I move—

Before making a few observations on the Bill itself and its implications, I want to bring to the notice of the House the statement of the Minister of Finance the day before yesterday in regard to the price of gold. During the Session we were told that the contract for the sale of gold with the Bank of England would stand till the end of the war, and now I suppose the Minister will inform us whether that means the end of the war in Europe or also the war with Japan. In any case a few matters arise from his statement on which we would like to have more information. The Minister told the House that this alteration in the price of gold is the result of an improvement as far as cost of transport and insurance are concerned. It is difficult for us to accept those as sufficient reasons to allow for a rise in the price of gold of 4s. 3d. Probably the Minister will tell us that it is not as a result of further negotiations concerning the sale of gold in India. That matter was raised last year. Whereas as far as America is concerned, the sale of gold is still maintained on the basis of 35 dollars per fine ounce, the question arises where the differenc goes between what is paid out to South Africa and what is paid by America. That difference cannot be absorbed by realisation charges, transport and insurance. South Africa has definitely lost millions and millions in the course of the war, and the only interested party deriving benefit from the sale of gold, was obviously the Bank of England. In the course of these five or six years with a turnover of something like 12,000,000 fine ounces per year, a considerable profit must have been made on the gold which left South Africa. I hope the time will come when the Reserve Bank of South Africa will exclusively be responsible for the sale of gold. It is a South African product and should be handled by our Reserve Bank. Another question arises: The Minister continually points out that he wants to counter act inflation and that with this end in view he has imposed certain taxation, but now he comes along and transfers the whole difference to the gold mines, amounting to something like £3,000,000 per year. The Minister shakes his head but it must be in the neighbourhood of £2,500,000. This amount is at once turned over to the gold producers, and the Minister cannot deny that the sudden change must be an important factor as far as increased inflation in South Africa is concerned. However I do not want to stress too much the danger of inflation, but I want to point out that here we have an amount which the Minister could have appropriated for general development, and in particular the development of the gold mining industry. Already for a number of years the State has paid certain amounts to assure the continued existence of certain mines of low grade ore. Yesterday an amount was voted by us for the purpose of investigating deep level mining. A few commissions have come to the conclusion that the State will have to contribute towards the exploitation of mines. Here the Minister had a source of revenue from which funds could be derived to promote this kind of exploitation. It is no longer a question of individual mines. Mine exploitation has become a State matter, and the Minister has this amount at his disposal to create a fund for the purpose. He lets the opportunity slip, an opportunity which would have been of advantage to the taxpayer as a whole. The Minister should have availed himself of the opportunity to promote the general development of the gold mines. However it is my intention to pass a few remarks on the implications of the Appropriation Bill as it is before us today. If I sense the feeling of the House and the people correctly, this Session of the House of Assembly which is almost a record Session is being terminated with a sense of disappointment. The Minister in his Budget Speech stated that it was a transition Budget. In other words it was the close of the war period and we were standing at the beginning of the development under peace conditions. The war in Europe has come to an end and the incitement of people by means of propaganda unknown in history must now come to a stop, and human reason must again take its rightful place. The world is exhausted. Burdens have accumulated as never before. And now we are coming along today and are making provision for further expenditure which the taxpayer has to bear. This Bill is the final stage of the estimates we have dealt with in the course of this Session, and it is going to give the Government once more the legal right to appropriate £190,500,000, of which amount £126,000,000 has to be found from Revenue Account and £64,500,000 is placed on the Loan Estimates. In regard to the Defence Department, once more an amount of £82,500,000 is authorised. That is the end of the war. But in addition to that we have an increase in the public debt and consequently an increase in the amount of interest to be paid. Those amounts have also reached their peak as a result of the war. And now at the end of the Session, of the transition Session if I may use that term, the nation has the right to ask the Government what the nett result is of all the sacrifices which have been demanded, of all the burdens which have been placed on the shoulders of the nation and which are still being placed on its shoulders. What is the result of our participation? As representative of a group which from the start objected to our participation in the war, I take the liberty of giving a summary of the results which the world and South Africa can show at the end of this war. The war has been waged on behalf of the Union for the sake of humanity, democracy, civilisation, for Christianity, for the rights of small nations. At the end of this Session, at the close of the war in Europe, we can draw up a balance as far as the result of these sacrifices are concerned. I leave alone for the moment the tragdey of thousands of people who have lost their lives, who have been wounded, who are suffering, I leave alone all the bitterness and sorrow caused by the war. That is not a matter which can be measured in terms of material contributions. There are sacrifices, sorrow, mutual animosity, enormous sacrifices which have been made. Our country has spent more than £500,000,000 on the war. What has South Africa gained from it? What did we fight for? The war was waged against Fascism, but during the war the warring nations have adopted measures far surpassing Fascism. In South Africa the Government employed means which leave Fascism in the shade. Of course, the Government of the day will say that these were only temporary measures. I believe that there is a measure of concern among many people who are inherently democratic and who feel that the same freedom will not be known in the future. Christianity has been sacrificed for the sake of Communism in order to get the support of Russia to carry out Imperialistic plans. What has become of the rights of small nations, among whom South Africa is one? Three of those small nations have been absorbed and forgotten. Of four others their doom has been sealed. In regard to Poland we witness a splitting of hairs and rope dancing which puts all reason and logic to shame. As far as the other small nations are concerned, all are being made subservient to the leaders of the Three Big Powers at San Francisco. And that as a result of the participation and action of the Prime Minister of South Africa. We as a small nation feel humiliated as a result of his actions. I would be neglecting my duty if I were not to voice these sentiments as one who has also witnessed a period in our history, as one who has grown up with the ambitions of the section to which I belong. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not raise my voice in protest against the actions of the Prime Minister of South Africa at San Francisco, because there the rights of small nations have not only been made subservient, but have geen eliminated. Let the whole world know that National South Africa reprehends and rejects his attitude. We have read the childish and naive declaration of the privileges we are going to enjoy, the membership which is going to be our share in quite a number of international organisations, and the object of all this merely is to serve as a kind of consolation for the small nations and to create the impression that the small nations are still taken into account in the world and are contributing their share. Now I come to the internal conditions and I want to say a few words on that subject. From time to time we have heard the argument that the war was being waged to place humanity on a higher pedestal. The human being must be uplifted, his inner value must be increased, and to achieve that more amenities must be created, more security. We have heard a lot about social security. That has become the policy of the Prime Minister and his Government since 1942. In fairness we must admit that the Government has not remained entirely indifferent in regard to this matter, but if we have to judge the ultimate results on the first steps which have been taken, I am convinced that tens of thousands must be disillusioned, people who have accepted these promises when the war started. I do not want to deny that something has been done. Some attempts have been made, but it by no means resembles what the nation understood by social security, and the Government will not take it amiss if I say that the fact remains that most progress as far as social security is concerned, has been made in the direction of improving the position of the non-Europeans. I do not blame the Government for that, but to my mind the Government is running a risk if it does not level up more or less the measure of enhanced secruity for all. Do not create a feeling of discrimination. The promised improvement can only be achieved as a result of development in South Africa itself. With the existing income you cannot create something by which the material well-being can be improved to any considerable extent. Development is essential, and in that regard South Africa views with the utmost disappointment the present estimates. One of the statements which probably during the last few days has been most prominent in the public mind, was the statement of the. Director of Demobilisation that work has to be found for 119,000 men returning from military duty. For the majority work will be available, they are people who are returning to employment they had before. But, the Director-General of Demobilisation assures us that work has to be found for over 40,000 men. That is the case of the men alone. The women are not mentioned at all. The Minister of Economic Development has made certain statements, particularly in the Senate. There he adopted an optimistic tone and he expected that things will right themselves. The Director-General of Demobilisation was also optimistic. Some time ago the Prime Minister made a statement here and also adopted a very optimistic tone, and even envisaged opportunities of employment to such an extent that people would have to be imported from overseas. This morning a number of men returning to South Africa, were landed in Cape Town. I think I can say that thousands will be grateful that they have returned. But if some of them fall in this group of 40,000, the pleasant welcome to their Fatherland will be of short duration. 40,000 for whom there is no work. 40,000 for whom work has to be found.

Pessimist.

The optimists are the people who have misled us. For years they have been talking about a new world, and now they accuse us of pessimism because we cannot see any signs of this new world. Let them come with plans. I take it that the hon. member for Sunnyside will contend that there is ample employment for the 40,000.

We will give them work.

Possibly they will find some kind of work for them, but when I witness this kind of evasion, I am reminded of the mentality we have observed lately. It is typical of the kind of mentality one has observed increasingly, once more to push South Africa’s interests to the background in an atmosphere of optimism. But even in Government circles, there is a sense of disappointment. It is significant that the Acting Minister of Defence had to send a message from Italy to the effect that disappointment is expressed in regard to the housing conditions. Possibly employment will be found for a portion of the 40,000 men, but I want to put the pertinent question to the Government as to what has been done to increase the productive capacity of South Africa in order to enhance the living standard of the nation, to fulfil the promises which have been made with such emphasis. I have in my hands a report of what the Minister of Economic Development stated some time ago in the Other House. He stated—

This sounds like sacrilege under prevailing conditions. The Government is “interested”. Obviously it is interested. But it cannot only be interested. The Government has to pay attention to these matters. The Minister announces that he knows of a number of industries which are prepared to expand, which are prepared to probe the possibilities of industries in South Africa. But what has been done to meet the demands of the moment? Yesterday it was announced through the Press that in the course of the first year hundreds of thousands of motor cars will be supplied by a certain country. The plans are ready. Production is in progress. Can we mention one single new industry which will be started at once in our country to provide employment for 40,000 men? The idea of establishing a wool industry was mooted years ago. What progress has been made? Plans for the establishment of a cotton industry are also afoot, but nothing further is being done. What plans are ready? Years ago the Industrial Development Corporation was established. I do not want to say anything detrimental as far as the Corporation is concerned, though one could criticise a lot. But what has the Government done through the medium of that Corporation to create employment for our returned soldiers? I do not want the Government to think that I am in the first instance assuming the role of advocate of the returned soldiers. But our view is that whereas these men went out of a sense of duty and did their duty, they just as other citizens are entitled to privileges, and it is South Africa’s first duty, in view of the promises held out to these men, to provide them with work. I do not want to be a hypocrite, but they are entitled to expect that the promises made will be fulfilled. The state of unpreparedness must mean a dissapointment to them and to the people as a whole. And we find this position at a time when there is a greater danger that the products which should create employment in our country, will not be produced here, but will be imported from overseas. The question has to be put what the Government can offer these 40,000 men today. What has been done by way of developing a programme? What can be done immediately? Under present conditions protection of our industries is absolutely essential, but we are not quite certain what the policy of the Government actually is. The Minister of Economic Development has given such an interpretation of protection, also in the Senate, that industries cannot develop on that basis. No industry can exist in South Africa in the long run under normal conditions when overseas industries are out to export, unless a wise policy of protection is pursued. British industry is preparing to export, American industry is preparing to export They are out to obtain markets. Africa is one of the continents where we must expect a stream of export goods, and unless it is the Government’s policy continually to protect our own producers, they will not be able to exist. We have the statement of the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce that South Africa must expect to be one of the countries where tremendous competition between the industrial countries of the world will be felt. The Minister has made certain statements and promises that the State will play its part in taking products, but the actions of the Government during the past Session have not convinced us that the Government is seriously promoting the development of South African industries. To the contrary, a number of measures have been passed by the Government which have given the impression that they are more concerned over the maintenance of markets for England, for overseas. I do not want to go into details, but I only want to say that the industries are dubious as to the encouragement they will receive from the hands of the Government as far as protection is concerned, and they do not know in how far the present Government is going to be influenced from overseas. There is not only concern, but general disappointment, over the attitude of the Government and the fact that in this transition budget no policy is embodied. This is a transition budget from war to peace. We observe the war factor in the budget, because the burden of war is continued, but where are the signs of transition? A few matters were dealt with in order to bring about improvements, but where are the signs of social security, what has become of the promises of a better world? There is no sign of it. As far as that is concerned, the estimates are a complete disillusion.

I want briefly to express one or two ideas in connection with the higher price of gold. I think all who represent mining constituencies welcome the higher premium because it will perhaps enable some of the mines which are on the point of closing down and mines developing low grade ore, to continue for a longer period, with the result that employment will be kept at a high level which must be of benefit to the whole population. There is however another aspect. We presume that the higher premium on gold will amount to approximately £2½ million per year. There is however another small factor which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister with a specific purpose in view and that is that the Minister during the previous financial year made certain concessions to the mines and I think it was done with the purpose of enabling the mines to continue working and in that manner to be an asset. Now the Acting Prime Minister made a statement a few days ago that the concession in connection with the realisation charges which amount to approximately 3s. 6d. per fine ounce will be withdrawn, with the result that if one takes the circumstances into account, especially lately, one finds that the mines will only benefit by the higher premium to an extent of 9d. per ounce and that will mean that the benefit of £2½ million will actually amount to approximately £600,000. Now I would again like to bring a very delicate matter to the attention of the House and it is the miners’ phthisis legislation which was not passed this Session. Miners’ phthisis sufferers are the people for whom we should feel most, and adequate provision in respect of compensation for miners’ phthisis sufferers has not been made. That is realised on all sides. We naturally realise that if too great a burden is placed on the mines low grade mines would have to close down with the result that unemployment would result and that spending power would decrease, and the whole population of South Africa would suffer thereby, and it would be a great social setback for the whole country. We realise that. We now face the position that we should find ways and means before the next Session to make the Bill acceptable and to provide such compensation as will make it acceptable to the mineworkers concerned and will enable them to make a living. In this regard I would like to express the thought that while the Acting Prime Minister as Minister of Finance felt during the past year that he could manage without the gold realisation charge and has sacrificed the 3s. 6d. per ounce—I assume that he has sacrificed it because he was aware that a higher premium on gold would ensue—the Minister should give consideration to a reconversion of the realisation charges to a degree so as to meet the considerations to which I have referred and whether it could also be used in connection with the compensation fund for miners’ phthisis sufferers. I know that the Acting Prime Minister will perhaps reply that the mines are a private industry and that it is not possible for the Government to concern itself with the employers of a private undertaking. But I think that the reply which this House and the public should give to that is that as a result of mining taxation surprisingly many undertakings and industries are benefiting and have benefited by way of subsidies, writes-off of debt and arrear payments, on land settlements, etc., and not for a few thousand pounds but for millions of pounds. I have the farmers for example in mind. I am not opposed to it but I merely point to it to come to the conclusion that the mines also have a right of claim to the higher premium to utilise it in the first instance in respect of mines with low grade ore which will result in more employment, larger spending power and will also have a good effect from the social point of view. And then I also want to say emphatically that it could be utilised for the benefit of the Miners’ Phthisis Fund to which I have referred, in which we as Rand representatives are much interested. A portion of the gold realisation charges could then be donated for the benefit of that fund, or in whatever form it may take place, because it has been made possible by the higher premium on gold, so that in that respect a contribution could be made on the part of the State to make the Bill dealing with miners’ phthisis acceptable when it is introduced into the House again next year for the benefit of those people about whom we are so concerned. That is the point which I wanted to emphasise specially, and that is the reason why I rose to speak this morning. We feel that a portion of the higher premium on gold should be used for compensation to those, people in whom we are interested.

