I saw the conditions that were prevailing, to request the Mealie Control Board as an emergency measure, to have 10,000 bags of mealies sent to that area by special train. The conditions are exceedingly bad there, so bad that I am going to ask the Minister to take into consideration, following up the representations that have already been made by his Department, the establishment of a Ciskeian Advisory Committee to the Mealie Control Board. The establishment of a mealie bank so that we may avoid a recurrence of such conditions where, as a result of bad administration, starvation is facing those natives. If we institute a mealie bank the natives will be able to draw their mealies at any time and the advisory committee I have recommended could act in an advisory capacity to the Mealie Control Board. It is ridiculous to carry on as we are doing at present, under a system established by the Mealie Control Board where under every native is allowed 1 lb. of mealies a day; there are times when they require no mealies at all, or only ¼ lb. or ½ lb.; but under present conditions they require every mealie they can get to save themselves from starvation. A factor that has a great bearing on the present crisis is the overstocking of those areas in the Ciskei and Transkei. First of all I want to ask the Minister how far he has got with the reduction of stock in those areas; how far he has got with the improvement of stock in those areas, and what is the limit representing the number of stock it is aimed to ultimately arrive at. It is a well-known fact that the system followed by the natives as far as the Ciskei is concerned in reduction of the stock is simply to shift it to another location. A practice of that kind will simply make confusion worse confounded. The next step I should like him to take relates to the type of stock that should be run in those reserves in the future. I know it is the policy of the Department to introduce Afrikanders into the native herds with the object of effecting some improvement. May I say at the outset that I think we are taking a very bad step by introducing the Afrikander type of animal. My suggestion is that you should use possibly the native stock as a base but introduce some type of stock which is going to improve the conditions of malnutrition for the younger natives in the reserves. It a well-known fact that milk, being a staple food or a balancing ration for the bulk of the natives, is practically non-existent today, and the introduction of Afrikander cattle is not going to improve matters.

What have you got against the Afrikander?

It is good to pull the plough but when you come to milk it, you will drink black coffee. What I am trying to illustrate is the fact that milk is a balancing ration in the food of the natives, and they need much more of it. May I suggest, arising out of that, that you utilise some of the farms which you propose taking over in the Transkei and the Ciskei for the establishment of bull-breeding stations, with the native stock as the base. We have heard much about the casual labour gangs. I want to suggest to you that in future you establish these gangs throughout the country and make the necessary provisions through your Department, because of the peculiar nature of farming conditions in this country, where farmers produce large quantities of maize and cereals and are not able to house enormous numbers of natives in the reaping season. The matter has been dealt with from time to time but I mention this purely because of the fact that the suggestions have been made that we never revert to the compound system again. Whatever you do, Mr. Chairman, as regards the native in this country, you are always going to have a certain amount of casual labour, and I think you will be doing much good to the natives if you organise these gangs for the purpose of making available to farmers in this country casual labour gangs for the purpose of supplementing that labour which is at present needed at reaping time throughout the country. There is one more item with which I want to deal, namely the question of Communism. I view that problem with great alarm, as it affects my part of the country very seriously, and in view of the fact that we have had riot after riot in that part of the country as the result of agitators sent down. These agitators are men who are schooled in some secret organisation for the purposes of coming down to these areas and to propagate and disseminate propaganda for the purposes of engineering a state, in the minds of these natives, of demanding social equality with the Europeans in this country. It was debated fully in another debate but unfortunately, from my point of view, I view that it falls particularly under Native Affairs, and I am going to ask the Minister to investigate as closely as he can and to stop that state of affairs and to run to earth that secret organisation which is sending out these disciples to disseminate that propaganda.

Hear, hear.

When I say that I am not suggesting for one moment that the natives should be denied the privilege of agitating for a better deal, because if we are going to have Communism in this country it is going to be Communism common to ourselves, and it will be a Communism arising out of the starvation of the native himself, suppression and exploitation, and if we are going to carry on as we are and make the native problem in this country a political football, as it is, Communism will be spread fast. There is a further question I would like to ask the Minister finally and that is how far he has got with the excision of the scheduled area which was originally to be deproclaimed, of Bluewater, and the scheduling of the area Kwelega. We have to know that, because at present the farmers in that area cannot carry on in that way, not having any evidence that that land will be excised, and feeling insecure. Finally I want to express my appreciation to the Minister and his Administration for what they have done for the area I represent. We appreciate immensely his sending the Commission down there to investigate the various conditions which are common only to that area, and the fact that he has definitely decided to maintain in perpetuity the Kei River as the natural boundary between the European and the native, the Ciskei and the Transkei.

The point I was trying to make to the hon. Minister this morning was that the development of the serious situation in the Ciskei is only an aggravation of the general economically insecure situation in the whole of that area. The Ciskeian area is hopelessly overpopulated and poverty stricken, and is always on the verge of disaster. Now, that circumstance is largely disguised because there are no established data on which to base this sort of claim. Particularly are we lacking in vital statistics. I regard it as most significant that in the report which came this morning from Dr. Latsky he should say—

The absence of these vital statistics is one which has concerned us very deeply for many years. We have felt that not only does it prevent us knowing the magnitude of our problems but it also makes it completely impossible for us to plan our future development on any authoritative scientific basis. We from these benches, and others from other parts of the House, have repeatedly asked the Minister of the Interior to initiate a system of registration of vital statistics of the native population. Registration does take place in towns, but it is entirely useless since the rural areas are not brought under the same control. The reply has always been either that it would be too expensive or too difficult or that there was no personnel. I believe I am right in saying that the Native Affairs Department feels as strongly as we do that this service must be instituted, and this year I took the liberty in the debate on the Interior Vote to tell the Minister of the Interior that I believe that the Native Affairs Department would be willing to assist in the initiation of this service. I have reason to believe that that is true. I want to urge the Minister now to look into this matter about which his Department feels so strongly and to be prepared to accede to our request. This service has already for too long been delayed. We cannot go on without it, if our post-war planning is to have any value at all. That is the first issue I wish to raise. The second is that I do want the Minister to watch the whole of the food situation, particularly in the Ciskei, and I would press him to impress upon the food organisation of this country the desirability of seeing that protective foods are made available in the rural areas. Subsidised foods are being made available for the low income groups in the urban areas, where foods of various kinds are more available and on hand, but in the rural areas malnutrition is rife, as every report has proved to the hilt, and protective foods are never seen. I am talking not only of milk which is so lamentably lacking in most of our native areas, but of other foods like protective oils. I think the Department should urge the manufacture of margarine as a permanent product to be supplied to native areas where protective foods are lacking. I think that this should be tackled entirely independently of the present proposed manufacture of margarine on the ground of the recent butter shortage and that there should be a policy of permanently manufacturing margarine to be distributed through Social Welfare or through Native Affairs, or through the Native Trusts in native areas where other protective foods are almost entirely lacking. I hope that also the manufacture and distribution in the native areas of food yeast will be pressed. Further, to come back particularly to the Ciskei again, I want to remind the Minister that the landlessness of the natives in the Ciskei is about three times as high as in the Transkei, according to the figures given last year by the Mine Native Wages Commission’s report. I see from this year’s report of the Native Affairs Department that it is conscious of the problems due to overcrowding and has proposed a policy of establishing villages to relieve the pressure of these rural areas, the kind of villages to which one hon. member took such exception this morning. On one occasion it was suggested that I am opposed to such villages. I want to repeat’ what I said on that occasion, that far from being opposed to these villages I support wholeheartedly the recognition of the urban character of many of the people now trying to maintain a foothold in the reserves and the advantage of establishing villages for these people which will give them the opportunity of pursuing continuously the urban callings upon which they are dependent. I feel that the plans for a village outside King Williamstown, about which I did not know until I saw it in the Department’s report, are a definite step in the right direction. I just wish to say again what I said on the earlier occasion, that my support for the establishment of these villages is entirely dependent upon the men being able to go home to their own homes at night. I support the policy of establishing new villages where the men will be able to live with their families, but not where they will have to be away at least a week at a time. I do not believe that that is a sound policy and no new foundations like that should be laid. But so far as the sort of village planned for at Kingwilliamstown is concerned, I trust it will be a successful experiment. Related to this question of landlessness and the crowding of the native reserves by men who are really urban workers, I wish to solicit the support of the Native Affairs Department for representations which have been made by us and by other interested parties for the recognition of the claims of native workmen to the sort of service which is given under our laws to other workers. I am thinking particularly of compensation to workers in case of injury and occupational disease. We have been constantly urging that the payment of lump sums for native workers in the way of compensation should not be continued.

Are you referring now to phthisis also?

Miners’ phthisis and workmen’s compensation. We have held that lump sums are not sound methods of compensation in any case, but for native workers, particularly for the casual migratory native worker, they are absolutely unsound. They are disastrous. The native is not in a position to invest the moneygiven to him in anything but cattle, and the Department itself is constantly urging the natives to limit their cattle instead of increasing the number. In any case, a lump sum is always easily and rapidly spent, with the result that the cost of supporting the man and his family is thrown back on a society which is completely unable to support that burden. I am encouraged to raise this issue by the recent report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission which came as a sad revelation to us of the sort of evidence that has so often been put up by the Native Affairs Department on occasions of this kind. So often we find that the case we have put forward on behalf of the native workers is undermined and cancelled to a large extent by the representations of the Native Affairs Department itself. When this commission was sitting we pressed upon the commission strongly the claims of the native workers for compensation to be paid on exactly the same basis as that provided for Europeans. [Time limit.]

I think perhaps I might intervene now to reply to some of the points raised. The first speaker was the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) who referred to a very important matter, the drought in the Ciskei and stated that the class of farmer living there was very good and that they were a very fine crowd. They understand the native and sympathise with him and are out to help the native in his difficulties. From my own experience there I agree with him. They are a very fine type of man and are out to help the native as far as possible. But this question of starvation or semi-starvation in the Ciskei is a Government responsibility and we must deal with it to the best of our ability to see that at least no one starves there. I am glad he referred in such kindly terms to the new Secretary for Native Affairs in saying that he was a man who was heart and soul in sympathy with the natives and that he had the confidence of the natives. I entirely agree with that, and the truth of it was shown the other day when he went to speak at the General Council in the Transkei to get them to agree to this reclamation scheme we are putting into operation there. I might say straight away, about the trouble in the Ciskei, that I have been in close touch with it. I had hoped to be able to go there myself, but it proved impossible to do so at present. We however receive reports every day by telephone and wire, and perhaps I might give a few details about what the position is. I gave these in reply to a question only a short while ago. The Department co-operates, as hon. members know, with Dr. Latsky, who is not a member of my Department, but I have taken the steps recommended by him. Dr. Latsky states that the report that children are dying of starvation is obviously an overstatement, but it does not take away from the fact that a very serious situation can arise if conditions do not improve. But we are supplying milk for children from our own farm, and condensed milk, milk powder, mealie meal and soya beans. Dr. Latsky is preparing a diet for young children, and cookers with native cooks are being provided at 100 centres. Everyone has got instructions to get the necessary transport, if not Departmental then other transport, and Pretoria is in close touch and will send down help to see that the distribution of food takes place. As far as I can see from careful questions put to my Department which is in close touch with officials there, it seems to me that the situation is well in hand. The Chief Native Commissioner, the native commissioners and the Department of Public Health are fully alive to the situation, and it is felt that the organisation which is being set up will deal satisfactorily with the emergency. That is my opinion, and that is I think a perfectly fair summing up of the situation as it is now. Now the hon. member for the Transkei (Mr. Hemming) raised some important points, and I cannot agree too’ strongly with him as regards the question he raised about the selection of officials in the Department of Native Affairs. I am very grateful to him for raising it because quite frankly it is something which has been exercising my mind ever since I became the Minister. In Justice, the work is largely routine, whereas magistrates and native commissioners have to have a psychological understanding of the native as well as merely knowing their jobs as trained lawyers. It is a profession, a calling, which you cannot merely attain by training. It must also have the background, and I feel frankly that this is a most important question and it has been engaging the attention of my department for a long time, because unless we can really get the right type of man it is going to be very difficult to carry on the Department of Native Affairs. The majority of administrative and clerical officials require legal qualifications. They also require a knowledge of native law and custom and of administration, which is essential. It is not merely the training of the man, but he also has to have the right psycholological outlook. I am thinking of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll). He is a doctor and has made a success of his profession and of politics through his charming manner. As the doctor must have a bedside manner, which is part of his personality apart from his training, so these officials must have a personality in order to get the confidence of the natives. They must be able to gain their confidence and to handle men. They must be imbued with sympathy for the ideals of the native, but at the same time they must be free of any sentimentality and sloppiness. They have to be strong, and just and have both feet on the ground. There may be many bureaucrats who can do routine work efficiently, but these men also need an ability for maintaining human relationships. In other parts of the public service it is possible for a young clerk to be behind the counter of a Post Office one day and next day he can work in Inland Revenue and then go to some other Departmet. It makes very little difference where he goes, as he only has a certain type of work to do, but the man who comes into native affairs must uphold the prestige of the white man, he must have knowledge and sympathy. He has to have a different make-up and a certain background, and that cannot be created by training. Men of this calibre are few and far between. Wherever they are found they have won respect of the chiefs and people. You see at once that when the right type of man is in a district there is no difficulty in that area. I think the Department has suffered sometimes because the position is not clearly understood by the Public Service Commission or the Government. Its difficulties are great. Men of such capacity will be able to lead the native chief and his people along the right road without difficulty, whereas another man, however clever, might fail. In 1910 the chief magistrate of the Transkei commented on the problem in existence at that time and since then the position has deteriorated. The qualities required in an official are either inherent or acquired by the proper upbringing with those with whom he must come into contact during his early years. In order to obtain such men they must be properly paid. They must remain in the Department and not be transferred from Department to Department. I am entirely in agreement with that. In the evidence given by my department before the Centlivres Commission we have put forward these views and in view of that fact I cannot say anything further at present. The hon. member also raised the point of employing natives in the territories. I am most anxious to implement the promises made in all good faith and sincerity by the late General Hertzog when he introduced his policy of segregation. He said that the natives in their own areas would be given further and further the right to run their own show and to take part in the administration of the areas. They must be responsible for helping to run their administraion, and I am in favour of that, because that was the promise made to them which we must carry out. If the hon. member likes I can give him further details on the subject. He raised the point of the appointments. He referred to 57 posts. I may say that as the result of a decision taken four years ago, the quota of 57 posts which were provided for native clerks at certain salary scales has been filled and the Government has recently approved of the principle of creating additional clerkships where circumstances warrant it in order to provide increased avenues of employment in their own areas for natives who were suitably educated and trained. I will not take up the time of the House by mentioning the various posts, but the full 57 were appointed, and last year I applied for permission to create more posts. He raised another important matter, the duties of the headman and the inadequacy of the pay. It is true that the headman performs many valuable duties and that his services are indispensable to the administration. We could not run the administration in such a cheap way if it were not for the great work done by these people. It would be much more expensive if we did not have them, but let me say quite frankly that without their services we could not administer the locations. No one is more aware of the fact than I am that the salaries paid to these men is too low. Within the first two months I was in the Department that was one of the first things I discussed and I pointed out that these salaries were not high enough. On a first appointment the headman gets £12 per annum, £18 per annum after three years, £24 after six years, £30 after 11 years, and after 15 years £36 per annum. That is the flat rate. When we compare the scale with that applying to schoolmasters I think we must realise that is too low. If the rates of pay are going to be raised all round it will amount in the aggregate to a very large sum, and I shall have to be able to put up a very good case to the Treasury. I have been discussing it for a long time, but so far we have not come to any agreement. But I think it is hardly right to suggest that if you pay a few pounds more to a man he is on that account never going to be guilty of corruption. If he is a crook he will be a crook whether he has £1,000 a year or £5,000 a year.

So long as you do not pay him £2,500 a year.

