as Chairman, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the N’Jelele Irrigation District Adjustment Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 2-7th March.

I ask for leave to make a correction, by way of a statement, which I regard as necessary. In the debate which took place here yesterday in connection with the strike at Johannesburg, it was alleged by an hon. member, who did so under a misapprehension, that I interviewed the Prime Minister the previous day in connection with the strike; that I brought the situation to his notice, and that only in consequence of that did he take certain steps. I think it is not more than fair to say that the statement was made under a misapprehension. I had no such interview with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister or any other hon. Minister.

I took it that it was said under a misapprehension.

I am sorry I did not make the correction in replying. I intended to do so, but unfortunately it escaped my memory. I thought that since it might create a wrong impression, it was only fair to correct it on this occasion.

I move—

The Hon. Minister of Finance gave us his reasons yesterday why he has constantly had to come to the House to have his original Main Estimates amended and implemented. I would just like to say to the Minister today that we on this side of the House are by no means satisfied with the excuses which he laid before us. We have three accusations against the Minister. The first is that this year the Minister has amended his Main Estimates more frequently than ever before in the history of our Parliament, as far as I know. That is No. 1. The one set of estimates had scarcely been disposed of when the Minister came along with new estimates involving more expenditure. I am objecting to the way the Minister is wasting the time of this House and the unnecessary expense to the country. It costs money to ask the House and come along with another estimate of additional expenditure when the first has barely been disposed of and when it has to be considered from the start. It is an unnecessary waste of time and money. Our second reproach is that the amount he requires this year is unduly high. He started off with an estimate of £116,000,000; he has ended up with an estimate of £135,000,000. It is true that it represents savings, but the sum of money which the Minister has required in his estimates has increased from £116,000,000 to £135,000,000, i.e. by £19,000,000. That is unduly high. Our third reproach is that the Minister of Finance is asking for an appropriation in the Additional Estimates which should in the first instance have appeared on the Main Estimates. The Minister is sheltering behind the large amount in respect of UNRRA. He says that is the main reason why it is such a large amount. Does the Minister in all sincerity want to tell us that he did not know at the beginning of the year that UNRRA would require the total amount of the contribution this year? Can the Minister make anyone believe that? Everyone knew that UNRRA would be requiring the money during the first year after the end of the war, and yet the Minister did not incorporate it in the estimates. Instead of that it is submitted to Parliament for approval in instalments. I am sorry if the Minister takes it amiss but the impression we have is that the Minister is afraid to place his whole estimate of expenditure before Parliament; afraid that it will be a shock to the public. That is why he is submitting it to the public in instalments. At first his estimates were for £116 million; then for £122 million; then £125 million; then £130 million, and then £135 million. “The constant dripping that wears away the stone.” I do not want to go so far as to say that the Minister is doing so intentionally because that would amount to an admission that he wants to mislead the public and Parliament completely, but it is extraordinary that amounts are shown in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure which the Minister must verily have known last year would be expended; and why did those amounts not appear in the Main Estimates? In the olden days we knew that when the Main Estimates were submitted to us there may still have been unforeseen expenditure but that it was a sincere attempt to give the House an indication of the expenditure during the whole year. We no longer have that feeling since the Minister of Finance has come along with his new-fangled method. The Minister is over-doing the practice of having additional estimates. Our impression is that it is being done with a fixed purpose. I have mentioned the case of UNRRA. We all knew that UNRRA’s expenditure would be due during the first year, i.e. the levy of 1 per cent. of the national income, but the Minister preferred to obtain it in instalments. Take the Minister of Transport. An amount of £300,000 was appropriated in the Main Estimates and he has ended up with nearly £700,000. Does the Minister mean to tell us that he did not know ahead that he would be requiring motor cars and that he had to purchase them? That was a very bad calculation. He knew what the position was in regard to the garages and whether it would be necessary to purchase the cars or whether it was not so urgent and that it could wait. I want the Minister to give a clear reply to this question. The time is due for this House to lodge a strong protest against this manner of submitting estimates to Parliament and to the public. Unless we lodge a serious complaint things will go from bad to worse. As far as I can recall it has never come before us to this extent. It is a matter of degree. If it had been found necessary in the past to come with unforseen expenditure, that is no reason why the system should be abused. I want to lodge the strongest protest against that and I think the time is overdue for this House to tell the Minister of Finance that he should put a stop to this method which is undermining Parliamentary control. That is putting it mildly. It is an undermining of Parliamentary control over the volume of expenditure which the Government is allowed to make during the year. Had we known at the beginning of the year that the expenditure would be £135 million the House might have judged differently. I am not referring to the increase in the case of the Police; that is something which the Minister could not have foreseen and it is a good thing that an additional estimate was submitted in regard to that. But leaving that out of account I would like the Minister to tell us what there is in the Additional Estimates which he could not have foreseen last year. The Treasury finds it convenient to submit the country’s estimates of expenditure to the public in instalments. It is not fair towards the House, it is not fair towards the country. It undermines Parliamentary control, and I take the strongest exception to that.

I do not think that a single member of this House wishes to prolong the discussion on this question, because there is a very important matter which will come up for discussion later regarding the appropriation of Dongola. I know that everybody is anxious to get to it as soon as possible. When I look around, I see how interested everybody is in it. I see, for instance, the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) straining at the leash like a bloodhound. He is trying hard to reconcile his conscience with the interests of his constituents, and we know in what a difficult position he finds himself. While it is the desire of everyone to have this question dealt with as soon as possible, I do not want to dwell on it too long, but we cannot get away from the fact that it is a very important matter to vote £2 million, and that it is something which should have the serious attention of this House. It struck me recently how quickly and almost light-heartedly big sums of money are voted by this House. It is in the interest of the country that we should give much more attention to the money voted by the House of Assembly, and also to the details for which it is voted, than has been given in many cases up to now. I am certain that, despite the desire to come to the important matter which stands third on the agenda, we will be failing in our duty if we do not give our full attention to the details for which this £2 million is voted. For that reason I rise to make a small contribution to the discussion of this £2 million. I wish to heartily endorse everything said here by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), especially regarding the manner in which the Minister of Finance brings his Estimates before this House. We have now had the Estimates, then the first Additional Estimates, and now we have, the second Additional Estimates, and there is much more in these Additional Estimates than what we see at first glance. Parliament is inclined to compromise itself in one or another matter which comes before it, without knowing how much money will eventually be spent in connection with it, and when it once begins with expenditure, it is very difficult to avoid the expenditure which follows in its train. I would like to mention a few examples. A few years ago we were asked to vote money for a new post office for Cape Town. I speak under correction, but we were asked to vote about £400,000. Parliament decided that it would be justified in spending £400,000 on a new post office for Cape Town. But the following year the Minister of Public Works said that he had asked for too little money, and that he wanted another £300,000. Look at the position in which Parliament was placed. I do not know whether Parliament would have agreed in the first instance that Cape Town should have had a new post office that would have cost £700,000. I doubt it. But they went on and the Minister later asked for still more money, until the post office in Cape Town eventually cost nearly a million pounds, although Parliament had voted only £400,000 in the first place. After Parliament began with the expenditure, it was difficult to stop, but if the Minister had asked for a million pounds in the first place, it is doubtful whether Parliament would have said that the old post office should be sold, and that the new post office costing a million pounds should be built. When the £400,000 was asked for, it seemed reasonably cheap and it was agreed to. The foundations were laid and the walls were built for a little way, then £300,000 more was asked for; and later it happened again. Parliament was then compromised and the amount got bigger and bigger. It reminds me of the man who said that a carpet was a very expensive thing to buy. His wife told him that she could get a pretty carpet cheaply, with the result that he bought it for her. The result was that he had to build a room to suit the carpet, so that it cost him £800 or £1,000. I think that we in this House must insist that an end is made of that sort of procedure. Why not, before the department asks money for a building, draw up a suitable plan and make a proper estimate of the expenditure? In the past they submitted a plan, almost like the plans the people of Hermanus submitted to the building control. But that is a matter to which perhaps we will come later. At the moment the Department of Public Works not only draws up plans. They work out the scheme and they make an estimate before they come to the House. An enormous change has come about, and we can now say with a large degree of certainty that the estimates will not be exceeded. Perhaps here and there there is a small excess. One cannot foresee all the small things when one builds a house. We know for example that it was thought necessary to build the best office that any Minister occupies in the post office in Cape Town. But those are small matters. But why cannot this sound policy which the Department of Public Works now follows, also be applied to the finances of the land as a whole? But instead we have the Budget, and then the first and after that the second Additional Estimates. Where will it end? The trouble with the Government is that it does not know where it stands., That is another question; it does not know if it will stand outside this House or inside this House. We on this side know where we stand, but it is obvious that the Government does not know where it is going to sit. I do not want to play the part of a prophet, but it is obvious to any person who uses a minimum of common sense that the Government does not know where it stands, and also does not know where it will sit in the future. Why cannot the Minister of Finance tell us in the Budget how much money is needed for expenditure for the year? A portion of the expenditure is asked for, and if we put a halter round our necks it goes on and on and more money must be voted. The first Additional Estimate was £6 million; and the second is £2 million. That is very unsatisfactory. We want the Minister to know what he wants. The other Ministers must go to the Minister of Finance and say what they want. That must be the end of the matter, and then we know where we stand. Let me quote another example. Take the Provincial Administrations. We know that they are not the most efficient administrations in the country. Here at the end of the financial year they ask for another third of a million pounds. They know what they have to spend. They spend money on education especially, and surely an actuary is not necessary to determine how many children will attend school the following year. They have the particulars from year to year. They must spend money on hospitals.

They do that.

I hope the hon. member will make use of the opportunity to tell us more about that.

They do not spend enough.

They should know in advance what they are going to spend, and then it would not be necessary to be a third of a million short at the end of the financial year. Take Customs and Excise, for which an additional £43,000 is required. It is not a department which erects buildings and does similar work. It consists of a small number of officials who have to do with the collection of customs and excise. The Government knows how many of them are necessary, and it is inconceivable why an exact calculation cannot be made. The expenditure of the Department is not incalculable. It is a department which does routine work. They do the work very well, but it is quite inexplicable why they cannot estimate in advance exactly what the expenditure of the Department will be. In connection with Union Education there is an increase of £64,000. I understand that it is chiefly for a building for the medical faculty for the University of Pretoria. We will come to that later. For native education £252,000 more is asked. Last year there was a very interesting discussion over that. The Minister of Native Affairs was very annoyed with the members who represent the natives in Parliament, and it looked as if he agreed more with the members on this side than with the members of his own party. I was under the impression that we had reached a degree of finality in connection with the matter, that we knew what the school attendance would be, the number of teachers, and also what would he necessary for school feeding for the native children, and that the Department would know precisely what the expenditure would be for the following year. But this Department also trots to the Minister of Finance; together with the other Departments they gather round the Minister of Finance like a flock of eagles who all want something more. With his well known generosity, the Minister presents his first Additional Estimate, and he gives a surprising sum of money for native education; and now he is doing it again. Only two months later he allocated a colossal additional sum for native education, and now another £252,000. It is an enormous sum of money. The Minister of Finance is apparently surprised at it. May I remind him what the expenditure of the Union was in 1912? It was £16 million on Revenue Account and £3½ million on Loan Account, an amount of £19½ million for the whole year.

We are now four times older.

I have always heard that the older a man gets the less money he spends. I am quite willing to accept that we have developed, and that as a result it is necessary to spend more money. There has also been a depreciation of our currency. The £ has decreased in value. I accept that the expenditure of the Government is bigger today than it was then, but I want to say to the hon. member who usually sits there in the corner that if he thinks back on this matter—he probably thinks off and on— more off than on—he will realise that the increase in expenditure is an exceptional increase. Where we had expenditure of £16 million in 1912, and where it is now six times as much or more, I ask if it is in keeping with the increase in population. The population has only increased by 12 per cent. Is that in keeping with the depreciation of our currency, which is about 33⅓ per cent.?

The hon. member must come back to the reasons for the increase.

I am sorry because it is a very interesting matter which one would like to go into a little further. The Minister of the Interior misjudged, not for the first time, but for the second time, to the extent of the large amount of almost £160,000. For Public Health £88,000 more is asked. In connection with Public Health I must say that that is a fortunate mistake. We had hoped that the Minister of Public Health would have misjudged to the extent of a few million pounds, as it would then have been possible for him to carry out his own scheme.

The hon. member may only discuss the reasons for the increase.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the reasons for the increase, but at the same time I wish to express my disappointment that they are not bigger. Then we come to the Directorate of Demobilisation. Look, we must not take Parliament for a fool as this man does. His estimate is £3,533,042, more than £3,500,000, and do you know what he asks for? Only £97. Imagine, £97 more on an estimate of £3,500,000. This is just stupidity. I am now discussing reasons for the increases, and there is no reason for this increase. We are after all grown up people, and not a lot of children. Now, here is the vote for Labour, £42,000 out at the second attempt. Mines £57,900. Lands £43,000. Well, naturally no one expected Lands to be anywhere near correct. Regarding Superior Courts, at the second attempt they were £37,800 out. Are we now going to get a lot of judges? That would be understandable, because we know the position in the courts. There is an accumulation of work. If one has an ordinary civil case, it sometimes takes months and months before one can get a decision. So this £37,000 is justified if by it we are going to have a speeding up in legal proceedings. We do not want to have the position here of America. In America naturally there are other reasons why there is such an enormous delay in connection with cases. We know that there are all sorts of technical possibilities which can be brought up by parties to get extension, one extension after the other, which has almost brought their courts into discredit. That is naturally not what happens in South Africa, but the Bench is overworked in our country, even in the hours which they work they cannot deal with the work. If this £37,000 means that the people who prosecute will pay, and not their estates, which now happens often as a result of the delay, we will not have much objection to this vote. On “Prisons and Gaols” £33,000 more is required. That is naturally a very serious matter, because it is a reflection of the social conditions as they exist in South Africa today, and here £33,000 more is spent to make more provision for the offenders who are sentenced. It opens naturally a whole vista of other matters, as for example, are we dealing with the whole matter of crime as a criminal or legal matter, and should we not rather approach it from a social point of view. Because we do not approach the matter from a social viewpoint, but more from a legal viewpoint, there must be more gaols. Perhaps it would not be necessary to spend the £33,000 if the Minister of Native Affairs took the necessary steps to keep potential criminals from our big cities, and if we approached the whole matter of crime from a social viewpoint. After all, we are almost all potential criminals. The only question is whether circumstances are such that one goes from potentiality to reality. I do not want to go into the matter further. I want to come to the £150,000 extra which the Minister of Agriculture needs. We would like to know if it is to give us a little more meat. But that additional amount on a total of £2 million is a little too much. We would like to have more details. There are many other points on which I would like to speak, but I have not yet had time to study the whole book. I just open at any page. Here I find for instance under Vote No. 4 an additional amount of £5,000 for “Provision for maintenance of official premises and furniture in Switzerland, Italy, Holland Belgium, Germany and France.” First the amount was £2,000. Then we thought it was a lot, but now it is £5,000 more for furniture. It is not an increase of 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., but 350 per cent. If we had been asked last year to vote £7,000, I doubt whether the House would have accepted it. I’m getting along quickly now. We come now to Vote No. 13, K, “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour.” The English text reads “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour.” The first thing I want to draw attention to is that the Afrikaans and the English text are not the same.

What is the difference?

A lot. In the one case it says “uit grasie”; in the other case “of grace.” The first means out of generosity, but “of grace” sounds rather episcopalian. The £20,000 is the Minister’s degree of grace. I think we are all pleased to see that the Minister’s heart is suddenly becoming tender. His colleagues will also be pleased but I do not know if it is a very good thing. A Minister of Finance should be hard-hearted, he should be like Agab whose heart was of stone, and who later became tender and allowed the priests of Baal to be murdered.

Order, order. The hon. member must now come back to the reasons for the increase in the votes.

Yes, I will come away from the modem Agab. No one takes the Minister amiss when of favour and grace, he assists people who in ignorance have acted wrongly and have been fined. If anyone purposely transgresses the Customs Act, he is fined heavily, but if anyone does it innocently, the Minister could of grace repay the amount, or at least a portion. But why the sudden increase? Then we come to Vote No. 17 Q—“Grants for Capital Expenditure to the University of Pretoria for a new medical building”, £43,300. That is something which pleases us all. We know that the medical education of students in South Africa leaves much to be desired, that there is too big a shortage to serve the interests of the country. But I should like to know if enough provision has been made for education now, so that we will have more doctors. I hope that there are no hon. members who are opposed to this, because if there are, I should like to give a few arguments why they are, in my opinion, making a mistake. If one rides through the country of South Africa, one is surprised to see how many medical practitioners are leaving the country for the towns. The reason is that in the town you can make a better living, and one cannot blame them. As long as even the towns are not provided for sufficiently, you will have that position. [Time limit.]

I would just like to put a few questions in regard to Loan Vote D where additional amounts are being required for the Pongola Irrigation Settlement, for Vaal-Hartz and for Loskop. An additional £5,000 is being asked for Pongola. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance is aware of the fact that as far back as 1942 it was widely announced that no less than 200 holdings were being set aside for applicants in respect of populated settlements and that some 80 houses had already been constructed. As far as I have been able to ascertain not a single settler has been placed at Pongola. I therefore want to know what the object is of this £5,000 for a scheme for settlers which was completed years ago. It has been proved that the scheme has a great future, but those houses have been standing empty in spite of a large number of applications from returned soldiers. One is constantly hearing of applications by returned soldiers being turned down. Why then the £5,000 while there are nearly 100 houses which have been standing empty for years and when no applicants have been admitted there? Is the idea to build more houses which will also remain empty? Is the idea perhaps to lay the foundation for a sugar mill which should have been done long ago? Or is the amount being set aside for the purchase of more land for the settlement? I am very much interested in that settlement because I regard it as one of the best the Union has ever had or will ever have. At the same time I would like to know when applicants will be allowed to settle there. Then I come to the Vaal-Hartz Irrigation Settlement and I want to ask the same questions in regard to that. Originally Vaal-Hartz was intended for approximately 2,000 families. There, too, a number of applicants applied and their applications were turned down although the 2,000 mark has by no means been reached. Is the additional £20,000 being set aside for the purchase of more land or to have a larger number of holdings, or to make additional facilities available to existing settlers? Expectations were very high in South Africa in regard to that settlement. We should like to have the settlements developed, but in view of the fact that so many houses are standing empty while applications are being turned down we would like to know what is happening. Then I come to Loskop, where an additional amount of £4,000 is required. I have an idea it was originally intended to consist of 800 holdings and for the settlement of 800 various applicants. There we also find many applications being turned down and I would therefore like to know what the £4,000 is for. Then I would like to say something in regard to Social Welfare under Vote 28, i.e., the ordinary vote and not the Loan Vote. There an additional amount of £117,665 is being required. Will that money be used in connection with the department’s holdings, e.g. at Ganspan?

