I move—

For the purpose of this resolution—

1. (1) Reference of Estimates to Committee of Supply.—All Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1946-’47 which may be laid upon the Table and recommended by the Governor-General, shall stand referred to the Committee.
2. (2) Conclusion of proceedings.—At the conclusion of the period of hours allotted, any amendments (other than amendments proposed by a Minister) which have been moved but not disposed of shall drop. The Chairman shall thereupon proceed to put forthwith, without debate, any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister and thereafter only such further amendments as may be moved by a Minister and such questions, including votes, items or heads, as amended or as printed, as may be necessary to dispose of the Estimates under consideration.
   The Committee shall then proceed to consider any Estimates of Expenditure which have been referred to it but have not been considered, and the Chairman shall forthwith put the votes, items or heads in such Estimates without amendment (unless amendments are moved by a Minister) and without debate.
3. (3) Expedition of Report Stage.—The Committee shall have leave to bring up its report or reports forthwith, instead of on a future day, and such report or reports shall be considered forthwith without amendment or debate.
4. (4) Time for adjournment of House.— When business is interrupted at the conclusion of the period of hours allotted the application of Sessional Orders fixing the time for the adjournment of the House shall be postponed until the proceedings on the business interrupted have been completed.
5. (5) Dilatory motions.—At no time while the House is in Committee shall the Chairman receive a motion that the Chairman report progress or do leave the Chair, or a motion to postpone a vote, item or head unless moved by’ a Minister and the Question on such motion shall be put forthwith without debate.

I understand that this motion is the outcome of discussions which have taken place between the various parties in the House and that it expresses the general feeling of the parties.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to avail myself of one of the half-hour speeches allowed. On this Vote for External Affairs I would like to express a few more remarks in continuation of what has been said by me on this subject previously in this House. We need not dwell on it too long since we have already during the present Session expressed our criticism of the general policy of the Government, for which the Prime Minister is responsible in the first instance, namely in the full discussion we had on the motion of no confidence, and subsequently, which is also related to external affairs and the Department of the Prime Minister, we had a discussion on the membership of UNO, which was already an accomplished fact. During the debate on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply we had another discussion on foreign affairs. The Prime Minister replied to that. It is for those reasons that we do not think that on this occasion we need dwell on this subject at great length. But on the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply the Prime Minister had the last word and I think that it is necessary to come back to what he said in his reply. Not one member on this side of the House was convinced by the reply given by the Prime Minister and I doubt whether he convinced many members on his own side of the House. I think that there should rather be a feeling of sympathy for the Prime Minister in the task he tried to perform. He gave the impression of a person passing a churchyard in the evening, who has not very much courage in his own breast, who sees dangers on all sides of him but does not know from which side the danger will be coming, from the right or the left, from the front or from the rear. That is more or less the impression he created and that is why throughout his speech we heard the continuing refrain, “We must be careful”. His entire speech centred round this phrase: “Please be careful”. In other words, he knew that there were certain facts, that there were certain unpleasant facts, but he systematically refused to face those facts openly. To use another metaphor, the speech of the Prime Minister as we heard it, was an attempt such as we had in the days of the old Greeks when they were caught between two dangers, when they wanted to avoid a danger on the one side as well as another danger on the other side, and they sailed most carefully between Scylla and Charybdis. It was an attempt to steer as carefully between the two, now looking to the one side and then to the other. That was the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister with regard to the two persons for whom he had the greatest regard and whom he regarded as the leaders in the international sphere, people whom he expected to create the new world, Mr. Churchill on the one side and Stalin on the other. He did not want to offend Churchill and for that reason he took up the attitude that although I quoted Mr. Churchill’s words, very clear and unequivocal words, which cannot be given two meanings, those words did have a meaning, but not the meaning they have. We were supposed to have put words into Mr. Churchill’s mouth which he did not use, or which he did not use in that way or which he did not mean that way. In that way he tried to avoid the difficulty on that side and on the other side, that Stalin did not really mean any harm. There is not really any danger from Stalin’s side, but there is danger for Stalin. In that way he tried to patch up things with words. Russia is surrounded by dangers from all sides. Russia feels, in spite of its power and in spite of its territorial position in that it cannot be surrounded, that it is a country which is actually exposed to dangers and for that reason it had to provide for its safety in a wide circle beyond its boundaries. When I asked him whether the countries through which danger could come to. Russia also included Iran, well, what reply did the Prime Minister give? He gave a reply, but I still do not understand it. How on earth can danger threaten Russia through Iran—and that is where the danger for the peace of the world lies at the moment —how could Russia be threatened by an attack through Iran? It could not come from Germany, if Germany should rise again; and when will it rise again? It cannot come from Italy. It cannot come from Turkey. How is Turkey going to attack Russia through Iran? It can only come from America and from England. Those are the only countries who could be a danger to Russia there. No, I think the Prime Minister wanted an excuse. The Prime Minister was merely trying to sail in between. He admits the facts but he does not want to take those facts into account and he resents it when we face those things squarely. He does see danger somewhere, that is true. He told us more than once, most emphatically; the world is in a turmoil; great dangers are threatening. When I asked him to tell us more clearly whence the danger may come, what was his reply? Well, that we cannot tell. Time will show. The whole point is this that he makes certain statements himself but he does not want us to make those statements. He resents it if we make those statements. It is like a man walking along the road and somebody saying to him: Mind, there is a bomb in the road; there is danger; but please do not mention this because the bomb may explode. But he himself talks, he shouts: Take care! That is more or less the impression created by the Prime Minister. The conclusion we come to is that we cannot really take his speech and his exposition of the world situation seriously. The Prime Minister is, as I take his attitude to be, definitely pessimistic and there is good reason for being pessimistic over the world situation generally; but I do think he still has a sufficient sense of humour so that, if he reads his own speech in Hansard, he will burst into laughter over it.

There are certain outstanding facts, I think, in connection with the international situation which we dare not ignore. They practically and actually determine the whole matter. The first is that Russia is today taking advantage of the circumstance that there is in the world today a war tiredness. There is naturally a war tiredness on the part of the United States and England and on the part of all the other countries and to a certain extent on the part of Russia. I accept that. And because there is a war exhaustion Russia knows that a war against her will not easily be started. Now she is taking advantage of this situation by presenting the world and the Western Powers with an accomplished fact every time. She did that with Poland; she did that with Finland; she did that with the Baltic States; she did that with a few of the other small countries on her borders, and she is now doing that with Iran. She is taking advantage of the war exhaustion in the world by simply presenting the world with accomplished facts. That is something, I think, which cannot be denied. The second point is this. I think it is a most important aspect of the world situation today that what becomes of Europe and what becomes of the world, to a very large extent depends upon what becomes of Germany, because Germany lies in the heart of Europe. I am not only referring to the economic field. Germany was a large and important link, as far as production and consumption are concerned, in the economic life of Europe and the world. It must affect the world detrimentally if Germany were to go under completely. But the worst of all is this, that if Germany becomes communistic and who will say that the danger does not exist of Germany becoming communistic—if the propaganda which is made there does not bring it to that state, there is starvation, there are the millions who will starve and who will clutch on to anything for salvation, be that what it may—if Germany becomes communistic then I ask what is there to save Europe from a wave of Communism. Nothing on earth can do that. My contention was, and still is, that the Western Powers yielded to pressure from Russia to bring Germany into this position. They yielded to such pressure and accordingly they are today co responsible for the position in which Germany has been placed. It would have been far better, as I have said, to have tried to make peace in such a way that Germany could also live in future.

The other matter I want to mention here is something in regard to which I uttered a warning two years ago. I have done so again this session. I said that in view of the course of events and the policy now being pursued, which Churchill called the “policy of appeasement” on the part of Chamberlain—always yield for the sake of the dear peace—that this policy would result in a position where peace will be obtained but at whose expense? Not at the expense of the big nations, but at the expense of the small nations. They would have to pay for the peace. We see that in Iran. Iran is a small nation. I mention Iran as a striking example. It is a sphere of influence. The Prime Minister himself intimated in his reply that Russia wanted security, and for that reason she had the right to take measures in a wide circle beyond its borders, including Iran, to protect its security. How does she do that? Simply by interfering with the affairs of Iran, simply by keeping its troops there, notwithstanding a solemn undertaking to withdraw them. And what appears now —they do not hide the fact—is that not only do they want to establish communism there but they have an eye on the oilfields. That is stated openly. Russia is claiming what it considers to be its rightful share of the oilfields there. Very fine for Russia but what about Iran? What about the small nations? The matter boils down to this, that the peace of the world could possibly be preserved, but the world is divided into spheres of influence in which the large Powers do just what they like in their spheres of influence. Others do not concern themselves about it. It is a costly peace, a peace paid for with the rights of the small nations. I do not want to go any further into that.

I want to express my satisfaction, however over one thing which the Prime Minister said in his speech and which should not be forgotten, and I hope that it will not be forgotten, namely, that if any trouble should arise in the immediate or distant future, we shall not be committed by him to take part in a war. That is recorded, and we will insist on that. Now I just want to say that what is being done now is a dangerous thing. According to reports, discussions will be held in which the Union will also be involved and in which the question of armaments will be discussed. One can sometimes commit one’s country, not directly, but indirectly, to take part in a war, and we rely upon what the Prime Minister has said that South Africa will in no way be committed by him to take part in a war, and that we will not be committed in any other way. The war which is generally in the minds of everybody now is, as I have said, a war which will place South Africa in a most peculiar position. Our danger will not lie in the first instance overseas, but here in this country, and our duty is to see to it that the peace is maintained here in South Africa, and that our European civilisation here in South Africa is safeguarded. That is our task, and it is a task which will require all our strength in future.

Now just a few words in connection with the solution suggested by the Minister of Finance in connection with this matter in a speech made by him recently in Johannesburg. Well, I respect the Minister of Finance, although I differ from him entirely, for being consistent and for not flinching from the most extreme logical conclusions of his standpoint, whatever the consequences may be. The extreme logical conclusion amounts to this, that he wants all colour bars to be removed, that the white race in this country regards itself to be in a particular position and to have a particular task to perform in our country, as the Voortrekkers always viewed the matter, but that that is nothing but prejudice. The Minister of Finance says that this prejudice should disappear. All the trouble here in South Africa arises from this prejudice. Now I ask you what will immediately be the result amongst the non-European population? The Minister says that the European population is afflicted with prejudice. The European population is the culprit, and one should fight this prejudice. The non-European will take up the attitude that they as nonEuropeans should stand together in order to fight this prejudice, and one can imagine that the Indians came to the Minister of Finance subsequently and said to him: We have a battle to wage now; come and lead us into battle. That is quite a justified conclusion to which they have come.

With regard to the further remedy suggested by him, I also want to say a few words. The Minister of Finance says that we should have a world government. The fault does not lie only with the colour prejudice, but that is the fault, the root of the trouble. It lies in the nationalism of the peoples. It must disappear. The extreme logical conclusion of his contention is: “Away with separate nationalities; have one nation, one government in the world.” All I can say about that is that the anti-nationalism, this liberalism of the Minister of Finance, if taken to its logical conclusion, is a reductio ad absurdum. You will be kicking out of the back door the troubles of the world, war and strife amongst the peoples, and it will come in by the front door. This is a hopeless solution which is being suggested. The Minister of Finance, in his reply to the Budget debate, concluded by speaking first in Latin and then in Greek. Well, according to the doctrine preached by him in Johannesburg, I think that next time he will not only speak Latin and Greek, but he will end in Volapuk and Esperanto. That is the ultimate and logical conclusion of his standpoint. Apart from any other measures which could be taken to perpetuate world peace, the most important fact, after all, is that the spirit of the world is sick. If it was sick before, it has become infinitely more sick during the war, as a result of the war. The road to the preservation of the peace of the world and our civilisation lies in the rebirth of mankind and the awakening of the Christian conscience. That is the main thing. It is no longer a matter of Europe and the Western civilisation dying and the world degenerating into barbarism. It has degenerated into barbarism. That has become a fact in Europe, but this is not the first time that Europe falls back into barbarism. Originally it was a barbarous land and what uplifted it and brought about the position which it ultimately reached, was its rebirth through the acceptance of Christianity. That uplifted it from barbarism and that is today the only salvation for the world. Science has made vast progress, but while science has advanced, human civilisation, the ethical life of man, has not kept pace with the progress of science, and therefore science has not remained a blessing for man, but it has become a danger to him, as we can see in the newspapers every day. What is necessary is that mankind should once again be brought to the state of being able to keep pace with science. For that reason I want, in conclusion, to condense the matter to this point: that I think that we should stop fostering a war consciousness in our own country. As a small nation we should show a different spirit here from the spirit which is still evident in Europe. It is our calling not to take part in any war again but as a small nation to set an example to other nations. The hon. the Prime Minister has allowed mud to be thrown at the church continually in our country, also from the ranks of his own Cabinet. The church has a great task to perform. Everything depends upon the church. But his Minister of Lands, as I have said before, is incessantly throwing mud at the church.

No.

There should be the closest collaboration between the State and the church. Both have their duty towards the people, and the main duty of the church is to awaken the consciences of the nations of the world and to educate the nations in the Christian principles in which alone lies the salvation of the world.

I would like to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether he is in a position today to give any further information to the House in connection with the strike on the Witwatersrand. You will recall that the Government, that the hon. the Prime Minister informed us the other day that they sent a delegation to the Rand to try and arrange a settlement between the two parties. I am basing my remarks on what I have learnt from the Press, but it appears to me that instead of negotiating with the two parties and finding out what the proposals of both parties were, in order to see whether a settlement could be reached —as I understand they were practically instructed to do—these two men, instead of doing that, according to the Press, did not go to both parties to learn their proposals for an immediate settlement, but these two men went along and tried to dictate their conditions to the strikers which, of course, immediately, instead of calming their feelings, made the feelings run higher. My humble opinion is that the conditions proposed by Mr. Walker for the termination of the strike amount to nothing else but unconditional surrender—the strikers should concede everything, they should simply draw in their horns and subject themselves without definite conditions. They should go back and then an investigation would be held. And what if the investigation should continue for a fortnight or fourteen months or a year? Nothing was said about that. In the meantime feelings would continue to run high. How can they be expected to go back now on such terms which mean nothing else than a complete victory for the people against whom they are complaining? Those are not the kind of conditions under which one can bring about a reconciliation between the two sections. I want to know and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to state why Mr. Walker did not go along and ask the strikers outright: What are the conditions under which you are prepared to go back to work immediately? The conditions could then be made known. Why was it not put to the two parties: Strikers, what do you want; under what conditions will you go back tomorrow? And the conditions could then be made known, instead of dictating conditions to them. The proposals of both parties could then have been sent to the Prime Minister and could have been made known to the people and to Parliament. Then we would have known at once where we stood. I do not think the House got the impression, when the Prime Minister told us that he had sent these two men there, that they went with instructions to dictate conditions. The object of the mission was not to dictate conditions. It would immediately have created a better spirit if the conditions under which the men are prepared to resume their work had béen made known to the people and this House. We would then have been in the position to judge who was right. Then public opinion and the House of Assembly and the Government could have seen at once which side was morally right and which side was morally quite wrong. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister is able to give us further information. I hope that the Hon. the Prime Minister will make use of this opportunity to let these two gentlemen know that he wants a reconciliation and not a dictation of conditions. The other day I suggested something and I want to put it clearly once more. In his speech the Hon. the Prime Minister gave us to understand that if the matter took a more serious turn, the Government would be compelled to step in. But if the Government wants to do the right thing it would step in early before the matter takes a serious turn and before there can be any serious and far-reaching consequences. This is the second time that I am making this plea. My manner may not be perfect, but if anybody says that my proposal is not perfect then I ask any other man to come along with a better plan. My proposal is that the Government should step in immediately and say: We feel entitled under the powers we have, trade union or not, to intervene. Because it concerns thousands of people whose bread depends upon the wages which they are now losing. The industry is also being dislocated. In my opinion the Government is perfectly entitled to intervene. No one is a greater believer in the principle of trade unionism than I am, but there is also the democratic right of all sections of the population and that right is above any other right. And I contend that these men have democratic rights to which they are entitled. Then I also want to draw the attention of the Hon. the Prime Minister to the fact that the so-called registered constitution which is supposed to prohibit an election was framed in the absence of 8,000 men from the industry. It was framed without their knowledge. The constitution was registered under war conditions for a definite purpose and the executive which today is still in office under this constitution, is protected by it. They may perhaps be kept in this position for a very long time. We are definitely convinced of the fact that now the majority of the mineworkers are not on the side of the executive. I suggest once more and I ask the Government once more not to allow this matter to develop. If these two gentlemen do not achieve their purpose and if the expectations which we had for a speedy settlement are not realised, the Hon. the Prime Minister should send two other men because there are men who are able to do it and who will bring about a settlement. But I ask the Hon. the Prime Minister not to allow the matter to develop. I understand that unofficially the assurance has already been given by the Chamber of Mines that the closed shop agreement will not be set aside. It looks rather suspicious to me and it seems to me as if that is the only means upon which the present executive is still relying. In the first place they rely on the constitution which they regard as so holy that they would rather see the whole industry dislocated and people losing their wages, but the constitution must be hallowed. It is a constitution which never received the approval of the majority of the mineworkers. It was drafted without their approval whilst 8,000 men were absent. I trust that the Prime Minister will give attention to this matter and that he will take notice of my humble advice to him. I hope that the Prime Minister will realise that, I think I am correct in saying this, every member of this House feels sympathetic towards the strikers. I hope that there will not be one member here who will say that he does not sympathise with these men and that he does not think that their demands are reasonable. I hear nobody protesting, all the members are accepting it by remaining silent, and I hope that the Prime Minister will also regard this as a test. I ask the Prime Minister to go out of his way in view of the reasonable demands of the men, to see that they shall have an election for a new executive which is not allowed under the present constitution. I hope that the Prime Minister will not allow this constitution which was created for war purposes to stand in the way any longer. I plead in all seriousness and I ask the Government to give due consideration to this matter and if no settlement is reached today, that the Government will immediately recall the two gentlemen, because I am afraid that if they continue in the way they have done during the past few days, then instead of bringing about a settlement they will create misapprehension in the mind of the Prime Minister and will cause him to take steps which will not be founded on the best advice he could obtain if he had sent the right people who were without prejudice and who would have asked both parties what their demands were. The two parties must be asked to state their demands clearly. Instead of doing that, I am afraid that the method has been adopted of dictating conditions and that must have the wrong effect.