On the last day of the last Session I raised the question of the activities and functions of the Press, in the sense that it is a matter of public interest, and as such a matter of vital interest to Parliament and also to this House. Today I wish to deal with the same matter but in a somewhat different way, and with different aspects of the same matter. The Press has, ever since its establishment, played a very important part in public life. The primary function of the Press is the dissemination of news, but with its development, the Press has taken on other functions, and there is also the manner in which the news is presented, the comment on the news and also comment on public affairs. With the passing of the years, and particularly during the past twenty years or so, the power and influence of the Press has very considerably increased. There have been new developments. For instance, on the pictorial side, such as the pictorial supplement and illustrations in the newspaper itself. Then there also has been a very large increase in the number of newspapers published. There has also been the important factor of the influence of the wireless. The Press has been extending activities into new fields. I am referring more particularly to the daily Press. In view of the extent to which the influence of the Press has increased, particularly during the past 20 or 25 years Parliament cannot be indifferent to its influences and its power. The Press has become a very powerful instrument for the influencing of public opinion; in fact governments have been known to fall as a result of the action taken by the Press. Ever since its establishment we have heard about the liberty of the Press. If it means that the Press becomes the vehicle for the expression of public opinion; if it means that the Press becomes a safeguard for civil liberties, then there is everything to be said for preserving the liberty of the Press. But when the Press is no longer free; when the Press is controlled by outside interests, the power of the Press assumes a very different colour. It is probably for that reason, particularly since the beginning of this century that there has been more and more a tendency for certain outside groups, particularly financial and business groups, to secure control of the Press; and for the same reason there has been a tendency, ever since 1918, since the conclusion of the last war, a growing tendency on the part of governments to limit that so-called freedom of the Press. That policy was carried out in the totalitarian countries; both in Germany and in Italy there was no such thing as a free Press; it was strictly controlled. But we find it not only in those countries. For instance, Portugal, which has also a dictatorship, what may be described as a somewhat benevolent dictatorship, the Press is strictly controlled. In Russia, too, the Press is very strictly controlled, and having regard to that fact, I was somewhat amused that Senator Basner should have thought fit to complain about the control of the Press in this country. Being an acknowledged communist, Senator Basner should have remembered the position in Russia. So also in some South American countries there is control of the Press by the governments. But also in so-called democratic countries voices have gone up, and people have been asking whether there should not be some measure of control. I turn to the position in South Africa, and I am referring again to the daily Press. In South Africa we have two sections of our Press—the English Press and the Afrikaans Press, the English Press being of course much the older; the Afrikaans Press came into its rights only since the establishment of the Nationalist Party. When we examine those two sections of the Press we find a very distinct and remarkable difference between them. The Afrikaans Press is represented by “Die Nasionale Pers” and “Die Voortrekker Pers”. On examining the position one is immediately struck by the fact that the shares of both these companies are spread among the public. There is no question about their shares being held by any particular bloc. As a matter of fact, so far as “Die Nasionale Pers” is concerned the voting power is limited to 50 shares, so there can be no question of any control by any particular section. There are safeguards to ensure that any particular interests are not able to buy up large blocks of shares and in that way control the policy of the paper. That is the position there. There can therefore be no suggestion so far as “Die Nasionale Pers” and “Die Voortrekker Pers” are concerned of any outside control by any particular financial interests. Then we come to the Afrikaans Press which supports the United Party. There, I believe, as far as I know, their shares are not held or controlled by any outside interests. But they are controlled by a political party or by political interests.

What about “Die Burger”?

“Die Burger’s” shares are held by shareholders all over the country. The hon. member will see the difference. “Die Suiderstem”, for instance, is practically owned by the United Party; that is the position. Everybody knows, and it is no secret, that every time “Die Suiderstem” is in financial difficulties the Minister of Lands has to go to Pretoria to get financial assistance. He has done so so often that one really wonders whether the time has not arrived for the directorate to give him a small commission or a raising fee for his services. Maybe he has received it, I do not know; but certainly he has deserved it. The position therefore is, although there are probably no outside interests, the control vests not merely in people supporting the United Party but in the United Party itself, and that makes a very big difference. As far as “Die Vaderland” is concerned, I understand there also the control is vested in certain political figures. As far as I know they have no shares held by the public, but a controlling number of shares are held by certain persons. There is a very distinct difference between that particular paper and “Die Nasionale Pers” and “Die Voortrekker Pers”. We come to the English daily press in. South Africa. It is comprised of two main groups, the “Argus” group and the “Cape Times”’ group, and it is no secret that the control of both these groups vests in certain financial interests. In fact, as far as the “Argus” is concerned, the control is very largely in the hands of Mr. John Martin. Let me again emphasise the difference. In the case of the Afrikaans Press you have a free Press in every sense of the term i.e. as far as “Die Nasionale Pers” and “Die Voortrekker Pers” are concerned, and as far as the other Afrikaans newspapers are concerned there is also a free Press in the sense that they are not controlled by outside interests, though they are in fact controlled by a political party, or a section of a political party. In the case of the English Press to a very large extent the control is vested in outside interests. The Afrikaans Press, admittedly advances the interests of the Nationalist Party or of the United Party, as the case may be. That is what they are doing although they are a free Press. But as far as the English Press is concerned, while they do as a matter of fact as a rule support the United Party — which they are perfectly free to do it they so choose — their function is mainly to forward the interests of certain financial groups. That appears to be their primary function, to protect the interests of certain outside, and particularly certain financial groups. The result is that the English daily newspapers ordinarily do not serve the interests of South Africa but rather do they serve the interests of those outside groups, and I submit that is a dangerous condition as far as South Africa is concerned. One has only to look at their attitude in regard to the economic policy and the industrial policy of the country. As far as the “Star”, the “Cape Times”, the “Rand Daily Mail” and the “Argus” are concerned, one has only to follow the editorial columns to see they do not take up a strictly South African viewpoint in regard to the economic interests of this country, or in regard to its industrial development. The impressions a regular and unprejudiced reader of those papers gets is undoubtedly one of a lack of South African spirit, and a lack of a South African outlook. The reason is that those papers— I am referring to the “Argus” and the “Cape Times” groups particularly — receive their inspiration from certain vested interests. I repeat that the English Press in South Africa has not a South African outlook. It gets its inspiration from certain vested interests, and also from overseas. Those in control of those papers have seen to it that it is so, and the test is who gets the editorial chairs, or rather the majority of the editorial chairs of those particular newspapers. My information, and it comes from a very good source, is that most of the higher editorial posts in those papers are reserved for people who have received their inspiration from Fleet Street.

The editor of the “Star” was bom in Bloemfontein.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is at perfect liberty to make remarks but he will not put me off my stride by making a lot of noise. It is practically impossible, according to my information, for a South African born journalist to occupy the editorial chair of any of these newspapers.

Who is editor of the “Cape Times”?

The result is as far as these papers are concerned they suffer from an overseas complex ….

Who is editor of the “Eastern Province Herald”?

…. or what I might rather term they may profess their loyalty to South Africa, but it is a divided loyalty, not a loyalty to South Africa and South Africa only. The leading articles of those particular newspapers, speaking particularly of the “Cape Times” and the “Cape Argus” are characterised more by an excellent knowledge of the classics than an appreciation and an understanding of South Africa’s problems. They are able to quote very freely and aptly from Dryden and Pope, Horace and Tacitus, but probably are unable to give the name of a single Afrikaans writer or South African poet, with the exception perhaps of Langenhoven—and then only perhaps because he took an active part in politics. Their interests and their outlook are entirely overseas, and not South African in the strict sense of the term. That type of man may know all about the Royal Academy exhibition in London, but how many of them can tell you who are the leading South African painters? Their outlook is that of “home”, their spiritual home in the full sense of the term. The position is that journalists who serve those papers have to write to order. Not only have they to write to order but you have this extraordinary state of affairs that those men working on those papers are not allowed to engage in any outside activities. If a member of the staff of one of those papers takes an interest, for instance in education and wishes to become a member of a school committee he is not allowed to do so. That is an unhealthy state of affairs. [Interruptions.] Hon. members on the other side are laughing and interrupting. May I suggest they consult some of the members of those newspaper staffs and they will find that my statements are grounded on facts. If the hon. member does not believe me I have before me a copy of the South African Journalist, which is the official organ of the South African Society of Journalists. Here I have an article written by an English-speaking journalist, and what does he say in the May issue of this paper—

I am not quoting from “Die Burger” but from the official organ of the South African. Society of Journalists. I notice there is now a painful silence on the other side.

Do you know what you are talking about.

The hon. member reminds me of the remark credited to Mr. Balfour when while speaking in the House of Commons he was interrupted by the same type of member as the member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy). He said: If the hon. member had more brains he would be a half-wit.

If you had more brains you would still be in Washington.

Unfortunately I did not catch the witty expression which emanated from the hon. member. But of course I can understand the attitude taken up by these hon. members. They are dependent for their seats in Parliament on the support of these particular newspapers. Without the support of the “Rand Daily Mail” and the “Star” the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) would not be sitting where he is. Without their support he would hence not have got here on his own merits. He knows that perfectly well. The position is that journalists, especially younger South African journalists are leaving and seeking other employment. [Interruptions.] If hon. members on the other side doubt what I am saying I will quote from the same paper the South African Journalist. They complain of the rates of pay obtaining in these wealthy newspaper concerns. The article says—

That is not the only result. I repeat what I said on the last occasion when I discussed this matter, that as far as these newspapers are concerned their news policy is largely a policy of suppression of such news as is not in the interests of the paper.

They told us about the atrocities.

The Nationalist Party newspapers did not give the lurid details of the so-called atrocities.

They said nothing at all.

The position is that the Nasionale Pers and the Voortrekker Pers believe in giving news, and not in giving propaganda, and there is not the least doubt a very large portion of that stuff that has been sent out is composed of propaganda; I do not say all of it. I have before me a book published last year called “Balkan Background” written by an Englishman, and here is an interesting illustration of the type of propaganda put over. Here we have a photostat page of an article from an English paper, in which, as hon. members will see, there is reproduced a photostat copy of a poster which was put out by the Germans in Jugoslavia, in which 100,000 gold marks was offered for Tito, dead or alive. The whole article is an attack on Mikhailovic. He is accused of collaborating with the Germans, and the accusation is based on that particular German poster. But what is the truth? The writer shows that the photo was actually separated from the rest of the poster and he shows the complete German poster in which 100,000 marks is also offered for the capture of Mikhailovic. What did they do? They simply cut off part of the poster, published it and on the strength of that mutilated poster put out the propaganda that Mikhailovic was collaborating with the Germans and was not fit to be trusted. That shows up the type of propaganda which is being put out. But let me deal with something else. Last year I dealt with the suppression of news. Here I have before me “Die Burger” of the 16th of last month. On the front page there are no less than four important news dispatches, one being a twelve-inch dispatch dealing with the suggested talks between Mr. Churchill and President Truman and setting out the American attitude in regard to certain important European questions. There is another dispatch dealing with the position in San Francisco. Then there is a long Sapa dispatch dealing with the attitude of Italy with regard to the Trieste question. Then there is another long dispatch dealing with the French attitude in regard to certain matters. Not one of these four important Sapa dispatches appeared in the “Cape Times” on the same day. In “Die Burger” there is a long report comprising about a column and a half dealing with the British ultimatum to Marshal Tito and that is dismissed by the “Cape Times” in a four-inch dispatch.

It is only worth four inches.

These important news items in which the readers of the “Cape Times” would be interested are suppressed because they did not happen to suit the particular policy of the “Cape Times”. But we have a more serious case. On the 30th of last month, there appeared a Sapa dispatch from Montreal covering more than a column in “Die Burger”, dealing with Professor Rougier’s book in which he exposes the negotiations and subsequent agreement between Mr. Churchill and Marshal Petain. This book by Prof. Rougier contains actual photostat illustrations of the correspondence which passed and which bears, according to the Sapa dispatch, marginal notes in Mr. Churchill’s own handwriting. Whether the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) or other members on that side of the House believe it or not, I submit that this dispatch has sufficient news value for an important paper like the “Cape Times” to have published it. Not one word of this appeared either in the “Cape Times” or the “Argus”. It was suppressed, and I venture to submit that time will show that the exposure by Prof. Rougier will prove to have been based on facts. It has since appeared from the hearing which is taking place at present in France that the same allegation was made there, viz. that there were negotiations and a gentlemen’s agreement between Mr. Churchill and Marshal Petain at the very time when the latter was dubbed a traitor and what not. Now we come to the Parliamentary reports. I am not going into the reports of the whole Session. I will take this morning’s paper. I have before me the “Cape Times” and I have before me “Die Burger”. Yesterday we had the Railway Estimates. I think the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, if he were here, will admit that as far as this side of the House was concerned, there was no carping criticism in regard to railway matters yesterday, but important matters were raised on this side of the House dealing with the convenience of a travelling public, dealing with the financial aspect of the railways, dealing with important matters in connection with the railways. We were busy practically the whole of yesterday. Here I have this morning’s “Cape Times” without one single reference in its Parliamentary report to a single remark made by any member of this side of the House. The reader of the “Cape Times” can get only one impression, viz. that only members on the other side of the House took part in this particular debate. I have also before me “Die Burger” of this morning. “Die Burger” gives a fair report of every speech made by every member on the other side in regard to railway matters. The only speech which is not recorded is that of the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy).

You are telling me.

Well, having regard to the hon. members usual speeches, I am not surprised! But I am sorry to disappoint him. The only reason why he was not reported was because in his capacity as member for Johannesburg (West) he dealt with the Wanderers Ground in Johannesburg, which is of no interest to Cape Town.

They do not like me because they had to have a case against me and they had to spend £25.

I know the hon. member feels bad about these disclosures. The hon. member for Hospital is also reported by “Die Burger” but also that part of his speech dealing with Wanderers is omitted because it is a matter of no concern to the readers of “Die Burger.” But the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) is given a longer report than any of us, except the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). “Die Burger” has reported every speech made on the other side yesterday, and the “Cape Times” has not referred to a single speech made on this side of the House, and that in regard to the Railway Estimates in which matters of the greatest interest were raised to every member of the reading public. Is any further proof needed? The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. I have quoted from the two papers, in regard to the debate which took place yesterday. And then they tell us that they are a free Press, and that they give fair reports. I say that the matter I have raised here this morning is one of public interest. I do not suggest that there should be an interference with the liberty of the Press in the way in which it has been interfered with in totalitarian countries. I personally believe in a free Press, but what I do say is that when the Press of this country, as is being done by the English Press in this country, abuses the liberty of the Press, then I say the time has arrived for the Government, and for the people of the country, and for Parliament to take an interest in the matter. It seems to me that the time has arrived that an investigation should take place in South Africa, an investigation dealing with the control of every newspaper in this country, including the Afrikaans newspapers, including those newspapers which support the Nationalist Party, ah investigation as to newspaper control. That investigation should include the effects of such control. It should deal with the matter of the dissemination of news; it should deal with the matter of overseas agencies. We have this other feature which needs to be mentioned, viz. re Sapa News Agency. It is perfectly true that also the Nasionale Pers and the Voortrekker Pers are subscribers. I know what the hon. member for Hospital is going to say. But if they did not subscribe, they would not have any news. If “Die Burger” and. “Die Transvaler” did not subscribe, they would be without news, because the Sapa News Agency has a monopoly of the news.

Oh, no.

The hon. member is supposed to be a journalist and he knows it. They have a monopoly of news, but you have this further fact, that the Nasionale Pers and Die Voortrekker Pers are in the minority, and in a hopeless minority, as far as Sapa is concerned. The position becomes very serious where you have the position that the English Press is not only subject to outside control but where that control is connected with the agency supplying the news. The hon. member shakes his head. If I remember rightly during the course of this very Session, the hon. member for Hospital was the one who got up in this House and complained about the control of the Press; he complained about Sapa; but because I am now raising the matter, because this side of the House is raising the matter, now, of course, he takes up a different attitude. I say that an investigation is called for, an investigation on all those points, and also on the question of the condition of service of those who are employed in the Press, and if investigations are made it will be found that as far as the staff of the English Press in this country is concerned, they are envious of the conditions of service and the pay which is given to the journalists who are working on “Die Burger” and on the Voortrekker Pers.

Not the Voortrekker Pers.

It is a matter that should be enquired into. Those men are doing important work, and very responsible work, work which consists in influencing public opinion. If there are members of any form of business in this country who should be decently paid so that they can live decently, it is the newspaper men. During the past years there has undoubtedly been a growing spirit of South Africanism in this country. We have got away from those days of twenty or thirty years ago. There has been an encouraging growth of South Africanism also amongst the English speaking section of the country. I think there is less of that divided loyalty which we had twenty or thirty years ago. But I am afraid that in that respect the English Press in this country is lagging far behind, in fact I go so far as to say that they are doing their utmost to keep down and to throttle that growing spirit of South Africanism, and the time has arrived that this House and the country should note that fact and the time has arrived for an investigation into the whole position of the Press in this country.