We have nothing here in connection with those holdings.

Then I leave it at that.

As regards the grant to the University of Pretoria under Vote 17 of an amount of £43,300 I would like to know what the position is at present.

I have already explained that. It simply means that we are now making provision on the Revenue Account instead of on the Loan Account.

I just want to say that we know, of course, how extremely important it is and I hope it will not remain at that, but that the Minister will go beyond that and that he will make provision for the necessary buildings and staff. The Minister is aware of the difficulties with which not only this university but also other universities have to cope, viz. that the classes are becoming too large to manage. At the University of the Witwatersrand 360 students are attending the second year medical course, 210 of whom are ordinary students and 150 returned soldiers. There is a chronic lack of space. Then as regards the Jan Kriel School Hostel for epileptics an additional amount of £20,000 is required for extension purposes. Is that the total amount of the grant or is it the first instalment?

That is the first instalment.

Then the work can be commenced with. We are grateful for the provision which has been made for the work. It forms part of all the social security work we intend to do for the public. We have always felt that we should make provision under Social Welfare for the partly unfit and semi-fit as an important sub-division of social security. We regard the employment and training of that part of the community who cannot look after themselves and who require assistance from the State, as part of social security. We are glad to notice that such an amount has been set aside. Of course, if we are of the opinion that social security is not to be established through charity or by means of pensions, we should equip the public, including the semi-fit and the unfit section of the public, to the utmost extent so as to allow them to contribute towards their own security. I do now want to allege that it is a cheap method. We notice in these estimates that steps in this direction are in fact being taken. Two large amounts are being appropriated in the case of epileptics and in the case of the unfit. We welcome the fact that we are now moving in that direction, but before the Minister again comes with estimates next year and with supplementary estimates such as these, we consider it would be better for the department to compile estimates at the beginning of the financial year to cover any possible expansion; i.e., that the department should decide at the beginning of the financial year in what direction the expansion is to take place. It is for that very reason that there is not enough planning, not only as regards the funds required, but also as regards the actual plans, that we constantly have these supplementary estimates coming before the House. We would like to have the Government once and for all compile a scheme of expansion in regard to semi-fit and unfit persons for whom provision is being made under Vote 29, which would naturally have to have a much wider scope than our present schemes, and if they do that, they should not have a five-year plan, but should at least have a one-year plan, and we can then have finality at the commencement of the year and know beforehand for the ensuing twelve months, in the first place, what we propose doing, and in the second place what the expenses would amount to. It would also mean that the department concerned can ask themselves: What is the object of our department; what is the object of the measures we are going to take? Unfortunately, we have too little continuity in our system of government. We have unfortunately got into the habit of trying to solve great problems in dribs and drabs, and I think the time has come for us to see that we envisage the entire scheme and then make the necessary provision. The problem of the settlement of physical semi-fits and unfits and of old persons is an extremely important question, and I consider that with the additional estimates we have here it is an indication that there is a very serious gap in our system. There is a lack of really carefully planned schemes. I realise that the salvation of that large section of our people— unfortunately, it is a large section of the people—who cannot look after themselves and for whom provision has to be made, is involved in this. I would like to have the department concerned take the matter into consideration; i.e., that having once made an estimate as to the number of persons in this country who have to be cared for, we should then, with a view to the future, with a view to our actual scheme in regard to these persons, see that we do not require to come here with small supplementary estimates in connection with the matter, but that we work out a comprehensive scheme once and for all which would enable us to have one comprehensive estimate in regard to the scheme. The work which is now being done with the £32,700 should include the important problem in regard to the management of the unfit, the semi-fit and old persons. We are training personnel—social personnel — and also personnel for the re-education of these people. Whether provision is in fact being made in the additional estimates, and whether a portion of this will have to be used for the training of that personnel cannot be deduced from the details supplied here. It is of the utmost importance that the department, in expending this money, should devote its attention to the fact that in many cases the personnel required for the training of these people is not available. These people require special training, and it entails specialised and difficult training. If provision has in fact been made in the £42,000 for the training of such personnel, we would lik to know how and where these people are being trained. We would like to know whether adequate provision is being made for the training of such personnel at our universities so that the money can be spent in the proper manner. When we spend more money on such an important matter on the medical side, we want to have the assurance that the department is looking for the necessary training staff, because if we do not make provision for that, i.e., if the increase is simply to be applied towards granting a little more here and a little more there, the work will end up in a failure, and we cannot afford or approve of increases of this nature unless we know that it is being used in the proper manner and that the staff required for the control and training and development of these persons consists of the proper sort of person and that they have had the proper training, because we do not want to have one single settlement of this nature ending in a failure. Too much depends upon that for us to allow any settlement or any institution of this nature to be a failure. I therefore say once again that we hope that the department will give us the assurance that the work will in all respects be performed in such a manner that our future plans in regard to semi-fit and unfit persons and even old persons will not be frustrated by weak organisation, by weak management and by having persons in control who have not had the proper training in the right spirit. If we can enable semi-fit persons in this country to receive a percentage of the earnings they would ordinarily have received, we could establish social security for our people on a much sounder basis in consequence of that percentage of earnings. I hope our discussion here will not have been in vain, and that the Minister of Finance will, in the absence of the Minister concerned, see that we set about this task in such a manner as to give the people the assurance that our work will not be frustrated by a system and through control which is not in every respect the proper one.

I just want to emphasise one aspect of this matter. I am very sorry that the Minister of Finance only is present and that the Prime Minister is not present.

He is in the Senate.

Yes, and I am not blaming him. I am simply saying that it is a pity that he is not present in view of what I want to say. We have just been listening to a very important speech by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) in connection with certain items of expenditure in these Estimates, but the Minister who should have been here to listen to it is not present. It has become a custom of late that when any financial measure is being dealt with practically the only Minister present is the Minister of Finance, and I want to protest against that. When any Estimates are being considered, be it an Additional Appropriation or a Part Appropriation or the Main Estimates, matters are discussed with which every Minister is concerned, and I consider it no more than reasonable as regards the House that when those matters are being considered the Ministers concerned should be present. The Minister of Finance obviously cannot reply to a speech such as the one which has just been made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, a speech which, although it concerned expenditure, has nothing to do with the Department of Finance. It has to do with the activities of the Department of Welfare, and the Minister of Welfare is not present. Neither is the Minister of Public Health present. I say that I hope the Government will appreciate the necessity—and this applies in the case of the Prime Minister who is in charge of his Cabinet—for every Minister to be in his place, if in any way possible, when the Estimates or second readings or third readings are dealt with, so as to be able to hear in person what is said on this or that side of the House in regard to matters which concern his department.

Surely you can discuss that in the Committee stage.

You know that the Other Place is also in session.

We are not dealing with the Committee now. A thousand and one matters are being raised here which cannot be discussed in the Committee stage, and the hon. member over there who has spent so many years in this House should know better.

You are simply repeating yourself.

That is a reflection against the Chair.

Order, order!

You will not take it amiss if I do not reply to those nonsensical interjections. The idea of the Minister of Finance sitting here and, having listened to the debate, going along and conveying to every Minister concerned what has been said in this House in regard to the department concerned is simply ridiculous. It cannot be done and it is not being done. I am very serious, and I hope the Minister of Finance will appreciate the reasonableness that Ministers should be in their places in order to be able to give their own replies to criticism expressed here; and if they do not reply, they can in any case pay attention to it. Even on the opposite side things are sometimes said of which the Ministers can take notice.

There was some talk on Pongola this afternoon, and the Minister knows nothing about that.

I do not want to take part in the debate further. I just want to express the wish that Ministers should in future be in their places when matters concerning their departments are discussed.

I am glad that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has managed to be present. I would like to discuss a matter with him which I regard as of the utmost importance. I am referring to Vote 45, G, “Subsidy in Respect of Railway Tariffs.” It comes under Vote Agriculture (General). I take it that the extra amount of £133,600 which is required here includes a portion of the original amount of £1¼ million provided for a subsidy and which also includes a subsidy on the railage of stock, i.e. cattle and other animals conveyed from drought-stricken districts to grazing areas. In view of that I trust that you will allow me to bring the seriousness of the position which has arisen to the notice of the House, and more particularly to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture.

The hon. member may only discuss the reasons for the increase and not the policy. The policy has already been approved of.

I want to say that the reason for the increase is to grant assistance to farmers who have conveyed stock from drought-stricken areas with the intention of having their stock returned after they have had rain. I want to say that in view of this fact it would be useless for the Minister to spend the amount which is now being asked for, the conditions in the country being what they are. I hope you will now give us an opportunity to raise the matter so as to enable the Minister to make a statement in regard to it. The Minister is aware of the fact that there has been an outbreak in certain parts of the country of that unknown disease known as lumpy skin disease. I want to discuss particularly the position in the Free State in general where this disease is rife, and in view of the fact that the Minister has now placed the whole of the Free State under quarantine so that cattle cannot be taken from one farm to another and cannot be returned even by rail to the farm from which they were originally sent on account of drought, I want to ask what can be the object of appropriating another £133,600 for a subsidy in respect of the conveyance of cattle.

It is not for that only.

No, originally an amount of £1,260,000 was required as a subsidy for the conveyance of agricultural products, and now an additional amount of £133,600 is required. I take it that a considerable portion of that will be utilised for the return of stock to the farms from which they were sent on account of the drought. I want to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that the farmers in the Free State and farmers all over the country and even agricultural organisations realise just as much as the Minister of Agriculture and the Government that we cannot lightly dispose of this matter of stock diseases and the lumpy skin disease.

Order, order. The hon. member is out of order.

I do not want to discuss the question of lumpy skin disease in detail but I just want to tell the Minister that it would be useless for him to ask for a subsidy for the conveyance of cattle to the farms from which they were originally sent.

The hon. member has already used that argument.

May I just say this then. The Hon. Minister will find that it will not be necessary for him to spend this money. The stock may not be sent back and they will die on the farms to which they have been sent. They will die during the winter months. The point I want to emphasise is that this House regards the appropriation of this amount as superfluous. That is my argument and I would like to hear whether the Minister of Agriculture will enable us to utilise the amount appropriated as a subsidy in respect of the conveyance of stock which have to be brought back from those farms to the original farms; whether he intends to grant relief in that respect. This is how he can do so: If the stock had trekked by road, he can now allow that stock to be sent back by rail. Will they not infect non-infected areas when they are conveyed by rail? I stood up to discuss this matter in view of the food shortage in this country and the serious situation with which we will have to cope during the winter months. Instead of merely eradicating stock diseases the Minister will altogether destroy our stock in applying these measures which he has adopted, and in view of that I would like to have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture as to whether he wants to apply the money he has at his disposal, i.e. the amount we are being asked to vote here, to assist the farmers under those difficult conditions in which they find themselves as a result of stock diseases; and whether he is going to assist us in some way or other while we are not in a position to have the stock moved one pace in either direction. I have raised this matter so as to give the Minister of Agriculture an opportunity to make a statement to the House in connection with this difficult question as the farmers are perturbed at the difficult situation in which they are placed.

I would like to say a few words on the Prisons Vote. I see that there is an increase of £33,000 on this Vote. We were all glad to see in this morning’s paper that so many persons have joined the police force, that the police force is once more on full strength. We feel that the police force should be maintained on full strength because crimes are being committed on a large scale today. One may walk nowhere at night nowadays without being attacked; but as far as prisons are concerned, I want to put a question to the Minister. The prisons staff have not received an increase of salary yet. The position is serious. These people are in the greatest danger every day whilst in the execution of their duties. We see how they are being assaulted.

Order, order. What vote is the hon. member discussing?

Vote 39, Prisons.

Under what item?

I will have a liik quickly. I notice under Item A (1) an increase is asked for, under salaries, wages and allowances. It is only £100, but in any case, a higher amount has been placed in the estimates, increasing salaries. The position in the Department is serious and it is most essential that this important matter should be deal with.

This £100 has nothing to do with that important matter.

But the whole Prisons Vote has something to do with it.

This £100 was only in respect of cost of living allowances.

There is also £2,400 here under salaries and wages, travelling expenses, etc., under B (1). There is an amount for wages and allowances. However small it may be, the important principle lies in the fact that today there is an acute shortage of prisons staff.

Order, order. The principle has already been approved of. The only matter that can be discussed here is the reasons for the increase of the vote.

There is an increase here under salaries. Have the salaries of the prisons staff been increased? The staff are looking forward to an increase in their salaries in view of the fact that the police have received salary increases and so far the prisons staff have not received anything yet. The result is that these people are resigning from the service and joining the police force. They are not remaining in the prisons service. I feel that it is essential to make the salaries of the prisons staff more attractive. These people deserve an increase in salary. If you grant this you will find that there will be a rush to join the staff. I understand that there is an acute shortage at present. I do not want to enlarge any further on this matter. I merely want to bring the fact to the attention of the Minister that there is a large measure of dissatisfaction amongst the staff because they have not received any salary increase as in the case of the police. Then I come to Vote No. 44. I see that an amount is provided here for experimental farms. There are also wages and salaries as in the case of the previous vote. There are experimental farms throughout the country, but there are certain parts of the country where the advancement of agriculture is handicapped by the fact that there are no experimental farms.

Order, order. The hon. member cannot discuss that point now.

I would just like to express the hope that we will get experimental farms in the areas represented by you and me. Now I come to Vote No. 45. I notice that an amount is asked for here in respect of a subsidy on butter. I do hope that you will allow me to say a few words on this. You know that during the great drought we had, we were not able to produce butter on as large a scale as previously. Why not? Because we had no food for our animals and consequently we could not produce the same quantity of butter. We suffered serious losses. We feel that the subsidy on butter and on any dairy product should be made as high as possible today in order to encourage production. Production must be encouraged and the Minister of Agriculture will meet with no difficulties if he does that. But the farmers are paralysed. Notwithstanding all their efforts to achieve larger production, they have had setbacks and they feel tired. What I want to recommend is that the Minister should pay a temporary subsidy to the farmers. I am not saying it should be permanent. We farmers do not believe in extremely high prices. What we want is compensation for the setbacks we experience during periods of drought, in order that we may be enabled to make up in the good times what we lose in the bad times. But the policy of the Department of Agriculture is this: As soon as there is larger production the prices fall. I am glad that this subsidy has been provided and it will naturally encourage the farmers to produce more butter. Now I come to N2, the subsidy on imported barley and oats. The price of oats has been fixed at 12s. 6d. The imported product will cost plus-minus 33s. I do not have the exact figure here but that is near enough.

36s.

The figure I have here is 33s.

Some are 30s. and some are 36s.

The average price thérefore is 33s. We all know what the position is. One cannot get oats. One cannot get seed. We feel that the farmers should be encouraged to produce, and then the price is fixed at this ridiculous figure of 12s. 6d. for oats. At that price one does not even risk sowing. Farming is the greatest gamble in South Africa. The farmer has to risk everything. Everything is a matter of chance. The drought caused crop failures on a large scale. I want to thank the Minister for sending twelve tractors to certain parts. The farmers have made use of these tractors very largely and they planted 500 bags of mealies in a very small area. The mealies grew well but there was no rain and now there will be no harvest, although they expected thousands of bags.

They can use it for ensilage.

Yes, but it costs them a lot and that is why I am asking for a higher subsidy on butter and cheese. I had to sign the I.O.U. myself for the £1 per morgen and I hope that the Minister will not claim this money because we cannot pay if we have no harvest. If oats is imported at 33s., how can we expect our own farmers to produce at 12s. 6d. and to pay 33s. for the seed? The imported oats costs 20s. more than the price our farmers get and could not the Minister only for this season grant a subsidy so that the price for the farmer could be 20s.? If the Minister will give his encouragement to the producer then in spite of all the difficulties and setbacks they will still make an effort to produce. Here in Cape Town I have a rest, but on the farm I do not work six hours per day, but it goes to 24 hours per day. That is what the farmer has to do and then he still meets with all these setbacks such as hail, frost, cold, droughts and so on. All these adversities strike at the farmer, and what does he get? I want to tell the Minister of Finance that in his Budget no relief has been given to the farmer.

Order, order.

I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take these things into consideration and will increase the price for the farmers. If the farmer has to pay 33s. for seed oats, then he must get more for his product.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the increase of £6,000 on the Treasury Vote in respect of salaries, wages and allowances. On the other hand, there is an increase of almost 50 per cent. in respect of subsistence allowances, and then we come to the incidental expenses.

I have already dealt with that in the Committee stage. You were not here, apparently. It is in connection with the enquiry into gold mining taxation.

Thank you. Then I come to Vote No. 20. We find here that the Government has spent £26,000 instead of the estimated £20,000 for the purchase of tyres and tubes. The public has not received any concession yet as to the purchase of these articles, and I would like to know the reason why the Government bought so much more during the one year. The Vote for State diggings has been increased, from £211,000, by £50,000. In the Western Transvaal there are many people who have had crop failures and who cannot continue with their farming at present. They are pining for a digger’s certificate, but they cannot obtain it. Here we find, however, that an additional amount of £50,000 is being voted for digging to be carried on on a larger scale on the State diggings. I do not think that this is fair towards these poor people. Then I see that there is also an increase of £8,000 in connection with the dehydration of vegetables. I could understand that if there had been a surplus of fresh vegetables, but we know that, on account of the scarcity, housewives have not been able to get any fresh vegetables. Then I come to the importation of barley and Gats. There is no increase in the expenditure on this item, and I do not know whether I am allowed to talk on that.

It is a new Vote.