It is today a week ago that the strike on the Rand started. On Tuesday when the matter was brought before the House I expressed the hope that the Government and the Prime Minister would intervene before a dangerous situation developed and I uttered a warning in view of what happened in 1921 when the policy was adopted of allowing things to develop. Now I want to say candidly that I feel upset and afraid about the fact that this strike has continued for a week now and I fear that the same policy is being pursued by allowing things to develop. The Hon. the Prime Minister should realise by this time that it is not a question of a section of the mineworkers revolting against the tyranny of the Mineworkers’ Union. It is very clear that if no steps are taken in connection with this strike and the rightful demands of these men are not granted, within a few days 100 per cent. of the workers will be out on strike. There is only one way of stopping this and that is for the Government to intervene and enforce an election. Then the strike will immediately cease. That is the only point at issue, and these people want an election and they do not want to be subject to the tyranny of people who have no right to be in that position. I was told by somebody who is in close touch with the trade union, that it is nearly eight years ago since the last election for the executive and the paid officials was held. This is a state of affairs which cannot be tolerated and I want to express the hope therefore, that when the Prime Minister rises to give us information he will also tell us that he will take immediate steps to put an end to this state of affairs. Can the Prime Minister imagine what will happen if everything on the Rand was to come to a stop and a few hundred thousand natives were to be let loose? That is the danger which is threatening and one never knows what the consequences may be. For that reason I say once again that the Prime Minister should take action immediately and put an end to the strike. He should make use of his power and cause an election to be held immediately for the executive and for the paid officials of the Mineworkers’ Union. Further I just wish to express the hope that when the Prime Minister replies to what the Leader of the Opposition has said here, he will take due notice of the serious words spoken by him this morning and that he will reply with equal seriousness and that as far as the dangerous world situation is concerned, he will not try to throw dust in our eyes, but that he will face the dangerous situation squarely and will tell us what his own standpoint is and what he hopes to do to avert this dangerous situation. We insist upon this in view of the fact that he will shortly be going overseas and will find himself in circles where he is considered to speak with authority. That brings me to the Imperial conference which will be held shortly. I shall be glad if the Prime Minister would tell the House in more or less clear terms what generally is included in the agenda of the Imperial conference, what will be done there precisely, because South Africa is very much interested in it. The resolutions taken at the Imperial conference may be of the utmost importance as far as our future is concerned. In the first place there is the political aspect. During the years which have gone by South Africa has, notwithstanding the restraining efforts of the Prime Minister in the past to check this development, together with other parts of the British Empire developed towards ever greater and greater independence and the fact that England has during recent years and particularly during the war years declined tremendously as a major power, must necessarily result in giving a further impetus towards this development of ever greater independence of South Africa and the other Dominions. Now, we know that the Imperialists, and I think that the Prime Minister does not take second place to any imperialist in the world, will do everything in their power to keep together the weakening bonds which join the various parts of the British Commonwealth and which bind them to the British Crown and consequently to the British Empire, that they will do everything in their power to check this process of weakening and to prevent an ultimate and total severance. And I have not the least doubt that at this Imperial conference the representatives of the various members of the British Empire who are imbued with this ideal, this ideal of a strong and mighty Empire, will make every effort to achieve this process and for that reason I say that we in South Africa and especially we on this side of the House who very definitely do not take up the same attitude as the Prime Minister towards the British Empire as such, feel that it is of the greatest interest for us to know what is going to be done in this connection. It is not only the political aspect of the matter. There is also the economic aspect. The two are most closely related. The British Empire stands as a political entity; its continued existence one, can almost say, depends in the first instance, on the economic strength which emanates from England. If we are committed economically in such a way that our interests are detrimentally affected, in order to provide England with props which in recent times she has been losing, then we on this side of the House must lodge the strongest protest and I am here concerned particularly with the efforts which the British Ministers make not the slightest attempt to hide and that is to regain their weakened economic position by re-establishing their export markets. One can understand that. One cannot blame them for that. It is only natural that they would try to do that because the very survival of England as a major power is largely dependent upon her regaining her overseas trade, because unless she regains the large income she derived from her overseas investments before the war which amounted to thousands of millions of pounds, England cannot continue to be a major power. She can regain that position only to a large extent at the expense of the economic development of countries such as South Africa. The industrial development of countries such as South Africa and Australia, practically all countries in which England has large investments and over whose trade she has a strong hold, the economic growth and the rise to power of those countries have been tremendously impeded in the past—there is not the least doubt of that—on account of the fact that they had to serve as markets for British manufactured goods and that they had to serve as sources for raw materials for the factories of England. If South Africa and these other countries which are today markets for the factories of England—they are also markets for other countries but I am concerned at the moment with England—if they developed industrially by building up their own industries and were to that extent to buy less from England’s factories, then it is obvious that if they developed and to that extent bought less in proportion to their development, that it would be to the disadvantage of the industrial power of England and therefore the danger is always this— and we have experienced it time and again in the past when we have pleaded for industrial protection — that from England quite apart from what the Government in South Africa does itself, that from England and especially behind the scenes all kinds of attempts are made to check the industrial development of a country such as South Africa. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, reference has been made to the strike proceeding on the Witwatersrand, and I would like to express to the Prime Minister the view that members in this House should not say anything to harden the hearts of the leaders of the strikers, so as to prevent them from being prepared to consider a compromise. We are faced with a position now that one of the complaints that have been made has already been conceded. The Mineworkers’ Union has accepted Mr. Ivan Walker’s proposal to submit themselves to a Commission of Enquiry into affairs, and even to control, and if need be to an election, but that proposal has apparently been turned down at the moment by the strikers, who seem to be concerned not so much with the affairs of the union, not so much with the question as to whether the union is being properly administered, but with the question of an immediate election, so that some of their friends can secure office.

You let the cat out of the bag there.

I hope that nothing that is said in this House will be intended to influence the miners not to compromise.

I briefly want to touch upon another matter. I do not propose to pursue this question of international affairs raised by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, beyond saying that it is gratifying to listen to the statement which he made about the position in Germany. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that if Communism were to spread in Germany, it would be due not to propaganda, but to hunger, and in that regard he has accepted at last the principle enunciated by the Prime Minister the other day when we were told about the menace of Communism in South Africa, and the Prime Minister rightly stated that if Communism were to spread in this country, it would be mainly due to economic conditions, and our failure to deal with those conditions. I hope that in applying that principle to Germany, the Leader of the Opposition will also be prepared to apply it to the Union. He also asked the Prime Minister to make a statement about a speech that was made some days ago by the Hon. Minister of Finance in Johannesburg, a speech which was not only read by me with great pleasure, but which I think a large proportion of the population read with great pleasure. The only question we are concerned about is what we are doing to further the ideals and principles enunciated by the Minister of Finance and how we are going to square those ideals with the proposed Asiatic legislation coming before the House next week.

I particularly want to ask the Prime Minister two other questions he will have to deal with when he goes overseas, some of which he has already discussed in the Union. In the first instance I want to touch on the refugee problem. We in South Africa, like other members of the United Nations, have the responsibility to do something towards solving the refugee problems in the world. There are two issues. Firstly, what are we going to do with these refugees already in the Union, and secondly what are we going to do in order to assist UNO in disposing of some of the refugees who cannot go back to the countries from which they came? Australia, Canada and Britain have already made declarations on much more liberal lines than we are applying in South Africa. They have made statements in favour of those refugees already in their countries remaining there, and indicated that they are prepared to assist refugees coming to their countries who at any rate have relatives or friends to look after them. I am sure the Prime Minister will have to deal with these matters to some extent in London, and I hope he will give an indication to the country that we will pursue a more liberal policy in that connection than we did in the past. An instance arose only a few days ago in which Mr. Bevin made a statement about the position of such of the Polish soldiers in England who fought for the Allies and who were not prepared to go back to Poland in view of conditions existing there today. We are faced with a similar problem on a minor scale. There are a number of Polish soldiers who were demobilised in the Union, and I think it is desirable that the Prime Minister should indicate that they will be allowed to remain in the Union if they do not wish to go back to Poland.

The other point flowing from this is the general question of immigration. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has recently made some statements on the subject of immigration which I think have been welcomed by all progressive elements in the Union, but some of those statements were somewhat nullified by other statements made by the Minister of the Interior. We all agree that our soldiers have a prior claim, but I for one believe that the opening of the doors of the Union to immigration will not prejudice the position of our soldiers. On the contrary, it will create further facilities and opportunities. It will stimulate markets, and assist trade and industry. But there is another aspect of it which I would like to put to the Prime Minister, a matter which again he will probably have to deal with in London. We have recently been seeing figures of the birth-rate in Natal, and we are told that Natal is in danger of becoming an Indian province. The same thing applies to the other parts of South Africa. I venture to say that when we get the report of the Census Department, which is about to embark upon a population census, we will find that the European population in the country is decreasing day by day, proportionately to the non-European population, and I venture to say that unless we give effect to the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister to open the doors of South Africa to immigration, the European population will go down in a sea of colour. It may not happen today, or in ten or twenty years, but ultimately that must be the fate of the Union. I would like the Prime Minister to give an assurance to this House and to the country that effect will be given to the excellent declarations which he made, and that we will have more tangible steps and fewer statements in future.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister wants to reply immediately, but if not, I should like to bring to his notice another matter with which he can deal in his reply. This is a delicate matter, and I want to deal with it as such, but at the same time I want to sound a note of warning. I refer to the invitation which was extended by the Prime Minister to the King and the Royal Family to visit South Africa in February next year. Let me say at once that, as far as I understand the views of the pro-Republican section of our nation— and it is a very large section—the position is this: South Africa has a history of her own, and the position is that this proRepublican section will extend every civility to the King and the Royal Family, and the honour and respect which is his due as head of an oversea State and as head of the British Empire. I think I can say that, but I want to add that such a visit must be arranged with the greatest caution, for the very reason that the position in South Africa is as it is, and the King’s visit must in no way, directly or indirectly, be abused for political purposes. The monarchy can exist as an institution; it can only exist when it is not connected in any way with party politics in England or in any other part of the Empire. It is an accepted fact that it can only exist in those circumstances. I just want to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the reaction which followed on his invitation, at any rate in certain circles in England. Just listen to this. This is an extract from a cablegram addressed to the “Cape Argus”—

It will be seen what the reaction was over there. It will be seen at once what it will mean if we proceed on those lines. The question of Republicanism is a political matter. The question of a colour bar in South Africa and the principle of separatism are political matters, and the King is how supposed to come here to teach South Africa by word of mouth or example what the right thing is. It will be seen what conditions would be created if this attitude were adopted. I do not want to do more than draw the Prime Minister’s attention to this and to add that I do not say anything in regard to the invitation, but I do say that if the visit does take place, it should take place at the right time. There may be a wrong time, and next year the position will be that the attention of the Government and of the people and of Parliament will be fixed on the next election. That is the position; one cannot get away from the fact; that has always been the case. Well, it will be appreciated that it is not in the interests of the Government and it is not in the interests of South Africa, and it is not even in the interests of the monarchy to have a visit from the King at a time when an election is in prospect and when there are newspapers which adopt this attitude and unwise people in South Africa who possibly adopt this attitude too. The King would be placed in an extremely difficult position if this took place. I say nothing in regard to the fact that the King will visit South Africa. But if he comes he should come after the election and not before the election. I think that would be the right course, and the only suggestion I want to make to the Prime Minister is this: the King acts on his advice, and I think it would be wise on his part to advise the King in connection with this matter, and if he wants to extend an invitation to the King to visit South Africa, let the visit take place at some other time and not at the time which has been laid down by the Prime Minister. I have said that this is a delicate matter. I am trying to deal with it in a delicate way, and I want to express the hope that, having drawn the Prime Minister’s attention to this danger, this matter will not be further discussed, apart from the Prime Minister’s reply.

I would like to say a few words in respect of the remarks made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) on the subject of immigration, and I hope the Prime Minister will take heed. As the hon. member said, unless we are very careful in this country the European population will be lost in a sea of colour. That is very true. Some two years ago I went to great pains to address this House on the subject of immigration. I had a special notice of motion on the subject, and I went to much trouble to show how the other races were increasing in numbers, while the white races were not increasing. All I got for my trouble was a reply by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), presumably speaking on behalf of the Government, in which it was suggested that we could not consider the question of immigration until all our soldiers were back and in occupation. I use the argument, and the hon. member for Troyeville used the same argument, that by introducing immigrants we would increase the scope of occupation of our returned soldiers. I do not think any returned soldier would be deprived of his occupation. I do hope the Prime Minister will take heed, and that the Government will forthwith prepare some large scale immigration policy for the Union. The other Dominions are doing it, and we need an increase in our white population more than any other Dominion. There is one other matter I would like to refer to.

I should like to refer to a question which the hon. the Prime Minister himself introduced in this House two years ago. No doubt at the time it was done as a gesture to the Asiatics, and I believe it was introduced as a war measure, but by this measure Asiatics were allowed to buy liquor in bottle stores and to take it away; until then they had to consume it on the premises. I think I was the only one who opposed this suggestion, and I warned the Prime Minister of what would happen, that it would lead to illicit traffic in liquor by giving Asiatics such privileges. Well, what I predicted has happened, and I see in the newspapers—I am sorry I have not got the exact figures— that the prosecutions on the Rand, chiefly against Indians, for illicit traffic in liquor is running into thousands of cases. In support of my argument I would like to read an extract from a Cape Town newspaper on the subject, dated 21st January, 1946. It reads as follows—

And then it continues—

This bears out what I warned the Prime Minister about, when he introduced this war measure, and before it gets beyond control, if it is not already beyond control, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he withdraw this war measure and withdraw this privilege which has been abused by the Asiatics.

We fully realise that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has already been overloaded with problems of the greatest importance for which he will try to find a solution when he proceeds overseas, and we are hesitant to add still further burdens. We trust, however, that the Prime Minister will not lose sight of bur future relationship with the Protectorates in South Africa. The Eastern Transvaal, of course, is particularly interested in Swaziland. We have raised this matter on previous occasions, but there is one further aspect which I should like to emphasise this morning. It is generally known that Union subjects are owners of land in Swaziland. They have a direct interest in the territory, and it sometimes happens that Union subjects have to subject themselves to the administration of justice in Swaziland. We recently had a case where a Union subject in Swaziland was found guilty of murder by a criminal court. In order to lodge an appeal, it is necessary to apply to the Privy Council in London. That is very undesirable. It is a very clumsy procedure to require Union subjects to go from a small territory like Swaziland direct to London in order to lodge an appeal against the judgment of a court in Swaziland to which they may object. We trust that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will be able to rectify these matters, and that he will be successful in arranging for the incorporation of the Protectorates into the Union. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) referred to immigration. Today an opportunity presents itself to get some of the most highly-trained technicians of the world in South Africa, too. We have read that Australia will officially admit 89,000 immigrants every year. There is no doubt that the services of some of the best technicians of, the world will be in great demand. We are able to carry out, and there are prospects of carrying out, immense industrial development in this country, but we need experts for that purpose. We trust that our claims will receive due consideration. A golden opportunity presents itself today to avail ourselves of the best brains, the best training, the best experts in the world to help us to develop the enormous natural resources with which we have been endowed. We want to express the hope that in that respect, too, the Prime Minister will assist us.

I just want to conclude with the point with which I was dealing a moment ago, namely, the economic affairs which may be discussed at this Imperial Conference. I just want to say that no one can hold it against England because she is going to try, and is now trying, to strengthen her own economic position, as well as her position in other respects. It is only natural that she will try to do so. Every nation will try to do the same. And if she succeds, I do not think anyone would be jealous of her success. But I say that we must not become the victims of that policy. We must not become the victims in this sense that our own economic development and our own industrial development will consequently be retarded. It is to that that we object most strongly, as we objected most strongly in the past when various attempts were made to impede our development in this country. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has referred to immigration. He is now perturbed all of a sudden about the possibility that we will be swamped by a flood or a sea of colour unless we embark on a policy of large-scale immigration.

Panicky.

He may have reason to be panicky if he holds the views that I hold, but, coming from that hon. member, it seems strange. He is the man who continually opposes the maintenance of the colour bar, who continually pleads for the disappearance of all colour bars. He has continually fought for the removal of all colour bars, and now he talks about the danger of a sea of colour.

The maintenance of the colour bar will not reduce the number of coloured persons.

No, but it would reduce the colour danger as far we are concerned. That hon. member has continually fought in this House for the removal of the colour bar. He and his friends on the other side have continually put up this plea.

Now he states that we are in danger of being swamped by a sea of colour and that nothing can save us unless immigrants are imported from overseas. That is all nonsense. In pleading for immigration on a large scale he has something else in mind. He wants the very type of immigrant whom we do not want in this country. I just want to say that it is quite correct that the European element in South Africa should be strengthened, but it should be done by importing the right type of person.

I did not refer to any particular class of persons.

Nor am I referring to Jewish immigrants only. We know what obstacles were placed in the way of panDutch immigrants to prevent them from coming to this country, because the members on the other side wanted one-sided immigration. When members on the other side, such as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) plead for immigration, it is very clear what type of immigrant they want. If we need techincal people for our industries and if we cannot get them in our own country we are all agreed that they should be imported, but in that case we should get the best technicians and we should not confine them to one country.

No one wants that.

If any attempt were made to get people from Germany or Holland we would soon see what attitude is adopted towards those people. We would have a repetition of what happened in the past. All sorts of obstacles were placed in the way of those people to keep them out of this country. We recall the time when artisans wanted to come here from Holland, and every attempt was made to keep them out because members on the other side are intent on strengthening their own side only, and that is why they want to keep out this type of immigrant.

Then I want to deal with another matter which is of the utmost importance in view of the dangerous position which is developing in South Africa, namely the licentious and aggressive attitude of the non-Europeans, particularly of the natives towards the Europeans. Whenever we open the news-papers we read of assaults, murders, and manslaughter which are committed. I want to mention one of the causes of this state of affairs, namely, that the natives and the other licentious elements have realised that the majority of Europeans no longer possess fire-arms. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to discontinue his policy in that respect, namely, to refuse fire-arms to certain people only, in other words, the Nationalists.

You know that that is not the case.

It happened in my constituency.

That is nonsense.

If hon. members will give me a chance to continue I shall reply to the hon. member who has just interjected that that is nonsense. I wrote to the Minister of Justice and drew his attention to the fact that when Afrikaners and Nationalists in my constituency apply for rifles they are asked whether or not they support the Government. This is not nonsense or idle talk. The Minister stated that it happened without his permission. He admitted that it did happen, but he stated that he would take steps to see that it did not occur again. It continues to happen every day. I want to mention a name in this connection, namely, Mr. Hans van Rooyen of Purekans. I think the Prime Minister knows him and the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) also knows him. I want to ask the hon. member whether Mr. Hans van Rooyen is a danger to the State.

No.

The Prime Minister knows this man personally. He is a justice of the peace, but he is also chairman of the Nationalist Party Branch. Last year I was on his farm and within 200 yards of his house a tiger killed a calf in his kraal. This man cannot get a rifle. I personally did my best to persuade the Prime Minister to see to it that Mr. van Rooyen is given a permit to enable him to obtain a rifle. That permission was refused.

Even today?

Yes.

There must be a mistake, Uncle Hans.

How can it be said that this man is a danger to the State. Prominent farmers are being refused permits to obtain rifles. These people live in an area which is infested with lions. There are numerous tigers and wild dogs on their farms and they are unable to obtain permits.

I suppose the fault lies with their member of Parliament.