The sum of £1,800 represents the Minister’s salary and £700 represents his allowance as a member of Parliament. I find people can be dishonest on a good deal less than that. I do not think that is an argument that can be used. If a fellow is going to be dishonest he is going to be dishonest whatever you pay him. The sum involved by increasing these payments will run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Then the question of the salaries of chiefs is a matter that will have to be discussed too. The hon. member quoted the case of the chiefs. The matter has recently received the attention of the Department, and as a result the subsidies of most of the leading chiefs were increased. I have not yet got the exact figures, but when the question was asked this morning I tried to get through to Pretoria to obtain the information, and if it is available before my vote is through I shall reply on this point.

What does a head chief get?

Some get £500.

Is it not so much a wife?

No, it is on a civilised basis.

†*I come now to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Visser). It is quite right, as he said, that the natives live largely only on mealies, while Europeans can always get other food. The native does not eat much meat and he does not want to eat vegetables, and also beans, etc. are not liked by him, and if he does not receive mealies he finds it very difficult. It is of course a matter for the Maize Control Board and I have often submitted points to the Maize Control Board, also points such as that raised by the hon. member. It is not a matter on which I would like to express an opinion. The point raised by him is a matter for the Maize Control Board and it will be brought to their attention. In the past few months I saw them several times in order to bring matters to their attention and generally it had the right effect. I then come to the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). He launched a terrible attack on me. While I listened to him I thought that I must be the weakest Minister of Native Affairs there ever has been, but I cannot help feeling that he attacked me a little because his own people are beginning to trust me, especially the farming members opposite. He now wishes to drive in a wedge. However, I do not wish to make debating points but just to reply to his points. He says that I have no policy. Well, before I had been in the position of Minister of Native Affairs for three weeks there was a motion before this House by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), and in reply to the motion I said that I stood by the policy of the legislation of 1936. That was my published statement in this House, and I repeated it several times on the platteland. To say now that I never had a policy and never announced a policy is incorrect, and the hon. member knows that it is not so. Of course during the last election we kept native affairs out of party politics, and that was a very good thing. We saw that if we wanted to solve this great problem there should be co-operation between the various sections of the population and we must take the natives with us and not always use them as a political football. The hon. member says that I wish to place natives and Europeans on an equal footing. The hon. member knows that is not so. I do not even believe that there are hon. members sitting in the bottom corner who really want that or recommend it. I fear the hon. member said it rather because of political reasons. As the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) said by way of interjection, the hon. member for Wonderboom did not give one example to support his allegation. I think that was sufficient reply. Now I am attacked on the other side of the House just because I do not do enough to push the natives to the fore and to help them to develop. That attack is made on me even by members of my own Party and especially the Press in certain parts of the Unjon. The hon. member for Wonderboom asked me whether I accepted 100 per cent. responsibility for the present policy. The policy I announced is the policy of the Government, and of course I accept the full 100 per cent. responsibility for it. The hon. member says that I only talk and do nothing. But I think that if anyone says that nothing was done in the past two years that would not be quite just.

Do you say that you put into practice the Act of 1936?

I say that we stand by the legislation of 1936, the segregation legislation.

The Cabinet also?

Of course. I stated that here and they would not keep me in the Cabinet, nor would I remain in it, if that were not so. As regards the application of the Act, that of course is a matter for the magistrates and the Judges. I cannot interfere if somebody is not punished for a contravention of the Act. The magistrates and Judges decide on that. But where I do have powers under the Act I take steps. It is said that I never make use of the powers which I have. That is not true. Just to mention one case, take the trouble at Pietersburg. There I deported three people; I put them out. There were court cases and I think the matter went to the Appellate Division, but I stood firm and put those people out of the district. Also in other cases I acted where it was necessary.

And what happened to them?

They are out.

Where are they now?

They were put out and placed under the control of another chief in another location, and if they make trouble there we can of course take steps against them. But the one who did not belong to the location may not return to Pietersburg at all, and it so happens that he was a member of the Advisory Board and had a house there. Now the hon. member says I pretend to attack the native representatives, but I am just busy protecting them. Let me just say this: By virtue of the legislation of 1936 the native representatives are in the House here to protect the interests of the natives.

And Indians?

The hon. member will excuse me for not entering into that. Those three members are here under the Act of 1936 and they are here legally as the representatives of natives, and it is their duty to speak about the interests of the natives and to explain matters and to protect their interests.

They exaggerate.

Where they exaggerated I was the first to attack them, but in most cases they do not do so. Theirs is the duty to represent the interests of natives in this House. Nor do I think that it can be said that any of them is a Communist, not one of the three sitting in this House. If they raise a matter in a reasonable manner we are prepared to listen, and where we judge that they are unreasonable I tell them so. I have already attacked them sharply. No one can say that I did not act impartially as far as they were concerned.

Do you support their policy of equality?

Not at all, and you know it. But I do not know whether they plead for that.

What is our policy of equality?

I do not know whether they plead for equality, but if they do propose it I will oppose it. The hon. member also spoke about demobilisation, but I think he must be reasonable. That is a separate vote at present. The whole matter was before the House and it was discussed here and the vote adopted. I advise that Department and my officials collaborate with them, but there is another Minister who is responsible for the policy of demobilisation.

Do you approve of that?

I say they are not treated on the same basis as Europeans, but where they went as volunteers and did their duty towards the country it is also our duty to look after them. One cannot simply throw them on the ash-heap. Then the hon. member attacked me in connection with the assistance we give to the incapacitated and the old-age pensions we pay and the assistance given to the needy. In honour of the hon. member’s own Party I wish to say that the first time I heard somebody speak in the Other Place about old age pensions for natives, the speaker was a member of his Party. That Senator stated that he spoke on behalf of himself, but he thought that it is only right that the incapacitated and the aged and the maimed who would otherwise starve should be helped by the Government and assisted. I want to say that, to the honour of that hon. member’s Party. The Government acts reasonably and justly towards all, but we stand by the legislation of 1936 as it was adopted at that time. I feel that the reason why the hon. member attacks me a little is that he fears that too many of his people agree with me. But under no circumstances, although I am attacked here, do I wish to try to use the native question for political purposes or to make debating points. I think we should stand together there and not try to make debating points. Two years ago I said: “No native policy can be static, just as little as evolution can be static.” It must be flexible. One cannot think of treating natives now in the same way as they were treated 100 years ago. The native also develops, he also learns, he works in industry more and more, he learns how to organise and anyone who does not face that fact is like an ostrich which hides its head in the sand.

That is the greatest fable, the ostrich that hides its head in the sand.

Yes, I am an ostrich farmer myself and I have never seen it personally. Then the hon. member for Wonderboom spoke about the settlement of natives, but what he spoke about is what happened in native reserves. Is it not my duty to do my utmost and to set to work in the best possible manner in dealing with the ground I have available for natives? That ground does not belong to the Europeans. They are native territories. Is it not my duty to do my best to see to it that the ground is cultivated in the best possible manner?

I said that the Minister was busy destroying the communal system of the natives.

On the one hand they talk about the danger of Communism amongst the natives; now the hon. member wishes to retain the communal system. The communal system connotes mutual assistance. On the one hand he wants to oppose the communistic system and on the other hand promote it.

Nonsense.

The communal system means the communal grazing of cattle, etc.

Do you want to say that the communal system is the same as Russian Communism?

I am speaking now about the communal system. That is what the hon. member wants to maintain. All we tried to do is to attempt to prevent the treading out of the land, else the whole native area will become a desert. We are trying to get them to make the best use of their ground. Then he attacked me for having built a hostel for natives; he attacked the system. That is the Smit Hostel in Johannesburg which I had built. But what was the policy adopted in 1936? It is that the natives should be employed’ under their own people and must look after their own people.

In their own territories.

Yes, there must be native doctors, to look after their own people in their own areas. How can a native learn to become a doctor if he has no opportunity of being trained in a place where people live who can train him in the profession? And if that is so, there must be a place where natives can live while they are being trained. Otherwise they will have to live in hotels. Does the hon. member want them to live in hotels together with Europeans? They must have accommodation near to the place where they are trained.

Why can they not be trained at Fort Hare?

There is no hospital and no facilities for studying for the profession. If there are a dozen of them who study medicine, how can one make available professors and other experts to train them at Fort Hare? I myself feel that in future there ought to be a separate university where natives can be trained, and then there should be hospital facilities where in a hospital for nonEuropeans they can act as interns, aspirant doctors. Then the hon. member further spoke to the effect that natives receive much more from the Treasury than they pay in taxes. But is it not a fact that in any civilised country the less privileged pay no taxes but receive the most benefits from taxation, free medical services, old-age pensions, allowances for incapacities, the care of orphans, etc., etc.? The Minister of Finance pointed out a few days ago that in Great Britain for every seven citizens, men, women and children, there are two taxpayers, while in our country only two out of each’ 27 of the population pay taxes. What about the other 25? They pay no taxes, not even the poor whites, but they receive free medical services and old-age pensions. The less privileged always receive more of these services although they do not pay for them. Here in South Africa no-one pays income tax under £300, and at £300 a person only pays one-seventh of what a man earning £300 has to pay in Great Britain. That is clear proof that our poor do not pay taxes, and that it is true of Europeans as well as of natives. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) however pointed out correctly that natives in fact pay indirect taxes, customs duty on merchandise, liquor taxes, etc. My difficulty is that the native representatives say that I must be a bad Minister because I am praised by the Opposition, but now the Opposition say that I must be a bad Minister because I am praised by the Native representatives, That makes me feel that I am on the right road. I now come to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen). I listened with interest to what he said. As regards polygamy however that is really a matter pertaining to the Church. I think that if our Department starts to say how many wives a native should have we will be looking for trouble. I think it is an important point, but I also feel that economic pressure in the future will solve the problem. I find it difficult enough to maintain one wife, and some of my colleagues have no wife at all, and I think that the natives in future will find that economic pressure is too strong for them to maintain many wives.

You mean it is really a punishment to have a wife.

The hon. member for Wonderboom objects at there being interference with the tribal life of the natives, but if we were to do that it would be further interference with tribal customs. As regards the hon. member for Rustenburg, I have already referred to him several times in my reply. He has already correctly pointed out that the attack on me cannot be supported by concrete examples. As he has said, we cannot regard the native as a useless citizen. I regard him as one of our greatest assets. It was with the assistance of the natives that mines and other things developed, and we have to recognise it. Then he spoke about boreholes. I will investigate that matter.

†Then I come to the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren). He discussed the question of the Mealie Control Board, and he desires to have a mealie advisory board in the Ciskei the same as we have in the Transkei. I agree that in the Transkei it has worked extraordinarily well, though when it was constituted, nearly two years ago, doubts were expressed as to how it would work. It has however worked very successfully. The question of having a similar board in the Ciskei must be gone into, and it is a matter of the utmost importance. I shall certainly investigate the question very carefully, because I can foresee difficulties arising if we do not. The hon. member then asked me how far the question of the reduction of stock in the Ciskei has been carried. I have not yet got the full particulars from my department, but I hope to be able to furnish them later. He referred to milk as a very important item of diet, and with that in mind he does not want us to breed from the Afrikander type of cow. It is quite true that the Afrikander cow gives little milk. On the other hand, the Afrikander type of cattle is one of the hardiest types you can get; while Jerseys and Guernseys or other exotic types may die like flies on the veld, your Afrikander stands up to it.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is a much better expert at cattle than I am. He has suggested we should breed native cattle. I have gone into that; we have that halfwhite breed. We are breeding up these native cattle. I quite agree with the hon. member in regard to these bull camps. If you go up to Rustenburg you will find there has been tremendous development through breeding with the right type of Afrikanders. Natives have brought in their cows, and there has been a general improvement of the stock. The only way we can hope to breed up the native cattle is on the principle of having fewer cattle with a better milk supply. We must proceed gradually with this development, to the extent your veld can carry. You cannot breed beyond your grass. In regard to native farm labour, the hon. member also raised a very important point, and I hope I will be able to carry on the same system of supplying native labour gangs under white supervision, as was done in the Transvaal. The cost works out at 5s. a day. The farmers told me they were highly satisfied. I cannot promise that we shall go into it this year, but we are trying to organise it this year again.

What are the conditions under which the gangs are hired out?

They were under the supervision of my Department. They worked as gangs; the natives were satisfied, and so were the people they worked for. We had cookers with them and transport from the Department of Defence. The whole cost to the farmer was 5s. Whether we can continue I do not know.

Did 5s. include white supervision as well?

Yes. They were paid at the ordinary rates the Department pays when they engage native labour with the cost of living. In regard to the other points raised by the hon. member, I will go into them. I have not had time to study them. He also asked what the position was about the released area at Blue Water. I will try to get the information later. Then I come to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). I must say that I appreciate very much her sympathetic understanding of our efforts in the Ciskei. She realises that we are faced with a very serious problem and that the Department is doing its best. I appreciate the fair way in which she put it. She raised a number of very important points. She referred to the question of vital statistics. I may say that very recently I discussed this matter with my colleague, and let me say that the Department and I are in favour of having vital statistics, and any assistance my Department can give to the department concerned will be given with the greatest pleasure, because I feel that without vital statistics we do not know where we stand.

Did you discuss it with the Public Health Department?

I discussed it only five days ago with the Census Department. I think births and deaths should be registered, and I may say that my colleague feels the same as I do but I understand that he has been told by his experts that it is not practicable. I feel that it must be proved to be impracticable before I accept that view, and I feel that a start should be made at least in one area, because my experience is that if you sit down and say it is impracticable, you never get any further. In the Ciskei some years ago, for instance, births and deaths were registered in one place. It was on a voluntary basis. These records were kept and I believe it worked very well. I must admit that there was no compulsion but the records were compiled and indices were kept. I got that information from one of my officials who happened to be there at the time. My Department is in favour of it and cannot accept the statement that it is impracticable. According to the law births and deaths must be registered in urban areas. In rural areas it is not compulsory until the areas are proclaimed. Let me say that I am entirely in agreement with the hon. member that without statistics you do not know where you are. The hon. member raised the question of compensation and miners’ phthisis. If she will look at paragraph 13 on page 6 of the White Paper—the explanatory memorandum which accompanied the Bill of 1945—she will see what the view is of my colleague the Minister of Mines. At present we know it is financed by a lump sum. There I think the hon. member is wrong. I understood her to say that the lump sum is paid out to the individual to invest as he likes.

No, I did not say that.

But the hon. member did say that they had nothing to invest it in and that very often they lost it.

Yes, I did say that.

If I misunderstood the hon. member, I am sorry. It is a question of a lump sum payment, but the lump sum is paid over to the Director of Native Labour, and he then hands it out in sums which he thinks represent the best way to spread it over the longest period and to meet the situation in the case in point. He may give one person 10s. a week and another person 5s. a week, but when the lump sum is exhausted there is nothing more coming and that is why the thing is wrong and that is why I am not in favour of the lump sum payment system. At present the assessed amount is paid in a lump sum and then the Director of Native Labour hands it out as he thinks best. It is very difficult to trace the sufferers or their dependants. At the present moment, as the hon. member knows, the compensation payable to foreign natives is handed out to the Governments concerned, and they deal with it, but even with our own natives it is very difficult to trace their dependants. I may say that it has been agreed that a senior official from my Department shall go on to this board ex officio so that the Native Affairs Department will be represented on the board in the future, which I think will be a very great step forward. I do not want to go into details here, but this is roughly the position. The hon. member raised a point about the native settlements. She said they must be so arranged that the natives can go home from their work every night. Well, that is very desirable, but I do not think it is always possible. À great deal has been said in this House on migratory labour. I do not want to go into that now, but the hon. member must remember that it is not always possible for everyone to go home every night. We have that very great profession called the mercantile marine in Great Britain and those people certainly do not go home every night.

But they go to port.

Sometimes the ships are at sea for two or three weeks and there is no port in sight. There we have that great profession and sometimes they do not get home for six months. We need not go into the details. In principle I agree that the work of the natives should be so arranged that they can go home every night, but in practice it cannot be done. In principle I agree with the hon. member, but it is not always possible or feasible, and I think they are lucky if they can get home for the week-ends so that they can be with their families.