I am a maize farmer, but I have also sown oats. I took it to the Co-operative, and I discovered that I got 13s. 1d. for seed oats. That is an impossible position. I made enquiries, and I then discovered that the price of oats was fixed in relation to the price of maize. Apparently the Department could not fix any other price then, because the price of mealies had been fixed at 19s. Now oats is being imported at an average price of 33s. That is not fair treatment for the farmer, and the Minister of Agriculture should give his serious attention to this matter. If the relation should be maintained in respect of such a valuable product as mealies, then the price of mealies should be raised, because we know that at the moment it has been fixed at far too low a figure.

I wish to associate myself with what has been said here in connection with the import price of oats. We must approve of the fact that oats is being imported because we have not got it in the country. But is it a wise policy to fix the price for the oats farmer at such a low figure that it is not economical for them to sow oats? I know farmers whose sole means of existence is the production of oats, and I know that strong representations have been made to the Government for the price to be increased. This has not been done, and that is why there is a shortage of oats today. Oats is mostly produced in the Western Province and in other parts where the rainfall is high. The drought has not been such an important factor in the production of oats as the price which has been fixed at such a low figure that it has not been a paying proposition for the producer, and now we are importing oats at a price which is impossible for the consumer, with the result that the taxpayer has to contribute the difference. The difference between the price obtained by the farmer and the price at which it is imported is £1 per bag. I think that the Minister could really encourage the farmers by paying a better price for oats produced in South Africa. May I also in this connection discuss the difficulties experienced by consumers in obtaining oats?

No, the hon. member cannot discuss that in this connection.

Then I just want to say that it is almost impossible in view of all the forms which have to be completed. I want to appeal to the Minister to make it a paying proposition for farmers to sow oats by fixing a better price for them, and secondly, that he should make it easier for consumers to obtain oats. If the Minister does that, larger quantities of oats will be produced, and then it will not be necessary for him to import such large quantities.

I do not want to go into this question of oats, but I fear that evasion of the regulations is taking place. Somebody told me that he had to pay £1 6s. 9d. for a bag of seed-barley to a merchant. It was regarded as seed-barley, and for that reason he had to pay this high price instead of the fixed price of 13s. In another instance the person had to pay £1 per bag for seed-oats. He is complaining about this because the farmers in the Cradock Valley feel that it is impossible for them to pay that price for seed-oats. I want the Minister to make a statement in this connection and to say whether farmers have the right to take action against such people and to demand a refund of their money. In connection with Vote No. 43 I want to discuss the destruction of locusts. We must have more information about the destruction of red locusts. Why is provision only being made for red locusts and not for the grey locusts? Locusts breed in the Kalahari and in the western half of Africa, and we are always in danger of being threatened by these locust swarms from the North. I cannot help feeling that the authorities in the North are really weak in their efforts to exterminate the red locusts. Although they are paid certain amounts by way of assistance they are not carrying out the combating measures, and we have invasions from the North down the East coast. We feel that much more should be done in the northern parts and that we should see to it that the best methods are used to make the combating effective. It is no use spending money to exterminate the locusts here if there are no effective combating measures in the North. The Minister should go into this matter and make a statement to us with regard to the steps taken by those people, what methods they use and whether their methods are the same as ours. The Portuguese are the greatest culprits. Many locusts breed in the northern parts, and the combating measures taken there are not effective. If there is to be international co-operation then it should not only be the Union which fulfils its duties but the people in the North should do their share too. Then I come to animal husbandry and agriculture. Under animal husbandry the new scheme for milk registration will probably come. I want the Minister to make a statement on the new scheme. In the past registration has been very haphazard, and I trust that with this new committee there will be an improvement. I have had experience …

The hon. member is going too far now. He can only discuss the reasons for the increase.

I presume that the new milk registration scheme is one of the reasons for the increase.

The various items are specified.

This committee travels around in connection with the registration scheme.

I cannot make any statement until I have received their report.

But may I discuss it?

The hon. member may only discuss the reasons for the increase.

But this is one of the reasons for the increase.

No, it is not one of the reasons.

I merely wanted to help the Minister, but now I am not allowed to. Then I would like to say something about Commerce and Industries.

On which Vote does the hon. member wish to speak?

Vote No. 42, under which there is an increase of £1,500.

That has been explained by the Minister in the Committee stage.

I see it is in connection with salt which was imported. I would like to know why salt was imported.

The Minister explained it in the Committee stage. You were probably not here.

But then the Minister could repeat it to me. We really feel that salt should not be imported because we have some of the best salt in the world in the country. In my constituency we have salt pans where the salt is 95 per cent. pure, and I do not think that there is any better salt in the world, so why should salt be imported? I do not know whether under this Vote I will be allowed to discuss an irregularity which occurred in the Department of the Minister.

No, it only deals with salt.

Then I want to protest once more against the importation of salt. In my constituency there are magnificent salt pans, and we know that there is plenty of salt in the country.

Last year there was a shortage.

There is not a shortage now. Probably salt was exported for the manufacture of shells. We can produce all the salt we need in this country, and if these people are encouraged I assure you that we could produce more than we need. We are not in the unfortunate position of some other countries such as Australia, where they have to extract salt from seawater. We have the natural resources, and instead of the Minister paying an amount of £1,500 for the importation of salt, he should rather use that to encourage the production of the best types of salt in our own country.

I move—

Upon which the House divided:

I second.

Ayes—61:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson. R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—29:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Motion for the second reading of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, House to go into Committee on the Bill on 21st March.

I move—

I object.

The Committee has leave to insert a new clause to follow clause 6.

The Committee reverted to clause 4, standing over.

I move—

I hope that this motion will not be agreed to. We have prepared ourselves to discuss this important Bill. We have already discussed several aspects of this matter and if this Bill for which we have prepared ourselves has to stand over now, then we will be put in a most unsatisfactory position. Not much time will probably be given to the matter then. Let us rather dispose of it first and then deal with the next motion. I do hope, therefore, that the Minister of Finance will not insist on his motion.

I want to express the hope that the Minister of Lands who now proposes that this Bill should stand over, will give us an undertaking that the amendment of which he gave notice and which appears in the Order List, will still be considered by him.

I give no further undertaking.

I am sorry that the Minister is taking up that attitude. When this matter was under discussion a few days ago, he did ultimately after full consideration decide to depart from his original intention. But now the concession made by him in his amendment is not of very much use. I had hoped that when the Minister of Finance moved that this Bill now stand over, that it was the intention of the Minister of Lands to reconsider this matter. That is necessary. I wonder if hon. members realise what really is at issue in connection with this matter. The Minister comes along with certain proposals for subsidies to irrigators and he now wants to make a small concession. We asked him to take into consideration the granting of assistance also to the original irrigators, and the Bill was withdrawn and the Minister said he would consider that. Now the Minister comes along with an amendment to bring about a certain change, but the change is so small …

The hon. member may not discuss the amendment.

I merely want to discuss the motion of the Minister of Finance for this Bill to stand over. We had hoped that the Minister of Lands would reconsider the matter and that he would take into review the amendment of which he had given notice. If the Minister of Lands gives the undertaking that he would further consider the matter, I want to make an appeal to members here, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for Pietersburg that hon. members have prepared themselves to discuss irrigation legislation, nevertheless to allow that the Bill stand over. But if the Minister does not want to give this undertaking I want to appeal to members on the Government side, particularly the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and other hon. members who have knowledge of irrigation and who know that it will be to the disadvantage of the irrigators, to exert pressure on the Minister, in withdrawing this Bill, now to consider making a different proposal from the one of which he has given notice. I hope they will help us in asking the Minister to consider another proposal. In that case we will have no objection to this Order of the Day standing over.

I want to appeal to the Minister not to postpone the consideration of this Bill. We have prepared ourselves to discuss it. I want to tell the Minister of Finance that if this Bill stands over, it will place me personally in a very difficult position. This Bill is of great importance to my constituency which is dependent upon irrigation and my constituency has the greatest interest in this Bill and in having it passed as soon as possible. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but I do know whether I will be here later in the week. One makes one’s arrangements according to the time one has. I have other appointments.

Your primary duty is to be here.

I want to say this to the Minister that if all members of Parliament, including himself, would attend as faithfully as I do, there would never be any complaints. I know that the Minister has a majority enabling him to postpone the matter and to make it as inconvenient as possible for me. But the position is simply this: that I have no interest in the other subject which is coming up for discussion, apart from the fact that Dongola is a part of this country. But this matter of irrigation if of special importance to my constituency. Let us dispose of that. There is only one amendment. We could finish in an hour or one and a quarter hours. But even if it takes longer it is a most important matter. If I were to make political capital out of this motion, then the Minister had rather proceed with it. I will enjoy telling the public that the Minister of Lands who always professes such fondness for the farmers has discriminated against them. Any other person or company or any municipality can obtain a subsidy of £10,000 without having to come to Parliament but the poor farmer can only get £300.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House.

I appeal to the Minister. If he does not want to, I must submit, but the position is simply that every dog has his day.

I am greatly disappointed with the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) for not supporting me. I know that he feels the same as I do. He also represents irrigators and knows that if the Bill were to be delayed and the Minister does not do what I asked him to do, there would be no opportunity to have an amendment adopted in Committee. If the hon. member does not put in a word for the irrigators now it means that he is leaving them in the lurch in the same way as the Minister is doing today. The Minister is in a hurry to come to the next motion. Why? Because it is a motion on the Dongola Reserve, and in that he makes no provision for settlers but for social security for baboons and snakes. He is more concerned with that than about the irrigators for whom we are pleading. The hon. member for Rustenburg and others say that they represent irrigators but they are leaving the irrigators in the lurch if they do not support us at this stage to get a promise from the Minister that he will reconsider the amendment. The amendment which the Minister has on the Order Paper does not satisfy us. I thought the Minister of Finance moved for the Order of the Day to stand over so as to allow the Minister of Irrigation, at the latter’s request, to reconsider the matter; but we now have to assume that the Minister of Lands is not prepared to do so, and therefore I can only appeal to the hon. member for Rustenburg and other hon. members who represent irrigators to support me.

I was not under the impression that the clause was being discussed now because we are not yet in Committee on the Bill. All the discussion which is taking place now is a sheer waste of time. It is really reprehensible for the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) to stir up suspicion against me. It is not justified.

Don’t you want to have the Bill disposed of?

The position is that the Bill is not under discussion.

Is it not of greater importance than to discuss Dongola?

The present discussion is a waste of time and the hon. member must appreciate that. When the Bill comes up for discussion I shall do my duty.

May I just tell the hon. member for Rustenburg that the position is that the Minister of Lands has given notice of an amendment on the Irrigation Bill, and if that amendment were to be discussed in Committee, an amendment such as the one we want to have will not be allowed, because what we want will involve increased expenditure, and as the hon. member knows, that cannot be allowed without the approval of the Governor-General. When, therefore, the Minister of Finance now asks for this Order of the Day to stand over until a later occasion, the opportunity is at hand to ask the Minister of Lands to reconsider the matter. Unless the hon. member for Rustenburg supports us now in our request to the Minister of Lands to reconsider the matter, it is simply going to mean that he will not have the chance later on to have an amendment adopted. I know that the hon. member for Rustenburg feels as we do, viz., that the amendment which the Minister has placed on the Order Paper will not satisfy the country. Now is the time to appeal to the Minister of Lands, and I am asking the hon. member for Rustenburg to give us his support, otherwise I shall accuse him of having left the irrigators in the lurch. I hope therefore that since the hon. member now understands the position, he will support me and will insist on such an undertaking from the Minister of Irrigation. I am now reverting to the Minister of Irrigation, and once more I am asking him to promise to reconsider the matter. The Minister knows well enough that if he were to leave the matter to an open vote in this House, not one farmer will say that the Minister’s proposal is adequate. It does not meet with the wishes and the requirements of the people. I would therefore ask him to reconsider the matter, and to see whether he cannot draft a better Bill, a new amendment, which will involve increased expenditure, but which will surely meet with the approval of the House. If the Minister withholds that promise I must also accuse him of leaving the irrigators in the lurch, and he will hear more about that later. The Minister prides himself on how much he wants to do for irrigation ….

The hon. member should confine himself to the motion.

I will have occasion later to expose the Minister and to show that he is simply priding himself and does nothing. But I still hope that if the motion is accepted for this Order of the Day to stand over, the Minister will reflect calmly on the matter tonight and that he will come to the conclusion that he owes it to the irrigators to meet them to a greater extent.

I am sorry about the Minister’s attitude. The Minister of Lands is a practical man, and up to now he has handled the Irrigation Bill in a reasonable manner. But why should it now suddenly stand over? The principles contained in the Bill, the ideas, are excellent.

The hon. member cannot discuss the merits of the case.

I want to point out that the Minister is missing a golden opportunity to have the Bill put through. There will be few amendments only, and he will have a good legislative measure adopted. I want to ask hon. members on the opposite side who are in favour of this measure why they want to postpone the matter. Had the Minister carried the matter through, his name would have been perpetuated, and many of his sins would have been forgotten. He is missing a golden opportunity, and I hope that the Minister will proceed with the Bill.

I want to address a final appeal to the Minister of Finance. He must realise that he is now doing something which will not reflect to his credit. The Minister of Finance is responsible for arranging the Order Paper, and he arranged the Orders, and we have prepared ourselves accordingly. If he wants to depart from it in such a frivolous manner, he should realise that he cannot expect us to have the confidence in him which we would have had if he had adhered to his own agenda. In the first place, the guillotine is being applied to the second reading of a Bill. Several members still wanted to deal with certain subjects for good reasons. Now the Minister comes along and wants to postpone the consideration of the second Order of the Day. We have prepared ourselves for its consideration. Had the Minister placed the motion in connection with Dongola first, we would have had to submit, but the Minister failed to do so, and now comes along and changes the sequence without consultation. The usual procedure is to consult the opposite side of the House whenever the Order Paper is altered. Now, all of a sudden, the Minister comes along and moves for the matter to stand over. Surely we all feel that the matter which now has to stand over is of greater importance than the next item on the Order Paper, which seeks to offer protection to baboons and wild animals. If the Minister insists on his motion it means that he is frivolously altering the Order Paper and is playing ducks and drakes with Parliament; that a matter of major importance to the country is being postponed for the sake of pleasure.

I am sorry that the Minister of Finance does not realise that he has made a mistake. As the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has rightly remarked, the Minister of Finance has acted in a frivolous manner. He has submitted no reason, or rather no serious reason, for altering the agenda. He treats it as a joke, but we do not regard it as a joke. Many members would have liked to have taken part in the discussion on the Bill which should have come first. They would like to have certain amendments incorporated to the advantage of the irrigators. In spite of the attitude of the Minister of Lands we are still hoping to convince him that certain changes are necessary in the interests of the irrigators. If the Minister would promise to consider the matter we would still vote for the motion bv the Minister of Finance for the matter to stand over, but the Minister of Lands does not want to give that promise. Under the circumstances, we can only deplore the attitude of the Minister of Finance. An important Bill, which is of great significance to the country, has to stand aside for something which is of no importance and the agenda has to be altered in a frivolous manner. I wonder how many citizens of our country have any interest in the Dongola scheme: those who have any interest in it and who live there are all opposed to the scheme. I feel sure that the Minister of Lands has not had one single representation made to him by the rest of the country in favour of the reserve and all the farmers in that area are against it. Important legislation now has to stand over and that is very unfair. It is to the disadvantage of the country and is being done for the sake of a measure which will only benefit baboons and wild animals. We are shocked at the attitude of the Minister and the Government. The Government allege that they realise their responsibility and this is the way they carry on. Well, these little things are nails in the coffin of the Government. The Government is ignoring the real interests of the country and is placing the interests of animals above those of the people. The Government is bringing about its own downfall. We welcome that but we have a duty towards our country and we have to consider the interests of the country and when such unreasonable proposals are made we are obliged to protest. I hope that if the Minister of Finance were to have his way, in spite of his frivolous action, and this motion for the second Order of the Day to stand over were to be adopted, the Minister will see that the Irrigation Bill will not stand over for such a length of time that hon. members who take an interest in it and who want to have an Irrigation Act passed, cannot be present. Members on the opposite side are apparently indifferent to irrigation matters. I have appealed to certain members on the opposite side. It is not necessary to mention their names because I doubt whether more than one or two of them take any interest in irrigation matters. Had they taken any interest in them they would have supported us. We can only deplore the relegation of irrigation matters in our country to the background to enable the Minister of Lands and his Government to continue with another matter. I hope that the Minister of Lands will make representations to the Minister of Finance to have this Bill again brought before the House, so that we can adopt it in an amended version in the manner we propose to improve on it, i.e. in the interests of irrigation in South Africa.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen. R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, Ó. J.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—30:

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The motion that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again was then put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—29:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels. C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 21st March.

I move—

I second.

May I just remind hon. members that this motion consists of two parts and that I have to put it in two parts. The first part will be up to and including the words “last session”, and the second part will include the rest of the motion as it appears on the Order Paper.

I just want to understand the position clearly. If the first part of the motion is adopted and you put the second part, can we discuss the whole motion?

No, the hon. member can only discuss that part of the motion which is put. I put the first part of the motion—

Then I would like to object to the first part, viz. that leave be granted to the Minister to resume the proceedings on the Bill at the stage at which they were suspended last session. I am surprised to find that the Government has again brought this Bill before the House after the information they have acquired in the meantime. I can imagine that the Minister had certain information and data on which he acted when he first brought this measure before the House. I take it that he was bona fide under the impression that he was acting in the interests of the country, in the light of the information he had at his disposal; but with the information we now have and which all the members of the House now have, we most certainly cannot proceed with the Bill at this stage. I understand that I cannot go into the merits of the Bill.

No, the hon. member may not do so now.