No, the fault does not lie with their member of Parliament. I shall tell you where the fault lies, apart from the policy of the present Government. It is the fault of members on the other side, such as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) who are continually passing on stories to the Government that that type of person undermines the Government, and it is due to the fact that the Prime Minister lends his ear to those members. It is a disgrace that decent Afrikaners like Hans van Rooyen cannot get a rifle. This man is a Justice of the Peace and he cannot get a rifle because he is a so-called danger to the State. No, that is not the reason. The reason is that he is the chairman of the Nationalist Party branch. I repeat that numerous respectable people apply for permits and when the police make investigations those people are asked whether they are supporters of the Government or to which political party they belong; whether they belong to the Ossewabrandwag, etc.; and on the replies to those questions depend whether or not those people are given permits to buy rifles. I want to ask the Prime Minister outright whether he thinks that a man like Hans van Rooyen would endanger the safety of the State if he had a rifle. Then I just want to ask him too whether he does not feel that those dangers which he thought existed no longer exist today, and whether he is not prepared to adopt a new policy and to issue a decree that the farmers may be allowed to have rifles on their farms. Take my constituency, Waterberg. The bushveld areas and the mountainous areas abound with vermin and the farmers are suffering damage daily. They have no rifles. The natives and thé coloured people are becoming rebellious. They know that the farmers have no fire-arms and this state of affairs can no longer be tolerated in this country.

Then just one further question. I should like to hear from the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to lift the ban which has been placed on the Voortrekkers, whereby they are prevented from drilling. I notice that the hon. member for Rustenburg is surprised.

No, I did not hear what you said.

During the war years a ban was placed on the Voortrekkers which prevented them from drilling. The Prime Minister is one of the patrons of the Voortrekkers, but nevertheless that was done. The war has been over for almost a year and surely the Voortrekkers can no longer constitute a danger to the State.

They do camp out.

Yes, but even when they camp out they have to get a permit. [Time limit.]

I should like to introduce into this discussion some reference to the external representation of the Union. Now that the war is over it seems that the time has arrived for the Union to review its diplomatic and trade representation in other countries, and in particular in the British Commonwealth of Nations. As we are part of the Commonwealth, and in view, Sir, of the fact that no integrated body has been set up to direct Commonwealth government it seems necessary now that as an essential part of post-war reconstruction we should extend the principle of closer consultation with other parts of the Commonwealth. I take the case of Australia. Australia is a country with an economy somewhat similar to our own, with a population in numbers equal to our own. Australia has representatives in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, India, China and in Soviet Russia. But this fact stands out clearly in connection with the Australian representation, that it is fundamentally a Commonwealth representation, South Africa is left out of Australian representation. I believe it is time that that omission was put right. There should be a representative of Australia in South Africa. In support of that contention I think the best argument that could be advanced is to draw the attention to one significant fact, i.e. the vast potential development of the Pacific. A great market is in process of creation in the Pacific. I believe in connection with that market, Australia will be a great distribution centre, and an entirely new money market for the Eastern Hemisphere. I believe that is going to be inevitable. On that basis I would urge consideration by the. Prime Minister of the appointment of a High Commissioner for the Pacific in Australia. The East, when it is re-established, is certain to be a big buyer of gold. Now it seems if Australia is to be the distribution centre and our trade developed with Australia, and our diplomatic relations made more realistic than they are today, we shall be able to find by means of our trade with Australia a method based on gold of providing the East to a very considerable degree. All parts of the Commonwealth are represented in Australia except South Africa. Therefore I believe the time is ripe when we should establish direct trade and diplomatic relations with that country.

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

When the debate was adjourned I was referring to the necessity to extend our diplomatic and trade representation within the British Commonwealth. I was suggesting that as a first step we should appoint a High Commissioner to be resident in Australia in order to serve our interests in Australia and New Zealand. Reciprocally we should invite representation of Australia and New Zealand in South Africa. In 1935 we entered into a trade agreement with Australia. That agreement had a very limited objective, being intended mainly to ensure the adoption of the mostfavoured-nation principle. It did not, however, result in very extensive development of our trade. Just before the war our imports from Australia amounted to something like £500,000, whereas our exports were scarcely £200,000. We shall require in future, so far as one can gather, keeping in mind the condition of our wheat growing areas, very considerable quantities of wheat from Australia. We shall require Australian wool. Until we speed up our own industrial development and have our own industries, and until they are in full development, we may have to rely on certain Australian industrial products. I believe that the Australian and Pacific trade can well be developed on the basis of our surplus gold. In the post-war comity of nations a pattern, due to the development forced on us as a result of the war, I believe it will be in the interest of our country if we make up our minds to look East as well as West.

I rise merely to clear up a possible misunderstanding which may arise in the country through the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) in connection with the granting of permits for fire-arms. I take it that the case mentioned by him may be perfectly correct, but it is really not right to create the impression that that is the position in the country generally.

That is the case.

I speak of experience in my own district, and I would invite any hon. member on the other side to elicit information in that district. The policy is to grant rifles or to grant leave to buy rifles more or less on the following basis: The applicant must be a bona fide farmer; the size of his farm is taken into consideration as well as its situation; in other words, if you have a farm adjoining a town where there is no vermin—a small farm—what would be the good of having a rifle? The case mentioned by the hon. member for Waterberg seemed to be a case where a permit ought to be granted to buy a rifle. But throughout the district of Rustenburg, irrespective of any political party, the farmers who fall in the category mentioned by the hon. member for Waterberg were given the right to purchase rifles.

Shotguns?

I am talking about bullet rifles, not shots in the air as the hon. member usually fires.

The Minister stated that where a shotgun is granted the man cannot get another rifle.

I do not hesitate to invite any hon. member to see what the position is in my district. I did not want to cast any reflection on the hon. member for Waterberg when I stated that it depends on the member of Parliament. That was intended as a joke. But if he places the matter before the magistrate in the proper light …

It is not a matter for the magistrate but for the Prime Minister.

As far as this matter is concerned I am convinced that even the hon. member for Waterberg does not want rifles again to be given indiscriminately to any person, even certain Nationalists. I say that in all seriousness.

Why not?

There is a certain type of person in whose hands a rifle is a dangerous thing.

But today the kaffirs have rifles.

I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to see that in the future fire-arms are not issued indiscriminately. I say that with a full sense of responsibility. But where there are bona fide farmers who need rifles in order to protect their livestock and their wives and children in the remote parts of the bushveld, I am 100 per cent. in favour of allowing them to have rifles.

Now I want to say a few words in support of what was said by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) in regard to the incorporation of the protectorates in the Union. In the first place the protectorates are so closely bound up with our interests, as far as the native policy is concerned, that it is really necessary for us to come to finality now as far as this matter is concerned, and either to incorporate the protectorates or to have closer co-operation. There is, for example, the question of public health. Natives from that territory cross the border to work in the Union. We are doing everything in our power to safeguard the health of our nation, irrespective of colour, but it will be readily understood that with the continual influx of natives from the adjoining territories our efforts are to a large extent being frustrated. Take the combating of stock diseases. Again I speak of experience as someone who lives in a border district. You have no control really in regard to the combating of stock diseases unless you have no control over the adjoining territories. Then there is another important matter, namely, the irrigation policy of the Union. If we could incorporate these territories, making them part of the Union, there are very great possibilities. We could then develop the waters of the mighty Okavango River and, as it were, create a new province of South Africa out of the desert-like Kalahari if we could use all the water in that area.

You, Sir, will remember that both you and Mr. Speaker ruled me out of order almost unanimously and very rapidly one after the other on a certain matter which I tried to bring before this House. It is, of course, a most extraordinary occurrence in my experience for me to be ruled out of order like that. However, I hope that now, with all your vigilance, you will be unable to find a chink in my armour. I want to interrogate the Prime Minister on a matter I endeavoured to raise the other day, namely, the source from which the country should get, or rather should not draw, its diplomats, those whom we desire to send to various countries in order to represent us. The selection, of course, should be very wide, and it should be of a very distinctive character. It should be made in such a way that we should have the utmost credit reflected on us as a country, In the eyes of other countries in the world our reputation is set by the quality of the men we send to represent us diplomatically. It means a tremendous lot; and if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is going to limit his selection to public officials, I shudder at the possible consequences, and I think it is not right, it is not fair to those who might quite rightly regard this as a potential political appointment. There is no special reason why it should not be a political appointment. Before going further, I would like to say we have been exceedingly well served diplomatically hitherto, and I would like to say in his presence, though he may blush at it, I would like to pay a high tribute to Mr. Sidney Waterson, who represented us so brilliantly in London. That is the type we want. I trust he will forgive me for representing him as having been an exemplary holder of that post. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well this is a point of view I have held on this subject all along. The public service is not the right source from which to draw our diplomatic representatives. I am convinced of that. It may be the Government’s experience that it is desirable to evolve some training method. It might be just as well to have that, and then we can be infinitely more selective. But I do say as we are at present constituted for many reasons the public service is not the right source for making appointments, and I do urge that on the Prime Minister. I may have misunderstood him, but I understood from him that when the appointment of Mr. Andrews was made, that subsequent appointments would not be made from that source unless it was some exceptional person. I can visualise one or two persons in the service who could serve us abroad with credit, but in the main no. I would ask the Prime Minister to carry out what he agreed to do, and not to draw any more from the service. It is likely to breed discontent in the service itself. Many officials will continue their career with an eye to the main chance, the diplomatic service, and this to my mind is undesirable. I would urge on the Prime Minister to reconsider the whole position and look amongst members, amongst his own supporters if he likes, and I am certain he will find suitable people. I am not sneering. I say sincerely that he will find many people on his side of the House well qualified to serve us well in various parts of the world. Let him turn his eyes in that direction, and leave the public service out.

First of all I should like to express on behalf of many of us here our feelings towards the Prime Minister in the journey he is going to take in the next week or two. He is leaving on one of the most difficult and serious tasks in his career, and I am perfectly certain in the labours which await him he will have the best wishes not only of members on this side of the House but on all sides of the House, and of every section in the country. Though we may be divided on many matters, we do not wish to do anything that would embarrass him in his journey.

A matter which I think is causing very grave concern and which the Prime Minister referred to last night, is this question of the shortage of food. I think the Prime Minister’s broadcast will bring home to the people of this country the very state of affairs that exists, and though the measures the Government has taken will tend to relieve distress it will only be by the application of the most stringent economies that we shall get through in the next few months, and the Prime Minister did well to draw the attention of the public to the seriousness of the position. But may I say in passing when one listened to his remarks about abolishing the meatless day on Wednesday the public would be grateful if they could get meat during the rest of the week. Meatless day has not only been Wednesday. We hope that his remarks indicating that there is plenty of meat means that we shall get meat on the other six days of the week.

Another matter I should like to mention is that we have had a limited form of rationing, but the most satisfactory form of rationing we have had in this country has been petrol rationing, and in view of the many statements that have been issued of late, including a statement by the Hon. Minister of Economic Development, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what the position is in regard to our oil supplies, particularly the oils required for cooking purposes, and also what is the position in regard to petrol, and whether the prospect hinted at a week or so ago by the Minister that rationing would be abolished is likely to be realised soon. I am informed there is a serious prospect of a shortage of cooking oils which are essential for domestic purposes, and a reassuring statement on the position would be welcome.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) raised the question of immigration. It is a very wide subject indeed, and I do not propose to enter into that today. But the remarks he made do demand serious attention, and while the Prime Minister is overseas it might be useful to this House if he were to enquire into the prospects of immigration to this country from those countries in Europe which are desirous of sending us immigrants, and whether it may not be advisable to do it immediately. But I should like to urge on the Prime Minister that we should prevent any immigration to this country on the lines practised in the past where immigrants have come out here and been fleeced by certain individuals and practically robbed of all they had. In the early days some of the immigration schemes in this country were fatal to our good name. While one supports the principle of immigration under the auspices of the High Commissioner steps should be taken to see that there is no repetition in the future of the scandals that occurred in the past.

The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) has referred to the question of petrol supplies, and if I may I should like to intervene to say something on this subject. Knowing very well the importance to this country, with its wide-flung transportation system, of adequate supplies of fuel oil, the Government has left no stone unturned in order to arrive at the position where adequate supplies would be available, and as a result I am able to say today that in accordance with the declared policy of the Government to abolish control measures as soon as supplies permit of such a step, it has been decided to abolish with effect from Monday next, the 25th instant, all petrol control measures in the Union and in South-West Africa. A proclamation to that effect will shortly be published in the Government Gazette. The Government has been able to come to this decision because increased supplies have been received in the past few weeks, and we have been able to conclude arrangements that supplies to meet the needs of the country will be regularly delivered in the future. I would like to take this opportunity of saying how deeply indebted the Government is for the valuable assistance which has been rendered throughout the control period by the oil companies, and also to thank the public generally for the co-operation which they have given the Government during a most difficult time. Finally, I think this Committee should join with me in expressing its appreciation of the way in which the officials charged with this most thankless and difficult task have carried out their duties.

I am convinced that the House and the country generally are very pleased to learn that the restrictions on petrol are now being removed. One asks oneself why it is only being done now, because it has been felt generally that these restrictions could have been abolished long ago. However, we do not want to quarrel about that now. We are glad that this restriction has been abolished. We feel, however, since the Minister has now taken this step in regard to petrol, that it is a pity that he did not at the same time explain the attitude of the Government in connection with tyres. Will these restrictions also be abolished in the near future? He did not mention it in his statement and I shall be glad if he will deal with this matter at a later stage.

I rose to deal more specifically with two matters which have been raised here, the first being the point that was raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), namely, the question of rifles for the citizens of this country; and the second is the question of immigration. As far as the question of rifles is concerned, I was sorry to hear a member like the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) adopting the attitude—and he practically requested the Prime Minister to do so—that in future rifles should not be given to all European citizens of this country. The complaint came from this side of the House that Nationalists were being excluded from the privilege of receiving rifles; and his defence in that connection was that it was not only the Nationalists who were being excluded, and he went on to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to see that the citizens of this country are not indiscriminately allowed to purchase rifles. In other words, he is anxious to see that rifles are not given to certain of his fellow-citizens in South Africa. He wants to deny Europeans the privilege of obtaining rifles. I can assure the hon. member that the country will not be grateful to him for the attitude he adopted here. We must allow the Europeans in our country to obtain fire-arms. If that hon. member has no confidence in his fellow European citizens, we can give him the assurance that we on this side have confidence in our fellow-citizens. I want to ask the Prime Minister to dispose of this matter once and for all. There is no reason why these restrictions should continue to apply. We are no longer at war; there is no danger of a revolution or an insurrection in this country, why then should we have these restrictions? I can assure him that I know of peace-loving persons in my own constituency who have never made themselves guilty of any subversive activities and who applied for permission to obtain firearms and that permission was refused. Only last week I received a letter from a person in my constituency who applied for a permit and it was refused. The hon. member for Rustenburg stated that permits are given to the farmers. I know of farmers who have been unable to obtain permits. They have big farms and they submitted applications. Why were their applications rejected? We have now reached the stage where we are getting away from the war psychosis. We are no longer at war; there is peace, and I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister in heaven’s name to remove these restrictions.

The other point which was raised here by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was the question of immigration. He made an appeal to the Prime Minister practically to throw open the door for immigration. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) supported him. I know that there are certain persons and certain sections in this country who are very strongly in favour of throwing wide open the door for immigration from overseas. They advocate unrestricted immigration. Well, I can tell the Prime Minister that I do not think the people of South Africa, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, want unrestricted immigration. I do not believe, if we were to consult the people today, that they would advocate a policy of unrestricted immigration. What we want is selective immigration. When we talk about selective immigration there are two considerations we have in mind. The first is that no injustice must be done to the citizens of our country. We do not Want an influx of people who will take the bread out of the mouths of Union citizens. We strongly urge upon the Prime Minister that we do not want a policy of unrestricted immigration to the detriment of our own citizens in this country. If immigrants are allowed to enter the country we want them to be selected so that they will not be a burden to the State but an asset. But there is a further consideration. If we want to admit people into this country we must still satisfy ourselves that those people will become citizens of this country and that they will not remain foreigners. In the second place therefore we ask that those immigrants who are admitted should be persons who will be able to fit into the existing population, people who are assimilable. We must therefore ascertain which people would best fit in in South Africa. We have no desire to allow groups of people who will create new problems. We know that South Africa has many and serious problems. Not only have we Europeans as against non-Europeans, but we also have a very mixed composition as far as the European population is concerned. There are various European groups and if that mixed composition is further encouraged and strengthened, it will mean that our nation will not be strengthened but weakened by immigration. If we allow Europeans to enter the country, they must be people who will strengthen and not weaken the solidarity of the population. We must not allow groups to enter which will stand aloof and which cannot assimilate with the original population. For that reason I want to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock), namely, that we should not, as happened in the past, allow immigration to be undertaken by certain persons or certain organisations in this country, organisations which do not take into account the interests of the population as a whole but which take into account the sectional interests of particular organisations and groups because it is their desire to strengthen those particular groups and because they are not desirous of retaining the original composition of the nation. Immigration must be controlled by the State. Then I want to ask the Prime Minister, since we see in the newspapers that certain steps are being considered by the Government, whether he will not make a statement to the House. It is reported that the Government is considering the question of allowing some of the Italian prisoners-of-war to come here. A census is being taken of them. Enquiries were made to ascertain which of them want to return to this country after their return to Italy. I do not want to pass any reflections on any particular nation or race, but I do want to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks it will be in the interests of South Africa, having regard to our mixed national composition, to allow more people from Southern Europe to come here, in view of the fact that we have a Western European civilisation here. If immigrants have to come to our country they should be people who will fit in with the original population, and for that reason we feel that we do not want our population to be augmented from Southern and Eastern Europe. I say that without casting any reflections on those nations. I feel, however, that the composition of the population of South Africa must be and must remain a Western European composition. [Time limit.]

I am a great admirer of the Leader of the Labour Party in respect of his personal qualities but not of some of his views. I should like, however, now to join hands with him in his contention that the Prime Minister should consider whether it is not advisable that the Government of the day should so consider diplomatic appointments overseas that it will be an encouragement to members of the public to become members of Parliament. We all know that the salary a member of Parliament gets is nothing in comparison with the expense involved in maintaining the dignity of the position, quite apart from carrying on the work connected therewith. The salary is no attraction, but it is probably out of a sense of duty that members undertake the work. We all know how we get involved in public affairs and ultimately the public select one and the call is irresistible. He cannot help it and he accepts the appointment and comes to Parliament. But undoubtedly there are many distinguished public men who will not entertain the idea of coming to Parliament because the door is closed to them on attaining any higher position; they cannot all go into the Cabinet. [Interruptions.] No, I am not thinking of myself, you can be quite satisfied about that. It is a question of appointments overseas. Some of our members would consider an appointment of that sort as an attraction. If the Government of the day always closes the door on their supporters in Parliament in regard to these appointments no inducement is offered for them to remain in this House. Their interest must disappear; there is nothing they can strive for. They know there is no opportunity of them all achieving Cabinet rank. From the ranks of this party good men could be selected, equally as good men as you would get from the civil service. I am not casting any reflection on the civil service, but in the service a man’s ambition is to get to the top of his department. But what is there for a member of Parliament to aim at if there is no opening for them in respect of appointments as administrators or plenipotentiaries overseas? Through the absence from Parliament of good men who feel there is nothing to achieve in a political career, the standard or quality of members of Parliament will be lowered, but if you open the door you will attract men to Parliament of a type that will prove beneficial both to Parliament and the country as a whole. I do not think that any member of Parliament who has been appointed to an overseas post has ever let down the Government of the day. There may be an answer to my argument, I do not know. It may be said that if a member of Parliament is appointed to a diplomatic post, a change in the Government may result in his recall. Well, let the hon. member consider that when the appointment is offered to him, and if he is willing to take a chance there is the opening before him.