We have listened to the explanation by the hon. Minister but I just want to tell him that the one impression he created was not the impression that he is the best Minister of Native Affairs which we have yet had, but that he is the best of those trying to be good friends with all sides. The Minister replied to the objection raised in regard to the taxation which is today being imposed on natives and he came with the excuse—an excuse the Minister of Finance has also used in the past— that one cannot expect those people to pay a single penny more in taxation because they already have to live on a very low standard and that they should first be raised to the level of the European who has to pay taxation and that only when that happens consideration can be given to increased taxation as far as the natives are Concerned. On the one hand he puts forward this excuse but in the same breath he says that he also advocates the principle of separateness and that he is in favour, as far as the European and the native are concerned, of a difference in the standard of living between those two groups. Furthermore I want to say that during the present year the Minister of Finance admitted in connection with the taxation levied on natives, that during the last few years there has been a much greater increase in the services rendered to those natives than in the natives’ liability for taxation. That was our objection. During the last few years I have objected to it and at last the Minister of Finance has admitted that since 1924 there has been a tremendous increase in the income of the native, but in spite of that fact his liability for taxation is still on the same level as it was in 1924. One irrefutable fact is that the European has paid himself for every single step in the course of his development. Why should the native be exempted therefrom; why should he not carry the responsibility for the process of evolution by which he wants to develop himself in the course of time. The Minister replied to the question of what policy he is following. He stated that his policy is the policy of 1936. You can ask the Minister anything you like but his reply will always be that he is following the policy of 1936. We are now in the year 1945, i.e. nearly 10 years later, but the Minister does not move away from that policy. A policy is not something static. Since the policy was laid down in 1936 there have been developments and very important developments which require consideration. We want to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to certain problems which have arisen since 1936, problems which we have to face in the light of the circumstances of today; and to make the Minister’s task easier I want to point specifically to a few of those aspects. These are matters which have developed in recent times. They were not present in 1936 but they have developed since 1936 and we want to know from the Minister what his policy is in regard to these matters. The first one is as follows; since 1936 and especially during the past few years there has been a tremendous demand for farm labour; there was an enormous shortage of farm labour, something which did not exist before that time.

Since when has there been a shortage of farm labour; do you want to say that there was no shortage of farm labour in 1936?

I say that before that time it was not so serious. Does the Minister want to deny that the question of farm labour is a very acute problem today?

Yes, I admit that.

As the matter is so acute, we want to know from the responsible Minister of the Government what his intentions are today in order to meet that acute problem.

The farmer should pay more.

I want to give the Minister an opportunity in his reply to this debate to suggest a clearly defined scheme and to tell the people outside what are his plans in regard to that ever increasing shortage of farm labour. I think that everybody is aware that there is a shortage of farm labour. I think there will be just as many members on the other side who from time to time are inundated with correspondence of people complaining that they cannot obtain labour. The Minister is responsible and his Government is responsible and we ask the hon. Minister how they intend sloving this problem. During recent times there has been the tendency for a tremendous influx of natives to our towns and urban areas. The Minister is at his wit’s end. He says that it cannot be controlled. We want to know what his policy is. He says that he still adheres to the policy of 1936. Here in the Cape urban areas there has been an influx of 80,000 natives and in Johannesburg and other cities you have the same position. The labour is drained away from the place where labour is available and it moves to the towns and urban areas, but the Minister still follows the 1936 policy. This is a very serious matter and one in connection with which the Minister has been visited by deputation after deputation, not only from the rural areas but also from the people who have the control in the towns and cities and we want to know what the Minister’s policy is. What prospect does the Minister hold out for the solution of that problem? I want to point out that it is not only an influx to the large cities but you can notice that influx of natives to every rural town and the farmers cannot get labour for their farms. If you want to follow a sound policy for your country you have to have two things. First of all you must have work for your labourers but in the second place you must have labourers for your work, and if those labourers are not available the production will be impeded and it must decrease during a period when there is a very strong demand for an increased production in this country. I want to ask the Minister what his policy is. Those conditions are now becoming an urgent problem in the rural areas and will become more urgent still at a certain moment which our people will shortly have to face. During the period of the war the people who could not get sufficient labour made use of Italian labour. The war is now over and one of these days those prisoners of war will be withdrawn and then the farmer will be left without labour. What is the Minister going to do? We want to know what prospect the Minister is holding out in regard to the time when the Italian labour force will be withdrawn from our farms. Is there any scheme? Is there something which can be suggested for making provision for the gap which will be caused in our farm labour market? Furthermore I want to ask the Minister the following. During this Session we have agreed to legislation to provide for the compulsory registration of unemployed people. In this Unemployed Registration Act you will find a clause stating that the Minister of Labour, as far as the registration of unemployed persons is concerned will not make this law applicable to the native population without prior consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. We from our side suggested a definite and positive policy. We said that in order to have a proper distribution of the labour available it will be necessary to make the registration of Unemployed natives also compulsory, so that the people requiring labourers may know where they can get them. Unfortunately the amendment proposed by this side was negatived, but I now want to ask the Minister what his intentions are in regard to the registration of unemployed natives. Did he have an interview with the Minister of Labour? Is he going to take care that those unemployed natives will be registered in terms of this Act; is he going to see that those native labourers will be registered so that there will be a proper control over the conditions of unemployment among the natives in our country. This is a very important matter and this is a matter on which we should like to have a clear statement of policy from the Minister. In conclusion I want to say the following. I addressed a few direct questions to the Minister and I hope that he will tell us frankly whether he has no policy or if he has one what his policy is. Furthermore I want to say that I wish to associate myself with hon. members in this House who right throughout this Session and also during previous Sessions and more in particular during the last few days have warned against the foreign influences entering the country from abroad. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Kingwillamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) who warned the hon. Minister against those foreign influences which are influencing the natives with poison propaganda. I want to refer the Minister to the speech by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) who uttered that very solemn warning. He said that unless a solution would be found and a stop would be put to this poisonous communistic propaganda amongst the natives in our country, we could expect a bloody revolution in South Africa within the next five years. I want to refer the Minister to the report of his own Secretary for Native Affairs, where that propaganda is also mentioned. I also want to refer him to the admittance by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, his leader who recently stated in this House: “Something is approaching and it a dangerous thing.” I want to ask the Minister what is the policy of his Government in respect of those influences entering South Africa and in regard to that subversive propaganda which is being spread among the natives here. [Time limit.]

I should very much like to ask the Minister whether he is not prepared to establish a reception depot very close to Johannesburg. The influx of natives there is very large and I want to point out that in my own constituency, Losberg, where we had between 50,000 and 60,000 natives last year there were approximately 105,000 natives last month.

Where do they come from?

They come from all over the country. They are loafing in the locations and our farmers in this constituency cannot get the natives to work for us. We cannot harvest our mealie crop. These natives now do the following. I said so last year and I should like to repeat it. They do not work in Johannesburg and they do not work for the farmers but during the night they take lorries and drive out to our farms and steal our sheep. Last year I said that they even stole pots and pans from the farmers. If no reception depot under police supervision is established soon we may just as well stop farming. In the Johannesburg district stock thefts increased within one year from 143,148 to 164,536.

Where do you get those figures?

In that manner it becomes impossible for us who are living in this vicinity to carry on farming and we want to ask the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. What makes it so impossible for us is the kind of exclamation you hear from persons such as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that we should pay the natives 50 per cent. more wages and that our labourers on the farms should only work 35 hours per week and that we should abolish the colour bar. I want to ask this House what would become of the people of South Africa if we would follow his advice. If we want to increase the prices of our products then that hon. member will be one of the first to raise a cry about it. On the one hand those hon. members want us to double the wages of the natives, and on the other hand we have to hear that mealies are too expensive, that potatoes are too expensive and that meat is too expensive, but they also say that the farmers should make their labourers work only 35 hours per week and that they should double the wages. We have this tremendous influx of natives to the towns. Why do not those natives go to the farms?. As a result of the agitation I referred to and because they are made to believe these stories they do not want to work on the farms and I asked the Minister to give his attention to the state of affairs in Johannesburg. In one single location there are more than 40,000 natives. When the police make a raid they catch from 6,000 to 7,000 natives but still there are thousands who are not caught. All the young natives from our farms flee to the towns. Today in our rural areas we have only old native women and the very young natives left. The other grown-ups who dress in a grand style loaf in the towns and at night they get on to a lorry and rob the farmers.

The sooner our dear good friend the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) realises that he is sojourning amongst the Philistines, the better. He still has the courage now and again to express his point of view in this House, but I wish to warn him that if he is not very strong they will clip his locks one of these days. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) and other members on this side said that the Government has no policy as regards this problem. I ask the hon. Minister whether the Government and the Cabinet in which he sits agree with his policy. He said that it is the policy of the Government. We do not as yet know what that policy is but in any case he says they adhere to a policy, the so-called policy of 1936. I should now like to read something which was said by a person who fills an important post and to whose words one can attach some value, seeing that he is a member of the Native Commission, namely General E. A. Conroy. Last year, on the 22nd May, 1944, according to a report in “Die Vaderland” he said the following about the Government’s policy. He, a Native Commissioner, was then evidently attacking the Government’s native policy. I presume he knows what he was talking about because he is a member of the commission and he knows what policy they follow or do not follow, and he says the following—

That is a new name for the Minister of Native Affairs, that he is a swallow.

Is is not a swallow-tail?

I hope they will not dock the swallow’s tail. I recently read something here to the effect that a native speaker referred to the Minister as a political Charlie Chaplin. He said that they had appointed a political Charlie Chaplin, a man called Van der Byl, as Minister of Native Affairs. But I wish to point out to the Minister the seriousness of this statement. We say every day that there are people sitting on the side of the Government who are outspoken negrophilists. There are people there who are so-called liberalists. There are people who blow hot and cold about the native problem, who are left cold by this matter, and there are others like the hon. member for Losberg who feel strongly about the matter just as we do. That is why I asked a moment ago where the Government stands. Now we have this statement by a member of the Native Commission. The nation is being informed here that the Prime Minister is opposed to the segregation policy because he says that the policy of segregation is antiquated, and that the present Minister of Native Affairs evidently has a tough struggle in the Cabinet in adhering to the policy of 1936; that it goes so far that the Minister of Native Affairs expects that he may perhaps be put out of the Cabinet if he persists in adhering to that policy. According to the statement of the Native Commissioner he said that he was prepared to be put out of the Cabinet ….

Does he say that I said so?

Yes, he says that “Major Piet van der Byl personally informed me that he would stand by General Hertzog’s segregation policy and that they could kick him out of the Cabinet if they want to prevent him from maintaining that policy.”

It is a good thing that the Minister said that.

It is a good thing that the Minister said it, but I wish to point to the seriousness of it that a member of the Native Commission states that there is a difference of opinion in the Cabinet about the matter, that the Prime Minister said that the policy of segregation was obsolete, but he states that this Minister would adhere to it, that this Minister is a swallow amongst the others ….

Amongst the other what?

Well, I do not know amongst the other what. I do not know whether this report came to the Minister’s attention, but I referred to it to show in what confusion even a member of the Native Commission finds himself, and then the hon. Minister takes it amiss if the hon. member for Wonderboom states that the Government has no policy. Here a member of the Native Commission declares that there is difference of opinion in the Cabinet about the question, and that the Minister of Native Affairs tries very hard to adhere firmly to his policy but that he is a single swallow in the Cabinet. I should like to know what the Government’s policy is, whether the Government will put into practice its policy of segregation, and further, what it means by segregation. There have always been two conceptions of segregation. The Prime Minister also said that he was in favour of segregation, but it was a quite different segregation from that of General Hertzog. It therefore does not help the Minister to say that he stands by the policy of 1936 and by segregation. He must tell us what he understands by that. Because when we on this side speak about segregation, members opposite try to ridicule us and ask us what we mean by it. If the Minister says that that is his policy, he must say what that policy is and whether the Government will stand by it. It will then not be necessary for a Native Commissioner to come and tell us what confusion there is amongst the Government about its own policy.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his success in obtaining the co-operation of the Bunga in his reclamation plan for the reserves. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) has condemned this plan as revolutionary. Well, in my opinion, it is precisely the fact that the plan is revolutionary that renders it meritorious. Amongst other things it must ultimately have the effect of introducing a money economy into the reserves instead of the present subsistence economy, and to that extent it is progressive. But the point I wish to make is this. The problem of the reserves cannot be viewed in isolation. The plan for the reserves must be conceived as part of a wider plan for the stabilisation of the whole native population in both town and country. As long as we treat the reserves as recruiting grounds, as reservoirs of cheap native labour, the Minister will not be able to put his plan into full and successful operation. The curse of the reserves is the migrant labour system. On the one hand it does nothing to relieve the congestion in the reserves, and, on the other hand, it deprives the reserves of the most valuable element, the young vigorous males whose labour is essential for the efficient cultivation and conservation of the soil. Therefore, if the Minister wishes to ensure the success of his plan he must take steps to establish our native labour force as a permanent part of the urban community. Once the overcrowding in the reserves is relieved by a plan for urbanisation, those left behind in the reserves will have a continuous interest in the soil and the Minister will then be able to turn them into modern and efficient farmers.

It is easy when you say it that way.

It is gratifying to see that the organised farmers are supporting a stabilised labour policy. It is fortunate for this country that history has a dynamic of its own and is taking the decision out of the hands of the hon. member for Wonderboom and his kind. The forces apparently still working against this policy are the gold mining interests. But it has already been pointed out in this House that the more progressive mining houses would be ready to co-operate with the Minister in implementing this policy. I see the Minister of Mines shakes his head. Apparently he is not fully informed of the attitude of the most progressive thought in the mining world. I fully realise that an abrupt change over to a stabilised labour policy would have a catastrophic effect on the gold mining industry. I want to make that clear. It would have the effect of closing down half the existing mines. Therefore the right course is to get the new mines to make provision for stabilised native labour. This step would not only be economically sound but from the point of view of the mines it would be good business. Let me give a concrete illustration. Let us take the Blyvooruitzicht, one of the new mines. This mine, in common with all the other mines, will inevitably be faced with the problem of keeping its native labour force up to full strength. But this mine is in a very fortunate position. It can afford to stabilise its native labour and thus render itself independent of the vicissitudes of the migrant labour system. I do not know whether the Minister has ever visited this property, but if he does he will see that it has a fine stretch of country, eminently suitable for a native township. By means of stabilised labour this mine will be able to operate at a constant level. Stabilised labour would increase its wage costs by probably no more than 3s. a ton. In the case of a low grade mine, this increase would be prohibitive, but the Blyvooruitzicht is a very high grade mine which will yield something like 15 dwt a ton. It can therefore well afford the extra cost.

How many mines have you got which can pay that?

The extra wage costs would be offset in other directions. I myself am confident that the extra wage costs will be offset by two factors; firstly, stabilised labour in course of time must become more efficient and therefore more productive, and secondly—and perhaps this is the more important factor—the mine will be able to keep its operations at a uniform level because its native labour force will always be kept up to full strength. If the Minister can get these new mines to try this experiment he will perform a great national service. In my opinion his plan for the reserves and a place for the stabilisation of native labour are of parallel importance. The two are complementary and will stand or fall together.

I think the time has arrived, though it is already late in the day, when this matter of the relationship between the Europeans and the natives should be fairly faced. The situation is deteriorating by the day, and it is now time that certainty should be created, so that the European will feel safe and the native will also feel safe. In South Africa we have for years had the position that foreign influences brought the native under the impression that the European in South Africa is his greatest enemy. That has become worse as a result of this fact. We know the native and his mentality. We grew up amongst them and we know that it is easy for anyone to imprint something in his mind, but when once he believes that thing it takes ten or twenty years or perhaps a generation again to convince him about the other side of the matter. We know that foreign influences created that condition in South Africa. We go back to the years of Dr. Philip and Van der Kemp who created that impression that the European in South Africa is the enemy of the non-European. The opposite has been proved. The Voortrekkers proved it in Natal. The followers of Panda sought refuge with the Voortrekkers and asked them to protect them against Dingaan. They received a white band round the arm to differentiate the followers of Panda and those of Dingaan. Our friends from Natal will also agree with me that we had that spirit in the republican days. The attitude of the Europeans as against the natives was such that native families stayed on the same farm for 50 and 60 years. The Europeans thoroughly realised their responsibilities as regards the natives. They knew that they were the guardians of the natives. They worked for the happiness of the native because they knew that they could not do without the native and need the labour of the native. But what happened then? It was a great catastrophe to South Africa when the Imperial troops entered our country in the Anglo-Boer war and employed those natives in their armies. Some were transport riders and others were armed. That created an entirely different atmosphere for the natives. They practically felt that they had been uplifted to be the equal of the white man. In the days of the republic they greeted us and recognised us. Now they felt that they were practically on an equal footing with Europeans. We do not want to stir up these matters ….