As one of the members who are leaving this Session very much disappointed I feel compelled to refer to the blessing which has come about in respect of silicotics in the form of the extra 4s. 3d. per ounce in the price of gold. The hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) suggested that the money should be used for better compensation to miners’ phthisis sufferers and that the hon. Minister should sacrifice it for the miners’ phthisis sufferers as he had sacrificed the amount of £1,850,000 in respect pf an increase in the wages of native mineworkers. The output during one of the low water years through which the gold mining industry on the Rand passed, namely last year, was 12,270,000 fine ounces of gold. The 4s. 3d. which is now being granted amounts to £2,806,000 per year. The estimate of costs under the new Miners’ Phthisis Act, according to the figure given by the Minister of Mines, is £430,000 per annum more than it would have been under the old Act. We dare now make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to pay over that extra money to the Miners’ Phthisis Board for payment to the people who are producing that wealth. It is a golden opportunity granted South Africa to do right and justice to miners’ phthisis sufferers and to the widows of miners’ phthisis sufferers and to the orphans of miners’ phthisis sufferers. I trust that this Government will gratefully avail itself of the opportunity to see to it that miners’ phthisis sufferers, their widows and their orphans will receive more than in the past. As matters are to-day in the world I believe that there is no reason for the price of gold dropping in the near future. There is rather a chance of the price still increasing. I do not want to criticise the Minister for that concession to the gold mines last year in connection with the payment of increased wages to natives. I think it was something good, but retain that money and pay it over to the Miners’ Phthisis Board further to do good by the natives and the European mineworkers when they are one day no longer able to work. I want to appeal to the Government, no longer from the rights which are due to the miners’ phthisis sufferers, to subsidise low grade ore. I want to appeal to the Minister no longer to subsidise the products of farmers from the money which is rightly due to miners’ phthisis sufferers and their widows. I want to appeal to the Government no longer to pay the war expenses from the money which is rightly due to the orphans of miners’ phthisis sufferers. That is a last appeal which I make in connection with this disappointing Session. Much water will have to flow under the bridge before we meet again. Many things may happen, and members who fought hard here for miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants may next year not be here, and I want to make a last appeal to the Cabinet, to the House, and to the people of South Africa no longer to let miners’ phthisis sufferers who have sacrificed their health in extracting the wealth of the country and their families live in poverty and misery.

The hon. member who has just sat down has very rightly and very properly made a plea on behalf of the miners’ phthisis sufferers. As for myself I fully support what he says. I would, however, remind the House and the hon. Minister of Finance, that so far, at all events, as the unskilled workers on the mines are concerned, it will be impossible to peg for them an adequate basis of miners’ phthisis compensation so long as their ordinary wages remain as low as they are at the present time. I have no doubt that it will have come as no surprise to the Acting Prime Minister that the Government’s decision in relation to the resumption of the gold realisation charges resulting from the increased price of gold, has been mentioned a number of times in this debate, and on this last day of the Session, I want to address to him a plea to reconsider that resumption at all events until such time as a satisfactory wage basis has been laid in the mining industry. The cost of the increases in the basic wages of the unskilled mineworkers last Session, according to the Minister’s statement at the time, amounts to approximately £1,850,000 which again is approximately equal to the amount of the gold realisation charges. Those charges were remitted by the Government in order to enable the mines to meet that increase. The Government was at that time criticised for having subsidised the mines to meet the increase in wages. The effect of the Government’s decision now is that these charges are to be resumed, the subsidy to the unskilled workers is to remain where it is and the mining industry is apparently going to get away with another £600,000 out of the whole deal. What is the present position? The Lansdowne Commission reported in favour of the following improvements in the wages and conditions of native workers. I myself think that these recommendations were entirely inadequate and I shall give my reasons in a few moments, but these were the recommendations of the Lansdowne Commission. They recommended wage increases which they estimated, on the basis of the then existing native mine labour force, would cost £1,157,000. They recommended in favour of a boot allowance for underground workers, which they estimated would cost £370,000 and they recommended in favour of a cost of living allowance, a thing which the mine native labourers have never had, of 3d. per shift which they estimated would cost £1,168,000. The total cost therefore of the Lansdowne Commission’s recommendations was about £2,600,000. The Government decided to reject the Commission’s recommendations both so far as a cost of living allowance and a boot allowance were concerned, and instead of the recommendations decided that they would press upon the mining industry the necessity of increasing the minimum wage of underground workers by 5d. per shift and the minimum wage of surface workers by 4d. per shift. The cost of the improvements decided upon by the Government was £1,850,000 according to the statement given in the House by the Prime Minister at the time — in other words some £800,000 less than what was recommended by the Lansdowne Commission, and the Prime Minister in making his statement as to the Government’s decision appeared to me, implicitly at all events, to base it on the capacity of the mines to pay, because he felt that to ask them to carry this extra amount of cost would involve the closing down of certain mines. He announced the Government’s further decision to remit in favour of the mines, the gold realisation charges. I do not think that it can be fairly contended in any quarter that the present unskilled mine wage rates are satisfactory from any point of view, either in the interests of the unskilled worker himself, or as I shall presently contend, in the interests of the country as a whole. At the present time the average wage, including the cast of rations and quarters, amounts to about £4 10s. per month. That, at all events, is the figure selected by the Minister of Mines as the basis of miners phthisis compensation. That was the position before the Lansdown Commission report. The present figure selected by the Minister of Mines is £5 per month. That apparently is the average wage on the mines. What is the situation of the average native peasant who goes from the Transkei to work on the mines? The Lansdown Commission estimated that the average income of a peasant in the Transkei would be about £1 5s. per month from his agricultural operations. That means that there must be hundreds of thousands of families who get even less than that from their holdings and from their cattle, assuming that that is what the normal mine worker would make out of his agricultural operations in the reserve and assuming that he spent two thirds of his time working on the mines which is apparently what the Lansdown Commission, regards as the average, the total monthly income for the family would be approximately £4 12s. per month, £1 5s. per month out of his agricultural operations plus two thirds of the £5 per month which he would earn on the mines. That takes everything into account. It is not only cash earnings; it includes the value of his rations and quarters on the mines and also the cash value of what he can get out of the soil and what he can get out of his cattle. That would be the average that a Transkei peasant would receive where the wage earner works two thirds of his time on the mines. I submit that that is totally inadequate even on the most primitive subsistence basis. As a matter of fact for the last third of a century it can fairly be said that the native labourers’ position on the mines has deteriorated rather than improved, even taking into account the increase in wages sanctioned by the Government last year. I want to substantiate that statement and I start by taking the position as it was before the war, and here I beg leave to quote what the hon. Minister of Finance himself said in 1939 just before the war at a meeting of the South African Association for the Advancement of Science. This was his statement—

and I myself have come to the same conclusion as the Minister then came to, that actually in real wages, having regard to the increase in the cost of living, the average native labourer on the mines was worse off in 1939 at the time of the outbreak of the war than he was in 1914 before the previous war. The cash wages had slightly risen, the cost of living had risen more than sufficiently to offset such small increases in cash wages as there had been. Taking the position between 1939 and the present day, the Lansdown Commission itself indicated steep rises in the cost of living to a native peasant family in the reserve. The official Government cost of living index figure is I think 31 per cent., over and above the 1939 figure. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. In many ways that official figure is inappropriate to the positon of the very low income groups. But if anything the cost of living to them has risen higher than to the middle income groups upon whose position the official index figure was based. Let us assume, however, that the increase is about 31 per cent. A 10s. rise on an average wage of £4 10s. in cash and kind which is the result of the Governments’ decision last year simply means an increase of some 10 per cent. in the cash and kind wages of the native mine worker. In other words, his real wages have, if anything, fallen still further since 1939 despite the small cash increase which was brought into effect last year. Now, Mr. Speaker, the case I am making to the Minister is this, that it requires still further improvement as compared with that the Government sanctioned last year, and if the Government on investigation considers that the mines cannot finance a further improvement without retaining the gold realisation charges, then those charges should be retained. I am myself somewhat sceptical about the mines not being able to finance further increases without retaining the gold realisation charges, but if on investigation the Government thinks they cannot, then the mines should be allowed to retain those charges, and that I submit, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of national importance. The low purchasing power of the native population which is determined by the wage policy of the mines is one of the factors which is holding up industrialisation in this country. It is one of the factors which is constantly landing our farming population in difficulty, who despite the low production are chronically unable to dispose, in most periods—not just at the moment—of what they produce. That, Sir, is an obvious symptom of the inadequate purchasing power. There is another effect on the national position of this low wage policy of the mines. We have heard constant complaints for the last four or five years of African workers coming into the Cape Peninsula to seek work. Well, Sir, the position is obscure. It varies from time to time, but certainly so long as the Cape Peninsula depends to the extent of 95 per cent. of its native labour requirements on workers who live hundreds of miles away, there is bound to be a surplus of labour from time to time. Putting these factors aside—I do not want to go into the merits of that for the moment— in so far as there tends to be from time to time more native labour coming to the Cape Peninsula than are required to work there, that is symptomatic of a fundamental maladjustment of our national economy. And I say further—I put this case before the Lansdown Commission myself— the mines are responsible for that maladjustment, because they refuse to pay higher wages to the native people working on the mines. There are other factors as well, such as the compound system, and the strict enforcement of the pass laws.

Can they absorb the surplus natives?

They say they are 50,000 natives short, and I am saying that it is their own fault that they are short. A very important factor in this situation is the disparity in wage rates as between those paid by industries and commerce in the southern part of the Cape and what is paid by the mines in Johannesburg. The wage rates of the mines to a large extent set the standard for the whole of the urban centres of the Transvaal, and so long as that disparity and that maladjustment is there you are bound to have symptoms such as these which I have referred to. Now, Sir, this is a most important national question, it is not a partisan question. It is a question which is not an issue between the various parties and groups in this House, and I shall indicate that in a moment by quoting the most cogent criticism of the mines’ labour policy addressed to the Minister of Mines last Session by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). The hon. member for Ceres at that time criticised the mines’ labour policy in very much the same terms that I am doing now, and he asked the specific question whether that was the Government’s policy. He never got a satisfactory reply and I am going to repeat what he said on that occasion, and at the same time I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, in his capacity as the Acting Prime Minister, to reply to this question now. On the 22nd May, 1944, the hon. member for Ceres said this in this House. He first of all dealt with the procedure before the Lansdown Commission and criticised the fact that the Chamber of Mines was allowed to have a representative before that commission who cross-examined all the witnesses, and he also asked for an assurance to be given that none of the witnesses would be victimised. He went on to say—

That is the question I am putting now. The hon. member for Ceres went on to say—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, they were not going to pay a living wage and they did not want to pay a wage to any man, who was a more efficient worker and better educated, adequate to support a family. The hon. member continued—

Now, Sir, I want to remind the Acting Prime Minister that the hon. member for Ceres never got a reply to this question, and I want to repeat his question today. Then the hon. member proceeded.—

In its evidence the Chamber laid great stress on the fact that its policy was to employ cheap native labour.

That, Mr. Speaker, was a quotation from the Lansdown Commission’s report itself. The hon. member for Ceres proceeded—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Lansdown Commission found that the policy of the mines of paying the lowest possible wages that they could to their native workers was in accordance with the general native policy of the country. The hon. member for Ceres continued—

In other words, the commission first of all says the policy’ is sound and then goes on to discuss the question whether it is fair and whether it is just; The hon. member for Ceres then proceeded—

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the basis of the whole matter. What is the difference between a sound policy and a just policy? Perhaps the Minister can tell us; the hon. member proceeded—

Mr. Speaker, that puts the case that I am putting today, and I should also like to ask the Acting Prime Minister what the Government’s policy is; whether the Government is satisfied that the wages that are now being paid to the native mine workers as a result of the increase made last year are adequate, and whether it is in the national interest; whether that policy is sound and whether it regards that policy as just. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the reason why the mines insist upon the payment of the lowest possible wages that they can get away with to their native mineworkers is not merely on financial grounds at the moment, but because they want to maintain the migratory labour system. That was made quite clear by Mr. Gemmill who represented the Transvaal Chamber of Mines on the commission and who cross-examined the witnesses who appeared before the commission. He is quoted as having given the following evidence before the commission in the report itself. He said—

In other words, there Mr. Gemmill is finding justification for the low native wage policy of the mines in the native policy of the country, and I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Mr. Gemmill was justified in saying that the low wage policy of the mines accorded with the native policy as laid down by the Government. Later on Mr. Gemmill proceeded—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, that the economy of the gold mining industry and the native labour policy is based upon the maintenance of the migratory labour system. In other words, deliberately not to pay a wage upon which a native who has a family to support but who owns no land, can support that family; deliberately not to pay that wage in order to maintain this migratory labour system. Now the hon. the Acting Prime Minister is well aware of the criticisms that have increasingly been made in responsible quarters against the migratory labour system. Everybody knows that the system cannot be abolished overnight. Everybody knows it is the result of the history of this country, but those who criticise it do contend that the policy should be deliberately shaped in a direction which would favour its abolition and that policy should not be deliberately shaped in a direction which would maintain this system. Mr. Gemmill says the policy of the Government is to shape policy in direction of maintaining this system. The Lansdown Commission found as a fact that that was the Government’s policy, as the hon. member for Ceres pointed out in the speech I have just quoted. I should now like to know from the hon. the Acting Prime Minister whether these statements of the Lansdown Commission and taken from Mr. Gemmill’s evidence are correct, and I want to remind him in this connection to what I referred to a moment ago, the increasing volume of criticism from responsible quarters of the migratory labour system. As the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs pointed out at an earlier stage in this Session a delegation from the farmers’ associations has interviewed him and he negotiated with them in relation to improving labour conditions on the farms, and they definitely condemned the migratory labour system. They condemned that system and their condemnation thereof was read out in the House. Dr. Van der Bijl has also pointed out that economically it is a bad system, and he has deliberately shaped the policy of Iscor in such a way as to attract native workers on a permanent basis. There are indications that the Government is also intending to establish industries at the sources of native labour supplies and thereby are attempting to some extent to stabilise that labour. Industrialists right throughout the country have criticised the inefficiencies which are inherent in the migratory labour system. Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, in view of these considerations, want to know from the Acting Prime Minister what the Government’s policy is, and I do submit that if it is not to be shaped towards the maintenance of this system, then the Government must face up to pressing upon the mines a steady increase of wages to native labourers as opportunities allow, because the migratory labour system is bound to persist so long as the mines pay a scale of wages which in the words of Mr. Gemmill himself are inadequate in practice for the detribalised urban natives. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that so long as the mines are permitted to maintain these rates of wages, the migratory labour system must persist. I said, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government is not in favour of that system they must face up to the position of steadily pressing upon the mines the necessity of improving the wage conditions of the native labourers as opportunities arise, and I submit this to the hon. the Minister of Finance, as the Acting Prime Minister of this country, that this is one of the occasions on which an opportunity has arisen. The opportunity which I refer to is this increase in the price of gold by 4s. 3d. per fine ounce. This is one of the occasions upon which an opportunity for increasing the wages of the native mineworkers has arisen and I want to repeat what I said at the outset, that if the Government comes to the conclusion that a substantial increase in the wages of the native mineworkers cannot be affected now, if the gold realisation charges are resumed by the Government, then the Government should not resume it. But even if the Government does resume those charges, they can still at least do this and that is not what I am asking for, because it is to my mind far too inadequate to meet the case. They can at least implement the remainder of the Lans-down Commission’s recommendations. As I have already indicated, the Lansdown Commission recommended improvements which would have cost £2,600,000. The Government only enforced on the mines improvements which will cost £1,850,000. The Government did not enforce the recommendations with regard to the boot allowance, or, more important still, the cost of living allowance. To say that the cost of living has not risen to the native mine labourers and their families, is a complete fallacy. It is a fallacy which the Chamber of Mines fostered in their own interests, during the earlier part of the war period, but it is a fallacy which was entirely exploded by the Lansdown Commission; and I submit that the least the Government will do is to ensure that those outstanding recommendations of the Lansdown Commission be put into operation immediately. But, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, I am not merely asking for that. Those are small increases over and above the existing position. The mines should be prevented once and for all from continuing this agreement between themselves known as the Maximum Average Wage Agreement, under which all mines agree that they will not on the average pay more than a certain maximum wage. I want to put it to the hon. Minister what the implications of an agreement of that kind are. The Lansdown Commission said it was not a monopoly. If that is not a monopoly agreement, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what a monopoly is. But, Sir, more serious still, it means this, that the unskilled wages paid to the native mine workers are kept at a level which the lowest grade of mine can pay. My submission is that the situation ought to be reversed, that the unskilled wage position of the mines ought to be governed as it is in the case of many other industries by a national agreement, by an agreement covering the whole of the mining industry, and if there are some of the mines which cannot pay an adequate level of wages agreed upon, then there should be a central wage fund into which all the mines could make contributions. That is the way in which the mines are taxed. I understand that the taxation raised from the mines constitute 70 per cent. of mining profits, and taxes are adjusted between the various mines according to their capacity to pay. The same principles should apply with regard to native wages, and the position should not be, as it is at the present time, that the wages are based upon the capacity of what the lowest grade of mine can pay. That, Sir, was the principle in issue in the whole of that tragic dispute in the coal mining industry in Great Britain during the 20’s, a dispute which finally led to the stoppage of work in the coal mines in England for seven months or even longer. The Miners’ Federation asked for a national agreement. The Conservative Government of Great Britain and the coal owners were demanding district agreements based on the level of wages which the most uneconomic mines could pay. The same principle is involved here now and this principle will always be involved in the wages paid in a mining industry of any kind. Well, Sir, it is along these lines which I believe that the Government ought to approach this problem of native mineworkers’ wages, and I do ask now for an immediate increase in the wages of native mine labourers in view of this increased price of gold. I do also put it to the hon. the Minister that that increase should be regarded as a step towards the establishment of a minimum family wage to be paid by the mining industry; that the Government must face up to this problem, this national problem created by the gold mining industry, under which it arrogates to itself the right to disorganise the whole labour market and ultimately the whole economy of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) although it was not my intention to do so when I was considering certain thoughts this morning. He made certain remarks today, some of which I think would probably find general support. One realises that during these last few years the Press has had to contend with great difficulties in view of the cutting of newsprint in giving these full reports to which we consider we are entitled. Now it is rather amusing to hear on his particular side of the publicity that was given to certain members of this House. Let me say that I have had many complaints about certain of our English newspapers that most of the publicity has been given by them to Messrs. Louw and Werth.