The other matter I should like to touch on is immigration. I wonder whether members realise that South Africa cannot stand a much larger population than we have today unless we first develop it. We will not induce people of any standing to come out here unless you can offer them employment. I think all of us are in favour of immigration of the right type. The only type of immigration I would stand for and that South Africa could carry is in respect of technically trained people who would come to assist us, to instruct us in various lines of industry, people who can bring us technical knowledge we do not possess. To attract people to this country we must first develop it in various ways. Agriculture cannot carry any more people in its present state, the mining industry cannot carry more unless the goldfields in the Free State develop. There is an opportunity for immigration by developing industry. There are many lines we have not touched on yet. In regard to immigration, I would suggest to the Prime Minister he should first encourage industrial development and attract skilled men from overseas to train people in South Africa.

I must say that I do not agree at all with the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to the appointment of ambassadors overseas. What the hon. member actually wants is that the Government should make appointments from the ranks of members on his side of the House. That is what it amounts to. I think of late there has been a change which I personally have welcomed, namely, to appoint persons who have particular qualifications for the post to the external service. I think these are posts for which specific qualifications are particularly needed and special training to a great degree. You may possibly find such persons in the ranks of members of Parliament, but what the hon. member really means—and I think that is what is at the back of his mind—is that it must be a sort of promotion to members of Parliament, or, to put it more bluntly, that the appointment of ambassadors overseas must be on the basis of “jobs for pals”. No, Mr. Chairman, I think what we need in the external service as the representatives of South Africa are people who will act under instructions and in accordance with the policy of any Government which happens to be in power in South Africa. I personally feel that the course which has been adopted of late is the correct one, and I hope that we shall not again revert to the policy which was in vogue at one time. But I really got up to deal with another matter, and this is a matter which I have touched upon on a previous occasion and which I think now becomes much more important than it was previously. I refer to the question of the transfer of the Protectorates. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) also dealt with this matter. He regarded it more from the point of view of the European inhabitants of the Protectorates, and more specifically the inhabitants of Swaziland. I want to view it on the broader basis, namely, from the point of view of South Africa’s interests, generally speaking, and from the point of view of the interests of the protectorates. I think there is something which should not be lost sight of, and that is that there exists a contract between England and South Africa in connection with the transfer of the protectorates to the Union. That contract was entered into 36 years ago, and it was recorded and incorporated in the South Africa Act, not only in its ordinary clauses, but there is a special schedule setting forth how the protectorates shall be administered if they are transferred to the Union. The conditions were laid down there. This is a contract which England entered into with us. That contract leaves the initiative for the transfer with this Parliament. These territories can be transferred to the Union on petition. There lies the initiative. They can be transferred on a petition of both Houses of Parliament addressed to the King, and the King then acts on the advice of the Privy Council, as far as the transfer is concerned; and if it is done it takes place on the conditions laid down in the schedule referred to. The question has occurred to me whether or not the British Government as a Government desires to transfer these protectorates, whether we should not proceed to take the initiative. Let the two Houses of Parliament submit a petition to the King in connection with this matter and let us see what becomes of it; let us see whether the British Government will reject the petition for transfer. Unless we do that I am afraid we shall not get any further. In the conditions which were laid down there is no mention at all of consultations with or even approval of the natives in these territories. There is nothing of the kind. In 1909 when the South Africa Act was before the British Parliament an attempt was made first in the House of Commons and later in the House of Lords to have this inserted. In the House of Commons an amendment was introduced by Mr. Kilhardy and in the House of Lords by one of the peers, but it was voted down. There is nothing in the conditions stipulating that the native population in the territories must approve of the transfer or even that they must be consulted. What has happened in recent years? Every time this question is raised the British Government declares that they want to consult the natives and that they gave an undertaking that without consultation of the natives or without their approval, the transfer will not take place. Having entered into this contract in 1909, they cannot now lay down what is in effect a new condition. It is not right to adopt that course. One can understand why these territories were not transferred for some time after the contract was entered into. The reason is that during this period, for a number of years, England bore the responsibility for the military safety of the Union as well as of the territories which came directly under England. England simply adopted the attitude that if she had to protect these territories in the military sense, she could not transfer them to another authority. But the position changed in 1912 and certainly in 1914 when the British Government withdrew its military forces from South Africa, and transferred to the Union the entire responsibility for defence, including the defence of the native territories. England no longer protects them. We protect them. In the event of disturbances in the territories, how could England protect them other than by sending troops through the Union’s territory? The entire responsibility therefore rests on us. Since then certain things have taken place. We have more and more taken upon ourselves the responsibility for these territories. What happened a short while ago? There is a food shortage in the Union. That food shortage also exists in the protectorates. Who provides them with food? Not England but the Union.

To our own detriment.

Yes, to the detriment of our own population. In these circumstances is there any good reason why these protectorates should continue to be under British rule? And why does the British Government not want to hand over these territories to the Union? What is the real reason behind it? There is only one reply, and that is a lack of confidence in the Union to do justice towards the natives, a lack of confidence in the Union’s colour policy generally. That is the reason behind it, and in these circumstances it is very easy to create a feeling in the minds of the people in the native territories against transfer to the Union. It is easy to do it in these circumstances. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will be going to the meeting of the United Nations Organisation. He is going to advocate that South-West Africa should be transferred outright to the Union. The following objection will be raised: “That is all very well, but how are you treating the native population of South-West Africa?” The Prime Minister stated here that he would try to gain support at the Imperial conference, that he would advocate that South-West Africa should fall under the Union, and that he would try to elicit the support of England as well. Very well, I hope that he will do so and that he will get the support not only of England but also of the other Dominions—of the Netherlands, Belgium and as many other small States as he can get. That is all very well. But what will his position be if those who do not want South-West Africa to come under the Union say: “The British Government does not trust you with the native territories which come under their direct administration; how can you expect other nations of the world to trust the Union as far as the natives in South-West Africa are concerned?” In these circumstances, having regard to everything, I feel that the time is overdue when this matter should reach finality and that the Prime Minister should make a fresh attempt to raise this matter at the Imperial Conference and to bring it to finality with the goodwill of the British Government. In any event, let this Parliament take the initiative in terms of the existing contract, and let both Houses of Parliament submit a petition to the King and let us see what becomes of it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Leader of the Opposition in an earlier speech in this Committee has seen fit to continue his attack on Russia. Apparently he has decided to ignore the wise and very grave warning which the Prime Minister addressed to him only a few days ago. Mr. Chairman, what in plain terms is the foreign policy of the Leader of the Opposition? It is no less than an attempt to revive the anti-Comintern Pact in a new form. I hope the House will see through this attempt to refurbish a bankrupt policy. If what the Leader of the Opposition hopes for comes into being, if an alignment of forces against the Soviet takes shape, we shall be where we were in the days before Munich. The story of the last twenty years will repeat itself. The actors may be different, but the play will be the same. If we want to avoid disaster, there is only one policy for the western democratic countries to pursue; despite all difficulties, despite all apparent obstacles, they must seek a firm understanding with Russia. Britain’s foreign policy is steadfastly directed towards that end, and we should support her in that direction. Certainly we should not seek to widen the breach between the powers. South Africa is a responsible member of the British Commonwealth of nations. Our Prime Minister plays a distinguished role in its councils. Therefore, whatever is said in this House is carefully noted, and such ill-advised attacks on Russia might have a very damaging effect on international relations. Furthermore, to allow these ill-advised attacks on Russia to go unchallenged in this House is definitely inconsistent with our membership of U.N.O. and may go a long way towards undermining that great edifice to which our own Prime Minister has made such a magnificent contribution. What the Leader of the Opposition hopes for, an alignment of forces against Russia, is definitely a return to power politics. In this world there is no longer any room for power politics.

And what else is Russia doing but employing power politics?

If we must seek an understanding with Russia, Russia will seek an understanding with us. I wonder if the Opposition realises what the next war will be like. The flying bomb of the future will be propelled by an atomic device the size of a golf ball. It will have a war-head the size of a football. It will girdle the earth in a matter of minutes. It will arrive at its target with unerring accuracy and it will cause a cataclysm in comparison with which the greatest earthquake in history will look like a disturbance to an antheap. The moral is plain. The great Powers have been brought face to face in a contracting world. They must either clash or co-operate. The choice between them is clear cut. It is a choice between the prospect of survival and the certainty of destruction. Undoubtedly if we survey the international scene we are filled with apprehension. The problems are grave and the prospects are grim; but there is one hopeful line of action. We must follow the lead not of Mr. Winston Churchill, but of the British Government. Our policy must be in harmony with the policy of the British Government. We must march in step. Britain under a progressive government can act as a stabilising factor in the present troubled and uncertain situation. The cleavage between Russia and the Western powers is fundamentally ideological. Britain, therefore, under a progressive Government, is in a very favourable position. She can work out the compromise solution, a synthesis of democratic freedom and economic planning, and thus provide the link between the divergent social and economic systems of the West and the East.

There is no democracy in Russia.

That does not affect the role of Britain. I have indicated the logical role of Britain, and I believe that Britain by her efforts can still bring lasting peace and tranquillity to a world in the throes of a revolutionary epoch.

When the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) intervened in the debate at an earlier stage, he dwelt on the tense position on the Witwatersrand in reference to the strike, and then he argued in favour of the old principle of just letting things develop. As an excuse for the policy he wishes us to adopt on this side of the House, he urged that he feared that the debates that occurred here in connection with the position might lead to the miners who are on strike at the moment refusing to accept the agreement that has already been drawn up.

What agreement?

The one the officials drew up and laid before the Mineworkers’ Union. I should like us to consider the position as it is at the moment, as it was yesterday evening. According to the latest reports, the conversations were not supposed to be resumed before two o’clock this afternoon, and the position is consequently more or less as it was last night. Now I wish in the first place to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the agreement to which the hon. member for Troyeville referred in his speech was rejected yesterday by the miners at present on strike. It is perfectly clear that the Mineworkers’ Union decided beforehand that they would not give in to the demands of the strikers. The Prime Minister also admitted this in his reply to the debate two days ago. The executive of the Mineworkers’ Union simply stated that they were content with the position as it was, and we are now faced with a most peculiar condition. Representatives have gone from here to ascertain whether an agreement can be arrived at between the two opposing parties on the Reef. I want to confine myself now to the activities of these emissaries. I have before me a Sapa report sent last night from Johannesburg containing, inter alia, the agreement as drawn up. It is quite clear from it that, notwithstanding that further efforts are being made to arrive at an agreement affecting the position, the matter has been mishandled. It is the responsibility, of course, of every member of this House to see whether an agreement cannot be reached to end the strike. Within two days the strike has extended to no fewer than 46 mines. The Sapa report says—

The position is that the majority of the mineworkers are today on strike, more than 50 per cent. Then they say that the negotiations will be resumed at two o’clock, and then I come to the point—

The report refers to protracted negotiations with the Mineworkers’ Union, but with the other side merely a discussion occurred. It is clear that the agreement was drawn up after the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union was consulted. The desires and wishes of the Mineworkers’ Union were incorporated in toto in the agreement. The seriousness of the matter lies in this, that there has been an immediate compliance of the wishes and desires of the Mineworkers’ Union. This proposal has emanated from the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union. They signed the agreement, and now the two Government officials acting as delegates go to the representatives of the strikers and present them with an accomplished fact and say: Look, here is the agreement; you must sign it. Have you ever seen such an agreement? How did they set to work? It is one-sided treatment from beginning to end. Let us carry it a little further. This agreement envisages absolutely compelling the miners on strike to capitulate. They must surrender. This is perfectly clear. The first paragraph of the so-called agreement says that all the strikers must resume work immediately. Then it says that Mr. Hattingh, the miner whose expulsion from the Mineworkers’ Union on account of non-payment of his subscriptions directly led to the strike, will be given back his job on payment of arrear subscriptions, and that on application to the Mineworkers’ Union he will again be accepted as a member. Then the agreement makes provision for the appointment of a commission of enquiry by the Government, and then they say—

They are satisfied at the so-called war clause remaining in existence.

Yes, the war regulations must remain in existence and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister knows as well as we do what serious accusations were made by the commission of enquiry at that time over the wrongdoings and even the squandering of funds and wasting of members’ money. He listened yesterday to the quotations from the report of the commission of enquiry that sat at that time. Now I want to ask the Minister that as emergency regulations were adopted to change the constitution of the Mineworkers’ Union can the Prime Minister repeal those emergency regulations by way of regulation? He can do so. Why is it not done? Here we have officials trying to reach a settlement. The two Government officials state—

I felt nettled when the Prime Minister replied, and I said that we should be careful. But if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister does not intervene any irregularity and evil can occur in South Africa. The matter is serious and there is no time to dawdle. An agreement has been drawn up there which is quite biased and the miners who have grievances must be compelled to surrender. Not one of their claims is complied with. The Mineworkers’ Union have consistently taken up the attitude from the very first day not to let an election be held. The mineworkers are not asking for an increase of wages but the grievances which have existed for years have now reached boiling point, and things will be worse if the Prime Minister does not intervene. The proof is there that the mineworkers have no confidence in the union and its officials, because more than 50 per cent. of the European miners have struck work. They have no longer any confidence in Mr. Broderick as general secretary or in the officials. What has happened in the past? I have previously stated in this House that Mr. Broderick through the things he tolerated, sold the soul of the mineworkers in the war years and I repeat that today. Now I would point out to the Prime Minister that the danger exists of the natives striking. Last year we saw what happened when one or two strikes broke out on a small scale. The mineworkers returned because they feared that the natives also would strike. That may happen, and I would ask the Prime Minister to reflect on what position would then arise. [Time limit.]

I should like to return to what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) said in reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) in connection with rifles. I would only say that I believe what the hon. member for Rustenburg had in mind is that that there are Nationalists who are just as good men as ever United Party men can be. But what he wants to bring home is that there are persons, irrespective of what party they belong to, who are not fit to have rifles. We as farmers on the platteland know very well there are certain people who ought not to have rifles, especially in the towns. At night they come out and shoot on your farm without your knowing it. I think this is the type of man to which the hon. member for Rustenburg referred when he said this.

There is something I should like to bring to the notice of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, namely that in the border districts such as Zoutpansberg, we should like to see far greater co-operation between the Union and Rhodesia. When I say this I should like to make a reference to explain what I believe, and it is that recently one of our Union citizens landed in difficulty in connection with a gold case. He got seven years’ hard labour, while up the line near Messina another person who was involved in a similar gold case was only fined £50. We are in the difficulty that we cannot really make direct representations to the Government of Rhodesia. They have their rights, and we do not want to infringe them, but we feel there should be closer co-operation between the two countries as far as these matters are concerned.

To explain my point further I would just say that it frequently happens that stock from the Union side crosses the border into Rhodesia, because the river lies open, and then the farmers on this side have no right to go and look for their animals without having obtained previous consent to cross the border, and in the normal course of events they lose their stock because these animals are stolen by natives on the other side. I should like to ask that an effort be made towards greater co-operation. We who live on the border experience considerable difficulty with natives who come across from the other side. We are in this position, that there is no law to enable us to engage these natives unless we can get them 22 miles away from the river. The result is that people go in there in the night and they recruit the natives in a dishonest way and bring them over the border. We ask that a solution should be found for that.

Then I would like to say that the number of cattle that cross over from time to time under the cloak of darkness is not for the welfare of the Union of South Africa, and if there is a better agreement and a larger measure of co-operation it will, I think, prove very useful for both parties.

I would give a further illustration. The farmers on the boundary always feel perturbed. Why, for instance, should we eat brown bread while the people just across the river eat white bread? That is something which I cannot explain, but there is always a feeling that the Government in South Africa do not do their duty towards these people. I should like to see us have more effective co-operation so that uniformity can be achieved in respect of these matters.

I would go even further in regard to the border districts, and that is in reference to something the farmers are very alarmed about, and not only the farmers but also a large section of our people in the towns, and it is in respect of that line that separates us and the Portuguese, an imaginary line; there is no proper line of demarcation, and we are always faced with the difficulty that infectious diseases can cross over. We find now every year that the tsetse fly approaches nearer and nearer from that side. I would just say to the Minister that recently when we were in Bechuanaland we saw how the people there were fighting the tsetse fly by putting up fences and keeping out the wild animals, and the veterinary surgeon with whom I spoke while I was standing at that line assured me that it was really efficient and that they experienced very little difficulty when they erected proper fencing to keep back the game. I hope and trust that we will exert every effort to ensure that we keep out infectious diseases. We have no control over the natives because the lobola system is still in force there. The natives trek miles during the night to carry off cattle, or to fetch a wife, and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Government for us to direct every effort to forge bonds of cooperation in such a way that we shall be able to give security to the farmers of South Africa as far as stock diseases are concerned.

I want to refer to the plea that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) made for closer contact between South Africa and members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, particularly referring to the Eastern theatre. We as South Africans have to realise that in any approach to that Eastern theatre where New Zealand and Australia are endeavouring to keep the status of the European intact, the fact is that all the repercussions will be from people who are definitely coloured, and we cannot ignore the need that we should have in places in the East people who can not only observe what is going on but who can keep us in South Africa informed as to their observations. It is well known that the old saying that East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet, sums up the conflict between the white man and the coloured man. That is the essence and meaning of that particular phrase, and the reference is to what happens when two strong men stand face to face. And it seems to me that the virtue of strength in regard to these men is that they are friendly. We cannot hope even if we do extend our sphere of influence into the East, to make any progress unless ours is a friendly approach, and on the other hand the people with whom we trade are friendly too. We cannot ignore the possibility of development in these theatres, apart from what may be called European penetration. People in the East have come to the point where they are not only able to benefit by the education in industrial matters that the West has brought to them but that benefit, because of their supremely superior numbers is going to be used to our disadvantage if they are unfriendly. Friendliness should be the practical outcome of cur attitude towards those people in our endeavour to establish trade relations in the East. And what we in South Africa seem to forget is that if we are to make friends then we must be friendly. I have heard members of the official Opposition protest that their attitude to colour is not one of antagonism. It is more conditioned or circumstanced they say by their policy of segregation. They want to insist in other words that parallel development is possible. Whatever we may think about parallel development in South Africa, I am quite sure that India and China are not going to entertain any such idea as parallel development. They will look upon development as being something peculiar to their particular country, and if we are not friendly their development will inevitably engulf, because of the superiority of numbers, the European culture that has been set up. That is the fact that stares us in the face quite plainly, and we know that in the pursuit of parallel arrangements in this country, if the white race does not maintain its growth in population and the native does maintain his growth, which he will do, then by all the arguments within a number of years after he begins to develop in a parallel way, we are in danger of being engulfed in this way. The two examples are the same. Now, Sir, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister may feel that in the total issue he has to be expedient and we know the world in which we live, cannot blame him if he feels that he has to be expedient, but expediency must always, to some extent, wait upon wisdom. We cannot be expedient to the sacrifice of wisdom. We have heard references today to Russia. We all know that Russia is nearer India and China and Japan and Asia generally than any of the other European countries can hope to be, and there is an argument here for a real approach to Russia from the diplomatic side in order that we ensure friendliness with her. It is again, a fact that if Russia were to think that the leaven of her interference in Asia was necessary in order to counteract what she conceived to be other European policies, that leaven would work very effectively, and I cannot see that we have any means, as also the other Europeans concerned, to do very much about it, so that I do hope the Prime Minister will listen to the suggestions that are made that we should be properly informed by having people who go on a friendly mission, because it is surely the position that diplomacy in all its angles purports to be the thing that will develop friendliness amongst nations, and we must show the world that whatever we think privately as Europeans of our culture and of our progress we are at least prepared in world affairs to be friendly to the other man’s. And if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister sees fit to cultivate acquaintance with Australia and New Zealand I do not know how much help we can give them but they certainly will be able to help us and if on the other hand we cultivate too that friendly spirit with Russia, I am quite sure that even if we do not count a lot because of our size in their particular scheme of things, the least he can do is to demonstrate to the big fellow, as the little fellow, that we do not want to stick pins into him, but that we want to be friends. There is another matter that I think we must get right into the front of our heads, and that is that we are not going to solve our problem as whites against the coloureds by importing Europeans from other countries where there are more Europeans than there are here. That is not going to be the solution of our problem. I think the sooner we realise that the better. We know that Australia had hoped that they would be able to induce 10,000,000 from other parts of the British Empire to come to Australia. They must by now one hopes have realised that 20,000,000 Europeans in Australia is really no guarantee that Australia will not be overrun by the hordes of Asia. Similarly if we get a few thousand Europeans to come here, we know that history teaches us that as economic circumstances improve the birth rate falls, and we cannot hope for a future in which the European race in this country is going to increase, besides of course, the fact that Europe cannot spare those people that we want. That is obvious. [Time limit.]