Then why do you mention it?

I mention it because it was an unfortunate thing and a catastrophe for South Africa. It is those influences from outside which did it.

Why do you not talk about the Commando of Swazis who were armed?

I will not reply to that hon. member. He knows nothing about those circumstances and he will not understand it if I explain it to him. I say that it was unfortunate that that was the condition in the country.

I admit that.

Further I will say this, that in order to create a healthy state of affairs in South Africa between Europeans and natives, we must rid the native’s mind of those ideas. We must make the native understand that we are his friend and not his enemy. In this connection I want to put a question to the native representatives: Do you contribute towards creating that state of affairs; do you not perhaps concentrate more on pointing out so-called grievances to the natives than on creating that position of good relationship between black and white? You must answer that yourselves; it is your responsibility. The nation of South Africa will settle accounts with anyone who acts contrary to the interests of the natives or the Europeans. I want to associate myself with those who have stated here that we should ask the Minister of Native Affairs what his policy is in regard to farm labour. We have brought to the Minister’s attention time and again that there is a great shortage of labour on the farms. In the Free State we are busy harvesting maize. I should like to take the Minister to one of our farms so that he can convince himself of the great shortage of labour there is on the farms. We want to ask him what he intends doing and whether it is his policy to solve that problem. We want to say frankly that the farmers cannot produce if they have not the labour to assist them. During the war we had to make use of Italian prisoners-of-war. Just that fact alone ought to convince the Minister that there is not enough labour on the farms. But the war is now over and the Italians will return. Nevertheless the Government expects the farmers to produce for the requirements of South Africa. How will we produce if we cannot obtain labour? I have already stated that wrong influences are operating in the country. Today there are still more wrong and disruptive influences at work. I cannot do otherwise but ascribe it to Communism. We have communistic influences on our farms. Agents are sent round at night to harangue the farm labourers against the farmers, to instigate them to demand a certain wage per day and certain hours of work per week, and all that sort of thing. When the farmers are prosperous they themselves know how to treat the natives better. I want to ask the Minister whether he is conscious of what the farmers a few years ago paid for the harvesting of maize and what they now pay; how much they paid for shearing a few years ago and how much they pay now? If he is acquainted with those figures he will see that the farmers themselves appreciably increased those figures. But our farmers are used to paying their labourers well. If they cannot plant food for themselves we feed them. Nowhere are there natives who have a higher standard of living than those on the farms. They are healthier than those in the towns. We want to ask the Minister what he is going to do to prohibit this influx into the towns. That condition cannot continue. The agricultural population of South Africa will go under if steps are not taken. There are other people who know better what conditions are in the great cities. I do not speak about them. But go to the small towns on the platteland and you will find that there are numbers of natives lying idle in the small locations, while outside the farmers are without labour. We want to tell the Minister that if he does not declare his policy to us and if he does not tell us what he is going to do, he must not blame us when we say that he has no policy and that we have no confidence in him because he has no plan to make provision for those matters. We heard the Minister say that he adheres to the policy of 1936. We want to ask him to explain that to us a little more because we want a little more clarity about it. It does not help him to tell us that he adheres to the policy of 1936 if he does not tell us also what that policy means. I, as a farmer who am dependent on native labour, feel very anxious about the position which has arisen and I wish to bring this serious matter to the Minister’s attention. [Time limit.]

I notice that when Native Affairs are discussed in this House, particularly in connection with the rural areas, the debate more or less seems to centralise round the areas known as the Transkei and the Ciskei. I have no objection to that whatever. I think it is only natural, for the simple reason that the native representatives in this House represent the Eastern and Western Cape and the Transkei, but I would like the Minister to realise that there is such a place as Zululand, I do not know what the relationship is between the native representatives and the Zulus, but I am interested in the natives in Zululand and that is why I take up the cudgels on their behalf.

They should be represented in this House.

They will be represented by me in the meantime. Make no mistake about that. The position is this, I have no doubt that in these two particular territories over a series of years things have become very bad, so bad that it is necessary to focus attention on the conditions there, but I would like to remind the Minister that in Zululand the position is also getting bad, and I do not want him to shut the stable door after the horse has run out. I would remind him that about 18 months ago he held a big meeting with 35,000 Zulus at Nongoma and at which I was present, and at that particular meeting the Minister stressed to the Zulu nation the desirability of reducing their herds, and told them that if they did not do so voluntarily he would take steps to see that it is carried out. I can assure the Minister that the position in that territory, in which I have lived for 30 years, is becoming worse and is getting serious. Unless we take cognisance of this matter things in a few years will be as serious in Zululand as they are in the Transkei today. Native cattle are increasing to such an extent that erosion is increasing at an alarming rate. Every native today is a potential cattle farmer. That has a detrimental effect on the reserves. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) referred just now to the migratory labour system. Well, in Zululand today with the increase of the native herds, the position is becoming so bad that the natives are today contributing less manpower to South Africa than they ever did before, because they are getting rich on what I shall call false premises. All of us who have had experience of that territory can see that it will not be long before they will be poverty-stricken. Today they are rich in cattle. They go to work and leave their families behind, but definite steps will have to be taken sooner or later and the native will have to elect whether he will become an urban dweller or a rural native in order to keep the population within reasonable limits. If we do not carry out such a policy those fine reserves will certainly go to rack and ruin. I am aware that on the gold mines and the congested areas it is very difficult to bring about a policy like that, but I see no reason why in our urban areas, with industry making use of native labour, it, just as the farmer, should not be responsible for the housing and feeding of its labour force, and I think that should be made possible. Industry should take that responsibility. It is a question of initiative. After all, one does not house them in the middle of a town, but in the peri-urban areas. There should be proper native townships. My opinion is this, that the closer you have the native housed to the site of his employment the more efficient he will become, the more responsibility he will take, and instead of being a parasite he will become a useful citizen. I might say that in our part of the country we are recognising today, even as farmers, that those natives whom we can house on our own farms with their families are more reliable labourers than those who operate on the migratory system. The nearer he is housed to the site of his employment, the better labourer he becomes. I say again that the native from the reserves will eventually have to elect whether he becomes a permanent ruralist or an urbanist, and if he is to make that decision it is for us to see that we adumbrate a policy whereby that native is put in a position to become urbanised, with all the social amenities he needs. We quite realise that a native will never be in the financial position of the European, but at the same time we have to improve his conditions in order that he may have a decent existence. I want to congratulate the Minister on the technical committees he has set up to go into the question of the rehabilitation of the native reserves and in connection with this matter, whilst these are technical men, we have to realise that once they have carried out their preliminary work it will be the members of the Native Affairs Department who will have to see that that work is carried out properly, and I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) in which he said that it was necessary that we should get good officials in this Department. The Minister has replied to that and I agree that the men needed in the Department are those who have sympathy and know the psychological outlook of the native, but I want to raise another important matter. What is the qualification for officials in the Native Affairs Department? We in this country have the question of bilingualism. Is the question of bilingualism the sole requirement for advancement in the Department of Native Affairs? Because I say this, that if it is the only qualification, we are missing one of the fundamentals in native administration. I would like to know what percentage of officials in the Department are thoroughly conversant with the native languages. I would like to know even how many of our native representatives in this House know anything about native languages. You have to realise that when you deal with natives the question of the ordinary bilingualism, as we know it, has no value whatever, but if you are working amongst natives in native reserves, the police, magistrates’ courts, or the Public Health Department, if you are a thorough native linguist, that is nine-tenths of the battle, because you not only receive the respect of the natives, but at the same time you get the background of the native philosophy, and the best officers in any department undoubtedly are those who are thoroughly conversant with the native languages, Zulu, Xosa or Basuto. Generally speaking, you will find that if anybody is a thoroughly efficient Zulu linguist it will take him anywhere in South Africa. I have worked among natives and I am convinced of the desirability of this policy; quite apart from bilingualism if a young officer in the Department is prepared to make native affairs his lifework we should give him every encouragement; and any officials who become thoroughly conversant with the native language should, irrespective of bilingualism, be advanced in the Department just in the same way as would be done if they were proficient in any other department; further I trust the Minister will press the Public Service Commission in order that these officials will be adequately remunerated for the extra essential qualifications. [Time limit.]

I merely wat to tell the Minister of Native Affairs that the general public has been under the impression that he is at variance with the Government generally on the question of non-European policy. I am glad the Minister has today given an exploit answer to that. But there are a few other matters which clearly show that our ideas in regard to segregation are as different as day and night; that is to say, the Minister’s conception of the term and that of the general public. It is very obvious, as the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has stated, that the Minister should rise and make a clear statement in reference to his policy of segregation. There is a complete philosophy of segregation, and the legislation of 1936 only represented the crystallisation of that philosophy in regard to segregation. It is necessary for the Minister now to inform us explicitly in regard to his segregation policy. Now I want to refer to a less pleasant matter, and that is the attitude of the native representatives. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is very inclined to stand up here and tell other people who differ from her: Look, you are not in touch with the natives, and that is why you are speaking like that. She reminds me of a soldier who could not march in step and when the officer reproved him he replied: Cannot you see the whole regiment is out of step except me. This is the sort of attitude the hon. member takes up. Of late it has been customary for the native representatives to launch attacks especially on this side of the House, and strong attacks too. All sorts of things are attributed to the Nationalist Party and let me say that the native representatives are completely out of touch with the actual standpoint that this side of the House has taken up. But let me say further that hon. members are not conferring any benefit on the natives by following this course. They are expected to be very objective in this House; that is why they have been elected, and we do not like to observe this unsatisfactory state of affairs that is developing, that hon. members have been obliged to make attacks on the native representatives. I want to tell these hon. members that when they accuse us on this side of standing for repression that is an accusation that is as old as the Afrikaner nation. In recent years especially we have been hearing this again. It is the sort of phenomenon that recurs in your social life and arises from people who can never speak well of others. Psychologically the analysis is that that sort of conduct originates in three sources, namely spite, an inferiority complex and a sense of ’ guilt. My people have been blackened as practically no other people in the whole world have been blackened. The Afrikaner people have been besmirched on account of their policy towards the non-European races. Of late we have learned not to worry about that, and we are only concerned about two things, namely the tribunal of our conscience and the tribunal of history. In regard to the first I may say the Afrikaner people have always been actuated by their Christian principles, and they have always acted towards our native population—no one can deny it—in conformity with Christian principles. But there is another tribunal, the tribunal of history, and every charge that is levelled against the Afrikaner people and that has been properly investigated has been proved baseless; and the people who have made the charges against the Afrikaner people have repeatedly been condemned by the tribunal of history. I want to state this fact, that amongst the nations of the world it is our nation who has treated the natives most justly, and when I speak of the Afrikaner nation I include those members of the population who have settled in South Africa and have made South Africa their home. We have dealt more justly with natives than any other nation in the world, and I challenger anyone to deny that. War has been waged against the non-European races, but none of these wars were waged from greed or for plunder; they were defensive or punitive wars. I could mention instances of European nations who have waged wars motivated by greed and rapacity. No such charge can be brought against our nation. Furthermore in regard our treatment of the natives there is no nation that has dealt with the natives as justly as we have. We have not been guilty of the large-scale repression and economic exploitation that is found among so many other nations. I need only refer hon. members to India and the plantations of West Africa. I could keep the attention of the House for a whole day in regard to the policy of repression that has been practised by European powers in connection with natives. That can never be said of my people, and I repudiate that suggestion that has been made against us. I can mention instances of Englishmen who also justified the attitude of the Afrikaner. I can for instance quote what was said by Dr. Clarke, a member of the British Parliament. Speaking of the first annexation of the Transvaal he said—

I could go on quoting numbers of instances, but that is sufficient. Crystallised in a few words, our policy is that we stand definitely for the maintenance and protection of Christian civilisation. No one else than the present Prime Minister admitted squarely before his departure that our attitude in connection with the matter is right. It is a question of sacred conviction with us that European civilisation is the light in Africa and to the degree it shines brightly the native population will be enabled to progress and to the degree it is dimmed will a deterioration of their condition in South Africa set it. We stand for a policy of separation in every sphere of life. Let the native develop on his own plane and live his life as he wishes to, but we also want to live our life. That is the foundation on which we stand. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat insists that his Party stands for separation. It would appear his Party stands for separation of all sections of our national life— English, Jewish, natives, coloureds and every other section must live apart; whereas in actual fact anybody with any kind of realistic view of the present situation must realise the only future for this country lies not in sectionalism but in co-operation, that it lies in the mutual working together of all the forces that stand for progress and in a realisation that every section must work together for the common good if we are to advance our national status. One was under the impression that this war had brought that knowledge home to all thinking people, and it is depressing to sit in this House and to hear year after year an enunciation of this policy which goes to show hon. members of the Opposition have not learned anything at all. I have listened with reasonable attention, and it seems to me what is significant in the whole of this debate is that while hon. members on this side of the House have been greatly concerned by the report appearing in this morning’s newspaper of an interview with Dr, Latsky, the nutrition officer, as to the conditions in the Transkei, not a single word had been said about it from the Opposition side of the House to indicate they are concerned about the effects of the starvation which Dr. Latsky clearly states he has found. Dr. Latsky has done a very useful job and his report has appeared most timeously, if I may say so, as regards this House, because it was published on the morning of the Native Affairs Vote. It has tended to show up two things in clear perspective. Firstly, we on this side of the House are very concerned there should be this starvation and hunger among the native people. We realise the natives are an integral portion of the life of South Africa, and unless we pay regard to their welfare and progress there is no chance of the rest of the population competing with the rest of the world. You may call it enlightened self-interest, and it may be that, but we on this side are clear that unless we look after the native, South Africa as a nation will not prosper. What is equally clear is that not a single word of concern or regret has emanated from the Opposition benches about the appalling conditions Dr. Latsky has discovered. It shows their state of mind. Personally I am very concerned about this statement and I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to one or two points Dr. Latsky has made in his report. He says, for instance, he was impressed with the experiments of the soya bean, and he goes so far as to say that the Ciskei is an ideal area for growing soya beans, and he suggests that the Native Affairs Department should encourage its cultivation there. He adds that from a nutritional point of view it is an ideal food, full of protein and fats, and that it is of immense value has been proved in other parts of the world. I may draw the attention of my hon. friends opposite to the fact that Germany has used soya bean meal and Japan too finds soya beans of great value. That being so, I should like to ask the Minister what his Department is doing in this connection.

We have done all these experiments; we are responsible for them.

But what is the actual practical outcome in encouraging the natives to grow the soya bean? I would ask the Minister to give the House some information on that point. I would like to support the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) too, in regard to the manufacture of margarine for the native people, and I would like to know from the Minister what his views are on this point. Every effort should be made to produce foods of value from a nutritional point of view and to popularise them afterwards amongst the natives. That is the point—to popularise them. Another fact that emerges is that in the debate on the last vote, Justice, we had considerable discussion about communistic propaganda. I am opposed to Communism; I do not believe in communist propaganda in this country, more particularly amongst the natives, because I do not believe they have attained the correct stage of development for this propaganda. But I fully believe that a good deal of what is alleged to be communistic propaganda is not communistic propaganda at all but the ordinary teething troubles that a country has in the early stages of industrialisation. It is only since the war that there has been large-scale industrial development, and I would like to remind the Minister of the labour demonstrations that accompanied the early industrial development in England. What is here being termed communistic propaganda is exactly the same as what was largely a feature of the development of the Labour movement in England.

Why do they carry the Red Flag with the hammer and sickle?