Then I want to refrain from doing so; but let us go into the dangers underlying this Bill and see how the interests of the farmers will be endangered if we are to proceed with the Bill. It makes one feel that one really cannot continue with it. Take the evidence which we have had of an extremely important witness, the chief of the Veterinary Division at Onderstepoort, viz. Dr. P. J. du Toit. He clearly said that if we continue with the Dongola Reserve it will entail a real danger to stock farming in this country. He says he cannot see how we can continue with it. He points out that we are already spending thousands of pounds for destroying game reserves in Zululand because they constitute a danger to stock farming; and now we are coming forward with a motion in the House—while we are already spending tens of thousands of pounds on the destruction of game reserves —to do the same thing by establishing a game reserve which may endanger stock farming. Had we this information on the previous occasion I am convinced that the Minister would not have brought this Bill before the House, and having this information, which we did not have on the previous occasion, we cannot allow this Bill to be proceeded with. We have to protest against steps being taken to continue with the Bill. There are so many reasons one could mention. The Minister has explained here that the land in those regions cannot be used for anything. His information was not correct. I take it that he was acting in good faith. We have now acquired information, and we notice that according to the evidence of an irrigation engineer no less than 13,000 morgen can be irrigated. The Minister stated that there was no land suitable for irrigation purposes.

Is the hon. member not discussing the merits of the Bill now?

I do not want to discuss the merits but I want to state that the evidence clearly shows that the information we had before us on a previous occasion was wrong and that it is a dangerous thing for us to allow this Bill to proceed. A man like Dr. du Toit tells us that the Bill constitutes a danger and it is our duty to tell this House that if we allow the Bill to be proceeded with from the stage which it has reached, it would constitute a danger to our cattle farming; and we already have so many cattle diseases in this country. Then as regards the proposed committee I want to add that I intend to move an amendment.

I think the hon. member should wait with that until I put the second part of the motion.

Then we can do that later. As I say, my objection is simply that we are going to create a great danger in our country if we go on with this thing. We know how many stock diseases are threatening our country and we are going to establish a greater danger. That is why I am raising such a serious objection against the House granting leave for the Bill to be proceeded with, since we have the testimony of the highest veterinary officer in the country that as regards stock diseases this Bill constitutes a danger to us, and that is why we are raising a serious objection against it.

May I just make it quite clear to hon. members that this motion consists of two parts. The first part goes as far as line 4 ending with the words “last session.” If this is agreed to there will be a second part, namely, in regard to the nomination of the Select Committee on the Bill and the re-appointment of the members mentionéd. If the first part of the motion as it stands on the Order Paper is carried, I shall then put the second part, and members can then move any amendment to the second part.

Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your ruling. You told the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) that he could not go into the merits of the matter.

Yes.

But this motion introduced by the Minister asks us to proceed with the Bill. We must now be allowed to advance reasons why we should not proceed with the Bill.

In that case the hon. member will be compelled to go into the merits. The motion reads, “That, in accordance with the resolution of the House of Assembly of 11th June, 1945, the proceedings … be resumed”, so that the merits of the case cannot again be discussed on this motion.

If I want to object to the Bill being proceeded with, I must surely indicate my reasons, because how could I otherwise object?

It depends on the reasons advanced by the hon. member. He may proceed and I shall then decide in the course of his speech.

Yes, but I should like you to bear this in mind. We are going to oppose this motion and we want to have the fullest opportunity to state our reasons.

But the hon. member must not deal with the merits of the Bill.

As far as the contents of the Bill are concerned, that is a different matter. Last year the Minister of Lands convinced this House that it was essential to do what the Bill contemplates and on the strength of that a Select Committee was appointed. Now the Minister wants the Bill to be proceeded with as from the stage it reached last year. Last year the Minister advanced certain definite reasons and we want to refute those reasons.

This resolution is merely in pursuance of the resolution of last year.

The resolution of last year lapsed. Everything lapsed at the end of the sitting, and the Minister is now introducing a motion to proceed with it. This is a new sitting and everything which had been done in this connection lapsed last year. We cannot automatically go on. If the Minister wants the House to proceed with the Bill, he must advance reasons why the House should proceed with it, and then we have the fullest right to indicate why it is not necessary to proceed with it. In the first place I want to base my argument on the fact that last year the Minister made certain statements, and by means of those statements he convinced his side of the House that it was necessary to proceed with the Bill. But in the meantime certain facts have come to light which throw an altogether different light on the matter and which completely eliminate the necessity of proceeding with the Bill. I want to mention a few of those reasons and indicate that the facts which have come to light throw an altogether different light on the matter; and if hon. members on the other side also become convinced of these facts, which contradict what was said here by the Minister, it is quite possible that they will throw out the Minister’s Bill and agree that it is not necessary to proceed with it. The Minister stated here —and that statement convinced members on the other side—that he refused to meet a deputation which asked to be allowed to see him in regard to this matter because the secretary of the Farmers’ Association in Zoutpansberg, a certain Mr. Chamberlain, had written an offensive letter to him. That was the reason why he refused to interview the farmers of Zoutpansberg. My information is that the Minister, when he made that statement in the House, made a statement which is not in accordance with the facts, a statement which is not true. A letter of this kind was not written to him by Mr. Chamberlain. That is my information. What was sent to him and what he apparently objected to at the time, was a letter from Mr. Chamberlain as secretary of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union to the Transvaal Agricultural Union. The Transvaal Agricultural Union entered into correspondence with the Minister and forwarded this letter to him. I want to read this letter to the House, and I want members on the other side to judge whether the Minister was correct in saying that this letter was couched in such insulting terms that it justified him in refusing to interview the deputation.

In what way is the letter relevant to the motion which is before us?

By means of this letter the Minister of Lands influenced his side of the House to agree with him, because he described it as an offensive letter, and I want to read it to those members so that they can judge for themselves.

Are we then going to have the whole debate over again?

We must see whether we are entitled to comply with the request of the Minister of Lands to proceed with this Bill. As a result of the statements he made here, members on the other side were prepared to support the Minister, and we now want to indicate what the trué position is. This letter reads—

Dear Madam,—I regret delay over replying to your letter of the 21st ultimo regarding the so-called “Botanical Reserve” in the Messina area, but, owing to the petrol and tyre position, it has not been possible to send a committee to inspect the position. The following facts have, however, been given to us concerning the Reserve, and which are believed to be correct.

The Botanical Reserve is conducted by Dr. Pole Evans, assisted by a staff of nonEuropeans. The Reserve is being exténded and Europeans squeezed out. It is definitely stated that no botanical experiments of any value are being carried out, even at the headquarters, Dongola. On the other hand, there are nine boreholes with the requisite pumping plants, reservoirs and drinking troughs constructed at intervals for the convenience of lions, leopards, wild dogs and other vermin, and of course game; and presumably eventually to provide water for botanical specimens. In addition to the initial costs out of public funds, the upkeep of these water supplies, under the present regime, must be high.

It is stated that a special Botanical Reserve “drill” operates there, and it should be noted that this machine could be very profitably used by Zoutpansberg farmers, who, owing to the drought, are in immediate and urgent need of water for themselves and stock. It is stated that the general conduct of the administration is tyrannical. The native rangers see stock that encroach on the Reserve veld and trek them long distances to pounds; old roads are blocked, etc. The head ranger comes up at regular intervals from Pretoria by road to pay his natives and so forth, using petrol and rubber frequently denied the public.

By the way, that is Dr. Pole Evans—

(Signed) C. Chamberlain,

Secretary.

This letter was sent to the Minister, and it is this letter which was described as insulting.

That is untrue.

Subsequently, the following letter was written to him, this time by Mr. Chamberlain. This is the letter which Mr. Chamberlain then wrote to him.

The Minister is already in a bad mood.

This letter reads—

June 9th, 1943.

Sir,—

And just listen to this; the Minister stated a moment ago that this is untrue. Here we now have the Minister’s accusation that the letter was so insulting—

(Signed) Secretary,

C. Chamberlain.

These are letters which the Minister held out to his side of the House as so insulting that he was not prepared to receive a deputation of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Association. If by means of these letters he influenced members on that side of the House last year to vote for his motion, I hope they will take notice of this and that they will not vote for this motion. In this connection I come to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) who supported the Minister’s motion last year. At this particular meeting of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union, the hon. member was present, and do you know what happened? He introduced a motion in the following terms—

That hon. member who played no small part last year in persuading members on that side of the House to vote for the Minister’s motion, and that Dongola was such a poor area that Europeans could not make a living there, was so convinced in 1943 at a meeting of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union that Dongola should not be a reserve that he moved that it be proposed to the Minister that this area be exchanged for land on the eastern border of Portuguese East Africa.

At that time he had not yet been on safari.

Here it is specifically stated—

On a point of explanation …

Sit down.

May I just say a few words?

That depends on whether the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) will allow the hon. member to speak.

Very well, let him proceed. I shall sit down if at a later stage you will give me an opportunity to speak.

Now I come to a statement which was made by the Minister. The Minister informed the House last year— and by means of that statement he influenced members on his side of the House —that the land in that area was not worth anything, that one could hardly give it away as a present.

Is the hon. member not going into the merits of the case now?

No, I merely want to bring to light new facts which refute what the Minister told the House last year. I am now dealing with new facts which came to light since the Minister introduced this motion into the House last year. It is recorded in Hansard in column 4,685 of the English text that the Minister stated—

Do you know what happened in the meantime—to give one example only? Let us take land, for example, which practically borders on the Dongola area, land which is a short distance from the border. I refer to the farms of the Steyn brothers. I want to put this to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. Did he notice that that land, which is 43,000 morgen in extent, was sold a few days ago for £100,000?

I say definitely …

Sit down.

He thinks he is funny. I refuse to let him put words into my mouth.

I ask the hon. member for Zoutpansberg whether he noticed that those 43,000 morgen of land were sold a few days ago for £100,000?

How many head of cattle were included?

But surely there are no cattle; the Minister said that everything in that area died.

I am reading this letter as it stands.

Surely there can be no cattle on that land. You say they all die.

Let me read a report which appeared in "Die Burger” dated 19th March, 1946 [translation]—

This is the place which was described as a Kalahari desert—

It now comes to light that in close proximity to that area land is sold at £2 per morgen, or nearly £2 10s. per morgen, and then the Minister wants to convert that area into a reserve for monkeys and apes; but I am not allowed to go into the merits. I want to quote another example. The Minister stated here—and by means of that statement he influenced members on his side of the House to vote for his motion—that Maj. Hunt, the chairman of the Transvaal Agricultural Union which led a deputation to him, had made a statement which was absolutely without foundation. Let me rather quote the Minister’s own words from the Hansard report of last year, column 4681. He says—

And then the Minister makes the following statement in this regard—

By means of this statement he convinced members on his side of the House that cattle could not live in that area on leaves and that Maj. Hunt had made an absolutely false statement when he made that assertion. In the meantime I have discovered— I did not know it previously—that Maj. Hunt is a successful farmer behind the Zoutpansberg range in this area. But not only did those new facts come to light when I visited this area, but in the meantime a Select Committee sat and evidence was given before the Select Committee by one of the Government experts, a man who is certainly in the best position to know what the true state of affairs is. I refer to Mr. Bonsma, an official of the Department. He is in charge of the Government’s experimental farms in that area. He has experience of the veld and how cattle thrive in that area. When I have read to the House what Mr. Bonsma said in connection with that statement of Maj. Hunt and the reprehensible statement made by the Minister, I hope hon. members on that side will realise how much value they can attach to the Minister’s statement.

His evidence was available to all members before the introduction of the motion.

No, the Minister moved last year that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee and this evidence was given subsequently.

No.

Yes, this evidence came subsequently. Let me read it to the House.

What is the date of that evidence?

Mr. Bonsma’s evidence is the following. This question was put to him (page 891 of the Report of the Select Committee)—

Now we come to Mr. Bonsma’s reply, and it must be remembered that he is an expert. He is the manager of the Government’s stock breeding farm close to Messina.

On what date was that evidence given?

This evidence was given on 4th June. Mr. Bonsma replied in these terms—

And now I come to this important point—

The Minister stated in this House that Maj. Hunt, in saying that cattle eat leaves, made an absolutely untrue statement, and here we now have the evidence of an expert.

Why do they keep lucerne there?

Mr. Bonsma then goes on to say—

I think the hon. member is now going too deeply into the merits.

I want to say again that last year the Minister persuaded members in this House to accept his motion; he now wants them to accept this motion to proceed with the matter, and one of his arguments was that what Maj. Hunt had said was untrue, namely, that the cattle in that area eat leaves. We now have this evidence which came subsequently and which throws an altogether different light on the matter.

I hope the hon. member will not go too deeply into that.

Mr. Bonsma goes on to say—

Now comes the most important statement of all. The following question was put to him (No. 10724)—

Mr. Bonsma replies—

Now I should like the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) to listen to this—

He says that the cattle eat the leaves as soon as they fall off the trees so that they can never obtain sufficient leaves—

He goes on to state that for many years in that area he did not lose a single head of cattle as a result of drought. That is the further evidence of Mr. Bonsma, the Government official who manages that experimental farm.

But surely they feed the cattle there.

I am very sorry to hear the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) say that because he is one of the members of the Select Committee and it throws an unfavourable light on the Committee.

I am not a member of the Select Committee.

Did you go on safari perhaps?

Just give me a chance. Let me say to the hon. member for Rustenburg that Mr. Bonsma’s evidence is that during all the years he has been there he has never fed the cattle.

I personally saw them feeding the cattle. That is a little too thick. There are big barns filled with fodder.

Let me read to the hon. member what the evidence of Mr. Bonsma is—

He says one should keep in reserve one-tenth of one’s farm to meet drought conditions.

No, you should have big barns full of fodder.

That is not what Mr. Bonsma said.

What is the member for Rustenburg talking about now?

His knowledge is confined to lemons.

I suppose you were only there on the occasion of a cocktail party.

I was not there.

Order, order!

Let me quote what Mr. Bonsma said. Question number 10723 was the following—

I shall be glad if the hon. member for Zoutpansberg who always tries to throw a doubt on what I say, will listen to this. He is always ready to jump up when I speak. Mr. Bonsma says—

That is the precautionary measure that he suggests. Here we have the evidence of an expert. Here we have a man who can speak with authority, and he placed this information at the disposal of members after the Minister had persuaded members on his side of the House last year by means of his misrepresentation of the facts, to accept his motion. The Minister went on to say this last year. He stated that in those areas—and that is the reason why that area is not suitable for human occupation—there is not a single morgen of land which can be irrigated. And what are the facts which have now come to light?

[Inaudible],

Allow me to correct that poor member—and if he does not want to take my word he can ask any Transvaal farmer what the position is. There is the Marico district, the Rustenburg district, Waterberg, Zoutpansberg, Potgietersrust—and remember that Rustenburg is the biggest stock district in South Africa …

There is a good deal of grass too.

Every farmer in those parts can confirm the fact that for a great portion of the year hundreds of thousands of head of cattle in that area live on leaves exclusively.

That is true.

After that admission which has now come from the other side, I hope the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) will stop making frivolous interjections. I say that the Minister made the statement in this House that those parts should be expropriated, that they are not suitable for occupation because, inter alia, there is not sufficient water and because one cannot take precautionary measures against drought conditions since there is not a single morgen of land that is irrigable. What do we find? We find that before the Select Committee statements are made by experts, and that is of very great importance, because the opportunity which now presents itself to place this land under irrigation will be lost if this reserve is established. Mr. Kokot, an engineer of the Irrigation Department, gave evidence before the Select Committee. He admits that within twenty miles of the proposed dam in the Limpopo River, there is an area of 500,000 morgen of land which can be placed under irrigation.

Within 20 miles of what point?

Within 20 miles of the proposed place where a dam can be constructed. Mr. Kokot goes on to say that lower down there is another 3,000 morgen. That is 20 miles from the place where a dam can be built in the Limpopo River. But another engineer, Mr. Horwitz, a retired engineer of the Irrigation Department, gave evidence before the Select Committee and he stated that he had gone into the position and that no less than 13,000 morgen in that area can be irrigated if a dam is built in the Limpopo.

Ask the Minister whether he denies that.

Last year the Minister influenced members on his side of the House to vote for his motion by telling them. that one cannot irrigate a single morgen of land in that area.

On a point of order; the hon. member is reading certain passages to the House and he is not giving the true facts.

That is not a point of order.

I stated that there was not a morgen of land which could be irrigated within the reserve. I said that the land on the banks of the river is fertile and beautiful land but that it is subject to floods every year when the river comes down; that it will be necessary to destroy the big trees in order to be able to irrigate the land; that that land could only be irrigated by building a dam and that one could not build a dam there. Those are the facts.

The Minister made a very clear statement. I shall read it to him.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When business was suspended I was saying that last year the Minister of Lands misrepresented the position when he stated that not a single morgen could be irrigated in that area. The Minister then got up to say that I had misrepresented him.

Let me just say on a point of explanation that the hon. member spoke of the Steyns’ ranch which was sold for a large sum. I asked how many head of cattle were included in the sale. He stated that there were no cattle included and created the impression that the farm was sold for more than £2 per morgen. I have here an extract from the “Argus” in which it is stated that the purchase price includes more than 3,000 head of cattle. That is the value of the hon. member’s facts.

That is what I call abusing one’s civility.

It is not as bad as your incivility.

I gave the Minister an opportunity to deal with the untruthful statement he made in connection with the irrigation possibilities. Last year the Minister informed the House that not a single morgen could be irrigated.

From the river.

The Minister repeats that, he says from the river. Does this land not border on the river? Does the Dongola area not border on the Limpopo? Is it not part of this area? Do you notice in what way the Minister represents the facts in an attempt to get members on his side to vote for this motion?

The Minister has given the reason why it is not irrigable.

Let me read it as he put it. He spoke in English—

Precisely. I said; “By making a dam.”

The Minister’s attitude was that not a single morgen along the river could be irrigated.

You cannot build a dam there.

Let me read it again—

And then the Minister says that the reason is that it is a narrow strip of land. I hope hon. members now understand the position. I am quoting what the Minister said. And then he says it is a misrepresentation.

You are distorting my words.

I ask any member whether it is a misrepresentation. I am quoting the Minister’s own words. Now he says that it is not possible to build a dam there. First of all he stated that even if you construct a dam you cannot irrigate because the strip of land is too narrow. Now he says that you cannot build a dam there.

Because the river floods the land.

Yes, the Minister stated that the land becomes flooded.

You cannot construct a dam there.