This morning a very serious matter was brought to the attention of the Government and of this House by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and that is that the time has now arrived wherein we should cultivate a peace complex with the people to replace the war complex which possessed the country in recent years. We are glad that in reference to the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Economic Development in regard to petrol a feeling will be engendered amongst the public that we are entering a period where we can get away from the war position and that we can gradually move towards a condition of peace. Let me just say this, that the country and the people that can rid itself quickest of the war complex and can associate itself with conditions of peace will have the pull in the battle that is going on for economic construction after the war. But now I should like to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister. One of these days he will be leaving South Africa. He is going overseas to take part in the peace negotiations. He goes as the representative of this country and this people to assist in making arrangements for world peace. How that will happen, we do not know. I want to put this question to him before he leaves South Africa, whether he will leave a peace message to his own people, and the Prime Minister will be doing well to his people and to our fatherland if he makes an earnest appeal and lets the whole population realise that he is leaving a message of peace, a message which will bring us back to a condition of tranquillity after the stormy years of war. Therefore, I would ask him now to accede to my request to raise this ban on the possession of firearms. He must bring our citizens back to the position in which they were before war broke out. No one knows better than the Prime Minister himself what it means to the citizens of this country to be deprived of their firearms. He knows what feelings prevailed amongst the public when those rifles were commandeered and when those rifles were taken from those people. He as someone out of the old era of the Boer nation can understand this, and I do not think it will be useless for us to make this earnest appeal to him. It is a feeling that has long gripped the people. The urge was there right through the war years, it became stronger immediately after the termination of hostilities. Last year I had a motion on the Order Paper which requested the Government to raise this ban on firearms. That motion was held back and the matter was discussed on the Prime Minister’s vote, and I asked him on 26th March, 1945—

His reply was as follows—

That is all the reason he gave us. One must deduce from that what he meant was it was still too close on the termination of the war, but that it would happen in the future, though the time was not ripe for it; precautionary measures had to be taken. And now I want to ask him: Can we not accept it now, a year after the question was put, that the time is ripe? This question was put to him on 26th March, 1945. Almost a year afterwards I come again with the same request, and I ask the Prime Minister whether the time is not now favourable; what precautionary measures are required at present? What has happened in the past year, between last March and March this year, that one should say that the time is not yet ripe for this? I do not know whether any member on that side of the House or anywhere else can rise today and relate anything that occurred last year that can be advanced in support of the contention that the time is not ripe for this, anything that has happened to disturb the peace during the past year. No, there is nothing. And I would say again that after a year we come with the same serious plea that comes from the heart of our citizens, and we ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give us that message and restore to these people that honour that they as citizens will have the right to possess firearms. But I want to base this plea on a far more serious ground than that. During the past year there has been in South Africa a growing measure of unrest that has been created as a result of the increasing number of crimes that have been committed. Assaults, murder and homicide and robbery have increased in recent times. In this House serious representations have been directed to the Government on the other side. There has been a wave of crime over the whole country, and no one has denied it. Even the Prime Minister has admitted it. Seeing this is so, there is my contention that that crime wave is being stimulated by the fact that the miscreants know that the people are unarmed. Give these people back their weapons. Restore them the right to possess firearms, and that criminal, that robber and that murderer who comes and breaks in will know there is a very good chance that he will have to deal with a firearm if he breaks in.

You can buy revolvers.

You cannot get them.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) says you can buy revolvers. I say, restore the right to citizens to possess firearms, and it will be an antidote to the crime wave that has assumed alarming dimensions. Last year I put a question to the Prime Minister regarding the number of rifles commandeered from citizens during the period of the war. His reply to me was that approximately 90,000 rifles were commandeered. Those weapons are still there, they have not been sent away anywhere. They were not used during the war. They are lying there in the magazine. I asked how many were returned to citizens. The reply came that about 30,000 were returned to the commandos. Up to that date 8,000 had been returned to private citizens. So there are still 50,000 outstanding, and I want again to ask this question: Is it not possible to make those rifles which are at hand available so that our people can again have their rifles? While I am making this plea today in a spirit of profound seriousness I do not want to cast any reflections, but I would still say that that question was put even in the present Session to the Minister of Justice in connection with a case in my own constituency, in connection with the case of Mr. Isaac Myburgh, who repeatedly applied for a rifle, and the Minister of Justice replied: We have refused to give him permission to receive a permit for a rifle because he and his son are on the one farm and they have a shotgun. Is this the policy that the Government follows right through, that people with shotguns cannot obtain a rifle? I cannot imagine this to be the policy, but this is the reason that the Minister of Justice gave me in that instance. Here I have another case. An earnest appeal was made to the Department of Defence by a border farmer who lives on the edge of the Kalahari where his stock are being mauled by wild animals. He is farming in the Gordonia constituency. He made application in 1944. I can also give his name; it is Mr. Duvenage. Here is the answer he received—

Here comes the serious passage in the letter—

And so there are numbers of cases where honourable citizens apply for the right to possess a rifle, and when their request is turned down and when they ask why they may not possess a rifle, they get this sort of answer—

I want to tell the Hon. Minister there is a feeling amongst the general public, and everyone knows it is so.… [Time limit.]

I hope hon. members will now give me a chance. I have given them a fairly considerable opportunity to broach matters and to ask questions, but my notes are piling up to such an extent that it may be dangerous. I shall briefly touch on the points that have been discussed.

Of course in Committee of Supply we do not really carry on a debate. It is more a question of putting questions, mentioning points and bringing subjects to the attention of the Government, and therefore I merely listened and made notes of the points mentioned here, and although I am not replying now to all the points that were touched on, I can give hon. members the assurance that a note is being kept of all questions asked here, and attention is being devoted to them, even though I may not have the time nor the opportunity to discuss them all here.

But there are certain points of importance I should like to touch upon. May I begin with the delicate point brought up by the Leader of the Opposition, namely the projected visit of His Majesty to South Africa. At that time I addressed the invitation to His Majesty knowing that I was acting in accordance with the spirit of the people of South Africa, and that His Majesty and the Queen and the Princesses would have the most gratifying reception here from all sections of the public. South Africa will feel honoured, and we also feel honoured by the fact that so to say we have been the first to be selected in the Commonwealth to receive a visit after the war from His Majesty. We appreciate it and I am certain that the most cordial reception will be extended to the Royal personages by all sections of the community. I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it would be highly reprehensible if such occasion were abused for political purposes. It is obvious, and I am certain that His Majesty would regard it as a personal affront to himself if he was exploited by one party or the other party for political purposes. He is our King; he is coming here to visit us, to gain acquaintance with us, and he stands superior to all parties, and certainly it is not the least his intention that his visit shall be exploited for any party purposes. There was never any such idea in my mind. There is no such idea in anyone’s mind, and I hope that the reception the Royal party will enjoy here from all sections of the population will have precisely that effect that no party will be able to exploit it at all. The reception will be of such a character by all sections of the public that exploitation of this sort will be excluded. His Majesty expressed just one wish to me with the acceptance of the invitation, and it is this. He would like to gain acquaintance with South Africa, with his people here in South Africa. But he has, of course, had an awful time during all these years of war, in which he took an extremely exacting part in activities which made heavy demands both physically and spiritually. And his request is that neither physically nor mentally will he be exploited, that his visit here should be of such nature that calls will not be made on him that will overtax his strength. He comes here partly to rest. He is coming here to make our acquaintance. He is coming here to enjoy our country, to enjoy the people, to enjoy the glory of South Africa, and we must not overtax him. Today I should like to tell the House, and through the House the people, that we must not overtax the King. I know that we are prone to express our respects and our cordiality in such a way that it can become almost unbearable. I hope that we shall be moderate in the calls we make on him.

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition went on to discuss another point. I do not wish to return to the question we have already discussed. The hon. member returned to it, namely, the words of admonition which I perhaps directed to myself more than anyone else, to be careful and not to go too far. We know what difficulties exist, that the state of the world is dangerous and disquieting, we know of the things that happened, and which can develop dangerously. The hon. leader referred more specifically to the case of Iran. We have expressed our opinion and our feeling in the right quarter. In my opinion it is the Acid test for U.N.O., but we must be prudent. The matter is not one that rests on us to decide. It is before the right tribunal. The Security Council deals with that. We are not involved in that. I should like us not to get mixed up with that, seeing it is before the competent court. By meddling with that we can easily make the matter even more difficult, and thereby we shall be doing a disservice to South Africa. Consequently I would rather be prudent and so far as possible keep off the grass, knowing it is dangerous ground. South Africa does not want to make more enemies than she has, and it is in our interest in view of the world position, which is very serious, and which changes quickly, to be prudent. A country may differ greatly tomorrow from what it is today. In all countries the conditions change quickly.

An improvement.

In some cases, and in other cases just the reverse, but it warns us to exercise a great measure of caution and a certain measure of reserve when we have to deal with such powers. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is fully entitled to express his opinion just like any member of the House. I have to be careful with my attitude. It is not a case of a policy of appeasement. It is a case of prudence. We know we are in the presence of great dangers, and that things can happen in the world which will give a completely new turn to the movement for peace. We should like to give the machinery that has been established a chance. We made an effort with the U.N.O., and let us give it a chance, and not meddle in such a way with the difficulties that exist that we shall deprive the Organisation of every opportunity to develop along sound lines. The difficulties are great enough. I would rather see us place ourselves under that Organisation in order to see whether it may not be a success, a better experiment than the League of Nations, and one that will lead to better conditions. I agree with the hon. member that in the last resort new machinery will not do that; no organisation will save the world. Unless a new spirit comes nothing can save the world. But a new spirit can come, the anguish the world has endured, the pain, the suffering and the grief can still lead to the better spirit that we envisage and which we all desire and which perhaps may save the world. Irresponsible arguments or loose talk on our part will not redeem the position, so therefore let us bide our time prayerfully and co-operate in order that we may see that new sprit born in international relations. I think that is the spirit in which my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, spoke last week in Johannesburg. I do not believe that he meant anything else.

But what did he say?

He can speak for himself better than I can do it for him. But I think it was his standpoint that a new outlook must come into the world, not the narrow outlook of condemning others, which will not help. I think when he expounded his standpoint it was in his own words, which would not be the phrasing of the hon. Leader or my phrasing, but that was his object. I agree with the hon. Leader that where there are organisations that help in the right direction, whether it is the church or any other institution that endeavours to keep humanity on the right road, we must support that institution and work against those forces which will split the world asunder. I am certain that all sections of this House adopt the standpoint that we will help the church and other institutions of that nature to do their work properly, and to hold their head erect against the dangers there are in the world. The hon. Leader referred specially to my hon. friend here alongside me, as if he had thrown mud and done harm to the church. That is not so. Do not let us exaggerate things. My hon. friend spoke on a certain subject in reference to the management at Kakamas.

He said the last synod was a political synod.

That is quite a different thing to saying that there are also politics in the synod.

He said that it was a political synod, and he does not deny it.

I read that in the synod a parson was told: Then you are an old Sap. We do not get any further if we go into that ground, and I do not think it is necessary for our purpose.

The Minister of Lands only lives when he attacks the church.

No, that is not so. The hon. Leader of the Opposition further discussed the position of the Protectorates, and let me deal with that briefly. Actually the legal position is as he stated it here. The question is mentioned in principle in the Appendix to the South Africa Act. The incorporation of the Protectorates was subsequently taken up again by the Government and it made fairly good headway before the outbreak of the war. In the last years of the war it was not possible to deal any further with the matter, and it will be resumed again at the right time. I do not think that there are insurmountable objections. The position is per se still as it was laid down in the South Africa Act, which is not only an Act of our Parliament, but also the British Parliament, and it will be carried out. Certain difficulties will have to be surmounted, but I do not think they are insurmountable.

Will the matter be discussed again?

At the right time. Lord Buxton officially promised the peoples of the Protectorates that they would be consulted, not that their approval would settle the matter but that they would be consulted when steps were taken. Where we can help the British Government in that position we are doing so, and we are doing it gladly to achieve our object. The Protectorates are an indivisible part of South Africa, and our object is to get them under oud administrative control. This is our purpose and we shall carry it out. There is no necessity for fighting or quarrels or misunderstanding over it. At the right time if I am there I shall tackle the matter and try to dispose of it.

The question of the strike was mentioned by various members. I would only say that I do not want to go into that matter, and hon. members will understand why. The subject is still under negotiation, and I do not think it would serve any useful purpose nor would it lead to good results if we discussed our various standpoints while the negotiations were still in progress. Our two emissaries, Mr. Walker and Brig. Buchanan, were sent to consult both sides in order to see whether a compromise could not be made between them in order to bring the strike to an end. They did not go up with any instructions except what I have now said, not with any agreement or ultimatum, but to consult and to see whether a reconciliation was not possible. They consulted the strikers and they consulted the committee of the Mineworkers’ Union, and there is good hope that the matter can be arranged. The points were drawn up and put to the two parties. The Mineworkers’ Union was prepared to sign, but the other side hesitated over a certain point. That is how matters stood yesterday evening, and the negotiations were resumed today. I trust it will lead to a solution which will bring about an ending of the strike. This is the principal point. The other points are, in my opinion, subsidiary. If other steps must be taken those points can be agreed to later between the parties. The principal point is to end the strike as quickly as possible. The negotiations were started in all good faith and with the greatest goodwill towards both parties, and if they do not succeed then we shall have to go further. But do not let us discuss the matter now, or approve or condemn in advance. Let us wait a little, and we may get a good result. The strike must be ended. There can be no doubt about that, if it is allowed to continue it will be another big economic disaster to the country; it will lead to an economic disaster, and we shall have a dislocation similar to that we experienced previously. If it is necessary the Government will intervene. Everything that can be done with goodwill will be done, and if we can reach agreement with that so much the better. Give them a chance to come to a decision themselves based on goodwill.

Are the strikers being paid their wages?

I have no information on r the details. If it comes to a settlement then everyone will be glad to remove the other difficulties.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) touched on another matter of importance, namely what he described as the Imperial Conference. The British Prime Minister has made it clear that it is not really an Imperial Conference. It is impossible to hold such a conference or to get all the Prime Ministers together. The timetable in the Commonwealth is almost impossible. Parliaments sit and adjourn and any programme that can bring together the leaders of the governments in the various parts of the Commonwealth is virtually impossible. The result is that there will be a series of conversations with the various groups as they arrive. I believe the Prime Minister of Australia will be the first there, then I may be the second there, and the Prime Minister of Canada third, or perhaps we shall be there together. The House will thus see that it is not really an Imperial Conference. The discussions will turn on the ways in which certain questions in connection with the peace treaty should be discussed. One of the foremost and most difficult matters is the decision as to what shall happen in connection with the conquered Japanese possessions in the Pacific Ocean. That will be the principal subject of discussion. The second will be the arrangement in connection with the former Italian possessions in North Africa. Then there is the line that must be drawn between Yugoslavia and Italy. The discussions will principally run on these lines. The British Prime Minister stated that the opportunity will also be taken to discuss other points of importance. What those points are I do not know, nor whether anyone has any definite ideas about it. It will depend on circumstances. There is no formal agenda. I have not been advised that there is a formal agenda. I have mentioned the principal points for discussion, and others may arise as affairs develop. I have given the assurance to the House, and I give it again to this Committee, that as far as I am concerned no commitments, no undertakings, will be entered into that will bind us. If anything occurs affecting us it will be submitted to this Parliament for approval. The approval of this House will be necessary for any commitment of this kind. We are taking up the standpoint that the only bonds in the charter are those which we have adopted and which have been approved. In that we have undertaken certain obligations, and we shall comply with those obligations to the best of our ability. But we have no other obligations, and if other obligations come up they must be laid before this Parliament for approval.

Another point mentioned by the hon. member is the economic question. It is of course expected that certain economic questions will be discussed. I do not know whether it is so or not. There will be another conference over economic matters. That is how I understand the run of events. There will later be a conference in America on the question of preferential tariffs and suchlike matters, and before that conference preliminary conversations will take place in the British group about them. This will be on an official level. We shall send delegates on an official level to thrash out the matter, and I do not know whether that question will be broached at the conversations with the Prime Ministers. He also enquired whether there was not a certain measure of risk attached to these economic discussions; whether an attempt would not be made to support England’s shaky economic position and in this way to weaken our own chances of industrial development. I do not think there is the slightest chance of that. The whole object is to give effect to the agreement with America, the lease-lend agreement, the master agreement that controls everything. In that lease-lend agreement made during the war there were certain conditions laid down that were to be carried out later in connection with it. One of these undertakings was this. After the war an attempt was to be made to place world trade on a sound basis and to ascertain whether it could not be so contrived by measures in connection with preferential tariffs and high tariff walls that the trade of the world would not be too greatly hampered, because the recovery of world trade is necessary if we do not want to impede the economic recovery of the world. This is the section of the lease-lend agreement under which we resolved that such a discussion or conference should take place, and there would be preliminary discussion in the British group about it. There is no danger as I see the matter, that we shall surrender the preference or the benefits we have in the British market, or in the markets of the Commonwealth, unless in terms of the master agreement we secure sufficient compensation to make it worth our while. The source of all the difficulty was the high tariff wall in America. They built a wall there against all imports, and through that a position arose in world trade which gave rise to the depression in the years 1929-’30 which we are all so well acquainted with. America began building a high tariff wall, and as a reply to that the British group agreed in Ottawa also to increase the preferential tariffs. The result was that the whole of world trade fell into confusion. It gave a set back to world trade. The effort will be now not to remove those walls completely but to lower them somewhat and in this way to restore world trade to a sound basis. We shall not abandon anything that would be detrimental to us without being sure that the benefits we secure adequately balance what we give up.