I would like to ask the Minister therefore whether be has considered the possibility that by a policy of according some measure of recognition to native trade unions he may put an end to what is termed communistic propaganda, but what is mainly labour troubles. I should like to draw his attention to the report of the 1942 Inter-departmental Committee on the social and economic conditions of urban natives, and more particularly to paragraph 29 of that report, wherein it is stated that—

I feel this is a suitable occasion for the Minister to announce his policy in that regard. That committee also recommended, as an interim stage, that can be taken “without amendment of the law” that native trade unions should be registered and accorded administrative recognition in accordance with rules agreed upon between the Department of Native Affairs and the Department of Labour. My suggestion is that if the Minister will adumbrate some such policy it ought to put an end to a great deal of labour unrest which is termed communist propaganda. I feel that gradual recognition on the lines the committee has suggested has much to be said for it, and I trust the Minister will inform the House of his policy in that regard.

I should like to confine myself particularly to the question of farm labour, and I should just like to tell the Minister that a few questions arise in view of his presenting his native policy and associating it with the 1936 policy of the late Gen. Hertzog. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether the acute question of farm labour forms a feature of the policy of 1936; does that policy of 1936 make provision that a large number of the farmers should be without any labour on their farms? Is that part of the policy? Is it part of the policy of 1936 that native workers should inundate the cities and the towns while the platteland has to manage without labour? Is that the policy of 1936? I want to focus the Minister’s attention on the conditions created on farms owing to the lack of native labour. I represent a constituency in the North-Eastern Free State, and I speak for the whole area. We are agriculturists and stock-breeders on a large scale; and what are the conditions we encounter? Mention has been made of the forthcoming mealie crop. I was home a week ago and I know what my own position is. The position is that there are farms on which you find only the white man and his wife. The husband must get up in the morning and milk the cows and the wife must drive out the stock, while the remainder of the farm is deserted and nothing can be done. I can give you the assurance that however fine a farm may be, however progressive a farmer may be, however good his intentions to improve his farm and to develop and to produce, he may as well close the farm gate and throw up the sponge if he cannot obtain the requisite native labour. The position is so bad that one cannot say that it is only here and there that a farmer is struggling, perhaps on account of his not having treated his native workers properly. There may be exceptions where individual farmers have acted somewhat unjustly, but the shortage of farm labour is today general. What is to become of farming? We have had temporary assistance from Italian prisoners-of-war, but one of these days they will take their departure, and theirs is only emergency assistance. The farmer does not understand their language and they do not understand his. Nor can we use them for all forms of work, because after all they have a white skin. Nor do they understand this class of work. But we were glad to have this temporary assistance and to utilise it. When Ï refer to the shortage of farm labour the Minister may ask me what I suggest. He has already been told that he should put an end to the influx of native farm labour to the towns and cities. The Government must make use of the Native Urban Areas Act that the Minister consolidated only this year. Certain powers are granted to him in that. Powers are given under which local boards may function with a view to returning to their homes natives who are wandering around or lying about idle and for whom there is no work. The local boards or an official of the Department can collect such labourers and distribute them in those districts where the farmers are in absolute need of labour. The hon. Minister of Native Affairs spoke about teams of workers amongst the Europeans going out to assist the farmers during the shearing season and the harvest, etc. We in the North-Eastern Free State know nothing about that. The Minister has stated that such teams can be of assistance to the farmers in exceptional seasons. I want to ask the Minister why he did not notify the farmers of this, why he did not notify the agricultural unions that in the grain areas where labour is so sorely needed such teams could be made available. Take, for instance, the natives who come from Basutoland or who reach us via Witzieshoek. A depot could be established at the point of entry and the necessary information could be furnished from there to the farmers, so that they might obtain natives on the ’ prescribed conditions. I am certain that the natives will be used on a big scale. I personally will snatch at that and my fellow-farmers as well. We have not got the labour and we cannot get it. The position is that crops are suffering serious damage, and the result will only be that the farmers’ will not be able to produce on such a scale. But there is still another cause of the shortage of farm labour I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. There is still a maldistribution of labour on the platteland, in this sense that you find on certain farms—and I am again speaking from experience in my neighbourhood—a farmer may have 20 to 30 squatters. That is against the law, but they have managed to get round that—I think in some cases it is an evasion of the law—and a large number of natives are collected on one farm. A farmer is entitled to only five squatters, and if the circumstances justify it he can make application to increase the number, but the excuse now advanced in regard to farms where there are 20 or 30 squatters is that the farm was sub-divided years ago and that it is comprised of various small farms that have been bought from time to time, and that originally there were diagrams and transfer deeds of the separate little farms. But actually it is fenced in as one farm. There is one dwelling house and one set of farm buildings. In reality it is only one farm, but now they have this large number of squatters there.

What is the solution?

In this abnormal period of scarcity of farm labour the solution is that the Government should adopt measures to lay down that where a farmer resides on his farm he will be entitled to have five squatters, because he is living on the farm as if it is one farm; and if he needs more he can apply for an additional five, or more if necessary, but he should not have the right to have five squatters in respect of every sub-division of such farm. Otherwise he will be robbing other people of the labour they require, while there will be idleness on his farm. Some of these natives go to Johannesburg and laze there and they leave young natives on the farm with the women and children. These farmers have a surplus of natives, while the other farmers are in need of workers. We are faced with this position that in parts of our country there are farmers who cannot manage at all without those natives. We also have the position in some areas that the farmer can no longer attend church on Sundays. He cannot find a native to stay on his farm to look after his stock. If the Government wishes the farmers to continue producing and providing food for the population, and to carry on to the benefit of the whole country the Minister of Native Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, and if necessary also in consultation with the Minister of Labour should make the necessary provision for relieving that situation. The situation that exists at present is one that cannot continue. [Time limit.]

We have had some very interesting speeches here today and I think we can congratulate the Minister and his Department on having gone through the last year with very little trouble indeed, and the criticisms and remarks voiced here should not cause the Minister much concern. I think at the same time we ought to recognise that Mr. Smit has left us now, and this country appreciates very much the work he has done. I have an extract here from speeches made by delegates at the Native Representative Council in Pretoria a few months ago, and it will be appropriate to point out what appreciation was expressed there of his services. Councillor Ndube, probably one of the most enlightened natives in the country, said—

Councillor Ndube also expressed doubts as to his successor, but I think that in his successor we have a man who sympathises with the natives and has an extensive knowledge of them and that natives in this country can rest assured that they will be well treated. “You realise that we are human beings”. That is the crux of the whole thing. That is where I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). He says we must put the natives in the territories and allow them to develop along their own lines. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said “rot”. I do not agree with that, but the hon. member for Wonderboom wants to put back the natives 50 years. Then there is the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) who says we must stop polygamy amongst the natives because it is un-Christian and retards their development. There you have the two extremes meeting. That is what is going on all the time. Some think it is misguided and by some it is welcomed, but we have to face the fact that evolution is proceeding. Today we had a speech from the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) who put the position before us of the farmers. He is perfectly correct, namely that the natives are leaving the countryside wholesale and going to the towns. Hon. members here say it is due to the higher wages. Other hon. members have other reasons, but there is one fact we have to face, and that is that we must recognise that what the hon. members for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), the Transkei (Mr. Hemming) and Cape Eastern say is correct, namely that the economic position of the native today is very serious. For the first time as far as I can remember in the Transkei they are actually faced with starvation. Those who can work will go to provide for their families. The position is also serious in the Transvaal, where natives are also faced with starvation, and I think that the next year will determine to a large extent the future policy we should adopt. I think the native will realise that he can hardly stand up to conditions prevailing in this country and that he must decide for himself whether he will become a farm worker, a rural worker, or an urbanised native. I think he is facing that position today, and I think it is within our power to guide him along the right lines. We have been in touch with the farmers’ associations, and a policy is being developed which we hope will bring a solution of the labour problem. The hon. member for Cape Eastern criticised the Department for starting these villages It seems to me that that is the right line to take.

No, she did not say that.

She criticised it. In the Eastern Province, it has been admitted by the hon. member for Pinetown, who usually has harsh criticisms about our part of the country, that the farmers are sympathetic towards the natives and have recognised the position in regard to the natives. Those farmers themselves have come forward with this attempted solution of the native labour problem, namely the establishment of these native villages near the towns or farms, and that is where I wish to deal with the farming aspect of it. I think the only solution is to establish small villages in these areas where there are many farmers, so that the natives can get together and have a certain amount of the amenities of life, which every human being must have in this country. Your native living on the farm needs companionship and he wants excitement, which, at present he can only get from beer drinks at the week-end. The native demands certain amenities, and I think the attitude of the farmers is the proper one, namely that they should live in small communities, near the farms or towns so that they can go backwards and forwards to work regularly, if not every day then once a week, and keep contact with their farms or their relatives. We farmers find today that as soon as the young natives reach the age of 16 they go leaving the old people at home. The old natives in the reserves have that experience too, and in Cape Town you will find hundreds of young girls and boys who would ordinarily not have left their homes. Their parents also complain of that, that they wander away from home. It happens everywhere. But we cannot control this by legislation. We cannot force people to work against their will. Nor is the solution higher wages, as hon. members over there think. The whole solution, I think, is to give them more amenities, and better conditions of life and to make them realise that country life is more suitable to their temperament and for their children than anything else. For instance, we had a deputation of natives coming down from South-West Africa recently where the land was badly eroded and when we asked them whether they would move to a larger area they said that if they remained there they would die and their children would die with them. That is happening everywhere. The children see the conditions and go into the towns. That is a state of affairs which we as a legislative body should recognise. It is no use hon. members coming here and complaining when these conditions prevail, because we cannot compel them to work. No farmer will willingly take on a native who is forced to work. It is only by co-operation that it can be solved. I am glad to say that there is co-operation today amongst the leading farmers in the country to find a solution on these lines. Some hon. members seem to think that I am against the natives forming unions, but I never said that. What I have said, and what I repeat, is what the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) said, that the natives in this country, not having been educated like Europeans, cannot receive the teachings of Communism as Europeans do, and that it is a menace. I think the Department recognises that. They recognise that the man who is educated in Johannesburg comes down to form a union, collects money, and tells the natives to go on strike. He is not interested in their work. He is only interested in stirring up trouble and collecting money. He is a menace to the country and I think hon. members will agree that the natives should be protected from them.

For a number of years now the native representatives in this House have been urging a policy which will stabilise the native population and eliminate the migratory labour system. I want the Minister to note what has happened during this debate. This debate has been encouraging to me in a number of respects, despite the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). This question has not been raised from these benches today, but was raised by no less than three members of the Minister’s Party, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman), for Zululand (Mr. Morris) and, I am surprised, but glad to say, by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn). This is a policy, I repeat, which has been urged from these benches for many years. Before the Third Interim Report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission there was no support for it. That support has gathered force since the publication of that report and it is no doubt given a considerable fillip by the decision of the representatives of the farmers’ associations, with whom the Minister has been negotiating on the subject of farm labour, by their decision to support that policy. I want to remind the Committee what that decision is. It is what we have always urged, and it also exposes the ignorant charges made from time to time that we, in some way, are opposed to the farming industry. This is the resolution—

1. (i) Agricultural or rural.
2. (ii) Industrial or urban.

1. (i) The agricultural group may be subdivided into—
   1. (a) the native farmer;
   2. (b) the farm labourer:
      1. (a) The native farmer should be encouraged to develop within the native areas (scheduled areas), territories, reserves and locations, other than town locations, in accordance with agricultural practices—members of those families might provide some suitable farm labour outside the native area.
      2. (b) The farm labourer should be housed and accommodated on European-owned farms, not as a tenant or as a part-time worker, but as a full-time agricultural labourer.
2. (ii) The industrial native labourer should be housed and accommodated with his family in proximity to his employment and would be classed as an urban native.

That is the policy we have always advocated. We always wanted to abolish the migratory system of labour. The hon. member for Zululand said that the African population in the reserves must choose what they want to be, whether they want to be farmers or migrate to the towns as permanent industrial workers. I want to point out that the choice at the moment does not lie in the hands of the natives in the reserves. There is no adequate accommodation in the towns for them and their families, due to lack of housing, and moreover administrative restrictions apply to them when they go to the towns, which are of such a character as to discourage them from bringing their families to town.

I tried to infer that.

I am glad that the hon. member meant to give due weight to that. The main thing is that that point should be clear. The present administration of urban policy is such as to prevent the growth of a permanent urban working population. And in this connection I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the conditions that have grown up not only in the Cape Peninsula, on the Cape Flats and Windermere, where there is a large population housed under shocking conditions and without any of the ordinary civic services which an urban community requires, but throughout the Western Province, where there is a great lack of accommodation for the ordinary working population that has come there. I know that that population has grown very rapidly in recent years in response to the demand for labour which the rapid industrialisation of the Western Province, and more particularly of places like Paarl and Worcester, has created. I know also that it is a matter which ultimately can only be solved by the provision of proper accommodation, but the situation is too serious in my submission just for us to stand by and say it will some day be solved by appropriate accommodation, because that will take years. I know that the Government proposes to speed up the building of houses. We have different opinions as to the prospects of success, but the situation is one which is serious, because you have thousands of people living under urban conditions but without the ordinary urban facilities, drainage, sanitation or any of the services necessary to protect the health of an urban community. It is no use saying that these communities should not be there. That is what the local authorities say. The fact is that the vast majority of these people were not there before the war and came there because of the demand for labour. Anyone who knows the conditions at places like Paarl and Worcester and knows what tremendous industrial expansion there has been knows that it is inevitable that the population should have grown faster than housing facilities were provided, but I do submit this, that a short term emergency policy is necessary. The local authorities must be told that the communities for which they are responsible are using the labour of these people and that they must provide at all events rough and ready facilities to protect them against ill-health. There is an enormous sack town just outside Worcester. Paarl has a big community growing up. At Oudshoorn there is a community on the commonage. In George there are similar conditions developing. It is useless saying that these people should not be there. They came there in response to the ordinary economic urge and it is no use saying that houses will eventually be built. Something will have to be done before houses are really built for the protection not only of the health of the people themselves, but of the European communities adjacent to whom they are living. Some of these local authorities seem to be dealing with the situation in this way: they say that the settlements are illegal, and now and then they pull the houses down. I want the Minister to notice that they never go to the employers and object to their employing these people. They dare not do that because they know that these people are necessary to local industry; but a man comes home from his work, whether from the factory in the town or from an adjacent farm— because some of them work on the farms— and finds his house pulled down. That is not right, and the local authorities are doing nothing to provide temporary sanitation and drainage facilities, etc. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) touched here on Dr. Latsky’s report. I dealt with the whole question of the report and with the information I had from the Ciskei when I spoke earlier in the afternoon. I do not think the hon. member was in the House at the time, but I cannot repeat all I said then. There is just this one point. About the soya beans, when I was at Fort Cox some 18 months ago there was a table about the size of the table in front of you, Mr. Chairman, covered with all sorts of dishes which resemble milk, cheese butter, coffee, mince meat, about 10 different dishes, all made from soya beans and of extraordinarily good flavour. It shows that my Department has been doing a great deal of experiment in this matter. One could make many kinds of foods just from soya beans. We have done our best to induce the natives to grow these beans, but up to now our efforts have not been very successful. They are a conservative people and do not like new ideas. I think the difficulty about soya beans is to grind it, because it is fatty and has to be pounded by hand, as it clogs up a mill. The fact is that except in a few isolated cases we cannot persuade the natives to grow soya beans in large quantities, but we are persevering. All the questions of how to prepare it in dozens of different ways have been worked out by my Department, and that is the main point. I am glad to hear that the hon. member is against Communist propaganda and I a mentirely in agreement. I think there is definitely some trouble in this country due to teething troubles concomitant with the growth of industries, and much of the trouble is due to that, but there is no use trying to hide the fact that there is a lot of agitating and propaganda going on, a particularly bad type of propaganda for natives. This propaganda is disseminated amongst the natives. We believe in allowing a man free speech as long as he keeps within the law but there are people putting up agitation against wages and putting up blacks against whites and vice versa, and if you want to deal with one side you must also deal with the other. As long as the law is not broken and it is merely political agitation, inside the law, I do not see how you can stop it. But to suggest that there is no agitation going on is evading the issue. Of course it is going on and I quite see the difficulty.