Where?

In the English Press. It has been considered good news space and that complaint is so often made that the English Press is giving more publicity to members of the Opposition than to members of the Government Party. I quite realise, Mr. Speaker, that whatever fault you find with the one side of the Press you can also find the same fault in regard to the other side. I think that a very important question is involved in regard to the question of the control of the Press. Personally I cannot see how control proper by a small bloc having 50 shares and controlling the others …

You are missing it entirely, not 50 shares controlling it.

I understand that the whole controlling interest is in the hands of a limited number.

You are quite wrong there.

Let me say this.

Accept my word that it is so.

It is quite obvious that if the editor of that particular paper was suddenly to depart from the policy that has been laid down by that paper, he would be dismissed. There is a control of the policy of the paper. If any of the Opposition newspapers were suddenly to turn round and wholeheartedly support the Government and condemn the Opposition, the first thing that they would be faced with would be to find themselves out on the street. There must be some control. To hold forth it is wrong for any particular interest to control the Press is hot quite correct, because there are times when I think there is a good deal to be said for a certain measure of control.

Why differentiate between a particular control and control outside of financial interests?

What is the difference?

There is a big difference.

Once you start controlling where are you going to stop? I waited for the hon. member for Beaufort West to put up some reasonable proposal whereby you can control the Press, and still leave them a certain amount of freedom of action. I do not think it is possible. Mr. Speaker, there is another matter which I do feel I should bring to the notice of the Government. I should like to know what steps the Government are going to take to abolish all these numerous regulations that have been built up during the last five years under the War Measures Act. I do not know how many regulations have been issued, but they must run into thousands.

There are three big volumes of regulations.

I have not seen the latest number but I know that they do run into thousands. I notice one regulation that was issued the other day that abolished no less than 12 regulations. I can see a great deal of trouble arising in this country if these regulations are abolished wholesale. Far from covering the ordinary course originally intended, that is to say, Defence Regulations, they have been issued and used during the last five years to cover every form of activity and in every single Government department. I think it is not too much to say that although there should have been a preponderance of regulations issued in connection with Defence matters, there has been a preponderance of regulations issued in connection with other matters and in connection with Government Departments.

The one dealing with no treating in bars has been withdrawn.

I am not concerned with that. I want to deal with the regulation in regard to price control. That is a matter which is of very great importance and I can see that there will be considerable difficulty in abolishing these regulations at once. I do want to ask the hon. the Minister what steps he is taking in this regard. I think they should appoint some committee to see what steps should be taken in regard to the abolition of these regulations. Regulations have been issued covering practically everything. There are regulations dealing with price control. There are regulations dealing with the salaries of surveyors. They have regulations dealing with food control, they have regulations dealing with every conceivable subject, and it will take the committee a very long time to sift all those regulations.

A committee has been set up.

I am very glad to hear it. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some idea as to when their work is likely to be completed. After all is said and done, these regulations have been framed during the last five years. I do hope that it will not take the Government five years to wipe them out. I tried to follow the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) this morning, and he rather turned on me. I remarked he was very pessimistic about the possibility of our being able to give full employment to soldiers on their return. He inferred that our promises were not likely to be carried out. Those of us who have been in the House for some years have had very gloomy forecasts of what was going to happen during those five years by the Opposition. I cannot remember a single occasion when a single forecast made by those hon. members in regard to the war ever came right, and when one recalls what they said about what was going to happen to us in the war I do not think we need place very much value on then remarks now.

What about Churchill’s pessimism?

Hon. members refer to Churchill’s pessimism ….

He was almost desperate.

It was the inspiration of Winston Churchill that kept the world going in its darkest days and helped us through.

What about the statement that he wept?

He would need to weep. Of course he was pessimistic. I can remember the time in this House when hon. members, far from weeping at the tragedy overseas, rejoiced in the belief that England was going to get a kick in the pants.

Now you are waving the flag.

No, these things are graven far too deeply in our memories for us to forget what happened. And I want to say this; there are only 52 members in this House today who were here and voted on the right side on the 4th September, 1939. I am proud today I was one of those members that helped on that occasion not only in keeping South Africa safe but, I believe, in putting South Africa where we are today ….

We are on the spot.

…. where we are today, on the side of the victorious nations, and we did more to help victory than any other small nation in the world.

Who has won the war?

It is the same old story. The answer is: Do not start examining in order to say that any individual or any nation won the war when every nation played its part.

Who is going to get the ultimate advantage?

The ultimate advantage will come to every nation and to this nation. We talk about the cost. What would have been the cost if we had not been in? I want to say that in this Session when peace has been declared we, on this side of the House, can look back with pride on the part this side has played in the last five years, helping to maintain that position, helping to maintain our troops in every part of the globe they have been in, and far from South Africa being on the spot, far from South Africa being in a position of danger I believe that with the knowledge and experience that has been gained we are standing on the threshold of prosperity as great as this country has ever seen.

One rather hesitates to intervene in a debate at this late hour of the Session. Almost every member is straining at the leash to get away. But this is an occasion, I understand, when one can ventilate almost anything. There is a matter of importance I should like to refer to. I should like to refer to the very valuable services that the Civilian Protective Services have rendered to South Africa during the war period. I want particularly to refer to these services on account of certain incidents that happened in Port Elizabeth. I want again to remind hon. members this particular service was constituted of men past military age. During the daytime they attended to their ordinary vocations, while during night time they were engaged in guarding the property of all civilians, and also Government property, and the safety of the citizens. These services were rendered under very great difficulties at times, particularly in the seaport towns, where they had a blackout. I have not seen a sufficient tribute paid to the men who rendered these very valuable services to the country. But I particularly refer to the subject because unfortunately at Port Elizabeth the C.P.S. were, as I have said, disbanded under somewhat unfortunate circumstances. That corps was particularly efficient in Port Elizabeth due to the inspiration of Major Peridge, who made that corps, as I say, most efficient, and he had the respect and esteem of his men. Unfortunately differences arose which eventually compelled Major Peridge to resign, and he was followed by 90 per cent. of the men in that corps. I want to raise this point particularly because in the uninformed mind certain blame may still attach to that officer, and I want to remove any sort of suspicion that any blame attached to him. An impartial enquiry was called for but it was not possible to grant that request. A departmental enquiry was held but, as we know, these departmental enquiries do not always give satisfaction. There has been an increase of lawlessness in Port Elizabeth, and today it is not safe for our women to move in certain areas where they should be able to move safely. One does not blame the police because they are understaffed, waiting for the return of men who have done their duty to the country, and it may be we shall again require the services of the C.P.S. For that reason it is well that the country should know that the services they have rendered in the past are fully appreciated. For that reason I think that the great services that the C.P.S. have rendered to this country should for ever be recorded in the annals of this House, and I have therefore the very greatest pleasure in paying this tribute to the men who served us so loyally.

The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) told us something of the victory achieved by South Africa after the war. I feel it my duty to ask the Government as well as the hon. member for Sunnyside whether South Africa participated in this war in order to safeguard the world against a form of dictatorship, which is opposed to the freedom of nations. It has always been represented by our Government and" by speakers such as the hon. member for Sunnyside that South Africa entered this war to fight against dictatorships and I now ask the Government whether it is satisfied with the result of the war and with what South Africa has assisted to achieve in this war. Are they satisfied with that? Is the Government continuing its its attempt to convince the people of this country, by the mouth of the Prime Minister as well as other members of the Government, that that purpose has been achieved? Are they continuing in the attempt to make the world believe that the termination of the war means that South Africa has assisted in bringing the dictatorships to an end? Will the Government, with the control which certain sections have over the Press, as the hon. member for Beaufort-West (Mr. Louw) has shown continue to make the people believe that Europe is free from the absolutism of dictatorships? The termination of the war simply means that so far dictatorships have been perpetuated in Europe, in countries such as Finland; that three of the Baltic States have been swallowed and that there are dictatorships in countries such as Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria, that it has been perpetuated in a country such as Yugoslavia. And now I want to tell the Minister something else, that within six months Germany will have a dictatorial German government. That is the end of the war. Within six months, Germany will again have a dictatorial government. That is what we have been fighting for. That is the end of the war.

Are you making predictions again?

Yes, I am making this prediction. Six months ago I also made predictions and they came true even sooner than I expected.

But four years ago you were wrong.

Ten countries are already ruled by dictators and I did not think that that would happen so soon. Turkey has been forced to the extent of agreeing to lose part of its territory. Turkey will have to agree to allow Russia a passage through the Dardanelles, which will be quite right. I do not say anything against that. It has been told to establish a democratic form of government. That will happen under the guidance of Communism. That is what we have now to contend with. We have contributed and assisted in bringing this about and I say this now, that within six months there will be a German Government in Germany which will be a dictatorship although it will be a communistic government. I know that England and America are saying that Germany should have no government for twenty years. That merely shows how powerless Britain and America are and will be in future with regard to conditions in Europe. For us as a European nation, because in the economic world we can be said to be largely a part of Europe, for us as a white population in South Africa, it is of the greatest importance that the Government and the people of the country should ask themselves what the future holds not only for Europe but for Africa. It is becoming clear to us that Germany will have a communistic government, that Italy will have a communistic government, that France will probably also have one and similarly, Holland and Belgium, and probably also Spain and other countries. What will then happen to Africa? A large part of Africa will then be subject to the possibility of being controlled by the communistic system. I say therefore that it is of the utmost importance to us that the Government of South Africa and the people of South Africa shall recognise this position and that they shall take steps to see to what extent South Africa could be safeguarded against a dictatorial system which we in South Africa do not like. We do not like the policy of shooting people. We do not like the policy which lays down that the person who differs from us should either be removed and put into a camp or should be shot.

In that respect we all agree.

I have already said that I think that we should all agree, but I have not yet heard such unanimity from members from the opposite side with the exception of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) and the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). Those are the only persons from whom we have heard the truth in connection with this matter, and whereas it is the most important problem which South Africa has to deal with at the moment, the time has arrived for the Government to take a stand with regard to this matter and to tell the country what aim it has in view. We all know that world affairs require a serious approach to the position of nations and of countries. What is required is that the entire population of a country should receive certain legitimate benefits, benefits which are sometimes called socialism but which I would call a system of improved social conditions, where every member of the population has a right to certain fundamental things. I am emphasising this because the Government has shown during the course of this Session that it does not want to give one single benefit of such security of socialism to the entire population. It has not shown that it wishes to approach the matter from the correct point of view and wishes to take action to provide those benefits to the country. The time has arrived for that to be done. We should not provide it merely as a counterbalance to Communism. If the communistic system means that every person in the country will have a voice in bringing about those benefits then there is materially no great difference between Communism and Socialism. But I say once again that we should not provide that merely as a counterbalance to Communism but that it is our duty in the world and towards our country that every section of the population should have security and it should be introduced within a short period or otherwise we will miss the opportunity of putting the new social system into operation on the basis of the conception of government by the people, in which we believe. The Government has during the course of this Session actually brought not one single question to any form of finality. We have had the question of employment. The new social system demands that employment shall be provided for every individual in the country, not only by the Government. Such employment should be provided by means of measures taken by the Government. The Government should make it possible for expansion to take place in industry, in agriculture, in our primary and secondary industries, so that employment may be given to all members of the community, Europeans, coloured persons and natives. Now I say that the Government has during the course of this Session actually considered nothing which can make the universal application of employment in South Africa possible, and because it is late in the history of the world, I say that it is essential that the Government should give its attention to this matter. In any case the Government has already been condemned by the people outside, because it has not given its attention to this matter, and because instead of that it has brought unimportant matters before the House, with which it took up the time of the Session for weeks. We had a Bill from the Minister of Labour in connection with the registration of unemployed persons. As I said at the time, it is one part which is necessary, but without expressing any further criticism of the Minister of Labour on that account, I want to say that that is not the most important part of an employment programme. What has the Minister of Finance done on the other hand? He has restricted the expansion of industries and other activities at a time when he should have done everything in his power to encourage them.

Supported by his Press.

Yes, supported by his Press. He designed his system of taxation in such a manner that no person feels at liberty to undertake any new activity. He stands condemned by the country for his attitude in connection with taxation. He has made it impossible for industrial expansion which is indispensable. But that is not the only way in which we can have a greater measure of employment. We can also provide employment through the utility companies and by the action of the Government itself. If the Government refuses to take steps which would make it possible for industry to expand and develop to such an extent that they would be able to employ all these people, then it is the duty of the Government to provide employment for every citizen who has no employment. That is not the best method. The best method is to encourage industry to such an extént that the very least remains for the Government to do. But what has the Government done? Has the Government put before us a five-year plan or a ten-year plan to prove to us that its experts have devised plans for employment in South Africa to such an extent that it can say with every conviction that employment will be provided for every unemployed person at a wage which will allow him a decent standard of living? There has not been one single attempt on the part of the Government. There has been no indication of any such attempt. I think that the country will be amazed that a government which carries on so calmly and coolly and unaware of its incompetence, is still allowed to continue to rule the country. One of the other important aspects of security in the country is that each unit of the population has a right to have a decent roof over its head. Wo have talked about that for years. The only result has been that in the course of this Session, the Government has come along with legislation which provides for nothing else than full powers to be granted to a particular Minister to enable him to make any law in the country, anything but the actual building of houses. Here again we are faced with the position in which the people of the country must ask themselves in what respect the Government has done anything for the country. I say that this House has every reason to be afraid and I am sounding this warning even now that in eight months’ time we will come back here and will want to know how many houses have been built and are being built and in what measure the Minister has succeeded, with the full powers granted to him, in providing the needs of the country. The experience we have had from year to year has been that we have had promises but no houses and we should ask ourselves at this stage whether we have done the right thing even in granting those powers to the Minister at the risk of his failing to exercise those powers in the right manner. During the course of this Session there was another important question which was forcibly brought to our attention, namely the improvement of those tragic conditions in South Africa where we have large areas where contagious and infectious diseases are prevalent. We wanted that problem to be tackled so that the entire population could be given the opportunity of not only receiving treatment but also those impersonal services which would rid the country of that human scab. We have succeeded in ridding the sheep of this country of scab. When we came along with a definite plan for ridding the country of human scab, we had to witness the tragedy that the Government allowed other considerations to stand in its way and we could not proceed with the scheme of a universal application of certain measures in the country. The result will be that for years and years South Africa will not be able to promote that cause in a proper manner. We find that in this important aspect of public health there has been a bitter disappointment for the entire population during the Session, also a bitter disappointment for the members opposite. They remain silent about it now. Their Press remains silent about it so that the people who have to exercise the vote may not become too dissatisfied. This is a serious matter which we should have tackled and which we were able to tackle, but which the Government would not do. We come to the question of the provision of food which is important to every person in the country. We heard this morning from the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) what a native family in South Africa has to live on. We know what the health conditions of a large portion of the coloured population and also of Europeans is, because they do not get the right food in our country. I am not saying this in reproof of a particular group of people or of the Government of the moment. I say that it is something which, in the light of the new social requirements of the world, we should have faced, and that we should have taken steps to make food available at prices within the range of the limited income of all sections of the population. That can be done by removing all wastefulness and by improving distribution. What have we found during the course of the Session as far as the distribution of food is concerned so that it could be made available to every individual in an effective manner? There was nothing of the kind. We find that at this moment 40,000 soldiers are returning to us for whom we have to provide employment. Out attitude has always been that employment should take place in such a manner that our efforts should be based on providing employment to every individual in the country. If that is so, how much greater is the onus on us to provide employment for those who are returning from the war. I am speaking as one who had personal experience at that time when I returned from the war and found myself without employment. I say therefore that this matter is a serious matter for these people. I know that the Government intends doing everything it possibly can for those people. I know that it is so favourably disposed towards those people that we could not desire anything better. I am glad about that but my fear is that the people to whom the provisions of that employment has been entrusted are not able to provide the employment as it should be done.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended I was referring to the difficulties of the Government with regard to the 40,000 returned soldiers who will possibly have to accept new appointments. It is part of the problem of general disruption which may take place. I say once more that our plans should aim at providing for the whole of the population which may be without employment, but as far as the 40,000 persons are concerned, it is a special problem because many of these people have been away from the country for years; they ware uprooted; they were taken away and now they have come back and everything will be rather strange for them. In the first place, I would like to see institutions such as the universities carrying out the intentions they have and the ideas expressed by them beforehand, that they will try to take care as far as possible of those people who wish to go to the Universities, that they will fulfill their obligations one hundred per cent. I think there are 2,500 applicants who wish to enrol at the Witwatersrand University and about 1,400 at the Cape Town University. It is an enormous problem but it is a problem which can be solved. The universities must find the necessary staff. It is a question of the will with which they must set about it.