In regard to the internal industrial position we maintain absolute liberty. I do not think any government will venture to place a check on our industrial developments in any way. In the master agreement there is a reservation that young countries with young industries that had to be built up to construct their own economy will be an exception. We are one of those countries that stand on the threshold of our economic future, and we are not going to close the door on our future. Nor are we asked to do so under the master agreement. We shall continue with the development of our industries, and where we can derive assistance from overseas for that object we shall accept it with all gratitude. Hon. members will know that South Africa has recently been looked to a great deal as a developing industrial country. Many British industries are coming here today. There is one mission after the other to see what openings there are. It is felt that the old world has gone back. Europe is in the position that development there has a fairly sombre future, and more and more the new countries are being looked to as well as the decentralisation of industries. Big English businesses are trying to build these branches which will develop here as independent industries. This is what is happening, and it will mean much for South Africa. Before the war we had the same development in Canada, with the result that a big expansion occurred in Canada. Industries in the United States realised that they could develop a very strong position in world trade and in the British Empire if they could transfer their industries in a large measure over the border to Canada. The almost incredible industrial and economic expansion in Canada was largely the result of that. The same thing will happen with us. I expect it. It will not happen only in respect of England and America but also in respect of other European countries. They have been struck by what they have seen of South Africa during the war. They have seen it is a country of great resources, with quite exceptional advantages and privileges in the industrial sphere. The industrial development of South Africa will come. Nothing will prevent it. We shall encourage it and we shall welcome help from overseas. In the generation that is rising South Africa will experience a degree of expansion which may be the greatest in its economic history. I have not that weak belief in the future some people have. We hear of people saying that the gold mining industry will collapse. There is not a word of truth in that. Nothing is on such a good footing as the gold mining industry in South Africa. Here and there a mine becomes worked out and closes down. But equally rich mines and equally promising mines are being developed in the Free State, and all that will happen is that in the generation that is growing up a great deal of the gold industry will be transferred from the Transvaal to the Free State. I congratulate the Free State. There is no question of falling away or slipping back. And what is happening in the realm of mining will also happen in the industrial sphere in general. We must keep our eye on the possibilities of Africa. We must have a market in Africa, because as matters are now our markets are small for big industries. We shall have to look to the North more and more, to the States in the North for the expansion of our markets. I think that must be one of our main efforts, not only to develop a market here and to develop here in the industrial sphere, but also to open a market in the great continent of Africa.

Then you must have better representation there.

The representation increases and improves all the time. We have had very little so far. In the war we learned a lesson. We did not know these countries, and they did not know us. We were separated from each other, but in the war there was such a lot of mixing, such a co-operation, I can almost say fraternisation between these countries in the difficult time of war, that we now have opportunities we did not have previously, and of which we must make the best use.

Another point mentioned here is the matter of granting rifles. I should like to come away from rifles. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) wants me to give a peace message to the people, and it must be more rifles.

You said we must keep our rifles bright, and we ask for rifles to keep bright.

I have given instructions to the authorities concerned that there must be much greater liberality in the provision of rifles, and this is happening now. You must act methodically in this matter. I do not feel so certain about everything that I can just throw the doors open. I do not think that would be wise. We have signs which always warn us to a certain degree. The other day I read of a commandant-general in our country who expounded his objective and who said they had more than 60,000 members. That may be just brag. We know that many of these big things, when you get down to bedrock, are not what they are made out to be. But in any case, we must act prudently in such a matter. A proper system must be applied. The instruction I gave was that any citizen in the country may obtain a rifle under certain conditions.

Even, if he is not a farmer?

These are farmers. In the big centres it is more dangerous, and I think also unnecessary. With all the disorderliness there is in the towns, the more rifles you distribute the more will get into wrong hands. Today you give a rifle to A, who is entirely reliable, and tomorrow it is in the hands of B, and he takes part in lawless acts. As far as the farmers are concerned, it is otherwise. We admit that their farms must be protected. We are still in the position of developing our agricultural industry, and there must be a considerable measure of protection on our farms, and my instruction is that a man can get a rifle with the approval of the commandant of police, the local Defence commandant and a magistrate. Then the door is open to him, and I do not think these are unreasonable conditions. Hon. members have stated that there has been discrimination on political lines There may be instances, but I do not believe there are many. Instances have come to my notice, and in some cases I have set aside the refusal, but of course I am too busy with other things, and cannot issue rifles to thousands of people.

Is it not proper that if a man asks why he has been refused a rifle they should tell him?

There will be a certain measure of reserve, because there may be something known to the police that they cannot divulge.

Is there an appeal from such a decision?

There is no appeal, except that complaints come to me later, and then I go into such a case. I naturally have not the time to go into every case, but there is no appeal. As a matter of fact, our police chiefs are almost all from our own Boer families, our police are today a farmers’ organisation, not a foreign organisation. The police commandant and the magistrate, who is also a responsible person, and the commandant of the district are men of repute….

What commandant?

The Defence Commandant. There may be cases of discrimination on party lines, but not many, and this is quite wrong.

I can give you a list of cases where the refusal has been solely on political grounds. I mentioned one name you know personally.

May I just enquire in how far the position as you now put it differs from the position as it obtained last year?

It has been widened. There are thousands of rifles. Previously we had a restriction that no more than a certain number of rifles might be issued. So long as there are rifles, they can now be issued without restriction, provided the person receives the approval of those officials.

Those were also the conditions last year. As far as this is concerned, there is no relief.

The number is no longer limited.

Can anyone who is not a farmer get a rifle under any circumstances?

If, for instance, he goes on safari.

To Dongola, for instance. You do not, of course, want to exterminate the game. Let me say that I regard our game as one of the biggest assets in our country. It may not be realised today, but the day will come when it will be fully realised.

I entirely agree, but my complaint is just this, that you get hunting parties comprised of people from the towns that come to the platteland to hunt. They have rifles, but the farmers cannot get rifles.

There is a large measure of truth in what the hon. member for Waterberg says. You have these shooting parties. Where they get the rifles, I do not know. I am dealing with the matter as reasonably as possible in the circumstances. Perhaps politics sometimes enter into it, but that is exceptional. I strongly disapprove of that. To me one Afrikaner is like the other so long as he is not dangerous to the peace of the country. What has his politics to do with that?

But your officials do not carry out your policy.

As a rule, yes. There may be exceptions, but these are few.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has raised two questions here. The one question has been discussed a good deal this afternoon. The other is of minor importance. The question of minor importance is the refugee question. He asked what we are going to do to help to solve the refugee question. There are refugees in South Africa and also in other parts of the world. As far as the refugees here are concerned, they are not really a problem. Our problem is to obtain transport for them to their homes. They want to go home, and my hon. friends knows what immense difficulty there is in getting people out of the country. Thousands of them want to get away as soon as they can to go to their own countries. In the end we may have a little residue over with which to deal, but internally refugees are not a problem to us at present. As regards other countries the problem as to what to do with the refugees, or displaced persons as they are called, in the world today is enormous. I believe that in Germany alone there are one million displaced persons. But we cannot really undertake responsibility for those people. It is a terrible problem. The Poles are only part of it—not the Polish Army. I think the Polish Army has now returned to Poland in terms of an agreement arrived at between the Polish and British Governments, so that problem is solved. But we shall be left with an enormous unsolvable problem in Europe, and we cannot do much to it. We cannot do much there even if we would, and South Africa is very unwilling to take these people.

Immigration is a difficult question. I am per se in favour of immigration if we can overcome the difficulties connected with it. I think the emptiness of this country and of Southern Africa as a whole is a danger to our future. I think any empty country is in a dangerous position. That applies also to Australia and to all the other young countries which are still unoccupied. It is a dangerous thing for us not to fill up, because the world is full to overflowing with population, and where they see empty spaces, and they have the power and can use power politics to acquire these countries, you will have danger. The difficulty is to know how to overcome the problems that arise. This country has not a great absorptive capacity at present. I agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) that industrial development is probably the best opening we have. Farming does not afford us much opportunity to develop, because it is a difficult occupation in South Africa. We must have an immigration policy to supply the labour that we need, if we need it. I think people, especially experts, technicians and artisans, people with special skill, should come to this country if there is employment for them, if we can create employment. That is a condition precedent. Through the industries and through development we will be able to absorb such people. And I think that will happen. I think the industrial and economic development of this country will be large enough in years to come, probably, to absorb quite a large additional population, but at present we cannot do much. We are bound to settle our own men first. We have given that undertaking, and are carrying it out. When we have done that we must see to what extent there is an opening for immigrants. I would welcome decent immigrants, but we must first know that we can place them, and not bring these people to our country when they have no living to make and merely become a problem to us. A number of hon. members have discussed this question, and if I do not refer to them individually, they may be sure that I have noted all they said.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) has referred to the question of our foreign representation, and a number of other members followed on those lines, raising this rather important question. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) referred to Australia and asked why we did not have representation as between us and that country. I may tell the hon. member that that has been arranged, and we are going to have it. The only thing that is delaying it at the moment is personnel difficulties, but in principle the matter has been arranged. I quite agree that there ought to be a good opening for us in the Far East, and that there is no reason why we should not have a High Commissioner in Australia and why Australia and New Zealand should not have their Commissioners here. The wider question is how to select our diplomats, and that is a question we must solve from day to day and from time to time. The suggestion has been made in this House that we should use members of Parliament very largely for this’ purpose. Well, sometimes you have just the right type of man to send, and you know that sending him will not create political difficulty here. Sometimes you have the very man, but if he is sent you have to fight a furious by-election which you may lose. Naturally governments are anxious about that. [Laughter.] After that you do not know what is going to happen to the individual who was selected if another government comes into power. You have then lost a by-election and may lose a General Election. Then what becomes of you? So it is a problem. And you cannot lay down a rule like that. Sometimes a member of Parliament is the very person who ought to be selected, and we have had good selections from both parties in the past. Sometimes a trained man in the public service is the man to send, and we have some very good men. America appoints generals or professors. I also appointed a general. He is a very good man. I may appoint a professor also. Dr. Gie was a professor and a very good man. Sometimes you have men outside who are well qualified for the post. I do not think one can lay down hard and fast rules. I cannot lay them down because other governments may not follow my advice, but will act according to their own interests and ideas. I am now training young men for the diplomatic service. I think we must train people now as specialists. Take the case of magistrates. They have to be special men, who have to represent the Government in their areas, and they should be specially selected and trained for the purpose. The same applies to our foreign representatives. Our young diplomats may rise to the top or they may not. They may only occupy lower grades in the service, but still they should have special training, and we are doing that. The Public Service Commission together with the Department of External Affairs are giving their attention to that matter, and seeing that men who know law and languages and who have been given practice are selected. It is all specialised work. They have to measure up to others from other countries, and it is no credit to South Africa to send a man to a foreign country either as a Minister or in some lower capacity who is not the equal of his opposite numbers, and that is what we are providing for. It is all to the honour, credit and interest of South Africa.

*I think I have covered all the points, even the peace message that was suggested by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) who wishes to distribute rifles to the people as a peace message. I do not think a peace message is necessary. The Government are at peace with the people, and I hope the people are at peace with the Government, and that hope is not without foundation.

We know when a man says “ek het vrede met jou” it means that he does not want to have anything to do with you.

I rejoice that notwithstanding all the difficulties we have come through in the past six years, which might have rent the country root and branch, in spite of it all we see in South Africa a state of affairs that is more or less normal. A good feeling prevails among the larger part of the population, a better feeling even than in the pre-war years, and to me it is one of the gladdest signs that though we could have sustained severe damage as a nation during the war we have surmounted it, and today there prevails a spirit of peace and co-operation and brotherliness.

In spite of such a Government.

I think the figting that still goes on is confined to the political sphere. Amongst the people there is peace. Only the politicians continue the fight.

May I make use of the half-hour rule? We are very glad that the Prime Minister is in such a good mood today. We are glad to see that he is of opinion that better relations exist between the various sections in our country, and we therefore assume that the Prime Minister not only welcomes it in the nation as such, but that he will also, if it is at all possible, furnish evidence that he seriously intends perpetuating the better feeling that is developing. That is why I wish to make use of the opportunity to draw attention to a matter of the greatest public interest, a matter affecting many people, and also citizens of our country, today, and that is what the intention of the Government is in connection with the internment camps. There are still thousands of people in camps in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister may perhaps ask why we do not raise the matter under the Vote “Justice”. We choose this opportunity precisely because we feel that the whole matter depends on the view that the Prime Minister holds on this matter. His colleague, the Minister of Justice, will himself assuredly not bring about a change in the policy in the absence of the Prime Minister when he goes to Europe and to America, and that is why we make use of the opportunity to raise this matter with the Prime Minister and to plead with him. We should like to know, not only we on this side of the House, but I think that a very great part of the country outside would like to know, what the present policy of the Government is in connection with the internment of people still sitting behind fences today. In the second place we should like to know how many people are still being detained today, and how many of those still being detained today have been placed on the list of those about whom the appointed commission will have to decide who should be earmarked for repatriation and who not. If the Prime Minister decides that internment should still be continued, we should like to bring certain facts and circumstances to his attention which, we hope, will help to induce the Government and the Prime Minister as such to take the wise and right step and to put an end to the camps now that the war has already been over for a year and now that the whole world is looking forward to a better world and all are yearning for peace. All would like to see the better relations indicated by the Prime Minister towards the end of his speech, the better relations between the various sections in our country. That is why we wish to ask the Prime Minister, if he does not yet wish to go the whole way, now to say: We must now try not only to forget the past as much as possible, but we must also as much as possible salve the wounds that have been inflicted. We wish to see whether we cannot move the Prime Minister to take the wise and sensible step and say: We are now going to open the gates of the internment camps and release the people who have already been sitting there behind barbed wire for five or six years. If the Prime Minister decides that he still wishes to continue it to a certain extent, then we wish to plead for the unfortunate people still sitting behind fences, and we wish to plead for the privilege, and it is a very reasonable request and a request that we can see no reason for the Prime Minister to refuse, and it is this that as the Government has now decided to appoint a commission to go into all cases to see who can be released and who will perhaps have to be sent out of the country, to grant them the right to get an advocate or an attorney to prepare their case and to plead it before the commission. One would think that after these people have been sitting in the camps for five or six years the department concerned should be sufficiently well informed to know exactly which of these people can be released after all these years and which not. In any case we plead for the one great acknowledged democratic right, and that is that these poor unfortunate people should have the right that is granted to the greatest criminal, and that is that when he is in trouble, he should be given the opportunity of having his case pleaded to the best of his ability. I say that to me it is such a fair request and such an acknowledged democratic right that I do not see why the Prime Minister should not at least comply with this request. We plead for it for the following reasons. Today we have a sort of international court sitting in Nuremberg. There people are being tried, not merely because they happen to be of German origin, not because they are subjects of an enemy State, but these people are being tried because they took an active part in the war; they are people accused on the grounds of having committed certain deeds against civilisation. There is assuredly no comparison between these people who are being tried in Nuremberg and those still sitting in the internment camps of South Africa. Why are those people allowed to have advocates to plead their case, and here in South Africa we do not acknowledge those democratic rights granted to those people? Another reason why we plead that this right should be granted to these people, is that the following argument is being used by the department today. We have received numerous letters in which we are told that the men have already signed to be repatriated, and because they have signed on the list that they wish to go away to Germany, that’s the end of it. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of it, but that is the attitude of the chief executive officer. If a person has signed that he wishes to return to Germany, well, then it is finished, and then he has to go. We wish to ask the Prime Minister to look into the matter. He will find that the reason why numbers of these people signed was that the greatest pressure was brought to bear upon them when they were in the camps; because they suffered the greatest intimidation from the people who were repatriated already in June, 1944. Those are the people who exerted pressure on the internees and forced them to sign the list. We are all human beings. We can understand it. These people had been sitting in the camps a long time, and it was an expedient at which they seized in order to escape from behind the barbed wire. I think it would be very unfair and even inhuman of us today to keep those people to it because they signed on the list under certain circumstances. They are people who have taken root in our own country, to remain here; they are people who have married Afrikaans women and whose children have been born here; they are people who have no other fatherland but South Africa; in some cases they are people who, as we know, have not a single relative in Germany. They are now seized by the neck and sent out! We feel that this is not fair and that it is not in the spirit of peace and of better relations between the sections in the country about which the Prime Minister is so glad. In the third place we also plead for this concession that they should get advocates and attorneys to help them in preparing their cases, because when the war broke out, in the circumstances obtaining at the time in the department under which internment fell, action was frequently taken on all information supplied to them without properly checking that information. We have had evidence of it in that the present Minister of the Interior has admitted that there have been cases where people were unjustly interned. If there are one, two or half-a-dozen such cases that are acknowledged by the Minister, then we have reason to assume that there may still be many more such cases. In the then existing circumstances people were interned on information without foundation, and they were interned in a way that created a paradise for certain people who wished to revenge themselves. There is no person in the world without enemies. We also know that certain people do not hesitate to descend to the lowest depths to do anything to get their enemy out of the way. We assert that there were more such cases. The present Minister of the Interior has admitted in this House that people were unjustly interned. Why? Because their enemies brought in false information against them. Then there is a fourth reason why I plead that these people should be given a chance of having somebody skilled in the work at their disposal to prepare their case and put it to the commission, and it is this. From my experience and according to information that I shall reveal here, conditions in the office of the chief executive officer are in hopeless disorder. I have before me a letter of 24th August of last year written in the office of the chief executive officer—