†*Now I come to the matters that were mentioned by the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) and the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) in reference to the influx of natives from the farms to the towns. By virtue of a proclamation issued under Section 5 (bis.) Of the Native Urban Areas Act natives may be prohibited from entering a town or a city except (1) when they have obtained employment to which they are proceeding; (2) when they come as bona fide visitors; and (3) if the municipality concerned admits them to come there as workseekers. The Municipality of the Witwatersrand did not ask for a proclamation but control is exercised there under Section 12 of the law, namely the system of registration of service contracts. Reception depôts are in existence in the various townships under that city council and under control of the department. I may say that the native looking for work has to sleep in those depôts. If he fails to do so and is caught by the police he finds himself in trouble. He takes that risk. It is a matter for the municipality and for the police to institute an enquiry in regard to the dwellings of other natives and to ensure that these natives are not sleeping at unauthorised places. This is being done by the police, but it does not fall under my department. Then they also mentioned the matter of farm labour, and I shall revert to that later.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) congratulated me on getting the Transkeian General Council to agree to the reclamation scheme. Let me tell the hon. gentleman straight away that I am sorry I cannot take any credit for it. The credit is due to Mr. Mears who has a great deal of experience and who went up there to tell the Bunga what the position was, and as responsible people they realised what the position was and they implicitly agreed to the scheme. I am sure the House is extremely grateful to Mr. Mears and I would like to compliment the general council on the way they have shown themselves to be real leaders of their people. With regard to the question of migrant labour let me say quite frankly—the point was also raised by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno)—that I do not intend to reply to speeches in which hon. members were merely giving their opinion to the House. I think I am right in saying that the greater part of the speech of the hon. member for Cape Western consisted of an exposition of his views. He stated how the farmers were anxious to have the very thing laid down that the natives must be divided into urban or industrial or rural or farm. That was the resolution given to the Government on behalf of the South African Agricultural Union. I will reply to that when I come to the question of farm labour. I wish to make it quite clear that in regard to the existing mines on the Rand, the proposition put forward is not a practicable one at the present moment. Here I come back to the contention of the hon. member for Hillbrow. Sixty four sq. miles of land would be required to build the houses. I do not know where you are going to get that area of land in a closely settled area. If 50 per cent. of the mines close down, where are you going to find work for those people? After all said and done the gold mines still represent the main basis of our economy, and whereas our secondary industries, as I have tried to point out, import 60 per cent. of their raw material, they only export something like 2½ per cent. of the country’s total exports, and if they are going to export only 2½ per cent. where are they going to get foreign exchange if the gold mines close down? One agrees that one cannot do it now—not on the existing mines on the Rand because they would have to close down.

All this talk about mines closing down is just a story.

I am dealing with the question of migratory labour raised by the hon. member. If I understood him correctly, he wanted to do away with migratory labour.

I said the change cannot be abrupt.

Nor do the farmers suggest that it should be abrupt. Up to the 31st January, 1945, the gold mines employed just over 136,000 of the Union natives;, just under 50,000 natives of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland were employed. The hon. member would not suggest that those natives should have their wives brought into the country, and I do not think the British Protectorate would allow it to happen even if we did. The number of Portuguese natives employed was 87,000 odd, and the number of tropical natives 29,000. There you have the position that even if you agree to this policy you will still have foreign natives coming in who would not be housed with their wives and children. Would the hon. member suggest that we should forbid that foreign natives should come in.

Look after your own natives first.

But we are still 80,000 natives short. If the Union natives want to take that work now they can take it, but the mines are still 80,000 natives short. It is not a question of keeping Union natives out of work and employing foreign natives. It is a very important point, and it would be a more important point if we were to keep Union natives out of employment by employing foreign natives. Let us get that quite clear.

Is it not due to the policy of cheap labour on the mines that that is the position?

Do you want the mines to pay higher wages?

Yes.

That is a question that can be raised. To get back to this matter, I ask people who have a knowledge of the native territories whether the natives as a whole will desire to bring their wives in from the native territories to live in the towns? I am going to put that question to the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) and others. Do hon. members think that the natives would like their wives to be brought in?

That is not the question; it is a question of whether some people would like to be permanently industrialised.

Of course, there is a certain number on the mines today. I understand that a man working underground is not allowed to work for more than about eight months. He should then get out for about six months. I am merely showing that there is another side to the story which I think we should consider, and that is the point I want to put before the House. When the new mines open that is the question that will have to be considered and considered very carefully.

Can you tell us whether you are sympathetic towards it?

I am prepared to go into it. I have not had the time to do so. It is easy to say that you are sympathetic or that you are not sympathetic. I will go into the matter with a perfectly open mind. The hon. member for Cape Western did raise the question of housing, but I think he was merely expressing his opinion. I do not think he wants me to reply to it. I have a lot of information here on that subject.

†*The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) quoted here from a speech delivered by Gen. Conroy, a member of the Native Affairs Commission. He also quoted the opinion of another friend of his who described me as Charlie Chaplin.

No, he was not a friend of mine.

Let me just say this, that I cannot recall having said anything of the sort to Gen. Conroy. I do not say that I did not say it, but I can never have said it in public. I have no knowledge of the matter.

He says you told him that personally.

I could not have said so in public and I cannot recall that I ever said anything of the kind to him personally, and I cannot see why I should have said it, because there is no reason to have said it. There is no member in the Cabinet who is fighting the policy that I am pursuing.

How is it your commissioner tells such stories?

It was of course not my affair, but I cannot recall that I ever said anything of this sort. I may perhaps have said that if anything happened on the lines of my colleagues not agreeing with the policy I have announced here, that I would leave the Cabinet. I may possibly have said that. But there is nothing of that sort—that any of my colleagues did not agree with me. There is no question of that. I cannot understand that Gen. Conroy should have thought I said anything of the sort. It is true the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister stated that segregation has failed, or words to that effect. I asked the Prime Minister, and he showed me that his words had been taken up in absolutely a wrong sense. It is not for me to explain what he meant, but he assured me that he used the words in an entirely different sense. Only one passage was extracted from his Speech, and those words in themselves do not interpret his meaning.

You will agree that when something of that sort emanates from one of the Native Commissioners the public take it seriously.

Did he create the impression that the other Ministers do not agree with me? So far as I can remember I never said anything of the sort.

I am not making any charge because I do not know anything about it.

I said there was no reason for it.

Incidently I also want to say that it does not agree with the Charlie Chaplin description.

I am glad to hear it. He gets more pay that a Minister in any case. In regard to the points mentioned by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) I agree with him that the Boer nation in general have no need to be ashamed, compared with any other people, of their treatment of the natives. I have said this a hundred times, and what hurts me is that our own people go about blackening their country and giving outside people the impression we want to repress the natives in our country. Such is not the case, and I disapprove very strongly of such expressions. I have certainly said so a hundred times. There are indeed instances where these people have a difficult time. There are instances of poverty. There are places where they have not houses, but you find the same conditions in any country of the world. This does not signify that we repress the natives.

May I ask you this: Are the conditions of the natives in the cities and on the platteland not better than in the adjoining territories?

I know of places where the native has full political freedom, and where they themselves exploit their own people more than European do. We can be absolutely proud of our treatment of the natives, and no other country has the right to say we do not treat our natives justly and reasonably. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) spoke about taxation. I have explained my attitude on this matter, and I do not believe it is necessary to say anything further about it. To the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) and the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) I should like to say a few words in connection with the shortage of farm labour. There is not only a shortage of labour in South Africa today but throughout the whole world. There is a shortage of labour in England and indeed throughout the world. But the position is that I invited the farmers to convene a conference of the South African Agricultural Union. I attended it and there we discussed the whole matter. They appointed a liaison committee comprised of one member of each of the provinces to represent them. We met four or five times in order to discuss and thrash out the whole matter. They brought up certain points and drew up an agenda. I submitted it to the Government. They understood the difficulties. I only want to say I have not the power to place natives on the farms. I cannot create labourers out of the air. The native has the right to sell his services in the same way as the white man, where it is most profitable to him.

If he comes to a market where his services have no market value will you take steps to send him to a place where his services have indeed a market value.

I can of course advise him where to go, but I cannot take him by the scruff of the neck and force him. This is, of course, a free country. There are not so many vagrants as hon. members think.

There are thousands

I have the figures before me. In February there were in the cities more than 712,000 natives in service, and fewer than 20,000 were unemployed, any many of them were not vagrants but people who were temporarily unemployed and who would again get work, or they were people looking for work.

Where do you get these figures?

They come from my Department, and from the people who are dealing with the matter. I shall be pleased to hand this information over to the hon. member for his inspection.

May I say this: Is it a fact that the Cape Town Municipality, when they had an interview with you stated that there was work in the Cape Peninsula for only 60,000 natives, but that 80,000 had come in?

They have never informed me there are thousands of natives here who are unable to get work. Some 268 local authorities control the influx of natives under Section 5 (bis) of the Urban Areas Act, and 85 seem to do so under Section 12, namely, under the system for the registration of service contracts. Those things are controlled under the law. As far as the vagrant type of native is concerned no good purpose will be served by placing them all on a farm. You would have to put a policeman behind everyone of them. If you turn out these vagrants they will remain for five minutes on a farm; and it is an open question, too, whether the farmers will want them. Under Section 17— that is old Section 17 before the law was consolidated—natives on the Witwatersrand who appear before the courts and who were turned out numbered 9,458. Of that number some 2,380 were sent away after strikes; in 426 cases the charges were withdrawn after investigation; 6,205 were warned to find work; one was sent to gaol; 385 were sent back home; and 52 were released. The total is over 9,000. They cannot do just what they like.

The natives do not want work on the “Boland” farms because they say the work is too hard.

What must I do? Must I force them to work there? I cannot compel the native to work on the farm. The hon. member for Harrismith talked about squatters. I may say that matte was mentioned by the farmers’ liaison committee that is now in close touch with me and is representing the South African Agricultural Union. In this way we are trying to solve the difficulty, and we shall see how far it carries us. The committee are advising me how to solve the problem. I do not know whether I can do better than invite the farmers themselves to give me advice. We have now appointed a standing committee of farmers who can see me at any time, and I can consult them at any time. I do not know whether there is any better plan. If there is I should like to hear it. The farmers are not all in agreement in regard to the squatter policy. In regard to the Free State the position is that every farm on which there is a European is entitled to carry five squatters and if there is no European there, only two squatters may reside on the farm. If any farmer has five squatters on his farm and no European is on it he can be prosecuted, and I shall be glad if the hon. member will bring to my notice any cases of that sort.

There are thousands of such cases.

If the hon. member brings such cases to my notice. I can bring them to the notice of my colleague the Minister of Justice. In regard to the workless natives, I shall discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Labour, but as I have stated I have only the power to expel anyone from a municipal area if there is no work for him. I cannot force him to accept employment elsewhere. In the last resort it is not my job to provide farm labour. I can only do my best to assist the farmers, and I have already appointed a committee for that purpose. In regard to the teams, I thought every farmer was already acquainted with the regulations we made. I wrote to the farmers in regard to the teams we had last year. The matter was discussed by the congress of the Agricultural Union. We notified every farmers’ organisation, and I also discussed the matter with hon. members representing the platteland. There were farmers from both sides of the House to discuss the matter with me, and I cannot understand the hon. member being ignorant of it. The teams worked there last year

We have not heard of the plan this year.

Last year I got the teams. I organised them, and if I can do so again this year I shall.

Can you not advise the chiefs in every native village to send natives out to the farmers. They encourage the natives to go to the towns.

I can do so, but I cannot compel the natives to go to the farms.

Can you now reply to the other points I put in connection with registration. What is your standpoint in regard to that?

It is a matter I shall discuss with my colleague. As a matter of fact. I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with him. I have not intentionally passed it over. I shall go into the matter.

†I think we all listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn). If there is one man who knows all about the native in that part of the country and who speaks their language, it is the hon. member for Temubland. What he says is true. On the one hand you have people wanting to do away with their old customs and on the other hand you want them to remain where they were 50 years ago. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) spoke about erosion in Zululand. The whole idea of creating planning committees is that all the native areas will come under the Government’s rehabilitation schemes. There will be four committees and the intention is to take the whole of the Union and to bring it under that system. That is the policy which has been laid down and it has been agreed to by the Government.

I congratulate you on that.

I thank the hon.’ member for his appreciation. I know the hon. member knows much about this problem because I went into the whole question with him last time. It is a very serious position but we are giving our earnest attention to it. He raised the point that the industrialist should house his own employees. The point is that while the bigger organisations can give their employees hostels and rest rooms, the small industrialist cannot run hostels for his limited number of employees. Those natives will therefore have to find their own housing.

Where are you going to get housing for them?

The houses will have to be built, of course. They will have to live in their own townships; they cannot go and live amongst the Europeans.

What about the question of transport to the factories?

You cannot have the natives living right next to the factory. It is part of my policy that you should have separate areas for natives. You should not have natives and Europeans living right next to one another. You should therefore provide transport facilities for the natives living some distance away. You cannot expect them to pay large sums on transport and to waste a lot of time getting to the factory. That is the responsibility the white man has to shoulder. If you provide separate areas for them and if you provide transport for them, then you are going to get satisfied people. I do not know whether I am wrong in stating this— if I am I will apologise straight away—but I understood the hon. member for Zululand, when I met a deputation, to say that these foreign labourers were of very little use and not nearly as good as the Zulus.

I did not raise it.

I thought the hon. member spoke about foreign labour. Well, I made a mistake.

I raised the question of overstocking,

That all comes under the reclamation scheme. I thought the hon. member was talking about foreign labourers, and that he said that they were unreliable and not as good as the Zulus. I have already touched on the question of agitators.

†*I agree with the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) when he says it is madness to suggest that the European is the enemy of the native. There is no such thing, but there are certain people who would like to suggest to the natives that is the position. There may be natives who believe that, but it is untrue. I dealt with that matter a little while ago.

†I do not know whether the hon. member for Cape Western, wants me to deal with the housing question.

I first gave you an opportunity to finish.

Would the hon. member like me to deal with it now?

Yes.

I may say that during the last two years, the Department has given special attention to the housing of natives in the Cape Province, especially in the Cape Western areas, and the Cape Town municipality, as the hon. member knows, provides housing for some 8,000 natives at Langa. The Greater Langa scheme is now under way, and I may say that it is designed to relieve the congestion in Windermere. The scheme embraces accommodation for some 2,560 unattached natives in 16 blocks of multistoreyed hostels and there are also 700 dwellings for families. A block of four hostels is nearing completion and another block of four is in the course of construction. I am talking about Langa. The contracts for the third and fourth block each of four hostels will be handed out as soon as the building and other permits are granted. For the first 128 dwellings permits are also awaited and it is expected that altogether four contracts for 600 houses will be started simultaneously within the next month or two if labour and material are available. I am not talking about hostels now, but dwellings. Some 20 military huts, of the McCarthy type, have also been assembled, and they will shortly be ready for the temporary reception depot to deal with the natives who come by mbombela train to Langa; this depot is being established so that they can sleep there. A second location housing scheme is shortly to be started at Retreat; there will be 500 dwellings and six blocks of bachelor quarters. The total cost of these schemes is £1,570,000. At Simonstown 18 additional houses have been erected and, as a temporary measure, they are being occupied by unattached natives. Temporary accommodation in Nissen huts for 450 dockyard employees in the location is also well advanced. Additional locations are being established on the Cape Flats, where work is in hand for some 208 houses, and at Bellville South, where the first scheme will provide for 450 dwellings. Location schemes are under consideration at Paarl, Wellington, Ashton and Robertson and substantial additions to the accommodation at Worcester and Stellenbosch locations are also contemplated. The large industrial labour force at Somerset West, Langebaanweg and Saldanha Bay is fed and housed under satisfactory conditions. My Department’s senior inspector of urban locations has been seconded for special duty at Cape Town and will concentrate on the improvement of native housing conditions throughout the Cape Province when conditions in the Western Cape are considered to have been sufficiently relieved.