But here we have the evidence of the Minister’s own irrigation engineer, Mr. Kokot. He stated [Translation]—

It is 20 miles below Ratho, as he stated in his evidence, and he went on to say that 5,000 morgen could be irrigated there and 2,000 morgen at another point. That is what the Minister’s own engineer says. Now I ask what value one can attach to any statement made by the Minister in this House.

Is it in this area?

Yes, it is in this area. Another engineer, a retired engineer, Mr. Horwitz, stated that 13,000 morgen could be irrigated. The one engineer is an engineer in the Minister’s own department. He also stated what the costs would be. [Time limit.]

When the Minister introduced the Bill dealing with the Dongola Reserve last year, I was one of those who appealed to him to withdraw it. I want to renew my appeal to-night that the Minister should withdraw the motion standing in his name. There are two principal reasons for my appeal. The first reason is implicit in the legislation which is to come before this House in connection with soil and veld conservation. The other reason is in connection with the present food position in the country. In regard to the first reason I believe that— and this is the basis of my plea to the Minister—that there is a very much better way of dealing with this matter, a better long-period plan than that which the Minister has in mind for dealing with the country, with the low veld to the north of the Zoutpansberg and the Waterberg. The Minister’s plan is simply to enlarge a game reserve area of 30 thousand acres to ½ million acres, and in the process to make farming impossible on a further 1 million acres. His plan, in effect, could briefly be described as expropriating civilisation; to revert the whole area to the primitive; to make a botanists’ paradise; to create a surplus game reserve in the Union. Mr. Speaker, it is a simple plan; but it is a defeatist plan. I want to suggest an alternative plan, and this is the reason why I think this measure should not be proceeded with, and should not be referred to the Select Committee. My idea is in keeping with a plan of the Division of Soil Conservation, a plan to restore the area, to renew its productive capacity, that plan can benefit not only the ranchers and the farmers in the Dogola area; but in the whole Union; for the problems of the farmers at Mara, and the problems of the town of Louis Trichardt are the problems of the whole bushveld area stretching for 300 miles from Pretoria to the Limpopo. It is a problem not merely related to the destruction of the surface on the mountains and in the valleys; it is fundamentally the problem of the falling level of the underground water. As far as I can ascertain it is estimated that in the area we are considering tonight, during the past 20 years the water table has fallen some ten feet. Further shrinkage in that direction and the whole bushveld area will be threatened with disaster.

Order, order! Is not the hon. member now rather going into the merits?

I was trying to indicate that there is an alternative plan for the Minister, and that the Minister should consider that plan. I shall however omit the descriptive part.

On a point of order, I should like to have clarity on this point, if you will permit me. Last year a Bill was brought before the House and the Minister moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. That was done. The Parliamentary session came to an end and with the termination of the session everything lapsed; nothing remains. This is a new sitting of Parliament with new members. The Minister now comes before the House with a new motion, and surely the House must have the right to discuss the motion.

The motion can be discussed.

But in order to be able to discuss it, it is necessary for us to go into the merits.

Not the merits of the Bill.

But the motion asks that the Bill be proceeded with.

I know it is a difficult matter. If anything new has come to light since that date, I am prepared to allow it.

My submission is that everything lapsed with the termination of the sitting. The Bill which was before us no longer exists. We are not bound. There is no Bill before the House. It has lapsed altogether. The Bill is not a part of this sitting’s record.

According to the Standing Rules and Orders of the House the Minis ter followed the correct procedure, namely, to restore the Bill at the stage which it had reached. The motion is to proceed as from that stage.

But surely we must have an opportunity to indicate why we do not wish to proceed.

I know it is difficult but it is in accordance with the Standing Rules and Orders of the House. The hon. member may proceed.

I was going to indicate a long period alternative plan, which I said was the plan of the Soil Conservation Department of this country. I was suggesting that it was a more rational plan than what can be truly called the atavistic plan of the Minister. That plan is to begin the reclamation of the soil at the highest point in the country, i.e., in the Zoutpansberg and Waterberg mountains, and to work downwards to the valleys and the farms. This plan means that much money and engineering planning will be required; but it will, I think, interest the country to know that there really is such an alternative plan, centred in protection of the mountain ranges of the Lowveld. It means restoring the forests on the mountains and in the gorges. It means building numerous weirs to collect the water supply it means insisting not on abandoning farming, but on better ranching methods, and particularly on scientific grazing. I emphasise this. It is unquestionably of importance in the Lowveld area to insist that the native population adopt civilised methods of farming. That in brief is the alternative suggestion which I want to suggest to the Minister. He should concentrate in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, in that direction. One who knows that area well has described it in these words, saying—

That brings me to the second reason for my plea to the Minister to withdraw this motion from the House, namely this, the hazardous position today with regard to the country’s food. A few weeks ago a trained observer who is acquainted with South Africa, and who has visited all points in the Union, also visited the area we are considering. He stated that he saw cattle there receiving no other food than they could get from the natural veld, but in better condition than any other cattle he saw in the Union. I understand that that area during an average season is able to send between 15 and 25 thousand head of cattle to the market; that it can grow excellent tropical fruit. I am giving the House the opinion of experts, of people who know the area, and who have experimented there. The area grows excellent tropical fruit at all times; but with irrigation there could be an enormous increase in food production. If the Minister gets his way, all the present production will cease. Well-established farmers will be expropriated, and the vast potential production will be sealed down forever. I want to tell the Minister quite frankly that he is now adding to the dangers facing the country’s food supplies, by persisting in this quixotic plan of his. His, Sir, is a negative “hands up” policy, a policy of surrender when it should be a policy of vigorous attack on that problem which is more responsible than any other factor for the near famine that exists in this country; I mean the problem resulting from the misuse of our soil and water sheds. The people must be told these things from this House. They must be told that Onderstepoort experts are against this proposition; that experts of the Agricultural Department are also against it; that it will negative the valuable experimental work that has been done at Mara and Messina in the interests of the ranching areas. At this moment in the Bechuanaland Protectorate there is vast planning in hand for great ranching projects in a similar area north of the Limpopo. Big plans in connection with water control, dam building and soil conservation are being carried out. I say that the people must be told these things frankly from this House. They must be told that although the land has been misused in the past—we are agreed upon that—it is still a rich and fruitful area, and that its productive capacity can be enormously increased by a scheme of conservation. Those who are investing in land apparently are not fighting shy of that area. In the “Cape Argus” tonight we are told that the Union Cold Storage of South Africa has purchased 43,000 morgen of ranching land in the Northern Transvaal for £100,000; the report goes on to say that the acquisition, which includes more than 3,000 head of cattle, will be incorporated, apparently for productive purposes, with the Company’s other ranching interests in Natal, Swaziland and Rhodesia. That, I think, brings us right up against the fact that this is a valuable and economic food production area. In conclusion I want to appeal to the Minister to withdraw this motion; and begin another policy by instituting a socio-economic survey of the Dongola area on the same lines as the research now conducted by Stellenbosch University in the areas in the vicinity of Worcester and Oudtshoorn. He must take the initiative in starting that survey, insisting at the same time that the survey shall include methods for the maintenance of the Lowveld and Highveld region, not as a game reserve but as a great food producing asset for our people.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to the motion introduced by the Minister, and I do so at the request of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union, who have written to me asking that a motion such as I wish now to read should be introduced. I move—

I have been requested in the following terms to move in the direction in which my amendment proposes. The writer of this letter is the Secretary of the Zoutpansberg Farmers’ Union, Mr. Basil Chamberlain, and he says—

I cannot speak of the merits of those who gave evidence, but I want to emphasise what a cruel thing has happened in connection with the farmers who oppose the Bill. You have had a cost to the State already, as I have said, of £1,170 for the printing. The Afrikaans version cost £862. Now, Sir, in addition to that there has been an expenditure which has to be met, so far as one can see, by the opponents of the Bill, of £3,000 in legal expenses—£3,000 for legal expenses to be paid by unfortunate farmers who have been dragged into this House, just as one might drag unwilling defendants into the courts, and already the costs against them, which they have had to meet out of their own pockets, is £3,000. That, Sir, is independent of the amount which has to be met by the Government. According to the reply given by the Minister to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) the Government has already spent £1,034 in various incidental expenses, and, let me say, that as an old member of this House, I deprecate the readiness with which some hon. members are willing to form themselves into a sort of parliamentary jamboree to accompany the Minister to the ends of the earth, to support him in any wild cat scheme he may dash off on. I think it is a very deplorable development. It is one that members should hesitate to engage in in future. What right have we, as members of Parliament, to be galloping about the country to support the Minister in any scheme he may privately suggest to us? I should consider it beneath the dignity of a member of Parliament to go on such errands, and I hope we have heard the last of these wonderful select parties that take place with the purpose of propagating a doctrine that cannot stand on its own legs but must have the support of other people.

I hope the hon. member will not proceed any further.

No, Sir, I think I have gone far enough. I was going to say in addition to the £3,000 which the opponents of the Bill will be due to produce, one would like to know what sum the Government has spent in presenting the case to the Select Committee. They have had a much more expensive outfit to represent them legally in this House. They have had senior counsel as well as the parliamentary agent appearing before the Select Committee, and one may make a rough guess, from one’s experience of these matters I should imagine it will not be far off £6,000 when it comes to settling that small bill. If you add the £6,000 to what has already been incurred—supposing we estimate the Government costs at a smaller amount, £5,000—we shall have attained to the sum of £11,000 to ferret out this intricate case in which 11,000 questions have been asked, £1 a question would be a mild figure for the production of this valuable case.

What have you cost the House at £1 a question?

My questions are very much more to the point and they have been free of charge, free, gratis and all for nothing.

You never made anything from buying meat.

The hon. member makes some mystic statement about my not having been engaged in the buying of meat. I confirm his impression that I have been free from any sticky transactions of that kind. [Laughter.] I was engaged in pointing out that £11,000 would be a very reasonable estimate for the cost of this select committee alone. I think we are soaring to giddy heights when we attain to that huge sum of money in connection with a matter which, as the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has pointed out, seems to be travelling in the wrong direction. We are not doing any good to the country by this sort of thing. It is a sort of competition between those who say it is and those who say it is not. We get no forrader at all as far as the good of the country is concerned and the Minister, I regret to say, seems to be pursuing this matter with a perversity that knows no end. I merely want to emphasise the unfortunate and unjustifiable expenditure that is being incurred in this matter. I cannot remember any proceedings in this House that have less justified the enormous expense that is involved. It is the worst possible example of extravagance when war taxation is being imposed. But for the incredible nature of the funds available to the Government I venture to say this expense would never have been engaged in. It is only because it has taken place in a time of plenty when revenue has been coming in abundantly, that this matter has ever been embarked upon, and I hope that now the Minister will reconsider it and, with the gentlemen who accompanied him on the parliamentary jamboree say: “We have gone as far as we can decently go in connection with this matter and we are not going any further”. As far as the farmers are concerned I am authorised to say by the Secretary of the Farmers’ Union that they do not want this Select Committee, and that they are exceedingly alarmed at the cost in which they have already been involved, and they maintain a halt should be called to any further expenditure in this connection.

I must say that I heartily agree that this legislation introduced by the Minister can only have one effect and that is a detrimental effect on farming in this area up north. I visited the Reserve in my own time and at my own expense. I visited the farmers and spoke to them, and I discovered that that area which the Ministers now seeks to convert into a game reserve can provide a means of livelihood to farmers and that there are no poor people to be found in that area.

Poor people cannot make a living there.

People who came there as poor men became rich, and they are quite happy there, just as happy as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is.

With his lemon trees.

One is astonished when travelling through that area to see the farms which the people have built up, which they built up out of nothing, and one is astounded, one is amazed, to think that the Minister is really seriously considering the conversion of that area into a game reserve. The Minister almost convinced me last year, because he told us of this dry desert country which is subject to wind erosion and I really believed it to be a desert country, but after having travelled through the area, and having looked for signs of erosion, I can tell you that I did not see ten square yards in the whole area which were subject to wind erosion. On the contrary, in the middle of winter I ate delicious fruit and vegetables which were cultivated in that area and I saw fat animals —cattle and sheep—and moreover I did not travel around the area. I travelled right through the area from farm to farm, and I spoke to every farmer. I would have been inclined to support the Minister in his effort to preserve our soil, and last year he almost convinced me, but after having personally travelled through the reserve I feel that it would be sinful.

Sinful to become converted.

No, it would be sinful for the Minister to proceed with that legislation. The Minister would really be committing a crime.

But he is a big sinner.

He would be committing a crime against the farming industry in this country if he expropriated this land from the farmers and converted it into a game reserve. As far as animals are concerned, I believe that this area offered only a meagre living for a very weak type of farmer—the type of man who goes in for poaching, who lives on biltong and who leads a sort of hunter’s life. But when one gets there and sees the initiative of these people and when one sees their cattle and sheep and when one sees their gardens, their trees and their vegetables in the middle of winter, and when one sees the fruit they grow, and one bears in mind the shortage of food in this country, one is astonished; one is amazed. I thought that after a thorough investigation and after having read this evidence the Minister would say: “No, I am going to accept the proposal which has been made rather to add a little to the Kruger Game Reserve on the Portuguese border and make available this whole area for farming”. He knows—and I think we all feel—that for very many years to come we are going to have a shortage of food, and the Minister, just as every right thinking person, should do everything in his power to encourage the production of food.

Those arguments have already been advanced by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan).

I just want to emphasise it from another aspect to bring it home to the Minister. Possibly the Minister did not grasp it fully.

He never grasps anything.

The production of food is a very serious matter, and I would like the Minister to consider that aspect seriously. Now I want to exchange a few thoughts as regards to the nature of the grazing, in regard to which a great deal has been said. We are told that the shrubs which grow in this area do not offer good grazing. I am familiar with large areas which are covered with shrubs, and let me say that the shrubs in those areas provide excellent cattle fodder. The statement which has been made that stock cannot exist on leaves or shrubs is one which is not based on facts. May I just invite the Minister to go to the drought-stricken parts in South-West Africa and also in the North-Western part. There he will see that animals had to subsist on leaves not for a matter of months but for a few years. There was no grass. In some areas there was no rain for two years. There is no grass to be found and the animals have to subsist on leaves and shrubs. But the shrubs in those areas provide particularly good feed for animals. Just look at the condition of the animals. Let the animal tell you what the place is worth; do not listen to the farmer; let the animal speak for itself. Look at its condition. When one looks at the condition of the animals in that area, I say that it will be difficult to produce and to rear better animals in any area of the country than in that particular area.

I think the hon. member is now going too deeply into the merits.

Then I want to make a very serious appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter and to withdraw this motion. During the last sitting he kept this House occupied with this measure for days. This afternoon and this evening the business of the House has again been delayed by the same measure, a measure which, it must be clear to him, no one has asked for and no one desires. One cannot understand what the motive is which motivates and impels and incites the Minister to come before the House with such an unpopular measure. Everyone condemns it; no one wants to hold the baby; no one wants to have anything to do with this matter; there is no public demand for it. Every member of the public who is directly concerned condemns it. I have tried to discover what the reason is why the Minister is so anxious to pass this measure, but I am unable to do so. No one wants this measure, but nevertheless he persists in bringing it before the House. I want to make a serious appeal to him to reconsider this matter and to withdraw this measure, or, at any rate, to withdraw his motion before the House. He must realise by this time that the struggle which was waged during the last sitting will not end there. The struggle will now assume a greater scope; the struggle will become intensified. This is a measure which will be contested not only in the Select Committee but in this House when it comes before the House, and since there are so many other important matters facing the country and since we find ourselves in such difficult circumstances, and since money is so urgently required to make provision for food and housing in this country, I hope the Minister will withdraw this motion. I trust the Minister will accept good advice when he is offered good advice.

I also want to make an appeal to the Minister. As a practical man Ī also want to admit that last year he almost convinced me and after hearing the Minister’s case I too started to feel that my hon. friends on this side were altogether unreasonable. But now that the Select Committee has been appointed and has heard evidence, I want to make an appeal to the Minister’s sense of justice. I want to ask him, in view of the great land hunger in our country, to reconsider this matter and to reflect carefully whether this step he is taking is justified, or is he merely being stubborn? After all, he is not that type of man. I know him.

You know him badly.

I know that he can be reasonable if he wants to and for that reason I am asking him in all civility to reconsider this matter and to withdraw this motion. That would be in the interests of the country; it would be in the interests of our nation; it would be in the interests of the progress of the people, and we therefore plead with him in fairness this evening to reconsider this matter and to withdraw his motion.

I want to make a different type of appeal to the House, and that is, not to render difficult the task of the Select Committee which deals with the Dongola Reserve Bill. It very seriously complicates our task if the evidence which was given before the Select Committee last year is now discussed in the House. We as a Committee will have to find a solution in connection with this matter, and if hon. members express their views at this stage as to what should be done and what should not be done, you will appreciate the difficult position in which we are placed. I think there is a way out of the difficulty. It has definitely been proved that there is a difference of opinion on this matter. We had evidence from experts who have scientific knowledge, and if I had to accept the scientific evidence in its entirety ….

Then you would be lost.

…. then I would prefer to commit suicide; I would definitely prefer to drown myself in the Limpopo before I do that. There is at least sufficient water in the Limpopo to drown oneself. I want to make an appeal to hon. members, in contradistinction to the other appeals which have been made to the Minister to withdraw this legislation, not to complicate our task on the Select Committee. I just want to say that like the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) I also visited that area in my own time and at my own expense during the recess and I also had the honour of meeting the hon. member for Vredefort there, and I must say I think the hon. member took a keener interest in the political aspect of the matter than in the farming affairs in that area.

Why did you go there?

I went in order to convince myself what can be done there and what cannot be done there, and as a result of the discussion which is taking place here this evening, the task of the Select Committee which may be appointed will be considerably complicated. Incidentally I hope that the same committee members will be re-appointed because they have a greater knowledge of the conditions there. I say that as a result of this discussion the task of the Select Committee may be rendered so difficult that it will be almost impossible for us to make any recommendation to this House and I want to ask hon. members not to create a position of this kind.

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

Upon which the House divided:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) did not come in by the entrance but while the division has been in progress he climbed over the rail.

If that is so then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must leave the Chamber.

Mr. TOTHILL thereupon left the Chamber.

Result of the division:

Ayes—48:

Abrahamson, H.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J, H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and S. J. Tighy.