I wish to bring this letter to the attention of the Prime Minister. On 24th August a promise was given to me that the case of Rabe, a naturalised Union citizen, would again form the subject of a letter to me. Up to the present no further communication about Rabe has reached me, But the strangest part of the matter is this: Wegmann, who is a German subject, and in whose case it was decided after careful consideration that he could not be released, was discharged from the camp within a week after this letter was written. I mention this case for no other reason than to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister what happened there. We know that he is very busy and that he cannot spend his time in going into all these cases, but we wish to show him here on what grounds we are pleading. Here I have the case of another person. He had been in South Africa for 20 years. His wife is a woman whose parents came to South Africa in 1905. I personally saw the chief executive officer on behalf of this person. He told me that this person’s name also appeared on the list of those who had to appear before the commission and about whom the commission had to decide whether they should be repatriated. His wife and two little children were left without any refuge. They receive no grant from the Government. That poor woman has to provide for her own children. She is a Union national, and now she has to discover that her husband’s name is on the list of those who have to be sent away. But here is another case that is almost a flagrant one, and that I also wish to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister. Two persons with the same surname were interned, the one at Andalusia and the other at Baviaanspoort. Repeated attempts were made to get the one at Andalusia out of the camp. We again received the usual letter in this case that, after careful consideration by the Minister, it was impossible to release this person. But the matter was pursued, and eventually it was discovered in the office of the chief executive officer that in the file of the person interned at Andalusia there was a certain document of the person interned at Baviaanspoort, and who had already been deported in June, 1944. That document, we are prepared to admit, is, according to the view of the Government, incriminating enough to keep any man behind the fence. But what we object to, and why we mention it here, is to show the Prime Minister what happened there, that this unfortunate man was kept behind the fence for four or five years because the wrong document was in his file. I quote this case because also in this instance we received the usual letters saying that after careful consideration by the Minister concerned, it was impossible to release this person from Andalusia. But it was only a week after that letter when that man was liberated. I think I have quoted sufficient proofs. We can keep on bringing numbers of such instances to the attention of the Prime Minister to show him what the conditions are under which these people live today, and why it is so very necessary that we should give them the recognised democratic right of obtaining an advocate or attorney to submit their case to the Commission. There is still another reason why we plead for it, and that is because today we have in our internment camps several internees who are citizens of neutral countries. There are citizens of Sweden, Holland, Finland and Denmark, but merely because they happen to be of German origin they have to remain in the internment camps. We wish to go further. We not only plead with the Prime Minister that he should give these people the right that is granted to the greatest criminal, but we wish to go further and plead with him: In view of the conditions in South Africa and in the world, open the gates and allow those people to come out from behind the barbed wire. The Prime Minister would do well to follow the example of America. America did not wait till nine months or a year after the cessation of hostilities to let the people out. No, she opened the internment camps immediately after the collapse of Germany to let the Germans out. Why cannot the Prime Minister do this also in South Africa? The second reason why we ask that the people should come out of the camps is that it is humiliating to them to remain in the camps. Any person will admit that it is a humiliation for any person whatsoever to undergo such a thing and to stay there for five or six years. Those people have undergone a spiritual martyrdom, and they have been there for so many years. May I bring a few of the conditions that existed there to the attention of the Prime Minister, and then I should like to ask him whether it is not yet sufficient and whether we should not now open the gates? What are the conditions under which those people have existed for five or six years? They were allowed to have visits, once a month for half an hour. This continued for five or six years. The visitor cannot go and see the people in the usual way. No, there is fine netting-wire between them, and they can only see one another if they stand right opposite one another. In between a guard walks to and fro. Husband and wife cannot even talk a little about their private affairs. That is not the worst. The family as such cannot come and see the father. The daughter is allowed to go alone, or the wife could go alone, and the sons under ten years could go, but the son above ten years could not go and see his father. No, I really think this sort of thing should now cease. I do not think I need mention more to make the Prime Minister realise that it is now sufficient, and that we should allow those people to enjoy freedom again. What was the position in regard to the packages that were sent to the camp? I personally sent packages to the camp. If you send cake, then the people receive only a lot of crumbs, because the cake is searched. If you send a piece of meat or a chicken, then the name is removed so that the people should not know who sent it. What is the sense of this? Why may the man not know that his wife, daughter or friend sent it to him? What was the position in regard to medicine in the camp? I should like the Prime Minister to go into the matter and find out how primitive the medicine was there. In exceptional cases people succeeded in getting out of the camp when members of their family had died. Now I wish to mention to the Prime Minister a case of which I have experience. One day I happened to be in the office of the officer concerned when news was received of the death of a person in the camp. That man’s wife lived in Pretoria. She was telephoned in my presence, and the death of her husband was communicated to her in this way: “I just wish to inform you that your husband was buried yesterday.” That is the way in which these people are treated. I can give the Minister the names in this case. There was serious illness in the home of an internee. He applied to go out on parole to see his relative for the last time. This was refused him. Only when she was dead and buried this person was able to go out for a week to look at the grave. He was not allowed to see the person alive again. We feel that in view of all the circumstances in which these people lived, we can now say: It is sufficient. The Prime Minister knows what the food position in South Africa is. We ask him to go into the matter of the food position in the camps. Those people receive an allowance of 1s. a day, and it is hopeless for them to obtain anything with it at the camp canteen or rather they can obtain very little with it of what there still is. I wish to mention another example of what is going on there. In July, 1945, the people received instructions that all their musical instruments and tools should be sent back. They were glad when they received this news, because they thought that this was a sign that they would shortly be released, and the authorities did not wish that they should then have much with them. Nearly a year has passed, they are still there, but they no longer have musical instruments and tools with which they might pass the time. But what did I see personally at Koffiefontein station? I am not now speaking of pro-Germans or of Nationalists, but of strong supporters of the Government, even candidates of the Prime Minister’s Party. Even those people, made the remark: “No, this is really too much.” Germans were removed from that camp and they were manacled together. Where a person was transported alone, he was still manacled although there were half a dozen armed men as guards. They were manacled like criminals. No, X think I have said enough to show the Prime Minister that in view of the conditions under which those people lived— they were exceptional war conditions—but now that the war is past, the time has arrived to release those people from the camps. [Time limit.]

I was very pleased to hear this afternoon that members of the Opposition favour an immigration scheme covering, as they put it, immigrants of the right type. They did not tell us what they meant by immigrants of the right type, but the fear expressed by one of them that such immigration would affect employment need not enter their minds. I agree with them that immigrants of the right type would be an asset to the country. They would increase employed and as such they would be an asset. We could do with 25,000 building artisans now to help us build the houses required and make up for the time lost during the war. There is one other matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister. We know that during the last six years Britain has suffered severely through the war. She has made great sacrifices in food, in her assets and in every way in the big fight for democracy, and I would like to appeal to, the Prime Minister to consider granting Britain a £100,000,000 loan, free of interest, similar to the loan Canada has granted. I understand there is over £300,000,000 lying in the bank and it would not be a difficult task to make the loan to Britain on these terms. This country has done very well out of the war. People have been enriched, and it would be a small token of appreciation to the people of Great Britain for what they have suffered during the last six years.

I should like to support the plea of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) on behalf of those who are now faced with the position that a decision must be taken whether they are to be sent out of the country. The hon. member mentioned several instances of people who were badly treated. I will just say that I personally tried on many occasions to get people out of the camp temporarily when there was serious illness in their family. These requests were acceded to when guarantees were given. Possibly the instances cited by the hon. member for Kuruman do not represent the position generally. I am convinced it was not general. Certainly on my own request people were let out temporarily because their relatives were ill. But today this is not the principal matter of importance. I am convinced that the plea I am going to urge on the Prime Minister is something that will count with him. I believe the Prime Minister feels the time has come to close the camps and that there must be an end to the locking up of people. I think no one could feel otherwise. The only thing is there are certain retarding factors, certain difficulties that are still being considered. But I believe also that the Prime Minister may picture these difficulties as too great and that he may also imagine the dangers are too formidable. The main reason I want to bring to the Prime Minister’s attention is this. I know that almost without exception the men in the camps have endured a great struggle, not in connection with internment, but a struggle in which the brain has suffered damage. Today these people are psychologically abnormal. We know this from the last war and we know it from this war. We know that in Germany our prisoners of war had to work for long periods, and were thus out of the camps. Work is the salvation of the person on the road to becoming mental. The circumstances under which the Italian prisoners of war worked in our country was fortunate for them. They were in that respect amongst the most fortunate of those who had to be held. They had the opportunity to work, and this is the salvation of a person and prevents mental injury. The doctors ought to have advised the Government, or else the advice they gave was no good, because otherwise the Government would certainly not have persevered with this system under which people were made mental. It is a terrible accusation, but it is the truth. I mention it here to indicate the great defect of such a camp and that the inmates must be released immediately. If necessary place them under temporary control, but we dare not in these circumstances allow people to remain in these camps. Even those who do not belong to the country, who were interned from ships, prisoners who were in the German forces— those people must be accorded some opportunity to recover so that they will not sustain irreparable mental injury. These people must be given the opportunity to recover so that they will not suffer mentally and in their psychological conception of life. This is the one point. They should be released immediately, even if it is under surveillance. The other point is this. I believe the Prime Minister shares with me the view that not many of these people deserve to be sent out of the country. I am referring to those who were in the country and who have furnished proof that they can provide services to South Africa. The Prime Minister knows that if the last war or earlier wars had occurred in a different epoch many of us, too, would have been sent out of the country. Should a war have occurred shortly after the time when our ancestors came here, there was a chance of us being expelled from the country. I think the Prime Minister shares the view that the descendants of the Germans have not played an unimportant role in South Africa. Particularly when we think of their devotion to duty and their genius to accomplish things and to make things grow where there was nothing before. I believe there is something like 1,000 people whose cases must be investigated. The Government have the information in their files. So far as I can see, these people will be given a trial, and the evidence will be mainly the evidence which is at present available in the files of the Department. I would just say further that I feel that where the grounds are that these people joined the Nazi Party, a distinction must be drawn between those who never took an active part in the activities of the Nazi Party, who never did anything subversive in South Africa, but who were honourable citizens of the country, and who also contributed a great deal towards the development of the country, and even to the improvement of certain professions and of agriculture; and, on the other hand, those who in fact were guilty of subversive activities. In Germany they are trying today to uproot this system. We see every day how they are trying to educate the children to gain a different outlook on political matters and on public affairs than what they were taught under the Nazi regime. If this is so, is it not possible that these people who have done no harm may be brought to a different outlook when they are honourable people? When these people are granted the opportunity to appear before the court they should, I think, receive assistance where it is possible so that, when charged, they can produce a measure of proof that possibly they have been wrongly treated in South Africa. We want to educate these people and to destroy any possible opportunity for them remaining Nazis and of their trying to establish the Nazi system, or a similar system, in South Africa. Is it necessary that we should send these people out of the country from A to Z, or is it not better to institute an enquiry to see whether there is a reasonable chance of these people becoming an asset to South Africa and for us then deciding to keep them here? The plea I am making for those still remaining in the camps is one to which I think we can listen. Let the circumstances in Germany be what they may, but we know that if our prisoners of war were all cross-examined we would find evidence that the men were well treated in some instances, and that they had the opportunity to work outside the camps. I will not assert that amongst them there are not those who suffered hunger and had a bad time. That is not my intention. My intention is merely to influence the Prime Minister not to harm these people any further in respect of their physical health, which perhaps is not so serious, and in their psychological conception of life, especially after all the time that has elapsed. These people have in that respect been ruined in the camps.

The Prime Minister has spoken of the wonderful opportunity of expansion for our industries in the near future. I quite agree with him. We know very well that that is so, but he has also spoken about the advantage which lies to the North where our natural markets lie. We know that there is an enormous demand which has been built up by the conditions which existed during the war years. We know also that as conditions improve, the industrially limiting factors relating to a shortage of material and man power will gradually die away and then the position will arise that the supply will overtake the demand. It is then that those markets to the North will be of the utmost value and importance to us. I think the Prime Minister has indicated that he is alive to the importance of it, but I would like to suggest to him whether it is not desirable at this stage in view of the position that will develop in the future, to consider the advisability of convening a conference of pan-African states so that we may get together and try to straighten out some of the difficulties and problems which are likely to confront us when we come to exploit that market to the North. I do not think I need elaborate on that. There are questions such as customs barriers which usually arise and the question of railway rates. I just thought that I should put that thought to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that we as the foremost manufacturing country on the African Continent should not fail to call together such a conference to discuss the problems which are bound to arise in the future. As I say, there is a demand now and we are in the happy position that we cannot meet it. The limiting factors are the shortage of labour as well as other factors, but in the course of time we must overcome that difficulty and then our opportunity will arise. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) has mentioned the question of a loan of £100,000.000 to Britain. It seems to me an admirable project. We would all like to do something in that direction. I am sure the country would be only too pleased if we could grant such a loan to Great Britain. But on looking into the matter there appear to be some practical difficulties. We know that in the United States a huge loan project is now being considered but the conditions are not parallel there. In the case of the United States and Canada the exchange is vitally needed to enable Britain to resume trade relations with those two countries. I do not think the same conditions apply here. Even if we were able to lend Britain £100,000,000, I am just wondering in what way they could make use of it, unless we can make it available in such a form that they can convert it into dollars and use it in the present circumstances. That is just a thought which struck me and I wanted to put it to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister.

Since the Right Hon. the Prime Minister replied to us this afternoon in reference to the strike on the Witwatersrand, I understand that Mr. Buchanan, who went up there to investigate, has now returned. I think I am speaking on behalf of everyone in this House when I say that we shall feel very glad to learn from the Prime Minister if as the result of Mr. Buchanan’s visit to Johannesburg any new information has come to light. If the Prime Minister can give us that information it will be greatly appreciated.

I should like to mention a few little matters in connection with the question of rifles. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has stated here that he can give the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) the assurance that where a farmer has extensive lands a rifle will be allocated to him. I have several times already written to the Minister of Defence about certain persons in my neighbourhood and also in the Rustenburg area who have to cope with wild animals on their farms. I asked the Minister what the reason was why these people may not get rifles, and in the House I myself asked him the question what the reason was why these people could not be assisted. To this I received the following reply—

Do they wish to have their rifles back?

They wish to buy rifles from the Defence Force. I cannot say whether they wish to have their other rifles back. Here we now have two cases where the applications were refused, and yet the hon. member for Rustenburg assures us that any farmer who has a large farm will get a rifle. I have already written several times about these persons, and they are in the difficult position that they have large farms, and there are wild animals on their farms and they cannot get assistance. Only the other day I received another letter again in which the people ask what is the reason for the refusal. I should now like to ask the Prime Minister if there are such persons who according to the best of my knowledge have never caused trouble, why they cannot be assisted. They only wish to have rifles to protect their farms and themselves, and here they are told that their applications cannot be acceded to. I should like the Prime Minister to tell us what the reason is why these people cannot be assisted. We have to cope with many difficulties in the Bushveld where these people live. It is a new part of the country where there are very few people as yet. We cannot realise with what difficulties the farmers have to cope in that region. They have to cope with wild animals on their farms. They are powerless. They do not even have a neighbour from whom they can get a rifle. I just wish to tell this House that I was at Rustenburg where I held eight meetings, and at each meeting the question was put to me why the farmers cannot get rifles. It has been stated here today by the Prime Minister that they will consider the matter and that they will try to assist the people, and I shall be very glad if a way out can be found to help the farmers. We are in a very bad plight there. For more than a year we have had to cope with lumpy skin disease. We are subject to restrictions there. We cannot get wire. Our farming is completely deteriorating, and if the Prime Minister cannot make a plan to assist us, it is impossible further to make a success of our farming. Some people have applied for wire to fence in their farms. In this connection I recently wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and I saw him personally and asked him to assist the farmers with wire. I received an answer today that he cannot possibly assist them because there is no wire available. These are all thing that make it extremely difficult for us. We ourselves have a shortage of food for our labourers. We are without labourers. All these burdens have been imposed on the farmer and we are without a crop. We cannot produce food. Some time ago a man came to me and asked me what he should do, and he told me that he was compelled to let his labourers go because he could get no food for them. I take it that this is the case not only in my constituency but also in other constituencies. I should like to say that the hon. member for Rustenburg has misled the House with the statement that there are no farmers with large farms who cannot get rifles. Now I wish to mention the name of a person whom he also knows well, namely, Mr. Roos. Mr. Roos repeatedly made application for a rifle, and his application was refused. And yet the hon. member says that any farmer who has a large farm can get a rifle. He has misled the House. It is not the first time that this has happened, but even in that neighbourhood the hon. member for Rustenburg has misled the people. He has made certain statements about settlement lands and the people have denied them. He has therefore misled the House.

Tell me in what respect I have misled the House.

The hon. member may not say that the hon. member for Rustenburg has misled the House. The hon. member must withdraw.

I withdraw, but then I wish to say that he makes many incorrect statements here. I shall speak about that later when that vote comes up for discussion. I hope the Prime Minister will try to give his personal attention to the position in which we find ourselves. I am now referring especially to the farmers who have to pass through an extremely difficult time in a new part of the world.

I also want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister not to take much notice of members of his side of the House, such as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). The hon. member for Rustenburg does the farmers in this country more harm than he realises. He talks as though he is a Minister. He says: I can assure the country that if a farmer has a big farm and he needs a gun, then he will get a gun.

I was only speaking on behalf of my constituency.

I just want to remind the Prime Ministér that that is not the case, and I hope he will not allow himself to be influenced by such members on his side. The hon. member who has just been seated mentioned certain cases where the applications for guns were refused. I want to quote the case of a certain young farmer in my constituency, a young farmer who is just 21 years of age, and who has never taken part in politics. To be honest I will say that by conviction he is Nationalistically minded. He has a farm which is more than 1,600 morgen in extent. The hon. member for Rustenburg said that if a man has a large farm he can obtain a gun if he needs it. Well, this man has a farm which is more than 1,600 morgen in extent and he cannot obtain a gun. Every night his sheep have to sleep in a camp for his farm borders on a game reserve which is over 12,000 morgen in extent and where there are many jackals. The man applied for a gun and a police official was sent to him and he again put a number of questions to him: “Do you need a gun; what political party do you belong to; have you ever poked fun at the Government?” Is that not a stupid question? If the man wanted to be dishonest and was anxious to obtain a gun, he would surely not admit that he had attacked the Government. As you know we have had a terrible drought in the Free State. There are a few hundred springboks on the man’s farm. He was fortunate enough to get a little rain and he sowed his mealies early. But what happened? The springboks devoured those mealies. He wanted a gun to scare the animals off and his application for a gun was turned down. I would just like to point out to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that he should not listen to hon. members on his side who tell these stories here. As you know, the man who can show the most £5 notes comes off best, and I think it would be in the interests of the nation if the Prime Minister gave more attention to that side of the matter and ensured that when complaints were lodged they received his personal attention.

Then there is another matter I would like to raise. We are told that peace is coming. I would like to know whether it is the idea to make peace with Germany as well. I ask this question for this reason; because it has been said in the past that peace cannot be made with Germany for first of all a new generation has to be educated in Germany. The people in my constituency are very interested in the matter for the following reason. As you know gold options were taken out on various farms long before the fall of France. People came to those parts and said: “The war has taken a bad turn; we are prepared to pay you option fees for another year if you agree not to receive any further money and to give us the say over your farm and to agree that the gold option contract will be valid until after the war or in some cases until even five years after the war”. There are some people who under the pressure of circumstances signed that contract with the result that for four or five years they did not receive option fees, and today they can still not get them because peace has not yet been declared. Some of the farmers who did not sign that contract have been receiving option fees in the maentime. The people would like to know what their position is. Is there a possibility that peace will even be made with Germany at the next peace conference. The people would like to know so that they can arrange their affairs accordingly. Then there is another matter which I want to deal with briefly. We see that the big Powers are practically stripping Germany and other hostile countries of all their machinery which they are taking away. I would like to know as South Africa also participated in the war, whether South Africa will also benefit by it. But that is not such a big point.

I am coming back to the gold options in the Free State. Many of those people are, it is true, owners of the surface area but the mineral rights do not belong to them. Many of those mineral rights belong to the subjects of hostile countries, and the question has been put to me whether the Government will perhaps expropriate certain things belonging to enemy aliens, and then I would like to know, if for instance they should decide to expropriate even mineral rights, whether they will revert to the State or will the relative owner of the farm to whom the surface area belongs receive any benefit from what is expropriated. I will be glad if the Prime Minister can give us a little information in that connection.

I want to support the few appeals which have been made for the internees. I would like to draw the attention of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to all those who are interned. The sailors who were taken off ships were put in camps. Then there are the Nazi leaders who were sent here by the German Government. They were also herded together in camps. Then there was the old-established population in the country, and particularly those who were in South-West Africa. They were also taken and put in the same camps. Then there were people who were put in camps who lived in South-West Africa before we took South-West Africa away from Germany in 1914-’18. Then there were people put in camps whom we naturalised in 1924, but whom we again denaturalised in 1940. Those people whom we naturalised in 1924 became naturalised because they wanted to be citizens of the Union. They wanted to be subjects of the Union Government, and they agreed in 1924 to becoming Union subjects. They were on the whole peaceful citizens.

And then they became Nazis.

Yes, some, but not all. Here and there some became Nazis, but not all of them. In any case, there were people who were never Nazis in their lives, and they did not even want to become members of the Nazi Party.

How do you know that?