I should like to revert to the native representatives and to warn them against the policy they have recently preached, and more paricularly in respect of the baseless accusations they have been hurling at this side of the House. These are not conducive to a good relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans. What is more, I want to make a definite charge against the native representatives that they are sitting there not as representatives of the real interest of the population, but they sit there in a great measure as the representatives of the liberal element and of those who represent equality. In fact one can practically say they are the mouthpiece of the Royal African Society, London. That is the impression one gets. I wish to cite a few instances. A few days ago the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) suggested a very important matter in connection with native policy, namely that a part of the wage paid to native workers on the mines should be withheld and paid to them when they returned home because today you have the spectacle of natives wasting their money in bazaars and shops and not bringing any home. The native representatives did not support the matter but simply walked out, because they felt it was not in the interests of the capitalist and liberal group. Even the warnings that we have emitted in regard to communist propaganda were only seized by them to make an attack on this side of the House instead of them discussing the matter properly. Another important matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is the interest betrayed recently overseas in our native population, and especially in the various native areas. I refer to the interest that is exhibited particularly in England, and I should like to know how much the Minister knows about this matter and to what extent he has been consulted. In 1929 a colonial development fund was instituted and an amount of £1,000,000 set aside annually for improvements in colonial territories. Now it has suddenly been decided to increase this amount to £5,000,000 a year, and in addition an amount of over £500,000 has been added for research work.

Are you referring to the colonial policy of the British Government?

Yes, and I have in mind particularly the territories of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland, territories that are adjacent to us, and I should like to know how far we have been consulted in this connection. I notice, for instance, in the objects of this fund the principle is laid down of mass education of the natives. We are already having a reaction in our country. I notice, for example, that the Planning Council has suggested that all children in South Africa should receive education up to Standard VI irrespective of race or colour. Now I should like to know whether that perhaps is a reaction to the policy of the British Government. Another object that is stated is that natives should have a share in local administration. Here, too, we see the reaction by people expressing themselves in favour of the natives having a say in municipalities, etc. Then it is suggested that they should organise trade unions. In fact, it is laid down in the policy that money shall not be spent in countries that refuse to develop native trade unions. In South Africa as well we see considerable interest in the development of native trade unions; in how far is this a reaction that is felt here? Another objective is the training of natives for administrative work. In how far is the engagement of non-European messengers a reaction to that? We are putting the question to the Minister of Native Affairs because we are worried about the future envisaged by the people who believe in equality. They are taking this matter in hand on a big scale. It affects the whole of Africa with its 150,000,000 non-Europeans and only 4,000,000 Europeans. I am thinking specially of Southern Africa including the Belgian Congo and Tanganyika, and those parts where there are 50,000,000 nonEuropeans and which are being tremendously affected by this policy. This is an extremely important matter for us, and we should like to know whether the British Government consulted our Government or is going to consult it in the future, especially in regard to native education and native trade unions. I should be glad to have the Minister’s reply on this matter.

I want to raise with the Minister a question that has become vital to Johannesburg and to the northern districts of Johannesburg particularly. I refer to Alexandra township. Speaking in Another Place, in 1942 the then Minister of Native Affairs, Col. Deneys Reitz, after mentioning that he knew the promoters of Alexandra township well, went on to say—

The position, far from being tackled, has been allowed to drift and has gone from bad to worse. It has become apparent to those who have studied the matter that one day there will be trouble of a most serious character at Alexandria township. A number of strikes organised by a few ringleaders have occurred there. There has been an enormous amount of propaganda, some call it Communist and others describe it otherwise, but nevertheless it is propaganda of a subversive character. A large number of the natives are thoroughly law-abiding, and of them we can only speak in the highest terms but a large number of the criminal element have congregated in Alexandra township. There is absolute licence there, not a vestige of law and order, and, in the words of the Minister in 1942, the King’s writ runs with difficulty; I go further and say there is no King’s writ. This position has been allowed to carry on until we saw in the “Rand Daily Mail” of the 25th April a report of a native disturbance in which one native was killed, seven policemen and four natives seriously injured, and 20 policemen received stab wounds, chopper wounds and other injuries in a disturbance at Alexandra township in which members of a religious sect were involved. An order of court had been granted in respect of a child of 13 years of age, and the native sheriff went there to execute the order. He found one policeman was not sufficient escort, his helmet was burnt. He got a few more police, but they also became involved in trouble. Then he came back with a big force, and that was the sum total of a settlement of a legal order. This was a religious sect which was concerned, and it ended in all that bloodshed.

What are you asking?

I want to know the Minister’s policy in regard to Alexandra township. Let us review briefly its history. It was started in 1904 as a European township to accommodate approximately 1,500 Europeans. In 1911, one year before the 1912 Act, which prohibited natives owning land in European areas, it was converted by Papenfus, who was then the owner, into a native township, and it was re-surveyed to accommodate approximately 5,000 non-Europeans. A clause was inserted in the deeds that transfer could only be to a non-European. About 1926 to 1928 the native population began to flock in there, so much so that within a comparatively few years it had a colossal population. Today in this township with a superficial area of about one square mile, some 60,000 to 70,000 natives are living. In this township there is no court of law, there is no magistrate’s court, there is no resident native commissioner, there is no police station. I, amongst others, thought it better that this ’ township should be abolised and that the inhabitants should be re-settled in healthy and congenial surroundings, for their own benefit as well as that of the whole community. There was no question of native repression, but it was a question of extricating these unfortunate non-Europeans out of the social and economic morass into which they have floundered. At that time we had meetings with the Government, and the City Council of Johannesburg went ’ to the length of making an offer to bear one-third of the cost of re-settlement of these natives; this involved a threefold problem; one was settling the owners of property in a new township provided with modern amenities; there was the re-settlement of the tenants, by far the great majority of the inhabitants and then there was the question of what was to be done with the large criminal element. Some 18 months elapsed and then in July of last year we heard at a meeting in. Pretoria that the Government had decided to turn down the offer of the Johannesburg City Council and not to move in the abolition of this township and the settlement of the residents in other areas. We shall rest content with that now. But now comes the problem. It is quite impossible to rest content and to leave Alexandra township in its present state. It is essential that proper control should be instituted and overcrowding eliminated. There is no shadow of doubt that there is more trouble threatening. I told the. Minister in December that unless something substantial was done we could expect the most serious consequences. Since then we have had the riots in which there was loss of life. I want to see law and order established in this township. It is essential it should be established without delay. In that matter the responsibility is on the Minister. This non-European township comprised 90 per cent. of natives. The natives have no facilities. There is no resident commissioner there. There is no law and order because there is no police force no magistrate, and law and order should be established without delay. I ask the Minister to inform the House of his policy. [Time limit.]

I am glad that the Minister of Native Affairs realises the seriousness of the lack of labour on our farms but I am afraid that we have not yet made any progress in the matter. We must find a solution and I want to ask the Minister, if he is not able to do anything to discuss the matter with his Cabinet. Something has to be done. The farmers can no longer go on under the present conditions. It is impossible to farm without labour, and in view of the assertion being made that the influx of natives to the towns and the mines is due to the fact that they can obtain higher wages there, surely the farmers are entitled to ask that the prices of their products shall be so stabilised as to enable them to attract the labour back to the farms? If that is not done, if there is no improvement in the prices, the farmers cannot increase wages. It cannot be done on the basis of the prices which the farmer receives for his products today. If the assumption is correct that the mines and the towns pay higher wages to the natives, then the Cabinet should see to it that the farmers obtain better prices for their products. The Minister quite rightly said that he cannot force the natives to go back to the farms. That is quite correct. Well, in that case conditions on the farms must become such that the natives will be attracted to go back there, something which the farmers on account of their financial position are unable to effect themselves at present. Take for instance the mines. Last year £800,000 was voted for native wages in the interest of low-grade mines in order to make the exploitation thereof a paying proposition. That was done in the interests of the mines. The mine magnates received that assistance. The time has now come that something be done in the interests of the farmer. I do not say that the same method should be applied here, but let us suppose that the Government came along and laid down that the natives in the towns and on the mines who receive higher wages, will also have to pay more in taxation, whereas relief of taxation is given to the natives on the farms. I am of opinion that the farming community is also entitled to ask for labour. If that cannot be done, if the farmer cannot get labour and if it is true that the natives are living more independently and better in the towns, why should we as Europeans in that case contribute £10,000,000 per year for the development of the natives, whereas they themselves only contribute £2,000,000. Surely that is not logical. There is something wrong somewhere and the matter should be put right. I mention this because I cannot see how the farmers can continue with their farming operations. Soon we will lose our prisoners-of-war and many farms will be without any labour. There is a shortage of mealies and from everywhere one hears that a famine is threatening us. The fact is that the farmer cannot produce. How could he? The Minister spoke about 20,000 unemployed natives. I want to question the accuracy of the Minister’s figures. I think it would be more correct if he had said that there are 200,000 who do no work and loaf around. If you take the large native population and at the same time consider the great shortage of labour, then it does not look as if there are so few of them unemployed. If the Minister together with his colleague can arrange matters in such a way that the natives will be compelled to register if they are unemployed; and if on the other hand one can get the natives so far that the onus will be on them to prove that they have worked for a year or for a certain number of months then the Minister will find out that there are very many unemployed, and let him tax the natives who were not in employment for a year or six months. We have got to do something to solve the question. There is another matter which I should like to mention and which, as I hope, will have the Minister’s attention. He has already made a promise in this connection and I hope that he will implement that promise. There is dissatisfaction among the landowners in my constituency in connection with the purchase of land by the Native Trust. As hon. members know, in the Free State another 28,000 morgen will have to be purchased and the farmers whose farms are adjoining the reserve feel that sooner or later they will be asked to bring this sacrifice and that their land will also be bought up. Their request is to put a stop to the purchasing of farms so that they may know where they stand. They maintain that if the Minister of Native Affairs wants to purchase those 28,000 morgen, he can purchase it from the natives who already fall within the reserve and if that is so it will not be necessary to purchase land from the European farmers. If, however, more land must be purchased, then their request is that it be done without delay, so that they will know what the actual position is. Many of them today are in a quandary. They do not know which land or whose land will be purchased. The Minister promised to send the Native Affairs Commission to that area and I hope that it will be done as soon as possible after the Session. Even the Church finds the position becoming more difficult. They notice the European community growing smaller and smaller. A lot of money has been invested in the Church and the congregation becomes smaller every day. The municipalities are faced with the same position, as the number of European inhabitants grows less. They are also in a difficulty. Several associations and organisations are affected by this question and I hope that the Mininter will, as he promised, shortly after the Session send the commission there to have this matter finally settled. If land has to be acquired, let them acquire it now, so that the people may know where they stand, and if no land is to be purchased, they should also be informed.

I should also like to ask the Minister a question in connection with the Native Trust lands and the land in the locations. We experience many difficulties in that regard. There seems to be no line of demarcation between the Trust lands and the location lands and control is not being exercised as it should be. Difficulties arise for instance in regard to water. On the one hand you have the Trust land and on the other hand you have the location land and they cannot come to an agreement. I shall be grateful if the position can be determined once and for all. Another matter which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister is the fact that native youngsters are being recruited by Europeans and are being transported to towns. On many farms we are left only with old natives because the children have all been taken to the towns or elsewhere by Europeans. It may be that this matter falls under the portfolio of the Minister of Justice but I hope that a solution will be found to prevent a European having the right to take those children into his service and that legislation will be passed to prosecute such a European if he removes those children from a farm. Where overstocking has taken place in a location and where it is possible for natives to move to another location with their cattle because grazing and water can be found there, we find that the natives do not want to go and I am of the opinion that in such circumstances they should be compelled to go. I realise that the Minister is in a difficult position because the native representatives will at once say that the Department should pay compensation if those animals die at the other location. I hope, however, that they will assist the Minister when he wants to take steps to prevent the land being tramped out and that they will support him if he wants to compel the natives to remove their cattle to places where grazing and water are available. In my constituency there are large areas where the natives can go to with their cattle, because grazing and water are available there, but they definitely refuse to do so. They rather let their cattle die in the location but they do not want to part with their animals to give them a chance to obtain grazing elsewhere. I do hope that the native representatives will not raise any objections under those circumstances. It would be very unfair if they wanted the Department to look after the animals there and to pay for any losses. Then there is a further point in connection with the land which has been purchased for the natives. I do not know who purchased the land but certain tracts of land have been purchased which are neither of benefit to the European nor of benefit to the native. These lands are found on the mountain slopes. The native goes there and we cannot blame him for chopping down the trees in order to plough, which in turn results in the springs lower down drying up. We send the natives there but it definitely is not to the advantage of the country that they should be placed there and it definitely is a disadvantage to the people lower down who are dependent on the springs for their water. In my constituency there is something very seriously wrong somewhere. Neither the natives nor the Europeans benefit from it. I should like to support the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) in regard to his remarks about polygamy among natives. I know that the Minister has already replied to it. I only want to say that I believe an attempt should be made—not by means of legislation—to teach them that it is economically unsound to keep so many wives. Finally I want to say that something else is wrong—the Minister’s policy is right—but he is not being fairly treated by our newspapers. When one of the native representatives here makes a speech in this House, we find two or three columns devoted to it, but when the Minister makes an important statement here, he only gets two or three lines. I just want to say that in the rural areas the idea is already gaining ground that the Minister is not doing his duty because it looks as if he is not showing sufficient interest in this matter. I want to ask that the Minister, when he makes an important statement here and tries to satisfy all sides of the House and to apply our native policy as well as he can, should receive the necessary support not only in this House, but also from the rural newspapers, and I hope that they will show that the Minister is serious in his intentions to solve the native problem with the assistance of all sides of the House.

I would like to ask the Minister to consider the abolition of the monthly pass fees levied on the gold mining industry for its native employees. I feel that by the abolition of these fees it will enable the low grade mines to mine more low grade ore. In some of our low grade mines these fees come to about £12,000 or £14,000 per annum. I cannot enlarge upon this as the Chairman will not allow me to discuss mining taxation, but I put this question to the Minister, realising that the fees affect the economic position of the mines. I shall be very glad if he will consider this, or refer it to the Departmental Committee investigating mining taxation.

I believe that the Minister of Native Affairs is fully convinced that a great demand exists for farm labour. We on this side have already spoken frequently about the seriousness of the position and I feel that I cannot give more information than what has already been given. I am sorry, however, that the Minister has not made arrangements to make available again teams of natives for our farm work, as he did last year. I went with a deputation to the Minister to see him about this matter. I suppose he remembers that we came to him at the beginning of the Session in order to draw his attention to the seriousness of the position. We pointed out to him that we would not have the opportunity of making use of Italian prisoners of war and that for that reason we wanted arrangements to be made to give us once more teams of native workers. It looks as if we will not get them again and I am very sorry to hear that, for we cannot solve the serious problem of farm labour. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) said that we should pay the natives more and that we then would get more workers. I am fully convinced that the farmers are paying the natives much more than they paid them in the past. If, however, we have to pay the native still more, the consumers will also have to be prepared to pay much more for our products than they do now. The argument which is so often used against us from the other side, namely that we underpay our natives, falls away altogether. The farmers do their utmost to treat their labourers as well as they can. I feel there must be something wrong why we cannot obtain farm workers. I shall be very glad if the Minister will tell us whether there is still a possibility that teams of natives will be given to the farmers. Then there is another matter, namely the offices of the Native Commissioner in my constituency. I have already brought this matter to the notice of the Minister and I shall be pleased if he can give me the assurance that offices will be built for the Native Commissioner during the coming year. During the past 10 or 12 years Lichtenburg has been sorely neglected. Not one of the Ministers can get up here and say that he has done something in Lichtenburg of which he can be proud. Lichtenburg is the stepchild of the Government. I do not know why preference should be given to the one and not to the other. I hope that the Minister of Native Affairs will realise the seriousness of the matter and that Lichtenburg will become one of the places at the top of the list so that it will receive the treatment which it deserves. There is also the question of a residence for the Native Commissioner. I think it would be a sound policy if all the departments would take steps to have a house built in every district for the head of the department. Surely there will always be a Native Commissioner in Lichtenburg and his Department should see to it that a house be built for him; then he will no longer have to look around to obtain a house or be forced to stay in an hotel.