Noes—32:

Acutt, F, H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Van Nierop, P. J. Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—53:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Du Toit, A. C.

Gluckman. H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn C. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and S. J. Tighy.

Noes—32:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

I second.

I wish to move the following amendment—

I am moving this because it has transpired that during the nine months we have ceased to deal with this Bill, or since the Select Committee was dealing with the Bill, three important events have occurred. The first is the extraordinary rise in land values in those parts. The second is the evidence that has been furnished of the capacity of those areas to survive the severest drought that we have had for years in South Africa. The third is the telegram that was sent by the Minister of Lands to members of the Select Committee to visit the reserve. It is quite evident that the Minister himself felt how necessary it was that members of the Select Committee should themselves visit that reserve so that they could exercise an impartial judgment.

In the first place I wish to confine myself to the extraordinary rise in the price of land there. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has explained to the House that a certain piece of land 43,000 morgen in extent was sold for £100,000. The Minister of Lands rose on a point of order and said that this was wrong and that the deal included 3,000 cattle. I will assume that the “Cape Times” was correct in its statement that there were 3,000 cattle. But last year the Minister of Lands stated that on revaluation of the land at Dongola he found it so poor that he had brought down the price to 1s. 6d. a morgen. In the immediate vicinity of that land we now have the sale of land for £100,000 and I cannot imagine Mr. Norbert Erleigh paying £100,000 for 43,000 morgen and 3,000 cattle if the land is only worth 1s. 6d. a morgen. Does this mean that during the nine months that have elapsed since the Minister of Lands made his statement land in the immediate neighbourhood of Dongola has risen 2000 per cent. ? Then I take the stock, large, small and calves — at an average price of £10 per head.

That is too high.

Of course it is too high. Thirty thousand pounds is terribly high for 3,000 large and small stock. But let us put the price as high as that. This means that the 43,000 morgen was sold for £70,000. That is an increase of 2,000 per cent. on the price the Minister of Lands gave us here. Consequently it is clear to me that it is necessary that the Select Committee that was appointed should go there personally to find out the reason for the land having increased so enormously in value in nine months — by 2000 per cent.

Do you say that I sent a telegram to members to visit the place?

:

The Minister is being unnecessarily impatient. That is the third point I mentioned and I shall come to it. I cannot deal with the Bill of last year, and consequently I confine myself to the three new points I have mentioned here. The first is the extraordinary increase in the price of land. If the land is as bad as the Minister has intimated it is impossible for it to have increased 2,000 per cent. in value. There are other people as well who have bought land. I mention Mr. Gert Smit, of Bethal, one of our most enterprising farmers. Bethal is one of the leading districts in the Transvaal. Notwithstanding that Mr. Gert Smit has bought a farm at the Dongola reserve. He will not sell that farm because he is making a success of his farming there. Because the land has so greatly increased in price the Select Committee ought to go there personally to gain the necessary information.

I shall read your own evidence out to you.

The Minister must not now begin to squeal. He must try to keep a hold on himself, and if he cannot do that he should rather be quiet. He can read out my letter to the Secretary for Lands if he wants to. I stated that people there needed large lands. Then I come to the second point, namely the carrying power of those lands. I wish to speak about what I myself have seen. We have had a disastrous drought. Everyone knows what the position was. In Natal thousands of stock died because there was no food for them, and Natal is known as a good part of the Union. Thousands of stock have also died in the Transvaal and in the Free State, in the lower parts of the Transvaal such as Piet Retief even the game have perished in the drought, and in the Free State springbok have died. What did I find in the Dongola Reserve? I did not go into the reserve proper because I did not want to be in a position that the Minister would have to prosecute me. I was on the border of the reserve, and what did I find at the end of November? The stock was in a very good condition in the neighbourhood of Dongola, though in other parts of the country they were dying of starvation. It was not a barren wilderness as the Minister stated, nor had the game perished there. Impala, hartebees and other sorts of game were in evidence. The hon. member for Waterberg and I were there. The stock was reasonable. The people in those parts were still sending cattle to the market while cattle in other areas had died. When there is a part of the country that has such a good carrying capacity it would be criminal for this House to take the farmers off the land and to make it a home for lions, jackals and other vermin which makes farming almost impossible for stock farmers behind the Zoutpansberg. It will be a crime if this House deprives the farmers of their land there, for we have seen during this drought that that area has a carrying capacity superior to other parts of the country. The Minister of Lands stated here that the mopani trees remained small there because the animals chewed them.

The soil is so poor that the trees cannot grow.

They kept the stock alive and also the game. The Minister shakes his head. Can he tell us a single instance where game died there? There are many members in this House who can tell us that half the springbok on their farms in the Free State died, while there is still an abundance of game in that reserve. They have not died, nor have the stock belonging to the people living there. All this counts for nothing with the Minister of Lands, because he is determined to make those parts a gathering place for wild animals which will be a nuisance to the farmers at the Zoutpansberg. I repeat that in the Northern Transvaal more land is necessary for a farm than elsewhere, because the grass is sparse, but the carrying capacity has been proved during the present drought. It was not necessary for those people to trek with their cattle. They were able to remain there and to keep their cattle alive, and that is something the major portion of the country could not do. Then the Minister says we must look to the rainfall —it is from ten to fifteen inches. Are there not other parts of the country as, for instance, in the Cape Province, where it is even less? There are parts in the Northwestern Cape where it is from five to ten inches, and is the Minister going to expropriate that land and hand it over to the wild animals? I hope the Select Committee will be permitted to inspect Dongola themselves. They will then see one of the finest parts of South Africa where this year the grass stands better than most other places. The last week I met people from the Zoutpansberg, when I was in the Transvaal and they told me it was a pleasure to visit Dongola and to see the vegetation and the grass. If that area can recover so quickly after the drought with the showers of rain we had this year, then I say it will be a crime to allow that land to be taken from the farmers. People have gone there and paid high price for land. If this part is now converted into a reserve what is going to happen to those people who bought the land? Lions will drive out the cattle farmer. We have at present starvation and other difficulties in the country, and the Minister of Lands wishes to create further difficulties. Then the Minister says that if he creates a reserve there it will protect the country against all the diseases that can possibly be imported. But he forgets what Dr. Du Toit of the Department of Agriculture stated about the reserve. He stated that another dangerous area would be created for foot and mouth disease and other stock diseases. But in spite of the advice of one of our best experts the Minister sets his face against that and wishes to make this a reserve. We at present have foot and mouth disease in the Kruger Game Park and now he is creating an area in the northern part of the Transvaal for spreading foot and mouth disease in order to ruin the farmers there. The farmers of South Africa have never had a greater enemy than the Minister of Lands. He pretends to be the friend of the farmers but where he can oppress them he does so with every measure that he introduces here.

No farmer will believe you.

You will not venture to go and address a gathering of farmers in Dongola.

The Minister of Lands says that the farmers will not believe me. He has heard the resolutions read out here. These are not resolutions passed by Nationalists, they are resolutions passed by English-speaking people in the Northern Transvaal. They are resolutions of the agricultural unions who have written all their letters in English and who have also written to him. He was also afraid to let them come and see him in this matter so that they could lay their case before him. I turn to the third point I referred to. It is the necessity for the members of the Select Committee to go to the reserve, and this is appreciated indeed by the Minister of Lands. A moment ago he asked whether I had stated that he sent a telegram. He sent a telegram to members of last year’s Select Committee to look at the reserve. He invited them but he did not say that the Government would pay the expense. No, they had to go on their own initiative and at their own expense, and they did not know whether anyone would meet them in order to show them round the reserve. They had to visit the reserve themselves. I think that the Minister of Lands has himself been convinced of the necessity of the Select Committee holding a session in Dongola, so that they could thresh out and form a judgment on all the allegations made in this House about Dongola in order that they may produce an impartial report. The Minister will not deny that.

I shall explain.

He sent a telegram to the members wherein he stated that it was desirable for them to visit the reserve. I hope that the Minister is honest in regard to this matter. If he was straight and honest in regard to this telegram asking the members to inspect the reserve then he must be honest enough to accept my amendment, because it is in conformity with his invitation. I do not ask that the Minister of Lands should pay for that. The State pays for it. We have already heard today, and I do not want to repeat it, how it has cost the State thousands of pounds to examine this proposed legislation of the Minister’s and to publish the report of the Select Committee which runs to 1,009 pages. And the Select Committee is not yet finished. Apparently there will be another 1,009 pages. I have in mind now what it costs the poor farmers in the Northern Transvaal in train fares and board and lodgings in order that they may spend a month or more here waiting their turn to give evidence, as happened last year. Does the Minister not think it a terrible injustice towards these people that they have to come down here at their own expense from the Northern Transvaal to give evidence before the Select Committee? These are people from whom the State, through the Minister of Lands wishes to take away something, and now they must come here at their own cost and give evidence to defend their property. Has the Minister no sense of Justice. He takes their property away from these people. Is it not then common fairness that he should suggest that the Treasury should pay their expense? Now these people have to pay all the money out of their own pockets and sacrifice their time. They have to pay railway fares and hotel bills. Is that reasonable? There are still many people in the reserves and in Zoutpansberg who want to give evidence and who can give evidence. I would ask the Minister of Lands that he should at least this year when people come to Cape Town, in view of the abnormal circumstances owing to their not being able to obtain proper board and lodging, see that the State pays the expenses. I think it will be very unfair if the Minister does not accept my proposition. There are no doubt members on the Government side who have seen these parts. I do not know whether the Minister with his safari went through these parts, and whether the members who accompanied him saw them. In any case I wish to express the hope that the Minister will accept this reasonable motion of mine. Changes have taken place and the land has risen in value.

That land has nothing to do with Dongola.

Has it nothing to do with Dongola? The Minister is surely not so narrow-minded that he does not realise that if the prices of land in the immediate neighbourhood of Dongola rise it has everything to do with Dongola? Will the Minister secure the lions and wild animals and jackals at Dongola so that they cannot come on adjoining land? But the Minister does not care a jot about what becomes of the farmers so long as he has his way, so long as he can push through the thing he has at heart. Then he is perfectly happy. I am not going to make an appeal to the Minister because it seems to me that he has hardened his heart to push the matter through. I can give the Minister the assurance that we on this side of the House will fight the matter with all the power at our disposal, and we shall have recourse to all the facilities that this House gives us even after the Select Committee has reported. The Minister stated last year that there was talk of much land that could have been brought under water, but he stated that not a single morgen of land could be irrigated. And yet as the hon. member for Waterberg explained, the report of the engineers in the Minister’s own department is that 13,000 morgen of land on the river could be brought under water. But the Minister does not believe the report of his own experts when it is not in his own interests. I do not want to go into that further. I think the matter has been very clearly explained by me. In do not want to go into the Bill itself because that would be contrary to the rules of the House. But I maintain that the Minister’s sense of justice, if he possesses any, must influence him to agreeing to the Select Committee going to the Northern Transvaal in order to sit there so that these people can be spared thousands of pounds of expense that they will be put to should they have to come here. Let the members of the Select Committee see for themselves whether the Minister when he explained the Bill last year provided the true facts of the position there. We told him last year that he was setting up an impossible position. I will not go into that further, but I should like to say this, that it appears to me as if South Africa had gone completely off its head as for as game reserves are concerned. There is no other country in the world, neither Australia, nor America nor Canada that has so many game reserves in proportion to area as South Africa. We have 2½ times as many game reserves …

That is quite wrong.

The Minister says this is also wrong. I shall support and prove that it is the case that in proportion to the area of land we have 2½ times as much land taken up with game reserves as America.

What was the reason for the thing having started originally?

I do not think the hon. member should allow himself to be diverted.

No, but I should just like to reply because I am in a certain measure responsible for the reserve.

The hon. member may not go into the merits of the case.

I would only say that it was a research station. It was in connection with veld burning and the improvement of the veld.

So it was necessary to make an investigation.

The hon. member asks whether it was necessary to have research. There are hundreds of other things we are investigating. In Rustenburg, for instance, we have research in connection with tobacco growing and orange growing. Apparently the hon. member has not sufficient intelligence to know that even in his own district research is being conducted.

But not in connection with tramping out the veld.

I do not want the Deputy Speaker to call me to order again, and I will leave the hon. member there. I move my amendment.

I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment and I have pleasure in doing so because the motion how before the House concerns a Bill which definitely is one of the most important and most far-reaching measures which has come before Parliament for many years. I hope you will allow me to say that when people proceed to take away from other persons private rights which the latter have been enjoying for many years, it definitely is a matter of serious import, and it therefore becomes every member of the House of Assembly, on whatever side he is sitting, to consider the matter with an open mind and with a clear conscience before deciding whether he is going to support the motion to deprive these people of their rights. I want to appeal to hon. members on the other side to vote and decide on this matter according to their own conviction and conscience. That is the reason why this amendment is of so great importance, because the members of the Select Committee should have an opportunity to go personally to this area and hold sittings there, which will enable them to judge and inspect matters personally, and to convince themselves whether the facts which the Minister has put before this House are correct or otherwise. It is certainly not a secret that several members sitting on the other side and knowing the area concerned, did not conceal the fact that they consider the Minister’s actions to be most reprehensible. Unfortunately, however, they are bound hand and foot by party discipline. They certainly are not enemies of the Minister. On the contrary, they are in other respects staunch supporters of the Minister, but in this case, knowing what the actual position is, they do find fault with the Minister’s attitude. One of the reasons why the Select Committee should have the opportunity of holding its sittings there, so that they may observe matters at first hand, is the following: Anybody, including myself, who knows those areas and who has been there will immediately ask: “Why does the Minister select this particular group of farms?” That is a question which will also be asked by members of the Select Committee when they go there and visit the area. I want to give the House the assurance — I have recently been there again — that the farms in the proposed Dongola area, as far as the veld, the rainfall, the nature of the soil, the grass and the trees are concerned are for all practical purposes in no way different from the whole area behind the Zoutpansberg Mountains. Why should this particular spot be selected? If what the Minister says about this particular group of farms is true, then it is also true of the whole area beyond the Zoutpansberg Mountains. The members of the Select Committee should personally convince themselves whether it is true. In fact, the Minister admitted this himself. He did admit it. If we look up Hansard, we find that he admitted this by implication, and today he again admitted it by way of interjection. He said—I am reading from Hansard of last year—

You find these settlers not merely in the Dongola area. You will come across the same kind of settlement right through the Zoutpansberg district. He furthermore said—

I shall come back to that later on—

He said that he would not allot any land behind the Zoutpansberg Mountains. In other words, that land is worth nothing. In other words that land is of the same poor quality. Why then should this particular spot be selected?

That is a misrepresentation.

I shall read further—

I referred to Dongola.

The Minister referred to the area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains. If the Minister knows anything at all about conditions there, he should know that there are hundreds of farms in the area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains.

I referred to Dongola.

But here are the Minister’s own words that he will not allot a single farm behind the Zoutpansberg mountains. The Government owns many farms behind the Zoutpansberg mountains apart from Dongola. The Minister furthermore said—

He refers to Dongola.

If the hon. member is unable to understand it, I cannot explain it to him. It is clear as can be.

I know that.

I am glad to have made one convert. The members of the Select Committee should go there and be convinced. Why does the Minister select this group of farms in particular? Why does he not expropriate the whole area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains? But I go further. If the Select Committee would enquire somewhat further they would find that not only the area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains is the same, but that the whole of the northern part of Potgietersrust and other parts are of exactly the same type and texture. Why does he not expropriate those parts also? If hon. members were to investigate the matter for themselves, they would find that the nature of the land is exactly the same. The Minister comes along and maintains that nobody can make a living in the Dongola area. According to Hansard of last year he said that the settlers there were roaming with their few head of cattle in search of grazing. Reference has been made a few moments ago to the extensive cattle farm of the Steyn brothers which has been sold recently. The Minister made a great fuss about me having given the wrong information. I read out a news item which appeared in the daily Press and I read out the whole item, namely that the farm had been sold for £100,000 and that it was 43,000 morgen in extent. I did not leave out a single word, but it now appears from a later more complete report in the newspapers that cattle had been included in the purchase pirce. That’ however, had not been mentioned in the news item I read out here. In any case, it does not make a big difference. I do not know what the 3,000 head of cattle were valued at, but being a cattle farmer myself who has to value cattle and small stock every year, I know that I could under no circumstances value a lot of stock, large and small at an average of £10 each. Therefore the value of the stock taken over will have varied between £20,000 and £30,000 at the utmost. And in that case the cattle must have been excellent. That means that even then the land was still sold for £70,000 or £80,000, i.e., £1 12s. 6d. per morgen approximately. That farm is of exactly the same type and quality as Dongola. There is no difference whatsoever.

Nonsense.

I have been there and any hon. member who takes the trouble to investigate the matter will subscribe to my views. There is no difference as far as the quality of the veld, the vegetation, the trees and the nature of the soil is concerned between this farm and Dongola. It is exactly the same.

Were there any improvements on the land which has been sold?

Of course there were, but when you are dealing with such an extensive farm of 43,000 morgen, it is obvious that it cannot greatly influence the total price. The fact remains that the buyers paid £1 12s. 6d. and perhaps even more, per morgen, and did so after the Minister had spoken so disparagingly of the land. It clearly shows that the Minister has supplied the wrong information to the House. The Minister by way of interjection said that the soil was too poor and that mopani trees could not grow there. If there has ever been a misrepresentation, then it was that statement. I say so with all the responsibility that I possess.

On a point of order. I said that the mopani was stunted and I said that the reason therefor was that the soil is too poor. That is a fact. You will find only shrubs there but no trees.

That is not so. I am speaking from experience. I have travelled through the area. If the Minister says these are merely shrubs, then it is not true. It is a closely vegetated area. In parts the vegetation is so close that there can be no question of erosion, whatever anybody, even Dr. Pole Evans, may say. The area is not subject to soil erosion and the person who maintains that soil erosion is extensive there, tells a lie. If Dr. Pole Evans, the Minister’s adviser, says that this is the case, then he is misleading the Select Committee and this House.

Has there been no trampling out?