I have full particulars here. And even despite great pressure and force within the camps they did riot want to become Nazis. In the camps very great pressure was brought to bear upon Germans, whom they called free Germans, by sailors and the Nazi leaders, and not only was moral pressure brought to bear upon them, but those people were also attacked. Not only were they beaten, but the Nazis in the camps maimed some of them, and still those Germans would not become Nazis, and still they were detained in the camps. There were people who were beaten until both their jawbones were broken, and still they refused to become Nazis. Those people are still kept in the camps. What greater proof must a man furnish that he is not a Nazi? The people endured these attacks, but we continue to detain them in the internment camps and we treat all Germans alike whether are Nazis or not. Some of the Germans do not want to be Nazis, notwithstanding the fact that they were attacked in this way. Some of them gave way to pressure which was brought to bear upon them, and very great pressure was brought to bear upon them. It is quite true, some of them became passive Nazis, but not all of them, and the difficulty was unfortunately that with one internment system we herded them all together with those sailors who were in reality Communists and not Nazis, and they are the people who did the most harm. I say that we herded all those people together, and there they had to remain together, Nazis and non-Nazis, and then the Nazis made use of the opportunity of attacking the non-Nazis. They made use of the opportunity of attacking those who did not want to return to Germany, who did not wish to be repatriated, and time and time again they attacked them. There are people who were attacked two or three times. There are people in the camps who were even attacked ten times and if the Prime Minister wants proof of that, I am prepared to furnish him with it. But unfortunately all these particulars did not come to the notice of the Government. It is true that complaints were lodged with the authorities, but those complaints did not get to the ears of the Government. And now I want to tell the Government that I will undertake to submit all those complaints to them by wav of sworn affidavits if they will just give me the assurance that there will be no discrimination against those people. I am prepared to name the dates on which the people were attacked. I am prepared to furnish the Prime Minister with proof of a case where the camp commandant posted up in a public place in the camp the names of Germans who refused to sign for repatriation so that the other internees could see it. For what purpose? Just to be able to say to the Nazis, “Do you see who do not agree with you?” Now I would like to mention a few names of old Germans. They are old and at the end of their lives and I can mention their names. There is Mr. Heinz, of South-West Africa. He is 66 years old and has already been in the country 45 years. He was placed in an internment camp. He is a completely innocent man who would not do the slightest harm and who would not lift a finger against the Government. He is a loyal, peaceful citizen. He has already been in the country 45 years and for more than six years he has been in an internment camp. Then there is Mr. Harasem, 65 years old, 40 years in the country; his children were born here, he helped in developing the country, in making South-West habitable; he is almost blind and can hardly see. Upon my soul we place a man who is 65 years old and who is half blind in a camp! There is Mr. Bloch, 64 years old, 44 years in the country. He walks on crutches; he is maimed. He was also put in a camp. What danger can he be to the country? Have we let our feelings run away with us, has our enthusiasm run away with us to such an extent that we have to keep people like this in camps for six years? As far as the Hon. the Prime Minister is concerned, I do not believe of him that he would purposely place such old people in internment camps. I think his officials go very much further in these matters than he wants them to and that these things did not come to his notice. I interviewed his officials and the Minister of Justice and I told them that I intended putting these matters before the House. Apparently they knew nothing about them. Take the case of Von Maltzhahn, 70 years of age, 40 years in the country, six years in a camp. Is this to our credit? I do not think so. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister is aware of these things and that he would approve of such things. What about Mr. Bernhard, 76 years of age, 56 years in South-West Africa; he has already been in a camp for six years. With all respect I want to say that he has reached the Prime Minister’s age. There is Mr. Schenk, 80 years of age. When he reached the age of 80 years, they had to release him, for under international law it is prohibited to keep people in a camp after they have reached the age of 80. He reached his 80th year in the camp. He has been in the country for 56 years.

The Nazis killed people who were very much older.

They are not Nazis. The man had already been in the country 56 years and reached his 80th year in the camp. Is it conceivable? Have we lost all sense of chivalry? Have we lost all sense of proportion during the war? But I repeat emphatically that I do not believe that the Prime Minister knows anything about it, and the only chance we have of bringing it to attention is now. [Time limit.]

Perhaps it would be as well if I were to say a; word or two about the present position of the internment camps. I do not think it is really necessary to traverse all the ground covered by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) or the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper), or to go into the reasons why persons were interned. We have had that ground dealt with time and time again during the past six years. All I shall remind hon. members of however is the fact that never at any time did we adopt the policy of interning all enemy aliens. The policy adopted bý this Government was one of selective internment, and in the case of Germans it was not merely a question whether a man was a Nazi, but whether he was likely to be a potential danger to the country. I would remind the hon. member for Vredefort that one must not be guided merely by opinions which were expressed by persons who have been interned. It was one thing to express an opinion and another thing to realise the conditions that made it necessary to act in 1941 when circumstances were quite different.

Why keep them there so long?

I will come to that point. My hon. friend is rather suggesting that we have been unfair and unjust and inhumane in the method of our internment. I would suggest that he is misinformed. The cases were all most carefully dealt with by the investigating officials of the Police, by the Chief Control Officer and by the Minister concerned.

Nonsense. I gave you the proof.

I am quite prepared to discuss some of those details outside the House. I obviously have not the details with me at present, but I can only say that the picture he draws of life in an internment camp at Andalusia or Baviaanspoort differs from what I saw there. The men certainly did not complain of a lack of food. All the most sumptuous cakes and confectionery and adequate supplies of meat were given to them, dealt with by most efficient German cooks.

That must have been before Strauss had anything to do with food.

I do not want to be drawn into that, but we know that the whole country has been restricted as regards food. But the condition in our internment camps—and this has been testified to by the visiting representatives of protecting powers—leaves no room for criticism. The position at present is that the Government is anxious to clear the internment camps, as we want to close them down. There are two left, one at Baviaanspoort and one at Koffiefontein. I am hopeful that within the next month we shall be able to close the one at Koffiefontein, and then we will be left only with Baviaanspoort. There are no longer any Italians in our internment camps. All the Germans from neighbouring territories who have been held by the Union Government at the wish of the neighbouring governments have been repatriated. Instructions were given that all Germans who were living in the Union at the time of their internment should be released, and that has been carried out. Within the next week or two all these Germans will have been released.

South African born Germans?

No, not necessarily, but all Germans who were here at the time of their internment. When that is done we shall be faced with a residue of 1,060 Germans from South West and 500 other Germans who are held on behalf of the British Government, soldiers, sailors and civilians who were taken off captured ships like the Watussi and other ships, and who were held in this country at the request and at the expense of the British Government. As soon as the British Government can arrange for the necessary shipping to remove these people they will go, which will leave us then with this residue of approximately 1,060 Germans from South West Africa. In other words, with the exception of the South West Germans, the policy is to close the camps.

Why keep the South West Germans in the camps?

We are doing it as quickly as is reasonably possible. Those resident in the Union are all going. Those from the neighbouring territories we have been able to get rid of because they were sent to Rhodesia. When shipping is available we will send away those others held on behalf of the British Government. It is not our policy to detain them as long as possible. We only detained them as long as we had to. They are prohibited immigrants and cannot be set free in the country. We are left then with a residue of Germans from South West Africa, and their case will have to be dealt with by the tribunal which the Minister of the Interior is setting up, a judicial tribunal which will go into the individual cases of these men with a view to seeing whether they should be deported to Germany or not.

Does that only apply to the Germans from South West Africa?

No, what one might call the deportation list, these people whose cases will be enquired into, will consist of Germans from South West, as well as Germans from the Union.

You are now contradicting yourself.

The hon. member does not understand. Certain Germans will have their cases dealt with by the tribunal, but not only interned persons. Persons released from internment will also be investigated. All the Germans from the Union have been released, or are in the process of being released. I am now only concerned with the residue of Germans from South West. Their cases will be dealt with by this tribunal. My hon. friend asks that the Government should release these persons from South West pending an investigation of their cases by the tribunal. The Government has given careful consideration to this matter and has decided that in view of the situation in South West Africa, in view of the circumstances which brought about their internment, in view of the state of the feeling there, it would be most unwise to allow them to go back at present, and so it has been decided that they will be detained until such time as the tribunal has dealt with them.

For how long?

My hon. friend suggested that the restrictions under which they live are very rigorous. Naturally during the war they had to be, because we were dealing with very dangerous persons. I agree with him that it is now time to relax these restrictions as regards these people who still have to remain in the camps, and I am prepared to go into that with the Director of Internment Camps.

What about their representation at the tribunal?

That is a matter which will have to be dealt with by the judicial commission.

How will they be able to work up their case? How can they do that while they are still in the camp?

Can they call witnesses in their defence?

I assume that every person will be called upon to meet something in the nature of a charge or indictment, and will be given a precis of the evidence against him, and it will be for him, in consultation with his legal advisers, presumably, to decide how to present his defence. But that is a matter for the tribunal itself to decide.

Does this tribunal get carte blanche, or do you lay down the procedure and say what their rights will be?

As far as I know this tribunal is not appointed by the Department of Justice. As far as I know it is given terms of reference with a preamble setting out why they were appointed, the types of case they should deal with, the exceptions that can be made and the factors to which regard should be had.

Will the people who give evidence against these internees appear so that they can be cross-examined?

I should imagine that the tribunal would probably be very loth to do that for various reasons, but these persons must be given an opportunity to meet the evidence which has been levelled against them, whether documentary or not.

So the ordinary rules of evidence will not apply in their case?

It is not a court of law, as far as I can see, to which these people will be brought on specific charges. It is a judicial tribunal which will go into their case to decide on all the evidence placed before it whether they are suitable to live in the country or not.

Will you lay the papers before the House?

The terms of reference have been published. They set out fully the task which the Government has assigned to this tribunal.

Of course it is very vague.

What we have seen is very vague.

[Time limit].

Our Press in South Africa is quite often a well-informed one. We had an illustration of that during the past few weeks, when we were able, by intelligent anticipation, to dot i’s and cross t’s, and to give a detailed picture of the Indian Bill which has been presented to the House, the general principles of which we were advised by the Prime Minister. They were also able to indicate to us, probably with the same degree of intelligent anticipation, that the Prime Minister was unable to persuade the members of his party to go as far in the direction of offering these people things as he would have wished to, and in that respect, they have impinged upon the prestige which the Prime Minister enjoys overseas, and have retracted from the general progressive attitude for which the Prime Minister is known in the international sphere. The general criticism against our Prime Minister has always been that his attitude and views on international questions are quite different from the views he expresses in South Africa. Now, the actions of his party members in that respect may be deplored, but I want to come to information which the Press were able to convey to us in the latter portion of last year, when, through the resignation of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) it was necessary for the Prime Minister to fill vacancies in the Cabinet. Then the Press were able to indicate to the people of South Africa that one of the likely choices for the vacant positions in the Cabinet was Mr. Ivan Walker, and if the Press here afforded the people the same accurate interpretation of events as they were able to afford more recently, it is a matter of congratulation to the members of the United Party that they were able to stop the prospective appointment of a person to the Cabinet who would have found an entry through the back door. That is something to be deplored, and I take this opportunity to voice my regret that such an act was contemplated by the Minister. But that is not the only occasion for regret. It is also to me an occasion for regret that Mr. Walker has been appointed as personal adviser on labour questions to the Prime Minister. In my opinion this must inevitably mean that the labour organisations, organised labour, must inevitably in the course of time come to disrespect the whole Department of Labour, and any Minister of Labour in this country. As we understand the constitutional practice, the Prime Minister has a Cabinet of Ministers who are responsible to him, and will advise him on a particular question falling under a particular State Department. On such a matter the relevant Minister advises the Prime Minister. But this evidently is not the case as regards the Ministry of Labour. The Minister of Labour, it seems to me, must inevitabliy become a puppet Minister, because whatever advice he might tender to the Government, or to the Prime Minister, may be overruled by someone outside the control of the House who is privileged to voice his opinion and to advise the Prime Minister and make suggestions to him on questions which arise and which are ordinarily covered by the Minister of Labour. I think that was an unwise step on the part of the Prime Minister to appoint such a person, and I am quite convinced in my own mind that inevitably in the course of time there will develop within the trade union movement of South Africa, which represents organised workers, and in the minds of unorganised workers who have occasion to make representations to the Minister of Labour, a lack of confidence on the part of such organisations that they are speaking to the person primarily concerned, that they are speaking to the real Minister of Labour, and inevitably they will have in the back of their minds, when they make such representations, the idea that whilst they are speaking to the Minister of a State Department they will not have the full force of anything they say transmitted to the person primarily concerned who can make the necessary decisions. There will always be the thought behind the minds of those who make representations to the Minister that he is not the real authority, but that there is someone else who has the ear of the Prime Minister, who is behind the scenes and who will make the real decisions quite apart from and irrespective of any representations they may make to the Minister of Labour, and quite apart from any reactions the Minister of Labour may have. That is an unhappy state of affairs. It is a state of affairs which is developing and which is viewed with alarm by many people in South Africa that we are steadily departing from our ordinary democratic procedure, and we are encouraging within the country a bureaucratic system. For that reason it is to be deplored. It is generally known that Mr. Ivan Walker owes his appointment in 1924 to the Labour Party, and it will be accepted on that account that there is a connection between him and the Labour Party, on his past actions if not on his present actions; anyhow there is a background which makes one believe that he represents labour in this country. As a consequence of that the impression may have been created in the Prime Minister’s mind that he was a suitable person to represent labour, but what I can say is this: I have already given my own reactions to it, and they certainly must be the reactions of a considerable number of other people. But if Mr. Ivan Walker was prepared to accept a Cabinet post through some back-door operation, through the Senate, if you like, but certainly not by election through the people of South Africa, if he were prepared to accept a Cabinet post created through the act of the South African Labour Party in withdrawing their Minister from the Cabinet, if he were prepared to accept the post created under the circumstances in which it was created, it destroys any faith which people might hitherto have had in Mr. Ivan Walker, having regard to his background. [Time limit].

I listened attentively to the statement made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in connection with our future prospects. It was very pleasant listening to him. I feel it was evident that the Prime Minister’s exposition was right from the outset. I did not intend speaking, but as a result of the sincere and childlike speech made by the Prime Minister and the lamentations of Jeremiah which we have had from the Opposition in connection with the questions which the Prime Minister explained, I would like to say a few words. When you have somebody who approaches you as humbly and simply as our leader so as to explain matters to us, you expect a different attitude than the one the Opposition have adopted. There has been a discussion over internees and guns. The Hon. the Prime Minister has explained under what circumstances a man is entitled to obtain a gun. Let us accept it as right. Hon. members are taking up time just to advertise themselves, as usual. The last words of the Prime Minister were that the nation was at peace and it was only here that we were at loggerheads. I just want to tell hon. members that they will make no headway with their speeches; they are of no help to the nation; they do not help them; they only help their propaganda. If we could only close down the newspapers for a few months, there would be peace among the people. I have just been on a visit to my people and there is peace among them. Enormous development has taken place during the war and since the war. Things are going very well. They expected a big depression; yes, they were looking forward to a depression. It has not come and now they are leaving it alone and not mentioning it at all. They talk about a small quantity of goods which we have exported to other countries; they forget what we have received and receive every day in return. To-day they no longer talk about the so-called famine in the country. They also do not appreciate the fact that thousands of tons of foodstuffs have been imported from other countries. We do not hear a word about that. I would like to see those hon. members admit when they make a mistake, and when they make wrong predictions, as they so often do. But we never have such an admission from them. They have once again discussed the internment question and other matters which were already discussed last year, but they misuse every opportunity by hurling those things across the floor of the House and attacking the Prime Minister and trying to rub them in. I sat here and listened to their speeches, and I listened not only to their words but I studied the background of their speeches, and it is nothing else but pure political propaganda as usual. There is the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) who was trying to protect the Nazis and whitewash them. Is he intimating that those people were placed behind barbed wire without reason? There must surely be a reason for it. After all, our Government is not made up of fools. They are people with common sense. They made emergency regulations and those regulations had to be upheld. Those who would not obey them were taken into custody and placed behind barbed wire and otherwise well treated. I am certain that members on the other side know better than I do what the reasons were for their internment. Now they come along with all kinds of charges against the Government which are very superficial. They come here and say that people are in the camps and their mothers or children are sick. That is no argument as regards the internment of those people. In the morning I listened to the debate and I felt that there was an approach to humanity. I do not say a reconciliation of parties. But later on I had to see how members on the other side spoke and how they tried in all kinds of ways to belittle the Prime Minister and this Government. I can assure members on the other side that even supporters of their party, people who are intelligent, boast today of the success with which the Government has piloted the country through these difficult times. We are speaking of facts. We on this side seldom say anything because we have to do things. The complaints always come from the other side. If we have complaints, then we go to the responsible Minister. They are also their Ministers and why do they not go to the Ministers if they have complaints. They will be just as well received as I myself and others are received. No, but they prefer to come here and shout about it in the House so that it can appear in the newspapers and so that it can be made known to the country, and their voters suffer thereby. I have certainly obtained the release of more internees or just as many as members on the other side. I listened to the arguments which were advanced over and over again in connection with guns. I felt that there was a state of emergency in the country and that I was not entitled to ask for a gun. But now the Prime Minister has explained how we can obtain them. Almost all of them on the other side have guns. They talk as if they were angry. The member on the other side who complained about the springboks which browse on his lands has simply to call upon us and we will deal with them. The hon. member was merely cracking a joke.

I am very sorry that the Minister’s time was up before he had the opportunity of finishing his statement. I would like to give him a chance to complete his statement. The general public are looking forward expectantly to the statement, and we would like the Minister to complete it. Did I understand the Minister to say that internees who were living within the Union would be discharged within the next few weeks; but will some of these people who were living within the Union also have to appear before a court? I just want to point out to the Minister that one must take into consideration the circumstances prevailing at the time, and it is understandable that some of these people signed to the effect that they wished to leave the country. To-day circumstances are changed, and I trust that those people will not simply be deported. We must remember that the country owes much to these citizens who originally came from Germany. The second point about which I would like some information from the Minister is the 1,060 internees from South West. Will all of them appear before a court, or is there a large number of them who will also be released shortly so that they can return to their homes in South West? I will be glad if the Minister will reply to these questions.

I think I can very shortly answer the questions put by the hon. member. The 1.060 Germans still detained at Baviaanspoort are all included in the list of those persons whose cases are to be heard by the tribunal. In addition there will be German subjects who have already been released from internment camps, whether in the Union or elsewhere. But these 1,060 persons from South West Africa will have to await the decision of the tribunal and they will not be released in the meantime. Of course, it may very well be some cases may be disposed of much quicker than others. They will no doubt be grouped into categories. There is no intention to persecute any one of these people. All the Government wishes to be satisfied on is whether these persons who have been detained during the war were detained because they were a menace to the security of the country then, or are likely to be a menace to the security and traditions and way of government of this country in the future. If they have in the past been false to the hospitality and the haven given to them in South Africa we do not want to run the risk again. So their cases will be sifted.

As far as the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) is concerned, I am very sure he need have no fear that if a person who was a member of the Nazi party or a Nazi supporter, but perhaps was detained for some other reason, will have the opportunity if he has evidence to bring that evidence forward. Let him bring it before the tribunal and no doubt it will be given proper cognisance.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 22nd March.