And the classroom accommodation.

Lack of adequate classroom accommodation is not a factor which should stand in the way. We should divide the classroom accommodation in such a manner even if there has to be three shifts per day, so that all the applicants may be accepted. The only section in which there may be difficulty is in the medical section. I admit that in that respect it may be difficult in view of the practical work which has to be done.

We are helping them with additional buildings.

But also in that respect we could make a special effort. All I want is this. During the past five years these people have shouldered all the difficulties. During the next five years the difficulties should be ours. Let the professors and the lecturers, persons like my hon. friend over there, and myself, employ all our powers during the next five years. Nobody will ask them to do it without remuneration. I assume that the Minister will tell me that if these people have to work twice as hard as previously, that should be no difficulty. I take it that provision will be made, but do not let us tell these people that it cannot be done. I want to predict that 20 per cent. of those absorbed in industries and other spheres of employment, will leave such employment of their own, accord within a month, because these people are disrupted, because they cannot do the work or because they do not want to do the work. Those people present a special problem. Let us recognise at once and realize that those people who cannot remain in their employment who feel that they are lost, should be treated in quite a special and particular manner. During the war years we found that large numbers of soldiers suffered from some or other psychological difficulty and it is our duty to find out in what manner these people may be readjusted to civil life. In the British army they had in the neighbourhood of 400 psychologists who were continually busy determining in what way the soldier found it impossible to adjust himself to military life. There were definite difficulties—the fear complex and other complexes which were analysed and valuable work was performed by those psychologists. Now we come back to civil life and there, similarly, it will be necessary for psychologists to be employed in the country to assist the people and to see to what extent there may be certain psychological difficulties which prevent such people from readjusting themselves to civil life, and I just want to say that I am afraid that the Government has not yet fully realised to what extent special measures should be taken. Unfortunately, in our army we have had only two psychologists and it was not even the duty of one of them to determine the psychological aspect of the ability of the soldier to adjust himself, and the other one did the work for a time and then left the army. Let the reason be what it may—let it be disruption—but there will be a small percentage who will not be able to adjust themselves because they may not have a strong character. Let us determine what the obstacle is. There are other difficulties—I need not mention them here—which actively stand in the way of returned soldiers who find that the state of affairs in the country is not what they expected it to be. They should be treated in quite a different manner. I am not saying that they should be molly-coddled, but their affairs should be investigated and they should receive guidance, and if need be, expert guidance, so that they may adjust themselves to civil life and the work which they will have to do. There is just one other small matter I wish to mention before I sit down and it is this. The Minister of Finance thought fit to make the income of part-time medical doctors liable to excess profits duty. The matter has been disposed of. We can do nothing about it. But I merely wish to tell the Minister that I have just returned from the north and special cases have come to my notice of persons who hold part-time positions in the railways. There are doctors who have part-time appointments for which they receive a salary of up to £2,000 per annum. It sounds a lot, but for that £2,000 the doctor sees 10,000 patients during the year. And why were they appointed? They were appointed because they are good doctors. I assume that the Minister of Transport could have obtained poor doctors or inexperienced doctors to do that work. What does the Minister of Finance do? He says that that person who three years ago accepted that position will have to do that work next year not for £2,000 but for £500. The Minister of Finance will take £1,500 of the £2,000 and the doctor will have to do that work for £500. Now I just want to tell this to the Minister of Transport. I am glad that he is here. Quite a number of doctors who are in his service as railway doctors will come and see him and will tell him of the position that they will be expected to work next year for a quarter of their salaries, the other three-quarters being given back to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance may say that there are other people who have to do that too. I say that the Minister of Finance is not taking into consideration the health requirements of the country. He has imposed his taxation without taking that into consideration. I know well enough that this part-time salary will be included in the salary of the person who held that appointment before the war, but there are numbers of doctors who have accepted appointments as district surgeons and railway doctors after the outbreak of the war, after the excess profits duty was introduced, and now those people are expected to do their work for a quarter of the salary which they now receive while the Minister of Finance takes three-quarters of their salary.

Not on the whole amount.

I am referring to people who have been receiving this salary since the beginning of the war. I know that the die is cast, but I ask the Minister not to put any obstacle in the way of the work which has to be done for the health of the people, not to stand in the way of the people who are serving the State. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the service of the railways. They must have medical services and it is not conducive to good services, but has the opposite effect, if such taxes are imposed on these people. They will leave the service. But that need not happen if the Minister would merely indicate that he will go no further next year with taxation which is in conflict with the interests of the health of the people and development of industries in our country. I hope that the Minister will take that point into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I intend to deal with one subject only and that is the question of miners’ phthisis compensation. Sir, a few days ago there was before this House the Silicosis Bill and I think if hon. members will throw their minds back to the discussions which took place on the motion for the second reading of that Bill they will find that it fell short of what was required in several ways. Firstly I think it did not provide adequate benefit. I also think it would have had the effect of increasing working costs to the mines and that would have resulted in a shortening of the lives of the mines, which I am sure, Mr. Speaker, is a contingency which none of the members of this House or of, for that matter, any person outside this House would like to see. Now, Sir, with that object in view I have put my mind to the matter and have thought out a plan. This plan is still only in a rough draft but I hope to put it forward to the Minister of Finance for his consideration.

I hope it has nothing to do with Einstein.

No, it has nothing to do with Einstein. Mr. Speaker, as I said just now I have only had time to go through it very hurriedly and it is still in the form of a rough draft, but I wish to put it forward to the hon. the Minister for his consideration during the recess. Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I intend to read from this rough draft. Briefly the subjects of the plan are—

1. (1) To provide increased benefits, i.e. larger than those proposed in the Silicosis Bill.
2. (2) To place the liability for all phthisis compensation on the State.
3. (3) To ease the burden of working costs on the mining industry and thus encourage the mining of lower grade ore.

Now, firstly, it is proposed that the Government should establish a compensation reserve fund of £20,000,000. I may mention that I placed this proposal before the hon. the Minister of Mines and he immediately detected that one point, and he was rather dubious about whether the £20,000,000 will provide an adequate reserve. Since then, Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity of discussing this plan with the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) and he drew my attention to the fact that there is a fund known as the Gold Realisation Fund which has been created from the accumulated gold realisation charges. Now, I think the hon. the Minister himself has admitted that this is not a charge that should really be debited to taxation and he has shown that fact by debiting it to the loan account. I think it would be perfectly fair to use at least portion of that amount to augment this fund. Now, Sir, I propose to create the fund as follows. Firstly by the Government taking over both the existing trust fund totalling approximately £10,000,000 and the compensation fund of approximately £6,000,000. I should mention that the trust fund is a fund which has been built up to take care of outstanding liabilities in respect of miners’ phthisis compensation. Secondly, the gold mining industry should commute their total liability in respect of miners’ phthisis compensation both in respect of outstanding liability and annual levy by a single payment of £2,000,000. When it is realised that the cost under the present Act to the industry as a whole is £1,900,000 per annum it will be realised that this is a” very modest request to make, possibly too modest a request. I leave that matter for the Minister to consider whether it is of sufficient importance or not. Thirdly, the Government should contribute £2,000,000 making a total of £20,000,000. Now this fund at 3 per cent. interest will return annually a sum of £600,000 to be applied towards the administration of the State Compensation Fund. Under the present Act the cost to the industry is approximately £2,000,000 made up of the levy, £1,400,000 and contribution to outstanding liability trust fund £500,000. According to the White Paper issued in connection with the Silicosis Bill the annual cost will be £1,500,000. While I am on that particular point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the cost to the industry even with the limited benefits proposed in this Bill, which are not acceptable in any case, would have been fairly severe. The proposals contained in the Bill as I said are not satisfactory, and it seems inevitable that a minimum annual cost of £1,900,000 must be envisaged to enable us to grant the higher benefits which are required. It is proposed to raise this sum in the following manner. £600,000 from the interest on the Capital Fund which I mentioned previously. Now, the annual debit of £1,900,000 which is met by the present annual levy and the contribution to the trust fund on working costs, means that the mining profits will be increased by that amount. That means that we relieve the industry of the necessity of paying £1,400,000 levy, plus £500,000 contribution to the outstanding liability trust fund, the annual profit must increase by a similar amount because it will no longer be debited to working costs. Under our present system approximately 70 per cent. of this amount will accrue to the State by way of taxation representing an amount of £1,330,000. Now if we take this amount of £1,330,000 and add it to the £600,000 interest on the Capital Fund we find that we will have a sum of £1,930,000 which should provide sufficient to administer the fund on the basis of suitably increased benefits. I submit this to the Minister’s consideration that it is a working plan. While I am on my feet I should like to say that I have collaborated with the hon. member for West Rand (Mr. Bodenstein) who first raised the question of the State taking over the liability.

May I at this stage ask the House to show a little patience if I make a few remarks on a matter in which the whole country is interested, viz. the Deaf and Blind Institution at Worcester. The Minister has assisted the institute with a considerable sum of money which enabled it to meet its obligations. I have here an interesting memorandum which I do not want to read in whole but I would like to read just one paragraph—

I have been asked to heartily thank the Minister for the concession and the interest shown by him in the institution. In the second place, I want to point out that the children come from all parts of South Africa and adjoining territories and that it is very desirable that the children should come there when they are young, from their third year. Parents naturally do not want to leave their children and it is difficult for us to get the children but where one addresses delegates from the whole country here I want to appeal to them to assist us in getting the children early because their progress in their work is much better and they finish the course much sooner when they are young. I want to extend an invitation to hon. members to visit the institution and to see the work that is being done there. When deaf and blind children have completed the course they do not have to stand back in their work done there to children who have their hearing and sight. Another point which I want to raise in this connection is that the institution is asking whether the Minister of Transport does not see his way clear to convey the children who usually are children of less privileged parents free of charge over the railways? The children come from afar and are inexperienced and must always have somebody to travel with them. That usually doubles the expense and it will be much appreciated if such children could be conveyed free of charge.

I was filled with emotion on the arrival of the first prisoners-of-war ship this morning, and I want to state here wholeheartedly that I for my part heartily welcome them back in South Africa. Those sons of South Africa went through a severe test and I also appreciate the honour they have achieved. They have deserved it. I think that I am possibly the only member on this side of the House who has also gone through the test as a British prisoner-of-war in 1902 when I was sent to Bermuda. This morning I lived back in the time of 43 years ago. What a contrast! I recall the emotion which filled us when we saw the first tip of Table Mountain just as probably happened in their case yesterday and how we landed here at the foot of Table Mountain. But for us there was no welcome, no welcome greetings, we found not a single voice of friendship. We were landed at Simonstown where we were put in tents and sent further the following day in coal trucks although we transferred in Cape Town to third-class coaches. But instead of friendly greetings I recall how we travelled from Simonstown by train and how we were threatened from all sides and how we were cursed and scorned by Europeans and coloured persons so that we hid our heads behind the coal trucks. That was 43 years ago and one wants to forget it but this morning the memory of what we went through as British prisoners-of-war returned. I still recall the clothes of paper we received. I one day wrestled with a friend and he grabbed hold of my trousers and half of it was torn off. Those were the clothes we received from the great and mighty British Empire which was so proud of its greatness. The prisoners-of-war who returned today have been received in a totally different way and I am glad that they are receiving every assistance. I know what they are feeling while they are back in their fatherland. We at that time returned without a penny in our pockets, not knowing where to go for an existence. Not the slightest provision had been made. Many of those who have returned are no longer enjoying sound health and I trust that the Government will assist them in every possible way. Of course we also think of the parents of those who have not returned. We feel with them. That is the feeling on this side of the House. We welcome back the sons who have gone through the severe test. I now want to give just a few impressions I received this Session. In the first case we feel that the language equality has not made progress as it should have done. We cannot live in the past, we want to create a future and we want to try to co-operate. We live here just for South Africa and we must endeavour to bring about co-operation between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking. Pardon me if I point out that at the welcome this morning for the prisoners-of-war all three official speeches of welcome were made in English.

One was in Afrikaans.

The lady who spoke on behalf of the Red Cross spoke a few words in Afrikaans but the three official speeches of welcome were in English. One expected that the sons, many of whom are Afrikaans-speaking who went out to fight, would also be welcomed in Afrikaans even though it should be by the Minister of Lands.

What were you saying all the time?

We do not want to hurt but three speeches were made to welcome them and one would at least have expected that one would be in Afrikaans. I know that many English-speaking members agree with us on this point, and I regret that it should have occurred. Let us in future show a little more consideration in connection with bilingualism. We also have feelings, we also have our feeling of pride just as the English-speaking friends. Only if we respect each other will we be able to co-operate and build up South Africa. A second point on which I want to say something concerns the restrictions on petrol. Where matters have developed to this stage it seems to me unnecessary to retain some of the restrictions. Our workmen who work up to 1 o’clock on Saturdays, our people in offices and our officials, what chance have they to reach a petrol station on Saturday before 12 o’clock when they have to work from 12 o’clock to 1 o’clock? What necessity is there for retaining the restriction? I do not say that they should receive more petrol but there appears to be no reason to prevent anyone taking in petrol on Saturday afternoons. There is also the closing at 6 o’clock in the evening. We do desire a little freedom now. Give a person 10 or 12 gallons per month but allow him to fill his tank whenever he likes to. And why should the 75-mile restriction be retained any longer? It is the cause of needless difficulty. Then I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Commerce and Industries and it is an urgent appeal. I want to ask for a little more supplementary petrol for the agricultural union meeting at Calvinia during this month. Delegates have to come from all parts. It is not a political body, all sections belong to it and the agricultural union will this month meet at Calvinia, and I want to ask the Minister to meet the people in some way to enable delegates to attend this important meeting. I do not know why the Minister refuses. I make an appeal to the Minister of Economic Development immediately to send a telegram to the Chairman and Secretary of the North-Western Agricultural Union informing them that they may obtain three hundred gallons of petrol for the show. It will be of much assistance. If he does not do it he will be boycotting our interests in the north-western Cape because delegates would not be able to attend. Then just a last remark in connection with marketing. It has struck me that the matter leaves much to be desired, the marketing of our produce and our price control. If we want stability in our country then we should provide for proper marketing and price control. We make an appeal to the Minister to see to it that the marketing of our produce is placed on a sound basis so that when anybody takes up farming he would know what the future would be, and expect his reward for his efforts. In conclusion, just a few remarks on communism. It was the salvation of Russia but as far as South Africa is concerned communism is a great danger in the future, and I want to appeal to the Government so to meet the poor in the country that it would not be necessary for them to take a last desperate step. The other day we saw 2,000 natives marching by and shouting, “Freedom, freedom”. If our coloured persons had done that it would have been another matter. They were born here and they have rights here, but the natives who come from their territories are strangers. We do not want to oppress them. We want to assist natives. During April I was in the Northern Transvaal and two natives ran up to us and beseeched us to assist them because their children were dying. We must do more for those natives. Hundreds and thousands of their children are dying on account of lack of medical attention. There is only one doctor at Tzaneen. I say that this side of the House wants to co-operate heartily in meeting natives in their territories. We want to make sacrifices for them, but natives here in Cape Town should not hold demonstrations and shout “Freedom.” That is a sign of communism and we cannot allow it in the country. If our population had been European only it would have been another matter. But we are 2,000,000 whites against 8,000,000 natives. The natives are getting out of hand. Their feelings rise against Europeans. We should not close our eyes to that danger. It is a danger which will become great for our children in the future.