Of course, if you overstock a farm, there will be trampling out, just as you will have in Rustenburg. In Rustenburg there are also farms which have been trodden out. That happens in every area. In Brits I have also noticed it. If a farmer does not treat his farm properly, trampling out will take place. The most serious cases of trampling out I have seen in the North-eastern Cape, in Aberdeen, and in Natal. In the dry areas I have noticed much trampling out. Is that a sufficient reason to expropriate all the land in those areas? I visited this area, i.e. Dongola, in September. They had had no rain then and there was no grass. The parts where they had had rain, had grass. Elsewhere they only had the mopani trees with their leaves and I did not notice a single lean head of cattle. That was during the severe drought when in many districts cattle had died from starvation. If hon. members are going to visit that area themselves, they will find the position as I have seen it. In the area behind the Zoutpansberg mountains and in Dongola I did not see a single head of cattle which was lean. The animals were all in prime condition. Contrasting with this I want to refer to Hansard where the Minister said that in large parts you would only get the thornbushes which one finds in the deserts. That is not true. Mopani trees are to be found everywhere and they grow closely together. The Minister, however, tells us that the cattle are roaming and do not have any food. If the members of the Select Committee get the opportunity of paying a visit to the area, they will see what the position is. After all, one does experience periods of drought also in the Dongola area just as well as in other parts of the country. We are having a serious drought in the Waterberg district. I have noticed droughts from time to time in the Rustenberg area and in Potgietersrust and even in Britstown. I wonder how many times this selfsame Minister of Lands has already had to trek with his cattle from the Britstown and Hopetown areas and how many thousands of pounds he has spent during the past twelve months in order to feed his cattle and to keep them alive. Is that a sufficient reason to expropriate all that land? But I am coming back to Dongola. Who are the people whose land is to be expropriated? There is the farm “Congo” of which H. van der Walt is the owner. He has there 600 head of cattle and approximately a thousand sheep. Then there is Machette, belonging to J. P. van Wyk, who has 200 head of cattle and 300 head of small stock. The Minister says they are roaming about with a few head of cattle and that there are no mopani trees there.

I said that they were roaming with their cattle and did not stay on their farms. Why do you distort everything?

Let us see who is distorting. This is what the Minister said —

From a newspaper report we now notice that the Steyn brothers had 3,000 head of cattle on 43,000 morgen, on their own farm. Then there is Gerrit Smit. He farms on his own farm.

The Steyns had 200 miles of fencing and a large ranch.

I do not say that the other farmers should not fence their farms. If they can get wire they can make a fence.

But you said that they do stay on their own farms.

The Minister says that they are roaming in order to find some food and that in this way they are able to hang on. The Minister says that they cannot make a living there and that they are roaming. If a man cannot make a living he goes around begging for food.

You wouldn’t use such an argument in a court.

I hope never to appear in court before a person who has so much sense as the hon. member has. I hope that I will never have to plead a case for such a person. But please listen to the following—

That is a list of the possessions of farmers there, farmers of which the Minister says that they cannot make a living. It is of the utmost importance that the members of the Select Committee should go there personally to convince themselves of the actual position. There is a further reason for it too. The Minister told us that it is impossible to construct a dam there and one of the reasons given why no dam can be built is that the Limpopo brings down so much sand that a dam would silt up.

That is correct.

I should like the members of the Select Committee going there themselves to see what the Limpopo looks like there and whether it is bringing down so much sand that a dam would silt up. They should go there themselves and see what the river looks like. If there are still some people who believe that the Limpopo brings down so much sand, I would ask them to go and visit the Mabalel-hippopool near the boundary of Potgietersrust. That hippo pool is about eight or nine miles long and through the centuries it has remained a beautiful dark pool of water and has not silted up.

Where could a dam be constructed?

Near Ratho. The Minister’s engineers in giving evidence told the Committee where a dam could be constructed. The members of the Select Committee should go there to convince themselves whether this is so or not. Any practical farmer who sees the Limpopo will be able to judge whether the river carries so much silt or sand that a dam would silt up. The wonderful Mabalel pool is sufficient proof.

How deep is it?

Most probably from 15 to 16 foot deep.

But does not the sand come into the river below the Mabalel pool.

No, this is below the Mabalel and this is the test whether a dam in the river will silt up or not. My hon. friend is now referring to the Matlapas. The Matlapas enters the Limpopo hundreds of miles above Mabalel. Go and have a look at the Mabelel and see whether there are any dams silting up.

How much sand is there, where the dam has to be constructed?

The point where the dam has to be constructed is below the Mabalel and the Mabalel is the test whether a dam in the river will silt up or not. The Minister said that the people there could not make a living in view of the poor quality of the veld, the lack of grazing, etc. I have the evidence here given before the Select Committee and my hon. friends on the other side can convince themselves whether this is so or not. I have here the evidence of Mr. Bonsma. I want to repeat once more who Mr. Bonsma is. He is an officer of the Department of Lands in charge of the Government experimental stations in that area.

Are you finished now with the dam?

Yes.

Please read page 60.

I know what Mr. Kokot says, but I maintain that the test is the Mabalel. What Mr. Kokot says is what the Minister says but other people do not say so.

Surely it is reasonable when quoting the evidence of one expert, to quote also the evidence of the other expert.

I ask my hon. friends on the other side to pay a visit to the Mabalel, for there you have a natural dam.

I feel that it would only be fair to quote the evidence of Mr. Kokot, too, seeing that you quoted the other evidence.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is fully entitled to quote Mr. Kokot’s evidence and after he has quoted that, I still ask him to pay a visit to the Mabalel. No argument can upset the fact that the Mabalel, a natural dam, has been in existence for centuries and centuries and has not silted up. That is the test. I now come to the question of the veld.

Mr. Bonsma is not an official of the Department of Lands: I just want to correct that.

No, he is an officer of the Department of Agriculture and he is in control of the Government experimental farms in that area. He has been there for years and has gained much experience in regard to the veld. I just want to read to the House what his evidence amounts to. The following question was put to him (10717)—

His reply was—

In his further evidence Mr. Bonsma states that cattle sometimes stay in a first-class condition owing to mopani only, or rather they eat mainly mopani and then also the kruisbessie. He then was asked (10721)—

And this is the test. If Mr. Bonsma’s evidence is not correct, then the Department of Agriculture may say that the whole experiment there is a failure, but the experimental station there carries on and any farmer who has been there could convince himself that the experimental station there was a success.

I have seen much fodder there which they feed to the cattle.

Mr. Bonsma’s evidence gives information on the use of this fodder and the hon. member for Rustenburg can certainly read Mr. Bonsma’s evidence with much benefit to himself.

I have read it.

Mr. Bonsma was asked—

That is the question: Can you make a living there as a cattle farmer? The reply was—

That is quite in order.

Yes, that is quite in order. Here you have the best proof you can wish for. If hon. members go there now they can visit the farms of farmers who have been farming there for years. They can go and visit the farm of the late Major Hunt north of the Zoutpansberg mountains. Major Hunt was one of the first persons to start farming there and he did not farm there for two or three years only, but he farmed there for many years.

But I have seen very lean cattle there.

Of course during a drought the hon. member will be able to notice many lean cattle there, but does the hon. member for Rustenburg want to tell me that he has not seen lean cattle in the Rustenburg bushveld during a drought.

Not so lean.

I have seen them die there and not only there but I have seen them die in Waterberg during a period of drought. Even during the last drought they died in their thousands in the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal. But my point is that Major Hunt has for many years farmed successfully with cattle north of the Zoutpansberg mountains.

I should like to hear about his success as a farmer.

Does the hon. member doubt it? He can get up and deny this fact. Let him submit his evidence. Go and have a look at the farm of Mr. Gert Smit. See what it looks like. When you have seen that you cannot draw any other conclusion. I am convinced that if the hon. members who have served on the Select Committee were to go there and were to go there with an open mind and if they would not allow themselves to be influenced by party political motives, they would come back as convinced people, convinced of the fact that the Minister of Lands, when he submitted this statement to the House, made himself guilty of a misrepresentation which one can hardly forgive him, because it harmfully affects the rights of citizens of this country.

We will not so easily forgive you your misrepresentations in this House, either.

I have not made any misrepresentations. The Minister is at liberty to prove where I have made any misrepresentations. I did not fabricate these things. Everything I quoted I quoted from Hansard, and I leave it to the Minister to show where I made any misrepresentations.

All right, I will have my turn.

I know that the Minister will have his turn, but I also know that he will not be able to prove that I made one single misrepresentation. I repeat that the misrepresentation made by the Minister is a most serious one, because it may result in people being deprived of what is their own, and that is not to be laughed at. These are people who have invested their money in the land, and who are farming there successfully. It is their home. They have built up and developed that area; they are attached to it; they have worked there in the sweat of their brow. Probably they have spent the best years of their lives there. It is their love, and it is unpardonable that members such as the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) should come here with frivolous interjections.

Because I put a cross-examination question to you? By the way, you have not replied to it yet.

I say that this is a serious matter to deprive people of their rights. I just want to say that when I or you take away another man’s property, then it amounts to theft under our common law. You commit a theft when you take another person’s property, and if you do so by force it amounts to robbery, and that is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed. There is no moral difference between committing theft and committing robbery, and what I consider as legalised theft and legalised robbery. There is no moral difference between taking somebody’s property by force and taking it simply because you have the right to take it under an Act.

But they will be compensated.

The hon. member says that they are to be compensated. Imagine you having built up and developed a farm, and thereafter it is taken away from you and you get compensation. What say do you have in regard to compensation? You have to move off.

You should not call it theft, because they receive compensation.

I maintain that it is theft, for you deprive the man not only of the material value of his property, but also of the sentimental value attached to it. I assume that the hon. member for Rustenburg is today living on a farm which he has inherited from his father. Would he …

I have inherited nothing.

You are now exploiting sentiment.

I do not want to exploit sentiment, but I do hope that there are members sitting on the other side who are so uprighteous that they still love their land.

Sheep also love it.

I am not even talking of the hon. member over there. He is not susceptible to anything. I am now speaking to the hon. member for Rustenburg. He is susceptible to reason, and I say that if he had inherited a farm from his father he would surely have some love for his land. He says that he did not inherit his farm, but I suppose his son will one day inherit his farm:

Unfortunately, I have not got a son.

Well, the hon. member has not even got a son.

Then he should not be a member of Parliament.

If the hon. member is so incapable, then I do admit that it will not even help to appeal to him.

Yes, I am a poor man.

But still I do want to express the hope that even though he has not got a son, he will realise the fairness of my argument, and I do hope that even the Minister will ultimately realise the fairness of it, and I feel that if the members of the Select Committee were to go to the area concerned and would see these things with their own eyes and would thereafter act in accordance with their convictions, they would not let the Minister have his way.

Apparently the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) is under a misapprehension in regard to the origin of the telegrams to which he referred and I think I owe the House an explanation. As chairman of the Select Committee I made the suggestion that the Committee should visit the area. Unfortunately the procedure makes no provision for that. Consequently we proposed that during the recess the members of the Committee should visit the area in their private capacity.

But now it is we who are asking for that.

Just wait a moment. Then I approached the Department of Lands and asked that they should make arrangements for such a visit. The department went out of their way to make all the necessary arrangements but they clashed with the Treasury. There was no vote against which the costs of such a visit could be debited. They tried to debit them against the Assembly, but that could not be done.

Why could they not debit it against the Kalahari safari? There is money to gallivant around but there is no money to enable members of the Select Committee to make a proper investigation.

Unfortunately it could not be accounted for as against the Lands Vote. Then I suggested that an invitation should be sent to all members of the Select Committee that they should visit the area at their own expense, and at my request the telegram was sent to the various members. Every member was given the opportunity to view the area with us. Unfortunately in the end it was only the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Henny) and I who turned up. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) was sick, and it was impossible for him to go. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) also sent his apologies. He is in medical practice, and his partner was indisposed. He also was unable to go. I do not know the circumstances that prevented the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) from going, but apparently they also could not accept the invitation. The hon. member for Swart-ruggens and I were the only two left, and when we arrived at Dongola we told the parties who opposed the Bill that we were’ at their disposal and that we were prepared to see anything they wished to show us, and that was done.

I do not want to take part in the debate as far as the merits of the case are concerned, because I am one of the members who sat on the Select Committee, and I believe that it is necessary to hear further evidence. In connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), however, I do want to ask the Minister whether this is not a reasonable request, namely, that when we are appointed by the House to investigate matters, we should be given an opportunity to conduct our investigations in such a way that we can satisfy ourselves about the actual position. We are sitting there as a court, and in all cases where a court of law has to decide certain matters and where they have an opportunity of making an inspection, they hold an inspection in loco and visit the place or spot in question. That is what we now want to propose. If the proposal is accepted it will be within our rights to visit the area concerned. When we came together and were meeting as a Select Committee, one of the first things about which we were unanimous was that the members of the Select Committee should themselves make an investigation at Dongola and should go there themselves to see what is happening. What do we find today? We find on the one side a group of people saying that the soil is as good as can be had anywhere in the world. Then on the other hand you get an official or some other person who says that the land is absolutely valueless. You get the one man who maintains that no soil erosion has taken place and then again somebody else comes along and says that the reason why the Government wants to expropriate the land is because of the terrible erosion which is taking place in those parts. There is only one way in which one can Come to the conclusion who is right and who is wrong, and that is by visiting the area personally, and I say again that the Select Committee when it met for the first time felt that we should go and visit the area ourselves, and nobody less than the chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson), broached the subject and went along to see What could be done about it. He, the same as all of us, felt that this was a reasonable request and that it should be granted. I presume that the request was refused by the Department of Finance or some other Department, and that it was said that we could not spend the money, but now the hon. member for Wolmaransstad wants to rectify the matter. He says that the investigation should continue. The Select Committee which was appointed last year should be re-appointed, but he adds that the Committee should be enabled to make an inspection in loco in order to see what is happening in that area and in order to satisfy themselves about the actual facts. I cannot understand why this request cannot be granted. The merits of the case are not concerned in this matter; it is not a question of expropriation or otherwise. The position is that in order to pronounce a fair verdict the members of the Select Committee should all be placed in a position of being able to investigate the matter and visit the area personally. I want to read to you a letter to show that even the Department of Lands was of the opinion that it would be absolutely necessary for us to see the area ourselves, for otherwise they would not have gone to the expense and trouble of writing letters and sending telegrams in order to ask us to visit the area, if they had not been convinced themselves that we should go there in the best interests of the case. On 23rd August of last year—that is the date of the letter in Pretoria — I received a letter from nobody else but the Secretary for Lands—not from the chairman or from one of the members, but from the Secretary for Lands, Mr. Steytler, and he writes as follows—

The Department of Lands itself referred the matter to the Clerk of the House.

At our request.

I admit that, but the point I want to make clear is that if all the other members of the Select Committee and the Department of Lands had considered it unnecessary for the Select Committee to go there, why then did they approach the Clerk of the House to ask him whether we could go there? If the members of the Select Committee and the Department of Lands were convinced that it would be a waste of money, why then did they approach the Clerk of the House to see whether a tour of the area could be arranged so that the members of the Select Committee might personally institute investigations on the spot? It only goes to show that the Department was of the opinion that we should go and the members of the Select Committee were unanimous in their opinion that we should go there ourselves to gain first-hand knowledge of the local conditions. That letter went on to say—

The Department of Lands says that this expenditure may be debited against its Vote, so convinced was the Department of Lands that we ought to go and visit the area concerned.

On a point of explanation, if the hon. member will allow me, I must in all fairness say that the Department did not express an opinion about the matter. Only because we addressed a request to the Department did they say that they would be prepared to grant our request and that they would assist us in making the necessary investigations. But the Department as such never expressed any opinion on the desirability or otherwise of us visiting the area in question.

No, but according to this letter which originates from the Department of Lands and has been signed by the Secretary for Lands, they say that the Department approached the Treasury and that the Department would be prepared that the expenditure would be debited against its Vote.

At our request.

I admit that it was done at our request, but now it is again our request, and why is that not being accepted? I admit that in the first instance it was done at the request of the Select Committee, but the Department of Lands identified itself with our request. If the Department had thought that it would mean an unnecessary chasing around and that it would be unnecessary for the members to view the area personally, they would have said: We are not prepared to do so, but here in this letter they say that after the Clerk of the House had informed them that it could not be done, they were prepared to take up the matter with the Treasury and to inform the latter that the expenditure might be debited against the Lands Vote—

My opinion in regard to the matter is as follows, and I want to make it plain to the House that all the members of the Select. Committee unanimously felt that they should pay a personal visit to the area. The Department of Lands endorsed this view, for after the Clerk of the House had said that it could not be done since the session of Parliament had come to an end, the Department of Lands took up the matter and stated that they would be prepared to have the costs debited against that Department’s Vote.

Seeing that they of course had nothing to hide.

It clearly shows that the Department of Lands reckoned that it was absolutely essential that we should go. I am not certain about the dates, but I think it was in any case after 23rd August and before 18th September. I then received a telegram from Boorlands—that is, of course, the Department of Lands—to the effect that the Department was still of the opinion that it would be desirable that we should visit the area personally.

Again at my request.

It does not matter at whose request. If I ask the Minister of Finance to send a telegram, surely he will not send a telegram unless he approves of my request. Will the Department simply send any telegram at my request when they do not agree with my views? I assume that the hon. member for Ermelo approached the Department of Lands. But my point is that the Department of Lands agreed with our opinion that we ought to go and visit that area. Here I receive a telegram from Boorlands which possibly cost quite a few shillings and which has been sent to all the members of the Select Committee. It reads—

One of the things with which I do not agree is the following: Why should members who have been appointed on a Select Committee pay their own expenses when they have to visit this area in order to enable them to come to a fair decision?

I offered to pay my own expenses.

This is a matter of principle. It is not the question whether it is going to cost me £3 or £4. When I am asked to spend £3 or £4 in order to visit the area, I can rightly ask why the Government should not pay it. What happened then is that I had to be in the Northern Transvaal more or less on 28th October. I then had to visit the area, as I believed at that moment, and I therefore let them know that if they could make the visit at about that time, I would go along, but the important point I want to make is this: Why should members of the Select Committee pay their own expenses? But on 18th September, about one month after the telegram—I cannot clearly make out the date stamp on the telegram—anyhow, on 18th September I received a further letter from the Department of Lands, this time signed by Mr. Penzhorn. I want to point out once more that these letters had not been written by the hon. member for Ermelo. They may most probably have been written in consequence of the request of the hon. member for Ermelo to the Department of Lands for permission for the Select Committee to visit the area and inspect the land. But the Department approved of it and from their office wrote me a letter dated 18th September of last year which reads—

What difference does that make to the motion?