Last year the Minister took a particularly keen and active interest in the Alexandria Township transport problem. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to what I regard as a very serious problem, the Pretoria Attridgeville native transport service. I feel that the cash fares charged the natives are too high and that the buses are not sufficient to carry the natives who reside at Atteridgeville. The carrying capacity of most of the buses does not exceed 54 passengers, but it is in evidence from the Assistant Superintendent of Locoaions that the buses sometimes carry as many as 100 passengers. They are packed in like sardines. The position will become even worse because it is the intention of the Provincial Council and the Pretoria Hospital to build an Orthopaedic hospital as well as a native hospital and Iscor intends putting up houses for natives employed in the Iscor Townships. I understand it is the intention of the City Council, the Pretoria Hospital Board and the Provincial Council to approach the Minister of Transport during the recess to renew the representations for a railway line to Atteridgeville. I am appealing to the Minister, because this matter is very serious, to give it his usual sincere consideration and help us in the difficult problem which faces Pretoria.

There is a matter to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister. The proceedings of the Native Representative Council make interesting reading. One can notice there what is going on in the mind of the natives. I have come to the conclusion that they are not grateful for having such a Council where they can advocate their own interests in a proper way. The Council is rapidly deteriorating into a Council where only agitation is made against all Europeans in this country, and I think the Minister of Native Affairs will agree with me. We had a Secretary for Native Affairs, Mr. Smit, who could deal with them rather well. In spite of his advice, however, they sometimes got out of hand. What strikes us particularly is their attitude towards the Afrikaans-speaking people and especially in regard to the Afrikaans language. The Minister will remember that at the last meeting the Secretary for Native Affairs asked that the instructors of native schools in the various provinces should supply the Council with information in regard to native education in the various provinces. He knows how the inspectors of the Free State and the Transvaal were treated when they made their report in Afrikaans. He knows the contempt with which the Afrikaans language was spoken of. That however, is not the important thing. Although especially we on this side were responsible for the creation of the Native Representative Council, we must ask that something be done to counteract that feeling and I think that the Department of the Minister should devise a scheme to counteract that type of agitation. He only can do it, especially as far as the language is concerned, and also their attitude towards one section of the population, if he demands that the official proceedings take place in both languages; that one year the opening will take place in Afrikaans and the next year in English, just as it is done here alternatively in Afrikaans and English. As the position is now, one arrives at the conclusion that the natives do not realise that the Afrikaans-speaking people up till now have largely been the guardians of the natives. In spite of what members on the other side may say and especialy what is being said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), one comes to the conclusion that as far as Communism is concerned the seed has already been sown amongst the natives. It is something we should watch. In reading the proceedings of that meeting we notice that the whole tendency which is apparent is the tendency towards equality, as I am afraid that that tendency is being encouraged to a certain extent here and also in the Other Place; this Parliament will have to be very watchful in regard to the tendency the natives display. There is another matter, namely the development of industries in the native areas. What is being done for the establishment for industries in native areas? In the Transkei and also in other parts we have a large population which cannot live entirely on the land and we notice what happens in the case of natives going to the mines. After a number of years they have to return to the reserves very often suffering from miners’ phthisis. There are no industries in their own territory where they can get work and make a living. I think the time has come that we should teach the native to look after himself industrially so that he can provide for his own requirements. We must try to assist in the establishment there of certain industries. There are for instance native blankets, his own pots and utensils which he requires and the things which are typical of native life. For that reason the Department of Native Affairs should investigate in how far it can interest the Department of Commerce and Industries in industries for the natives, and then an industrial corporation for natives could be established to undertake the development of their industries. That is what we want. Then we will exercise a healthy and beneficial influence on the natives and we will teach them to look after themselves. The large industrialists will perhaps say that they should rather come to the towns to work in existing industries. Well, in that case they get landed in the slums, for we cannot look after all of them. If, however, we want to counteract the influx of natives to a large extent, we will have to go so far as to assist them in their own areas to develop their own industries.

I observe from the daily newspapers of last Friday that a special meeting of the Native Representative Council, a statutory body set up by Act of Parliament, has been called in Pretoria to consider a measure which is to be discussed in this House during this Session. May I point out that the functions of this Native Representative Council are given little consideration by the Government and I should like to say that we are going to cause grave disappointment if by Act of Parliament we constitute a body to represent the views of a nation and persistently disregard its resolutions. I might mention an example in connection with the Native Urban Areas Amendment Act which was passed by this House. That Act was the subject of a long report by the Native Representative Council and that report was largely ignored in the final draft of the Bill brought before this House. The Department of Native Affairs decided on a course which merely enshrines in a Consolidating Act all the defects of the legislation of the last 20 years, and whatever complaints were put forward by the Council were very largely avoided by that procedure. I deprecate the use of this consolidation weapon in regard to legislation which has proved open to objection by the natives who are principally affected, and I think that reasonable consideration should at least be given to the representations made by their deliberative council, elected by the natives of the Union. I hope, in connection with the present meeting of the council, that this House will be fully informed of the discussion so that we may know, when called upon to deal with the Bill which has not yet passed its second reading, what representations were made by the natives in regard to the wider powers proposed to be vested in the Provincial Councils for the taxation of natives. There has, in the first place, been a considerable amount of controversy about the advisability of allowing the Provincial Council to tax the natives in addition to taxation imposed by Parliament. I agree, in principle, that it would be a grave mistake to have two taxing bodies for the natives. We are apt to be confused enough by the actions of one body only, and I hope that the power to tax natives will be reserved to the Union Parliament alone—but at this stage I have not yet heard the arguments which may be adduced in support of introducing a dual method of taxation. I hope in any case that the deliberations of the Native Representative Council will be made available to us before we decide finally upon a measure which at present has merely passed its first reading. There is another point which I have not had an opportunity to refer to yet. The Minister, I believe, reproached me on one occasion when I was absent for having objected to the principle of legislation by proclamation in connection with Native Urban Areas Consolidating Bill, and he said that in the Bill there was no provision which contemplated legislation by proclamation. He was apparently mistaken because under Section 23 of that Act, it is provided that there are many subjects which can be dealt with by proclamation, and therefore I was perfectly right in saying that the Act contained provisions empowering Government to legislate by proclamation. These provisions were objected to by the Native Representative Council. In any case, they expressed the view that no such provision should come into force without due consideration by the several Native Advisory Boards existing in the larger municipalities. Now, there is a considerable feeling that the meetings of these Native Representative Councils should be held at a time when those members of Parliament who are interested in the deliberations of this body may have an opportunity of attending them if they wish to. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration. I know there have been reports spread that this body has been expressing views that are somewhat radical in character, but I should not despair of this body acting usefully and in a temperate manner if its representations were given the consideration which I think is due to the resolutions of a body of this kind. They are, after all, individually elected by the natives themselves, and the whole intention was that with the disappearance of the franchise in regard to the voting of the natives, the native should be given a better method of expressing his views and the views of the native races in the Union. I hope this will not be lost sight of because it is very important that the views of these men who represent their race should be considered.

I shall be brief. We are sorry that it may be necessary tonight to sit slightly longer than the usual time, especially as we realise that the staff and more in particular Hansard find it hardly possible to cope with the work. May I suggest that the Minister could let his Department reply in writing to certain points which have been raised here by us. We shall be satisfied with that. It is not absolutely necessary that we should get the reply here in the House. There is, for instance, one case which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and I should like to know what the policy of the Department is in regard thereto. I am referring now to the black spots in preponderantly European areas. We know that the policy is to buy them out in the course of time but I should like to know whether it is expected that a district or area should make representations to the Department to state: “There is a black spot which should be bought out”, or is the position that the Department will take steps on its own? In the Pietersburg district there are quite a number of cases of black spots in European areas and these cause a lot of friction. There are small areas belonging to natives and at the moment the land is not even occupied by them. We know that this is due to war conditions. Now that the war is over, what is the policy going to be? Will those black spots be abolished or what will happen? May I suggest that the Minister should ask the magistrate or the native commissioner where there is such a person to address representations to the Department indicating where such black spots are to be found. Otherwise the Department will not know about it. May I quote a specific instance? Much difficulty is experienced in this case, namely, the Bethesda Mission Station. Originally it was a mission station and it now is a training school but lately they have also been conducting farming operations. It is no longer a pure training school, for a large number of natives are also living there, keeping a large number of cattle. Stock thefts are continually taking place, fences are being damaged, and the people in the vicinity say that it is impossible for them to continue farming operations as long as that place exists. It actually belongs to the Dutch Reformed Church, but I assume that they will be prepared to transfer it to the Department provided they are compensated for the buildings on the farm. Surely the idea is to establish the training school in a native area. I should like to know how far that matter has progressed and what can be done to speed it up. Then a few words in regard to the serious position in the northern parts as a result of the drought. I shall be glad to hear from the Department whether steps are being taken to distribute food. We know that natives will die from starvation if no steps are taken. How is the Minister going to assist farmers so that they can provide food to their natives on the farms2 They even have not sufficient food for their own requirements. They have no food for their animals. There is no mealie crop worth speaking about, no kaffir corn has been harvested and in consequence all the food has to be sent to this area from elsewhere. We should like to know in how far provision has been made not only for the distribution of food to natives but also for providing the farmers with foodstuffs for their farm labourers. Surely we cannot let them die from famine. There is still one more point which is also of interest to us in those northern areas, and that is the difficulty experienced in regard to boring machines. Quite rightly boring machines are also being used in native areas, because water has to be provided there. We appreciate the Department doing that. The difficulty now arises that there is only a certain number of private boring machines available and now the Government—that is to say the Native Trust, which can also be considered to be the Government—comes along and hires private boring machines to make boreholes in native areas. Those boring machines can now be manufactured in our country and I want to suggest that the Department should consider the acquisition of its own boring machines for the native areas, so that there will be no competition with the farmers who want to make use of the boring machines.

I hope the Minister will not agree to terminate this discussion on his vote this evening. After all we are not merely debating the affairs of his Department, but a very far-reaching matter, and that is the policy to be followed in regard to the natives after the war. The natives themselves have definite ideas on this matter, and it is only right we should give an opportunity to those interested to put forward their views. The natives were told the programme of purchasing additional land for native areas was held up and that it would have to cease until the war was over. But there has not yet been any indication of the policy of the Government. I have not heard anything from the Minister as to when the policy of buying these areas will be resumed and to what extent it will be extended. Speaking of Natal I know of extensive areas in which landowners were asked to give options of purchase by the Native Affairs Department, and these owners have remained in a state of uncertainty as to whether these options are to be exercised or not. In several cases these men have curtailed their farming operations in the expectations that the land would be required for native purposes. The natives themselves have been raised to a state of hopeful expectation in regard to the policy of the Government, and it is only right and fair they should learn fairly early what that policy will be and to what extent the policy of land purchase is going to be fulfilled by the Government. Then in regard to the native tribes generally my hope is that a more enlightened policy will be pursued in the future than has been in the past. There has been little or no effort on the part of the Department of Native Affairs to improve relations between the natives and the Europeans, and to encourage a better understanding between them on all matters. I would invite the Minister to go into any magistrate’s court or high court today with a competent man and listen to the interpretation that takes place so far as the natives are concerned. He would be appalled, so inadequate and incomplete is this interpretation in many courts. Times out of number I have brought the matter up in this House, but I perceive very little improvement. I have travelled a good deal in the Union and I have had the opportunity of listening to what is happening, and it seems to me that once the present interpreters die out you are going to have a more inefficient lot taking their place. There is no board of examiners whose duty it is to carry on a regular system of examination. A few years ago European policemen were encouraged to learn the native language by the inducement of an extra 1s. a day. Things have retrogressed and no i such encouragement is now apparent. I have not heard of a single examination having been carried out in recent years which has for its objective the encouragement of the knowledge of native languages amongst our police. I hope some stimulus will be applied to promote an interest in native matters, something beyond the interest that they are obliged to observe within their hours of duty. In years past in countries like Southern Rhodesia considerable offers were held out to men who competed in the direction of writing articles and books about native questions. In this country we are inclined to be content with the compilation of a compendium of the statute laws applying to natives, but such publications do not go far enough. There is a great dearth of records of studies made by competent officials in the country. I hope that the Native Affairs Administration will take some steps to encourage those studies in the future.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) for the suggestion he made and where necessary I shall have the questions of hon. members who are not present now, replied to by letter. If there should be something to which I do not reply, I shall be glad if the hon. member concerned will come and see me or inform me about it. Then I will try to give the information and the reply in writing. In regard to one of the questions raised here, viz. that of the black spots, I just want to say that this is a matter to be dealt with by the commission. They are engaged in enquiring also into the question of the mission station in the Pietersburg district. I will reply in writing to the other points which have been raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé).

†The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) raised the question of Alexandra. This was a subject of numerous conferences, as the hon. gentleman knows, and when the Government decided it would not allow expropriation of the area the city council came forward with certain suggestions as to how the township could be improved. These were put before the Cabinet before the Session, and the scheme has had to be put before the Treasury in reference to their financial aspects as affecting the Government and the municipality. I have not yet had a decision from the Treasury in that regard, and there can be no improvements while there is uncertainty as to the basis on which we shall go forward. As soon as a decision is arrived at we shall be able to go ahead.

†*The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) discussed the question of farm labour. As far as the migration to the towns is concerned, that is not a question of wages only but also of the attractions of the towns. The same thing has happened in all the countries of Europe. People migrate from the rural areas to the towns. They want to be near a bioscope, etc., and even if you pay them exorbitant wages, they will still move to the towns. As far as Thaba ’Nchu is concerned, the hon. member knows that I am dealing with that matter. The Native Affairs Commission will go there. I was there myself too. 53,000 morgen have already been purchased there and we can only purchase another 27,000 morgen. I hope that once the commission has been there, we will in any case be able to tell the farmers in what direction we will purchase land, for it is clear that they will be feeling uneasy if they do not know which land is to be purchased. I shall reply in writing to other hon. members who are not present at the moment.

†The hon. member for West Rand (Mr. Bodenstein) raised a very important point about abolishing the pass fees. These accrued to the Transvaal Province in the past when they were collected in the labour districts on the Reef, and they formed part of the revenue which has to be adjusted in the Bill which regulates the financial relationship between the Government and the provinces. It is a very important matter which is now before this House, and I am afraid I cannot trespass on the preserves of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. The pass fees accrue to the local authorities in urban areas outside labour districts and I regret that I am not prepared to amend the law to alter the position in this respect.

†*The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) spoke of the Native Representaive Council. I must honestly admit that lately I have also now and again been somewhat disappointed with the speeches made there.

Not only somewhat.

That body was in the first instance created to afford an opportunity to the natives to make known their points of view, and I must honestly say that I am not entirely satisfied with the tendency of the speeches during recent times. As far as bilingualism is concerned, I have personally made fifty per cent. of my speeches in English and the other half in Afrikaans.

What about the representative of your Department? Does he ever read anything in Afrikaans?

That is my attitude and I shall go into the matter. It is quite correct that every department has to use both languages, and when I opened the council meeting the first time I made half my speech in Afrikaans and the other half in English. Mention was also made here of the industrial development in the native reserves. I was very pleased to hear the remarks by the hon. member for Gordonia. That is also the reason why we may be prepared to let the farm “Grand Stand” if the corporation wants to lease it for industrial development to take place there.

†The hon. member for, Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) referred to the interpretation of native languages. The Department has already made representations on this matter to the Public Service Enquiry Commission. He referred also to the question of trust land. It is the Government’s intention to resume the purchase of land as soon as times are more normal, as I have already said. As regards the Native Representative Council let me say this. I told that council the moment I knew there was a Bill coming in affecting their taxation and the Bill was held up so they could be consulted. The consolidation Bill was a different matter. There we had no question of new laws, there was no new principle, there was no new policy. It was merely to set out the law clearly so that anybody could understand it.

It is a very bad law.

The principle involved was not the law but the consolidation of the law, and this Bill did not change the law at all.

†*The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) spoke about the purchase of land. As soon as circumstances are normal once more, we will again start purchasing land in terms of the Act of 1936. That is our policy.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 42.—“Commerce and Industries” £600,000, put.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 29th May.