I was very interested in what the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) said, and the great interest he showed in our demobilised volunteers. Perhaps he did not know every soldier on demobilisation has an examination by a trained psychiater, and the aspect he so strongly stresses is thoroughly gone into by the army, and there is a proper psychological examination. He also spoke about the universities. As a member of the Council of the University of Cape Town I want to assure the House and the country it is in the Minutes of the University that in all circumstances returned soldiers will get the preference in the Cape Town University, and arrangements have been made for special tutors. We know the difficulties that men feel at a university after they have been away for five years. But arrangements have now been made at Cape Town University, and it should be clearly understood that we are fully prepared at the universities to take back students or to take men who want to become students. I hope the university in the town my hon. friend represents will do likewise. I do not want to join issue with the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen), but I happened to be in the House some years ago when he referred to his own son in the army, and I hope when he spoke this afternoon about returned prisoners-of-war he was really sincere.

In the post-war reconstruction plan of the Government it is explained how the fighting forces will be treated when they return to the country. First of all they will be given an opportunity of visiting their homes. Those that can obtain employment in the meantime, can take up that employment, and those that cannot find employment, will go to the discharge depots until they can find employment. I understand that the prisoners-of-war will fall under the same plan as the other returning soldiers. Gen. Brink has stated that there are something over 40,000 that will have to find work. If a soldier returns and he falls in that category, how long will he then get vacation? Those who do not have work to return to or who cannot find work, how long will they be allowed to remain at their homes before they return to the receiving depots? The following question is this. In this reconstruction plan it is stated that £250 cash will be given to those who cannot find work in order to enable them to make a start.

Not to all. That is what may be given.

On page 4 it is stated that the amount may be £250. Does the Government adhere to that policy?

We have already assisted people under it, and that plan is being carried out.

Also as regards those that are now coming?

Yes.

Does that also apply to the loan of £1,250?

Yes. I wish to point out that a prisoner-of-war receives an additional month’s leave.

It is just as well that we should get a clear answer to these questions. That means that they get a month before they are absorbed in their ordinary work or go to the discharge depot. Then I find on page 11 that the committee appointed by the Government to consider the mass erection of houses has come to the conclusion that 150,000 houses will have to be built in order to provide for immediate needs. Now we notice in the press that a heaven on earth is pictured to the returning soldiers: I think it is advisable to make the returning soldiers understand to what South Africa they are returning, that there is a great scarcity of houses here. The returning soldiers go to the large cities, and during the last few days there is an increasing scarcity of houses noticeable, because the strangers that leave are fewer in number than the peopble returning. While the Press is busy painting such a bright picture to these people, it is just as well to make the returning soldiers understand that they are returning to a country where 150,000 houses are required immediately and where no fewer than 450,000 houses are required over a period of 10 years. Dr. Hamlin, a retired official, told the people this, and because of this he was rebuked by the Minister of Demobilisation. A few days ago Gen. Brink, Director of Demobilisation, made a statement to the Press in which he, inter alia, supplied the astonishing information that the questionnaire he sent out to employers who have to take returning soldiers into service, has as yet elicited very few replies. What sort of administration is this?

They are not the people who have to supply the returning soldiers with work, but who may perhaps supply them with work.

I accept the explanation, although it is not stated in the report. Then it is still peculiar that the people were not allowed to answer immediately. Provision has to be made for more than 40,000 Europeans, not to speak of the others. If the position is as described here by the Director of Demobilisation, then it is very serious. We do not again wish to pass through the conditions that we had after the previous war in 1919 to 1920.

What is the point?

Even if I make the point that hon. member will in any case not be able to see it. I would like to have an answer to these questions I have put to the Minister. Then I still wish to put a few matters to the Acting Minister of Defence. More attention should be given to South Africa’s sailors. At present we still have about 4,000 of them in our military service. They are a rather forgotten group of people. I think our military system has somewhat forgotten our sailors, especially those serving in the East. I should like to break a lance for those people. I think that the shipping contracts that were concluded offered a golden opportunity of creating a future for these South African sailors. I do not think that the Minister has had justice done to them. Those young men and those that will still come after them, here had an excellent opportunity which the Minister has to a great extent allowed to pass. That 20 per cent. of South African sailors that can be taken into service is only a drop in the ocean.

That is the minimum.

The shipping company concerned will carry out its contract but when it goes over 20 per cent. it is obvious that it will give preference to people of its own country. The Union-Castle Company was so eager to get these contracts that it was an excellent opening if the Minister had only put his foot down. During the last years our nation is especially inclined to develop in that direction, and we welcome it. On both side of the House we are agreed that it is a welcome development. How are our sailors now getting on in the East? It seems to me that they are a neglected part of our fighting forces. It seems a great pity to me that the Government allows our naval forces to fall under the command of the land forces. I hope that the Government will give its attention to this matter during the recess and make a plan to put an end to the neglect of our naval forces, which is to a great extent due to the fact that they fall under the land forces. As I have said, many of our sailors are in the Far East at the moment. To a large extent they are not under South African control, but under British control. I am referring especially to the Rangoon area. I should like to break a lance for those people and point out to the Minister that he should not forget them. They work under conditions that compare poorly with those of the British sailors with whom they have to collaborate. The conditions under which they have to work are almost unbelievably difficult. I wish to mention just a few facts, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. The first is that the British sailors in the East get leave after 18 months’ service while the South African sailors only get leave after 2½ years’ service. I do not know what the reason is for this inequality. The troops in that area work in an environment where the heat sometimes reaches 102 degrees in the shade. Australia and New Zealand have allowed their sailors to wear the light khaki uniform as sailors. Why does the Government of South Africa refuse to allow the South African boys also to wear the light khaki uniform in that climate? As a seaman the Minister knows how difficult conditions are if one has to remain at sea long. It is very difficult for our sailors to wash their clothes, while it can be done much more easily with the lighter khaki uniform The British sailor receives a climatic allowance called “Japanese Campaign money”. Why cannot our South African sailors who work shoulder to shoulder with them also receive such a climatic allowance? When these people get an additional ration of tea or get hold of tea in some way or other, they send it home to their families, and then it is allowed to come as far as this country, but it is not delivered here. This information has been supplied to me, and I give it bona fide to the Minister. I come to the following point. The British sailors in the East can send their letter-cards post free by air mail and it takes them about 11 days from the East to London. If my information is correct, then the South African sailors have to wait 30 days for mail, while the air mail would take only eight days. The British sailors send the letter-cards free of charge; our sailors have to pay 3d., while they have to pay 9d. for a letter of half an ounce. For a heavier letter our sailors have to pay 2s. 3d. for two ounces by air mail. The British sailors get all this free. I very much regretted to hear all this, because I consider that the South African sailors are working there under very difficult conditions, and this is a matter to which attention should be given. Then we find that the service conditions of the British sailors are laid down in the Admiralty Fleet Order, and the supposition was that our sailors would also enjoy those conditions. My information is that those service conditions are unfortunately not applicable to our sailors, with the result that this opening in South Africa is to a great extent frustrated. If South African sailors get such poor service conditions we cannot expect the service to be attractive to them. It surprises me that under these circumstances such a large number of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking men —I mention the Afrikaans-speaking ones first because I understand that they are in the majority—still offer their services. But when this service receives such stepmotherly treatment the Minister will agree with me that it will not be attractive to our boys, and I bring these matters to the attention of the Minister in the hope that an improvement will be brought about.

I shall be very brief. There are a few points I should like to bring to the notice of the House and of the Government. The first is that I, as senior Whip, feel that I have the right to plead that a better spirit should be created in this House and thus to attempt to make the proceedings of the House run more smoothly, and also in order to obtain a better spirit amongst members. Viewed from that aspect this Session has been one of the most unfortunate. There has been no co-operation at all and no attempt at gaining co-operation. I do not wish to put any blame on the Government or on this side. I do not wish to go into the causes of it, although I have my own opinion about them. If we wish to act here in the interests of the country and the nation, then we must create a better spirit between the parties, and then we must obtain better collaboration. I wish to express the hope that next year at the beginning of the Session we shall attempt to create such a spirit.

We all hope so.

But then the Government must also consider the Opposition. The Opposition is a smaller party, but let us try to obtain collaboration. I am glad that the acting Prime Minister has also expressed that hope. May I tell him that the Opposition cannot fall. The Government can fall, and it should be its aim to obtain collaboration from the Opposition to arrange for the duties of the House. We as Opposition can allow our members to go home if we like. We should like to have collaboration. Then I should like to come to another matter. The war has now ended. We have our differences. But I wish to make an appeal to this House and especially an appeal to the press, not on behalf of my Party because I have had no instructions to do so, but I should like to make a personal appeal that also in this respect there should be a better spirit in the country. Let us as Press and as members use our influence, instead of sowing bitterness, to forget differences and quarrels of minor importance and rather to obtain collaboration. If we do this we shall really be acting in the interests of the nation. If we all put our shoulders to the wheel to obtain better co-operation it will be in the interests of the population. There are such great problems that have to be tackled. There are problems about which we are in complete agreement. On some problems there is 100 per cent. unanimity as regards the major factors in those problems. There are differences on smaller points, and we should not make use of them to cause all possible troubles and so wreck the main issue. We should not on such occasions go into what this or that member has said in the past or what may be done in the future. Let us co-operate in the important matters in the interests of the country. Take the great question of communism. We are all in complete agreement about it. I do not think there is one member in the House who wishes to have communism here. Where we have these feelings, let us try to understand one another and see to what extent we can obtain co-operation instead of attacking one another and merely looking where we can criticise. There is the great and serious native problem. In the past Afrikaners have shown us that on a great problem such as this they can understand one another when they meet. We had the National Convention and this is one of the problems where we have been trying for years to see how far we can get with it. It is a national matter; it is not a party matter; we must meet again and see how far we can stand together in order to solve that great problem on a national basis and to see whether we cannot find a solution. There is the question of industrial development in the country. We all feel that all our people must be given employment. We all feel that we must make progress in the industrial sphere. There again it is a matter where one feels that we can co-operate in the national interests. There is our great agricultural problem. It is always tragic to find that you find farmers on that side of the House who criticise farmers on this side, and you find farmers on this side criticising farmers on that side simply because they belong to different parties. Can we not try to keep those problems outside politics; can we not in that way obtain co-operation as regards these matters. It should not be a party matter. I am not going to speak any longer. My aim was merely to make an appeal to Afrikaners in general—and when I speak of Afrikaners I include every man who means South Africa well, every man that accepts that old slogan of “South Africa first”, whether he is Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking, that we should always stand together in order to see how far we can meet one another instead of being critical. I feel that if we adopt that attitude we can act better in the interests of our country. May I also make an appeal to the Afrikaner Party. Unfortunately they have no representative in this House, but may I make an appeal to Mr. Havenga, a great Afrikaner for whom I have the greatest respect, a man who has done surprisingly much for the country, that they should again throw in their weight and not stand aside. The same applies as as far as Mr. Pirow is concerned. They have their followers and we have our followers, but the fact remains that they are good Afrikaners. They have the best intentions for the country. Then there is the Ossewa-Brandwag. Many people find fault with the Ossewa-Brandwag, but I say again they are Afrikaners, they mean it well with South Africa. I wish to make an appeal to Dr. Van Rensburg: throw in your weight, let us stand together; let us lay aside our petty differences; we may nevertheless differ on the smaller points, but let us stand together when it comes to great national problems in building up our nation.

Are you speaking on behalf of your party?

No, I speak on behalf of myself. I consulted nobody before I took the floor. What I say here I feel in all sincerity, and in any case there is no party that will bind me not to act in the right way when I feel that it is in the interests of the country. What I say here I say purely and simply as person because I honestly think that we should try to stand together, that we should try to solve these great and important problems. If we stand together and solve these problems it will be to the advantage of the whole country; if we do not stand together in order to solve these problems it may mean the downfall of the country.

One almost feels as if one was doing wrong rising at this stage of the Session to say something, but unfortunately we cannot all speak at the same time. We can all sing together but we cannnot speak together. If we could talk at the same time I would not now have risen to speak. I want to avail myself of the opportunity in the first place to express my hearty appreciation towards the Public Servants who sat in the offices on the other side of the street and at other places and who have always received us in an exceptionally friendly manner when we visited them with our difficulties in their offices. Sometimes we received requests from persons in the country which did not make it a pleasure for us to approach the officials and we know it caused much difficulty and trouble to officials to supply us with that information, but I must say that it has been my personal experience and I think the experience of anybody on this side that the officials always went out of their way in trying to assist us, and they have always received us in a very courteous manner. Therefore it is no more than right that we at this stage should express our hearty appreciation towards the officials. And now I want to speak about something which is perhaps less popular and in connection with which hon. members opposite may even ascribe motives to me. Nevertheless I am going to raise this matter because I feel that what I am going to plead for is correct where the war is now over. Even though motives are attributed to me, I think that the future shall prove that what I say here is correct. We have waged a war in respect of which there was a difference of opinion in the House. There was a deference op opinion in connection with the question whether we should take part in the war or not. That war is now oyer as far as Europe is concerned. We are educated people; we are people belonging to educated nations. We have fought against the Germans and the Allies have won this war. It seems to me that there is at present a tendency to consider the leaders of enemy countries as criminals because they declared war on us. May I just give an example. Take the Anglo-Boer war. The Boer republics lost the war against England. We would never have heard the end of it if England had proceeded from the point of view that the leaders of the Republics should be shot because they took part in the war against England. I want to ask hon. members opposite not to express their disapproval or dissatisfaction until I have finished my speech. I appeal to members please to get away from the war spirit which has prevailed in this country up to the present and which is still prevailing.

What about the offences committed by them?

I hear somebody speaking about offences. When the last war was over I incidentally went to Europe to study. I went for a holiday to the enemy country which was in the war at that time against South Africa. I found there that no propaganda was made in connection with atrocities supposed to have been committed by Allied troops and Allied leaders. After every war, even before there is peace, propaganda is made to engender a feeling of hate amongst the people and to destroy those who have fought against one. Supposing the war ended differently; supposing the Allied nations had lost the war.

The Germans would then have hanged you.

The same propaganda would have been made on the other side. We cannot get away from that. Then the other side would have accused our people of atrocities and cruelties. Supposing for example that the Allies had lost the war and that the Germans had decided to shoot the leaders of the Allies because during the war years they were in power. Where would we have landed? Take the case of South Africa. Would it be reasonable if the Allies had lost the war suddenly to shoot our present Prime Minister because he was the leader of this country during the war years? I think as an educated Christian nation we should not subscribe to the policy simply to destroy the leaders of enemy countries or to have them shot. We should not accuse them of offences simply because they were the leaders of our enemies. I believe that there were offences but I do not believe that the head of any Christian country would give commands to its soldiers simply to murder people.

Do you doubt the atrocities which have been committed?

I do not doubt the fact that atrocities were committed. I know that war is a terrible thing. It may be one of the reasons why I personally voted against participation in the war, but if atrocities had been committed then punish those who committed those atrocities. Here in South Africa atrocities were in our opinion also committed. I do not want to compare it to the atrocities which have occurred in Europe, but a part of our population during this war went through anything but a pleasant time. Would it now be reasonable to hold the Minister of Justice personally responsible for what has occurred? It would be a wrong policy to shoot the leaders of this country because people were suppressed and persecuted. The Allies have won the war and they are now in a position to say what should be done and what should not be done, and I want to make an appeal here to the Acting Prime Minister. In many respects we agree with the Acting Prime Minister. We are a small country. We are a pebble on the beach as far as belligerent countries are concerned. Do you not think it would be a good gesture on the part of South African’s to say: “We have won the war; it is better to forget and to forgive than to shoot every leader and to persecute him simply because he was the leader of an enemy nation. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh. I am certain that if our children one day have to judge it will be the policy advocated here by me which will be subscribed to as a Christian and humane policy. I am sure that it will be subscribed to as a policy in the best interests of all countries involved. I now would like to raise something in respect of which I also want to make an appeal to the Government to bring it to an end. This Government more than any other Government, in my opinion, is inclined to forget that they are in power not as representatives of the United Party but to attend to the interests of the country as a whole. When they sit there on those benches they are the Government of the Union of South Africa, not the representatives of their Party, and when we are dealing with matters affecting national interests they should not carry out their policy upon a party political basis but on a national basis. During the debate here and especially in reply to questions it was disclosed that there were approximately 400 persons in the Union still engaged in censorship work. Unfortunately however their duties are not confined to military matters. There are supporters of the United Party who agree with me. The censorship department is endeavouring to find out what the Government’s political opponents are doing to get them out of power. If we do something either by letter or by telegram or by telephone the Government obtains information about our actions. I do not say this because I am a member of the Opposition. The Minister concerned has admitted that this was taking place. The Minister however said that it was taking place on a small scale. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, as somebody of experience whether it is taking place on a small scale when as many as 400 persons are employed as censors? As we are trying to return to pre-war conditions, as we are trying not only to restore the pre-war relationship between the different sections, but also to improve it, I want to appeal to the Acting Prime Minister to give us an assurance, while he is acting head of the Cabinet, that he will take steps to discharge that censorship department. We ought to govern the country on a non-political basis. A Cabinet should leave it to its Party to make propaganda to keep the Government in power but the Government itself should deal with matters on their merits. Every national matter should be dealt with on its merits. I regret that I have on the last day of the Session to raise a matter which is not too pleasant, a matter which I personally would have preferred not to raise, because I do not like throwing mud or besmirch other people.

No.

I challenge the hon. member who shouted “no” to show where I have at any time besmirched any member. I think that I treat all members alike, whatever Party they belong to. I put a question to the hon. Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation and the Minister gave me a reply on the succeeding Tuesday. I then put a second question to the Minister but the reply to it was postponed until yesterday. In my opinion the information for which I asked did not differ from that for which I asked the previous week, with this difference that the last question was a tricky question. It contained something which the Minister did not want to intimate to the House and I think the Minister kept the infromation back because the person was a supporter of the United Party. I am dealing not only with the person but with right and justice. If a person abuses his position and it is necessary for the Minister of Justice to take steps againt him I think the Minister should not allow himself to be influenced by Party political reasons. I do not want to be unfair and for that reason I merely want to read my question to the House. I think the House knows the contents of the question. I asked whether any grant had been paid to the Goop Hope Hostel in lower Caledon Street, if so, what amount and to what date was it paid. From the reply it appeared that £11,383 had been paid to the hostel. The management of the hostel comprises Europeans and non-Europeans. When the auditors examined the books it appeared that there was a shortage. Let me inform the House of the position. If I am wrong I trust the Minister will immediately correct me. Money was collected from the public for the hostel. The Government made a certain allowance to the hostel—I think it was £11,383. When the auditors examined the books they were able to fix the amount of the shortage in connection with the allowance received from the Government. They were however unable to fix the amount of the shortage in connection with the money contributed by the public. The police then stepped in. The Minister informed me that the papers had been handed over to the Attorney-General. My information is— and I leave it to the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—that the steps taken by the police against the person were suspended as a result of the action of the Minister of Justice. If action were taken to protect a person who was ignorant I would still agree that the Minister of Justice should interfere but I think that every member of this House will agree with me that there was no justification for a member of the Cabinet to interfere in a matetr, even where there was no sign of politics. The auditors were unable to determine what amount of money had been collected from the public but it appeared that the shortage of Government money amounted to approximately £4,000. I asked whether the responsible person was still there and the Minister replied that the then secretary or treasurer was responsible. He did not say that he was responsible for the abuse but that he was held responsible for the shortage discovered by the auditors because he had been negligent. I was unable to obtain the name of the person. Subsequently in reply to a question the Minister referred me to the previous reply he had given me. When I again asked him who was the secretary and treasurer, and I regret having to give the person’s name in the House, but I feel that it is my duty to do so, because it is a person holding a responsible position. I have found out that the person who was at that time secretary and treasurer does not hold the position any more because the auditors had found a shortage which according to the Minister was attributable to negligence. The name of the person is Mr. Thompson. I think he is a Provincial Councillor.

Was he secretary and treasurer?

Are you sure of it?

It is the reply of the Minister. Mr. Thompson is an active worker for the United Party and I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. L. P. Bosman) knows of such a person who is an organiser for the United Party.

What is his full name? You must be very careful.

I want te be very careful. Unfortunately I have not at the moment the Minister’s reply. I have the amount of money granted; it differs from the amount furnished me by the Minister. My information is that £2,000 is missing which has now been reduced to £800. £800 they have failed to find.

You are quite wrong when you say that Thompson is the Secretary.

I will resume my seat if the hon. member will say who it is. I will give the hon. member an opportunity.

Mr. Thompson is not the secretary of the United Party.

I did not say that he was secretary of the United Party.

You said that he worked for the party.

Yes.

Who is Mr. Thompson?

The Minister may state in his reply whether I am right or wrong. My information is that Mr. Thompson is the organiser of the United Party in the Cape Peninsula. I now want to appeal to the Minister.

Do you know the initials of Mr. Thompson.

Yes. I have them but unfortunately I have not the question with me. The Minister may in his reply say whether I am right or wrong.

But you are the complainant.

I want to make an appeal to the Acting Prime Minister to see to it that the Government is not in such matters influenced by party politics, that right and justice will be done, and that the Government will act not as representatives of the United Party but in the interests of South Africa as a whole.

Here are a few points I want to raise, but I want to start with the Minister of Justice because I am afraid that he may perhaps leave the House. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) and other members appealed to the House that we should not be so vindictive and the Acting Prime Minister has even agreed. The war is now over and I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived to open the camp at Andalusia? There are still a number of Germans in that camp. Today a number of prisoners-of-war who had been in Germany returned to South Africa. Is it not now an opportune time te release those Germans from the camps?

And send them home.

Why do we keep them in camps at Government expense? Even the houses of the Minister of Lands are there. Let us now use those buildings for returned soldiers. There is much iron which could be used by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation for the housing scheme. Why should the camp still remain? I now want to address a few remarks to the Minister of Lands but it has nothing to do with the flood at Christiana. The Minister has replied to that. I want to raise another small point. I raised it previously but I do not think that it has come to the notice of the Minister. I refer to Emergency Regulation Number 37. I read Section 4 (1)—

Then follows Section (c)—

I just want to explain it briefly. The owner is able to get back his house and goods provided the tenant of that house or land is not unfairly affected. Here we come to the Minister of Lands. He has removed approximately 2,000 lessees from their farms or houses. Were these people not unfairly affected? Is it not in conflict with the emergency regulation? This emergency regulation is still in force at present. The people were there as lessees. They were given notice that they should leave within three months and in some cases within five months. Was that right? Are those people not in a position to refuse to leave? I want to say with all due deference that in my opinion they have the right to remain there. They are protected by emergency regulation No. 37 (4) (1). I ask you now whether the people are not unfairly affected? Is it not contrary to the emergency regulation? That emergency regulation is still in force. The people are lessees and they have received notice to leave. Is that right? Are the people under the emergency regulation not in a position to refuse to leave? In my humble opinion they have the right to refuse and they are protected by the emergency regulation. Surely it is not the idea to remove the people on a large scale from the places leased by them. But I want to point out something else. The Minister said that he wanted the holdings of lessees for returned soldiers. We have no objection. But what are the objections of the returned soldiers? I have here a report from the “Cape Times” of the 11th April, 1945, in which expression is given to the point of view of the returned soldiers. It was at a conference held in Cape Town under the auspices of the South African Legion of the British Empire Service League. It was therefore not an ordinary meeting but a congress and there the following took place—

It is said here—

That is the point of view of the soldiers. As it was not only the British Empire Service League but the Springbok Legion associated itself therewith. They do not want holdings but other people who want them very much are chased off by the Minister. Here are the two big soldiers’ bodies which do not want the holdings and the other people would like to remain there. There is another question which I want to put to the Minister of Lands. In the course of yesterday’s debate we put a question to him in connection with the tour he is going to make to the north. We would like to know who are the ten members of Parliament who will accompany him to the Schawrtz scheme and who is paying their expenses.

They are my guests. You have nothing to do with it.

Is it an expedition at State expense?

People will ask us what that pleasure tour is for and whether it is a Government tour or a private tour. I think the Minister does not want to hide anything and ought to make a statement.

There is a matter of general national interest and we hoped that the Acting Prime Minister would make a statement in the course of the Session in connection with it, and that is the future of South-West Africa. It is a matter which has enjoyed much attention during this Session and the Prime Minister made a statement on it before he left for San Francisco. In San Francisco there was considerable discussion on the matter and our Prime Minister adopted a definite attitude. Important resolutions were taken at the conference after it was not unanimous for a time, and we would like a statement from the Acting Prime Minister on the position. Because if we are interested the people in South-West Africa are even very much more interested. It is a question affecting their future. The Administrator for South-West Africa has made public statements in connection with the matter and feeling has been stirred up. The country and especially the population of South-West will be grateful if a statement is made in connection with the position. Then there is a second matter. We have gone through the war and we are now where we are and I would like to associate myself with the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) that where persons who are a danger to the State are still being detained there exists no necessity for any longer keeping harmless and innocent internees at our expense. Surely it is no longer necessary any longer to detain peace-loving and honourable citizens at our expense in the camps. I can see no necessity for it. Then I want to ask whether meatless days could not be abolished altogether. Surely there is no necessity for any longer maintaining such a restriction. In South-West Africa there are at present according to official returns 35,000 head of cattle available for slaughtering purposes. The export quota to the Union is only 1,000 per week and a further thousand may be slaughtered at Walvis Bay, making 2,000 per week. It will therefore require almost 20 weeks to slaughter out the 35,000 cattle. The position in South-West is that almost half of the country is stricken by drought and at present the drought is so bad that many people say that it is worse than it was in 1933, and pasturage is very much limited and any stock intended for slaughtering purposes which could be removed from South-West Africa would make pasturage available for the drought-stricken areas. That is why I make an appeal to the Government to give South-West an opportunity to send out such stock. Some time ago when we had a great meat shortage in the Union South-West assisted readily and all the available stock which they had and even stock which was not in a condition to be slaughtered were exported to the Union. They were even prepared to despatch stock to the abattoirs at Durban, East London, Maritzburg and Port Elizabeth which was very disadvantageous to them because the cattle had to remain longer in the trains and lost more weight and received low grading. Where those people helped us in our need I want to appeal to the Government to assist them who are in need. We ask you to take the 35,000 cattle off their hands as soon as possible. The southern portion of the territory is experiencing a drought such as is not known to the present generation and it deserves the earnest attention of the Government. Then there is another matter. In the course of discussions yesterday it was disclosed that the Deputy General Manager of Railways has been appointed a member of the Directorate of Iscor. I do not refer to his connection with the railways but to the appointment of that person to the Directorate of Iscor. Voices were raised from all sides of the House continuously against the appointment of officials who retire on pension to other profitable Government positions. Here we now have the case of an official having more than 40 years service with the railways and in later years drew a considerable remuneration. The railways thought it well to retain him two years longer than provided by the law two years beyond his age of retirement. Now he is appointed as Director of Iscor. If he had any particular technical qualifications one would have said something in favour of it but he had an ordinary railway clerical training, he possesses no particular ability or qualifications above thousands of other people in the country for the position. He is retiring on a pension of approximately £2,000 and now receives another profitable post. That is bad enough but what is even worse is that the profitable post is offered to him four months before he retired from the railway service. We feel that it is a very unhealthy thing to follow such a policy. We feel that it will have an unhealthy effect in general. In the railways service there are at present three senior officials who have to retire from the service at the same time, viz. the General Manager, who is 60 years of age, the Deputy General Manager who is 62 years of age and the Assistant General Manager (technical) who is 60 years of age. One of the three is selected for a position on the Directorate of Iscor, namely the man who is 62 years of age.

What has that to do with this Bill.

The General Manager has also accepted a position as a Director of another company. It is however a transport utility company, but also in his case it takes place four months before his retirement. That is the result of the bad example set by the Government and it causes much concern in the country. I realise that the Minister of Finance has no authority over that matter but it proves where the policy pursued by the Government is going to appoint officials occupying high positions to other positions. Here we have a man who is already two years past the retiring age and who draws a pension of £2,000 and he is appointed by the Government to another profitable post. As if our country is so bankrupt that we are unable to find a director for Iscor except a retired official! This policy can be carried too far and we feel that the Government is going too far to appease old officials and at old last to give them consolation. The country has enough qualified men and the country has the material of experience and technically trained people. Why should the policy always be followed of appointing old officials? It is generally deprecated. There is not the slightest reason for it. If the person still had any particular quality or technical ability one would be able still to understand it, but he only knows of railways and has had no other training. He is appointed to the directorate of Iscor.

But he is a very good S.A.P.

The Assistant General Manager (Technical) at least has knowledge of technical matters, but here a man is appointed without the knowledge who has already been retained two years over his retiring age. He must receive consolation and be placed on the directorate of Iscor four months before leaving the railway service. We feel that the Government is now going too far with this policy, and we must register our strong protest against it, and I trust that the Government will now call a halt in connection with this kind of action.

Something has been said here to which I just want to reply, namely, that in a certain case I was supposed to have ordered that there should be no prosecution or that I gave an instruction in that regard. That is not so at all. There was a case, I think in connection with the Good Hope Hostel or something of that nature which occurred in the time when Mr; Madeley was still the Minister who had to do with it, and it was later transferred to Mr. Lawrence who handed the whole matter over to the Attorney-General. He investigated the matter without any interference from any side and my information is that the Attorney-General decided not to prosecute. As far as I am concerned there was no question whatever of any pressure being exercised on the Attorney-General.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a few words. A charge was made or it may be thought that a charge was made against Mr. J. T. Thompson, who is an organiser of our Party here in Cape Town. Mr. Thompson is the secretary of the Party in Cape Town and I am the treasurer. I have worked with Mr. Thompson for something like 30 years, and Mr. Speaker, I have always found Mr. Thompson a thorough, upright gentleman. He has done very good work and he certainly has no connection with any other society. Of that I am perfectly certain and I say that he would be the last man to default with any other person’s money.

I do not intend entering into the matter referred to by the hon. member. I have no personal knowledge of it.

The hon. member said that Mr. Thompson had nothing to do with another society. They have now telephoned him and he has admitted that he was the secretary of the society about which I spoke.

As far as my information goes he was in fact the secretary but in so far as there was any complaint against him it was merely a case of negligence.

I agree with that.

There was no suggestion of his having embezzled money.

I agree with that.

I am glad that we at least have clarity as far as that goes. The House will not expect a protracted reply from me to the debate. Many of the points referred to here could better have been dealt with in Committee of Supply and several of the points were indeed dealt with there. Therefore I do not propose entering into the particular points which affect other departments, and I want to confine myself mainly to points with financial implications. For example I do not want to go into the matter of the Press which was raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I am sure he does not expect it from me. At this stage however it is a matter which could be left to the hon. member and the different Press organs. I want to limit myself especially to a few points of finance, and in the first place to what has been said by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) who excused himself for not being able to wait for my reply. His speech contained two points of somewhat general importance, and one related to the sale of our gold, especially in the light of the recent arrangement for an increased selling price. There are two points to which I must refer in this regard. The one is the basis of the new price determination in respect of our gold. The price has now been fixed at 172s. 3d. for one year, as from 1st January. I say that in reply to the question in connection with the period. As far as the basis is concerned I want to say that the price of 172s. 3d. is somewhat higher than we would receive if we were able to send our gold directly to New York at pre-war freight rates and insurance charges. From that it appears that the price is fairly favourable to us.

How can it be cheaper than sending gold direct?

Because under war conditions gold is not conveyed by ordinary channels. There is for example the British Fleet. We are able to transport cheaper that way. It has been said that England has made money on our gold but the conditions should be taken into account. They had losses also.

The insurance surely remains insurance.

We as the Union Government ordinarily do not contribute to insurance funds. They as in our case bear it themselves and therefore we get a part of the benefit of the favourable way in which gold is transported. But I repeat that the price which is being paid is higher than the price would be if we exported our gold direct by the ordinary channels to New York at pre-war freight and insurance rates. The second question of the hon. member was whether where two million to three million pounds were going to the gold industry it will not have a large inflationary effect. The major portion of the money will not go to the gold industry. The major portion will go to the Exchequer for strenghtening our loan funds in the form of gold realisation charges, and on the portion which goes to the gold industry the usual taxes will be levied. It will therefore have no appreciable inflationary effect. The major portion will go to the Exchequer because as hon. members will remember an arrangement was made last year in terms of which we were paying back to the mining industry the gold realisation charges in connection with increased wages for native labourers. But it was purely of a temporary nature. It was at that time made clear that it was of a temporary nature and the legislation required in that connection was of a temporary nature. Provision therefore was made in the Finance Act of last year and the provision was clearly made of force for one year only. The position now is that the gold industry is receiving a higher price for gold and the necessity of Government assistance in connection with the matter now lapses. Thus the gold realisation charges are no longer being paid over to the gold industry for that purpose. As far as the future is concerned I may merely point out that the gold realisation account has developed in a somewhat exceptional manner, but that it was considered as a temporary addition to the taxation system as far as the gold mines were concerned. Hon. members may perhaps remember that in my first Budget speech in 1940 I so amended the system of gold mining taxation that it would produce the same amount as was produced on the so-called Havenga basis, and only after the Budget had been submitted and almost passed did we make an arrangement as a result of which the Bank of England assumed responsibility in connection with the gold realisation charges which saved us that amount. We then said that the whole Budget would be thrown out of gear if the mines were to receive that money and therefore it was simply considered as additional taxation. As hon. members know we intend appointing a committee to go into the whole question of our gold mining taxation. As a matter of fact the committee has already been appointed. In Another Place some time ago I announced the personnel of the committee but as far as I know—and the hon. member for Beaufort-West may take notice—no mention was made of it either in “Die Burger” or in the “Cape Times”. Apparently neither of them considered it of any importance. The committee consists of Dr. Holloway, Secretary for Finance; Mr. Slade, Commissioner for Inland Revenue, Mr. Donald, Government Mining Engineer, Mr. West, an official in the office of the Government Mining Engineer and Mr. Thoms of the Department of Inland Revenue who will also act as secretary. The committee has been constituted on the same basis as that of ten years ago.

I am glad Mr. John Martin is not on it.

It is an inter-departmental committee consisting of officials, and a person such as that referred to by the hon. member may put his views before that committee. The gold realisation charges are therefore part of our system of taxation. From the nature of the matter it cannot be considered a permanent part in view of its history, but the whole matter is being reviewed and it is part of the committee’s duties to review it. It is therefore clear that it is not possible for us to use the gold realisation charges for other purposes such as the encouragement of the development and the working of low grade ore or as compensation for miners’ phthisis sufferers as advocated by the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) and the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) or for increasing wages as advocated by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). The other important matter which was raised by the hon. member for Ceres and to which several other hon. members returned was the question put by him: “What has been the result of South Africa’s participation in the war?” He was somewhat pessimistic in his reply but I expect that his pessimism at this moment will be given the lie to by the facts just as his pessimism was belied during the war. I will not react to the points mentioned by him but only give my own reply to the question of what was the result to South Africa of our participation in the war. In the first place South Africa made an important contribution, a contribution out of all proportion to the size of South Africa, towards the liberation of the world from the catastrophe of Nazi hegemony. In the second place, as a result of our participation in the war our honour and prestige in the outside world have risen tremendously. The hon. member for Ceres went so far as to say that South Africa has been humiliated by the Prime Minister’s aciton at San Francisco. No, there is nobody who has ever done so much to raise the name of South Africa as the Hon. the Prime Minister. Further I want to say this, as a result of our participation in the war South Africa has been strengthened internally. When I say that I have in mind the manner in which our resources, especially in the industrial sphere, have been expanded. There was great industrial development during the war, We cannot expect to retain everything which we have obtained in that respect, but we have undoubtedly made considerable progress which will be to the benefit of our country until far into the future. In the human sphere we have also developed. I have in mind those who took part in the war and are returning ….

Or who fell.

Yes, the hon. member for Ceres also spoke about the tragic side of the war. I associate myself with his remarks. But as far as those are concerned who are able to return happy I want to say that the war has brought a widening of points of view and has also promoted a spirit of co-operation. Those who have suffered together, who have fought together and who have worked together in the war have thereby developed a spirit of co-operation. I am glad that the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) in this regard spoke as he did. I expect that a strengthening will also result from that as far as our activities in the time of peace which lies ahead are concerned. Fourthly there is something which has resulted from our participation in the war, and it is the development of a deep feeling amongst the nation as a whole with regard to the necessity of social welfare work. I say without any fear of contradiction that the people of South Africa today realise much more that it is necessary to tackle those problems to which the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has referred than was previously the case. The hon. member for Ceres said that we did much during the war but especially for the non-Europeans. Well, Mr. Speaker, the non-Europeans form the poorest section of our population and one would expect them to receive a considerable part of such welfare extension. No, we have done much not only for the Europeans but for the whole population during the war. Even in these estimates—it is said that we are doing nothing—there is an increase of £2¼ million for social services and we intend doing much more. We are continuing in that direction and I agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch that the extension of those services, the improvement of health services, social security and all such matters is the best antidote for Communism. Therefore those things should also be done in connection with the non-European portion of the population to which the hon. member for Stellenbosch has referred.

Then you agree that Communism is a danger?

Naturally; I am not a Communist. I do not want to see South Africa becoming a Communist state. It applies to all of us. But I say again that the best antidote is to continue in that direction to which I have just referred. No, South Africa has no reason to regret its participation in the war. We have followed the right cause and we have come out of it with honour. I will not enter into the other points raised by the hon. member for Stellenbosch but where he made some remarks on the general taxation policy of the Government, although it is something with which I have frequently dealt, I must briefly return to it. Some of the assertions made by my hon. friend were somewhat exaggerated and this is one of them. He said: The Minister of Finance has been convicted by his taxation policy; he has made impossible any expansion of industry! On a previous occasion I referred to the figures relating to the registration of companies. I have referred to the fact that last year was a record year, viz. 1944. But what has now happened since that time? I have here something which appeared in the “Cape Times” some days ago but apparently not in “Die Burger” although I must in fairness say that it was not a S.A.P.A. report, but a report by a correspondent of the “Cape Times”. The report which appeared was based of information supplied by the Companies Office in Pretoria and from it it appears that during the first five months of the year 663 companies had been registered with a total capital exceeding £21,000,000. Last year was a record year and the figure was 557 registrations of companies for the whole year. The people who are now so heavily taxed and who are now so careful with their money and who are so reluctant to find money for expansion did not only last year break a record in connection with the registration of companies but during the first five months of this year they have already exceeded the record established last year.

And did they pay up a 6d. per share?

It always happens that only part is paid up, These figures are comparative figures. Also in the past only a part was paid up. It however shows that the activity is present.

It is a war phenomenon.

But the taxation is also a war phenomenon. It is a war system of taxation. In wartime this taxation did not prevent expansion, and I trust that we will not again hear that argument. Then there is one more important point at this stage. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has put me a question in connection with the future of South-West Africa. I regret that I am not yet able to give him any information in that regard. The general questions in connection with which South-West Africa has to be dealt with are still being discussed at San Francisco and I have as yet not received any definite reports on the resolutions adopted there. But I think that my hon. friend will agree that we can assume that the Prime Minister will do everything in his power to see that that question is also arranged in the best interests of South Africa.

†As I have said I do not intend to go into all the points that have been raised here this afternoon, especially as many of them really fall outside my direct scope as Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) raised the question of the abolition of the various control measures and asked what steps had been taken. The Government quite early on took steps to secure from the various departments a statement as to their views regarding which of the various control measures could disappear once the war was over. As soon as the war was over we took steps to analyse these reports, and we immediately cancelled a very considerable number of the measures. In regard to many of the measures, however, there is a difference of opinion in the departments, some departments regarding them as more important than the others, and with a view to sorting out the whole matter and to expediting the cancellation of these measures as far as we may, we have set up an Inter-departmental Committee to go into the whole question, and we expect in another month or two we shall be able to come with a further list of measures that may be cancelled. The committee will continue in the future. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) would like me to make a pronouncement on the Government’s policy in regard to the wages paid to the unskilled native labourer on the mines, and also on the migrant labour question. These are rather big questions to deal with at this stage of the Session. They are certainly not matters for a spur of the moment pronouncement, and I hope he will forgive me if I merely say they are matters that are receiving attention, and will continue to do so. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) dealt with the question of silicosis, suggesting a new method of approach. I have no doubt the Minister of Mines will be glad to give consideration to his suggestion but speaking as one not directly concerned with the silicosis question I had the feeling as he spoke, he seemed to be losing sight of the necessity for making provision for the outstanding liability of the mines.

†*Mr. Speaker, I now also want to express a few words of appreciation for everything that has been done by officials and others to facilitate the business of this Session. I would like also in this connection to express the appreciation and respect of all hon. members to you Mr. Speaker, for the manner in which you have presided at our proceedings and we thank you and those who have assisted you. I also want to associate myself with the remarks made here by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) when he expressed the hope that at the next Session there would be bettetr mutual co-operation between the Parties than was the case this year. Seen from certain aspects this Session was not a very happy one in that regard and it is no use now going into the past. But I think that we are in a position to say that this Session is closing in a good spirit and that the general feeling amongst members is a friendly one. We hope that we will meet in this spirit next year and that we may then expect better co-operation in respect of the business of this House and also in the general interests of South Africa. I am able to give my hon. friend an assurance that as far as I myself am concerned I will always be open for something of that nature. I move.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I shall be brief. I wish to associate myself with what the Acting Prime Minister has said and on behalf of this side of the House wish to express our appreciation for the impartial and dignified manner in which you, Mr. Speaker, conducted the proceedings during the past Session. With regard to the reply of the hon. Minister to the remarks made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) I just wish to tell him this. The hon. member for Stellenbosch asked what advantages South Africa had gained from the war, and the Acting Prime Minister mentioned particularly three points. In the first place he mentioned the destruction of Nazism. Quite correct; Nazism and Fascism have been destroyed, but I want to say to the Acting Prime Minister and to the House in all seriousness that whilst Nazism and Fascism have been destroyed, something else has arisen in their stead and it is a new thing which South Africa will have to deal with in the future. It is namely Communism. In the second place he said that South Africa has been strengthened internally. But I want to point out to him that as a consequence of the war policy of the Government, South Africa has been divided internally, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people have been divided by the policy pursued during the past five years. In the third place the Acting Prime Minister said that a stronger awareness of social welfare work has developed. That is quite correct, but now it is noticeable that the legislation of the Government introduced during the past Session has not kept pace with that keenness on welfare work which is developing in South Africa. Then I wish to say a few words about what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) has said here, when he appealed to the other side of the House for co-operation. I do not allude to his reference to collaboration as far as the business of the House is concerned, but co-operation in the political field. The hon. member emphasised the fact that he was speaking on his own behalf and I am glad that he did make that statement, because as regards certain views expressed by the hon. member I can assure him and the House that he did not interpret the views of this side of the House. It is easy to talk of political co-operation with the Government Party. But I want to put this question. The standpoint of every member on this side of the House is that it is not so easy to seek political collaboration with a Party which as far as capitalistic exploitation is concerned, is diametrically opposed to the standpoint of this Party. As far as imperialism and our relations with the British Empire is concerned, we represent the desire for independence and an ultimate republican government, which is diametrically opposed to the viewpoint of the other side of the House. As far as the colour question is concerned, it has been evident during this Session and during last Session that the Party on the other side is diametrically opposed to the standpoint of this side. As far as Communism is concerned it has appeared time and again in the past and on two or three occasions during the present Session that this side of the House is definitely opposed to that particular ideology, whilst the Government Party has come forward as the protector of Communism. I will admit that there may possibly be a few members on the opposite side and that there may be some of their supporters in the country who realise that our principles in that regard are the right principles. I also wish to express the hope that in due course it will be generally recognised that our standpoint is the correct one, but I want to state very clearly in order to prevent any misunderstanding, that as long as the United Party take up that attitude, particularly as far as these matters are concerned, there can be no question of political co-operation between them and us. We have seen the results of past attempts to arrange artificial political co-operation between Parties whose political views are diametrically opposed to each other. We have seen the failure it has led to and we are not prepared to attempt any artificial co-operation of that nature. The hon. member for Pietersburg also made an appeal to other Afrikaans organisations. I too feel that we would like to see the Afrikaners standing together once more, but we could not have any political collaboration with organisations whose principles are diametrically opposed to ours. As long as our friends are opposed to Parliamentarianism, as they call it, and whilst we adhere to the principles of government by the people, we cannot collaborate with them. As long as they stand for a dictatorship, there cannot possibly be any political collaboration between them and us. I think that it is necessary for me to make this statement on behalf of the Party on this side so that we may know precisely where we stand in connection with these matters. The hon. member for Pietersburg spoke on behalf of himself, but we know how the Press grabs at anything like this and attributes it to the Party as such. For that reason I have considered it necessary to make a statement on behalf of this Party, that there are fundamental differences between this side of the House and the Party opposite and in view of which general political collaboration is absolutely impossible.

I do not know what right the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has in assuming to himself the right to speak on behalf of the Party. He has just as much spoken on his own behalf as I have spoken on my behalf. I have never made an appeal for general political cooperation or fusion. I here referred to the big problems which face our people and in connection with which there is a large measure of unanimity and on that point I am quite prepared to go to the people. Where large sections of the people on all sides are agreed as to these big problems I can rightly appeal to the people to come together to solve those problems. I spoke on my own behalf and that hon. member also spoke on his own behalf. I mentioned certain problems on which we are agreed, for example Communism and I am glad that the Acting Prime Minister clearly stated that he was also opposed to Communism. I said that where we on both sides realise that Communism is a danger why should we try to humiliate and fight each other in that connection and why do we not help each other and do we not try to find each other to solve that problem. I also referred to the native problem in respect of which our leaders in the past found a solution by cooperating. I said that in connection with such problems the European population realised that it has to co-operate to maintain its position here. I referred to our industrial development. There are certain questions in respect of which I feel that we understand each other and are able to co-operate. I am convinced that the nation is prepared for such co-operation and in respect of which the people will come together whether we desire it or not. The time has arrived for us to try to understand each other. I made an appeal to those who stand aside in groups at present, such as Mr. Havenga and his followers. I would like to see him share with us the building up of our people. I also referred to Mr. Pirow’s group. They have differences with us but on the big and important questions they feel as we do and why should we drive them away. Where we have small differences with each other but are agreed on the big problems let us not notice small differences and forget where we are agreed on big matters. I made that appeal not on behalf of the Party but on my own behalf. I want to say that the hon. member also spoke on his own behalf and not on behalf of the Party. I consulted nobody but I am satisfied that the people will judge my point of view.

In connection with the Kimberley by-election I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is able to make a statement on that long outstanding by-election. Then I would also like to know from him whether he is able to make a statement on the persistent rumour in the lobbies that there will be another Session of Parliament during the second half of the year.

I am not in a position to make a statement on the by-election at Kimberley. I will ask my colleague as soon as possible to come to a decision in consultation with my colleagues. As far as a possible Session of Parliament is concerned I have already made a statement. I know of no intention of having another Session but in view of the world conditions it may perhaps be possible. I am not in a position to say anything definite. It is a matter for consideration after the return of the Prime Minister. If it should be decided to have another Session this year it will not be as early as September which has been mentioned but perhaps later in the year. At this stage I am not in a position to say anything more in that connection.

†For the rest, Mr. Speaker, there is apparently a private quarrel between two frontbench members of the Opposition.

Mr. NAUDÉ: It is not a quarrel.

And I am not enough of an Irishman to want to join in. I merely say this, that as far as the United Party is concerned, we stand firmly for certain principles.

So do we.

We are always prepared, Mr. Speaker, to co-operate with those outside our Party in the interests of South Africa. We have shown that during the war years and we will still go on showing that. I am glad that my hon. friend nods his head. We shall always be prepared to go on co-operating on that particular basis, but we shall not be prepared to surrender any of our principles.

Hear, hear!

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, in moving this motion standing in my name on the Order Paper may I perhaps just in a few minutes make one or two comments. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this motion, if agreed to by the House, will allow me to carry on with the City of Durban Savings and Housing Department (Private) Bill next Session from the stage where it is at present on the Order Paper. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the position is that this Bill has been introduced into this House both in 1942 and again during this Session. Hon. members will appreciate that being a private Bill the expense connected with its passage through the House has to be borne by the promoters of the Bill, and hon. members will also appreciate that having already been before two Select Committees of this House that the Municipality of Durban has been put to considerable expense in promoting this measure without a decision having been taken upon it by this House. That is my first reason why I ask the House to agree to this motion, and the City Council of Durban will be saved the expense of this Bill having again to be commenced de novo next Session. Secondly, I believe that there is a large body of public opinion in the city area of Durban who desire this measure. Mr. Speaker, in this country we have three forms of government. We have the Central Government, the Provincial Government and the Municipal Government, and it is not only the recognised fact but it is an elementary principle not only in those democratic institutions but in every democratic institution all over the world that the will of the people is interpreted by the majority decisions of those institutions. That being so and when one remembers that this Bill was introduced into this House at the instigation of the promoters as a result of a majority decision of 19 votes out of 24 in the City Council of Durban, then I think it is a rightful assumption to say that on that principle alone the majority of the citizens of Durban do desire this Bill to be translated into law. My last point, Mr. Speaker, is that hon. members are aware of the limited time that is placed at the disposal of private members to get private Bills or Private Members’ Bills through the House, and in view of that I do ask the House to take into consideration the question of the limited time at our disposal and the fact that the Municipality of Durban has been put to a great deal of expense and that they will support this motion which will allow me to have the honour of piloting this Bill through the House on behalf of the promoters next Session, from the stage where it was left off this Session.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Business successively suspended at 5.5 p.m. and 6.40 p.m.