I will tell you what difference it makes: The difference that the Department of Lands was most anxious that we should visit that area. And why?

Because I was so ready to help.

Then I ask you to be helpful once again, for we are again coming with a request. I have carefully avoided discussing the merits of the case. I want the Minister to enable us to see the area concerned, so that we may be able to come to a decision after having seen this area.

But now you have seen it.

I did not go there. I served for weeks and months on the Select Committee, and if I have to visit the area, and it will cost me £10 or £15 or £25, then I cannot see why I should pay that myself. I do not go into the question of the pros and cons of this matter now, but if the Select Committee wants to be in a position to come to a fair and sound decision, it must view the area. I ask the hon. Minister of Lands to admit that the proposal from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is a fair proposal. Give the Select Committee the right to visit Dongola. At a previous stage the Minister was willing to have the expenditure debited against the Lands Vote. The Department of Lands was prepared to do that, and I cannot see why the Minister should not be prepared at this stage to accept the proposal made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. If he does agree to it, we can come to a decision on our own observations. We are dealing here with the expropriation of private property. That is a serious matter, and the members of the Select Committee should be put in a position which will enable them to come to a sound and fair decision.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) is not in the House, because I should like to have learned from him what attitude he is going to adopt in connection with this matter. Last year he tried his best to get the Select Committee there. He said there were certain members who could not go, amongst others the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen), because his partner was on leave. I hope the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) will not go out now.

I am not afraid of you.

But the hon. member merely wants to go out, and we know that he ran away on a previous occasion. I hope he will not do so again. One of the other members of the Select Committee also could not go on account of unavoidable circumstances. The hon. member for Ermelo really made an honest attempt to get the members of the Select Committee there. On account of a combination of circumstances, it was not possible for them to go. I think he did absolutely the right thing in trying to get them there. He did this because he realised it was necessary to have an inspection in loco. Does he realise there is still a necessity for that? Possibly he has altered his opinion, or does he still think that the members should go? I see the hon. member has come in, and perhaps he can give an answer.

We all had the opportunity to go.

That is not the point. The hon. member in the past exerted every effort to get the members there, and he must have done so because of a realisation that it was necessary for the members to see the area for themselves. Does he not still think that it is necessary for them to go?

I say they had the opportunity to go.

That does not answer the question. My question is whether the hon. member still thinks it is necessary for the Select Committee to visit the spot.

There is nothing to prevent them going.

It is clear the hon. member will not answer my question.

I shall not stop them going.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen such shuffling? The hon. member either meant honestly that the members of the Select Committee should go there, or he is not now honest in his answer. Though the hon. member last year, as chairman of the Select Committee, did his utmost, and he was absolutely correct, to get the members there, it seems that this year he thinks they should not go. We now give the member the opportunity to take the members of the Select Committee there. We will honestly try to get them there.

I do not need any assistance. I have been there.

One can do something with a stupid person, but with a clever man who pretends he is stupid it is a different matter. The hon. member realises quite well what my question is, but he is trying to be evasive. Let the hon. member be honest, I assume he still wants the members of the Select Committee to visit the area so that they may inspect it themselves. We now want to give them that opportunity. But he is not going to support us. He will vote against the motion which will make it possible to get the Select Committee there. Was he honest last year in his effort to get them there? If he was honest the only honest thing he can do this year is to support this motion at once. He cannot have been honest last year about getting the members of the Select Committee there and be just as honest this year when he does not want them to go there.

What is there to prevent them going?

It makes one suspicious.

Yes, I am beginning to be suspicious there is a reason why the hon. member does not want the members of the Select Committee there. But I come to another point. The Minister of Finance has also done his share to ensure that these people did not visit Dongola. When an effort was made by the chairman of the Select Committee to get the members there because he thought it was the right thing and that they should see the place themselves, as they had to function in a judicial capacity and to pass judgment on these people’s right of occupation, and on their whole future, whether they should be uprooted from their homes—which is a very serious matter—he thought and he was quite right, that the members should visit the spot so that they would be in a position to pass judgment, and apparently the Department of Lands also thought likewise, because the Department approached the Treasury in order to approve the expenditure being debited against the Department of Lands. But no, the Treasury refused to pay the expenses of the Select Committee who had to go and decide over the future of these people and whether their property was to be expropriated. To these people this was a matter of tremendous importance.

And these people will have themselves to bear the expense of presenting their case to the Select Committee.

Yes, I am still coming to that. In order to safeguard their livelihood, in order to try to protect their property, these people will have to come to Cape Town, at a cost of something like £3,000, to submit their case to the Select Committee. This shows what a serious view they take of the matter. When we want to bring the mountain to Mohammed in order to reduce the costs the Treasury intervenes and says that the State will not pay. It will not authorise £1 for that, but when a Cabinet Minister and a number of members opposite apply to the Treasury for money for a hunting trip in the Kalahari there is no lack of funds. For this good cause, however, there is no money and these people will have to carry on at their own expense until their case collapses on account of shortage of funds. I resent very much that the Minister of Finance would not give money to the Department of Lands to allow this Select Committee to visit the spot. It would only have cost a couple of hundred pounds. But when a group of Parliamentary members chase round the Kalahari with the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Finance is able to find the funds to enable them to hunt there and to make biltong.

That is not so.

There was money enough for that, and for liquor as well.

As far as drink is concerned you are a greater sinner.

I produce liquor and I am glad that they took liquor with them. But when I take liquor with me I pay for my own, whether I go to the Kalahari or anywhere else. I also pay for my own food. I do not go on a hunting trip and on a jollification at the expense of the Treasury. That is what I am annoyed over with the Treasury. When the Select Committee wanted to make an investigation in connection with a very important matter the Treasury could not find the money, but there is heaps of money when they want to go and have their holiday in the Kalahari. That is why I say that the Minister of Finance must also be held to account by these people in the reserve.

Now I come to another aspect of the matter. I have only once gone beyond Messina, and apart from that I do not know that territory. They pointed a mopani tree out to me and said that the river was the Limpopo. I know nothing of those parts, but I have to decide, and the two members on that side who were serving on the Select Committee must be given the opportunity to decide and to advise us whether this Bill is in the interests of the country, and whether the conditions prevailing there are as described by the Minister of Lands or as described by other people. This is why we have appointed a Select Committee, and the members serving on that Select Committee must be accorded the opportunity to make an investigation so that they can tell us what is right; whether the hon. member for Zoutpansberg was right to come here and tell us that the northern part of his constituency was absolutely worthless.

That is false.

We want to know whether the hon. member is right when he is fouling his own nest. I do not want to read out the speech of that hon. member because it is comprised of retractions. Let us look at what the Minister himself said about Dongola. When we compare his speech with the evidence of other persons who came from those parts we are thoroughly confused, because the evidence is completely contradictory. I will therefore briefly mention a few things the Minister of Lands stated in his speech on the previous occasion, and then I will compare it with what other persons said, and it is the duty of the Select Committee to tell us who was right. Mr. Emery is one of the individuals interested in Dongola and he published a document in connection with Dongola regarding which the Minister stated—

Well, the Select Committee is still far from having completed its labours, but I have read part of this volume we already have. Individuals who were there and even officials of the Minister’s department support the contentions that Mr. Emery made. I do not say they supported all of them, but nevertheless there was quite a number, more than the 1 per cent. that the Minister said might be true. They supported, for instance, his contentions in connection with irrigation and also many of the other statements he made. Let us go further and see what the Minister said—

Now I have received through the post a copy of a magazine called “Libertas”. I understand the editor of it was an important person engaged in government business. He is a Mr. T. C. Robertson. In this magazine there appears an article about those parts and also a number of photographs. Here is a photograph of a house with luxuriant grass round about it, and the wording under the photograph is—

What is the name of the farm?

I do not know what the name is. This is what Mr. T. C. Robertson writes, and he was the leader of the Government’s Truth Legion. The Minister will, of course, not accuse the leader of the Truth Legion of untrustworthiness.

Is this in the reserve?

He says so.

Where is Mr. T. C. Robertson’s farm?

I did not say it was his farm. This is the farm he describes. I do not know what the position is. I do not know whether the Minister is wrong and I do not know whether Mr. T. C. Robertson is wrong. We want to know, and therefore we must allow an inspection to be made. Then the Minister comes along with the small rainfall. It is one of the reasons he advanced why this region is worthless. The rainfall is so small. Now I find in the report of the Commission a rainfall table is given. I should like to read out some of the items—

And is this the desert?

Yes, and this is the rainfall.

These are no doubt all oases in the desert.

If it is a question of rainfall there are many parts of the country where farming has been very beneficially carried on and that the Minister will also have to expropriate.

What is the rainfall at Hutchinson?

I am coming to that. My point is that if the rainfall is the consideration there are many parts with a much smaller rainfall the Minister will have to expropriate. The Minister says further—

In this connection there appears in “Libertas” another picture showing Dr. Pole Evans standing against elephant grass which is much higher than himself, and the wording under the picture is—

But now the Minister says that as soon as those lands are occupied the grass disappears. We only need to look at this picture. Who must we believe? The Minister says—

This is the one side of the picture. Now we get this article with the photographs. I will not refer to the pawpaws that grow there so profusely, but I have already mentioned the photograph of Dr. Pole Evans alongside a stand of elephant grass. I now come to a farm at Dongola. Here is a photograph of a splendid fat Afrikaner ox, and the wording under the photograph is—

At 10.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 21st March.

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.

We listened with interest yesterday to the statement of the Minister of Justice in connection with internees. Unfortunately he was not allowed to complete his statement. We should however also like to hear what the Prime Minister can tell the House in connection with this matter. I just want to direct an appeal to the Prime Minister and to ask him whether he does not feel inclined to have the conditions in the internment camp at Baviaanspoort specially investigated. We have no real complaints in connection with the other internment camps but we do have complaints especially in regard to Baviaanspoort. I refer particularly to the period when that camp was under the control of a certain Mr. McPherson. Irregularities took place there which we feel are not in accordance with the policy announced by the Government, and we are also of opinion that the Government does not even know of the incidents about which we have certain information. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will not have the matter investigated impartially, just in order to ascertain what really happened there. I do not want to go into details now, and I want to leave it to the Prime Minister himself to have an investigation made and in that manner to get to know what really happened. I just want to mention one example. A certain man who lives in the Union and who is a supporter of his party was not interned, but his son was. He is married to an Afrikaans lady. He is a well-known man, Mr. Rancke, the owner of the Elgin Hotel in Johannesburg. Mrs. Rancke became ill, and on her death-bed she asked whether she could not see her son. Every possible attempt was made to get permission for the son to come to bid farewell to his mother. Mr. Rancke even offered to send a taxi and to pay the expenses of the guards, but the son was not allowed to come and say goodbye to his mother. I feel that this is not the policy of the Prime Minister and of the Government and that if he had known about it it would never have happened. I am convinced of that. But the Prime Minister ought to know about this, because at an inconvenient moment he may be confronted with such a matter when he is out of the country. He ought to know what happened there. I have reason to believe that this matter is well-known outside the country and that people there know more about it than even the Government knows. Therefore I ask whether he will not be so good as to have investigations made. My hon. friend the member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) mentioned a case where the wife of an internee was informed of his death only after he had already been buried. I know of one case where the wife of an internee was assaulted and died a fortnight after the assault. The internee was not asked to come and see his wife, but her son was brought from the internment camp to identify her body. The father and the son then asked permission to go to the funeral, but that was refused. This is not the policy of the Government, but it is what the Government officials did, and the Government ought to know about it. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to have these matters investigated, and I will undertake to bring proof, much more than I have stated here. I then come to another matter. There are people who have been set at liberty. People from South-West Africa have long been set free, some three months ago, some six months ago, some twelve months ago, and others more than two years ago, but they are not allowed to go to their homes in South-West Africa. They are free, but they can only move about within the Union and cannot return to their homes. They live in Cape Town, Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg and other large cities, but are not allowed to return home. What can be the reason for that? They occupy houses here which we urgently need; they eat our food and they drift about here from pillar to post. There are no restrictions placed upon them, except that they have to report to the magistrate. I spoke to the Minister of Justice about it, and he told me that public opinion is against these people being given complete liberty. I also represent public opinion, at least, public opinion in South-West Africa. I have reason to believe that I represent more than half of the public opinion of South-West in this regard, and I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that that is not public opinion in South-West Africa. The large majority of people in South-West Africa are not in favour of that policy. It is an inhumane policy to give such people their freedom so that they can move about in the Union, but to prevent them from returning to their farms. What public opinion is against that? And are those people prepared to pay for the detention of these men in the internment camps? It costs money to keep them there, and the Union should pay for it. A considerable amount of money is required to keep more than a thousand people there, and are these people who are against their being set at liberty prepared to pay for the detention of these men. Now these men have to drift about in the Union and they occupy accommodation which is urgently required. They drift around here without any purpose. One of these men came to me and told me that he had lost 3,000 karakul sheep owing to the drought. An unprecedented drought is reigning in South-West, one far worse than any other drought in living memory. These men are keen to go and see to their farming operations, but the Minister states that public opinion does not want them to be in South-West Africa. What public opinion? Another German told me that he had already lost a thousand head of cattle, and that he has another 2,000 head which will also die if he is not allowed to go and look after them. I want, to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that if these people cannot be given complete liberty, let them at least be given three or four months’ leave in order to look after their farming operations. Now they are not allowed to do that. What can be the basis of such a policy? The Prime Minister has stated that we should not make more enemies than necessary. Are we not making unnecessary enemies by means of such a policy? These people are not Nazis and they were never our enemies. Even today they are not our enemies. Cannot we make concessions to them. We must view this matter in the correct light. I really want to plead with the Prime Minister with all the earnestness in my power to devote his personal attention to this matter, because I really believe that in that case all these things will not be done. I have a letter which I want to read, but I have no time for that now, and shall do it later. I want to do that just to give the Prime Minister an idea of what public opinion really is in South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, there has been some reference in this House recently, and also in the press, as to the probable appointments of Ministers Plenipotentiary to our diplomatic service, to represent the Union in other countries. In this connection there is a very serious matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. One of the men whose name was mentioned as that of a candidate for the appointment as Minister of Plenipotentiary is stated to have acted in a manner which calls for investigation. Because of the nature of the case, I do not intend to mention any names, or the name of the Department concerned in this matter, because I think that this is a matter which should be mentioned to the Minister himself on a suitable occasion. But the facts I propose to submit are derived from official communications, and are beyond dispute. An official serving under the present applicant to the ministerial post was in a nursing home 5½ months ago, when he received a peremptory message to report himself at his office. When he did so the officer administering that Department, whose appointment as Minister Plenipotentiary is said to be under consideration, demanded that he should sign the following letter of resignation, which was already typed out, and the man unwillingly complied. The terms of that letter are very important and with the indulgence of the House I should like to read what was embodied in that communication. It said—

That resignation was signed and the event took plate on the 10th October, 1945, and although the signatory died on 28th October, eighteen days afterwards, no particulars are obtainable as to the grounds of his suspension, and the evidence of his friends is to the effect that he was afforded no opportunity of replying to any charges made against him, and was given no alternative but to sign this letter of resignation. A letter dated 12th October, was sent to him by the senior official referred to in the following terms—

I want to emphasise that. It is “in lieu of leave”. It was not treated as a case for the granting of leave, but a sum of money was to be paid in lieu of leave—

After his death his executors were not paid the sum claimable in respect of the six months’ salary due to him in lieu of leave, and up to this date, five months afterwards, the amount concerned has not yet been paid to the executors of his estate. The matter has come to be known fairly widely among hon. members of this House, and if the Prime Minister will consent to representations being made to him, a deputation of hon. members, not confined to one party, will be glad to wait upon him to state their views. The fact that matters most in this distressing case is that the person concerned was not treated in the manner usually adopted in cases of that kind. I myself on one occasion was suspended by a head of a department who considered himself affronted by my independence, but I was given 48 hours within which to reply. This was under Crown Colony Government, and when I replied the charge not only fell away but I took the offensive, and this might quite easily have been the case too in the instance I am referring to. A man is not held to be guilty merely because of his having been suspended. In my case I asked for suspension, in an interview with the Lieutenant-Governor of the Transvaal. It did not necessarily mean that I was guilty of what was alleged against me. I pleaded not guilty and tabled my defence, which was accepted, and I was discharged without a stain on my reputation. But in this case, as far as my information goes, there were no such proceedings. There was no such information conveyed to the man concerned and he was not afforded a certain period within which to reply. Then there is the other point of his resignation being demanded, in fact written out for him; it seems to me much more leniency and humane treatment should have been extended to a man with 18 years’ service to his credit. [Time limit.]

I make no excuse, Sir, for returning for a few minutes to the subject of immigration I raised in the House yesterday, because I feel—and I am sure the Prime Minister will agree with me—there is a menace in our empty spaces in South Africa. The general reply the right hon. gentleman gave yesterday will be regarded with some concern by the forward-looking people in South Africa. But before I touch on another aspect of that matter I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) yesterday, when they suggested that my object in raising the question of immigration was not the general question of immigration as such, but that I wanted in a roundabout way to get the problem of Jewish immigration brought before the House. I want to say if that had been the case I would have nothing to be ashamed of, and I should have done it quite openly. But I want to disabuse your minds of that. I want to disabuse the minds of the Committee that at the back of this suggestion of immigration was the question of Jewish immigration to South Africa. I think the Committee should know about the remnants of Jewry in Europe. More than 6,000,000 have been exterminated by Hitler and his gang. The remnants in Europe, perhaps some have friends and relatives settled in South Africa, might wish to come to this country in spite*of the unwilling attitude of our friends opposite, but I think very few would care to come here. I think the hope of those remnants lies in the direction of their ancient homeland, and in creating for themselves a new home there, and there restoring their shattered lives. I rather hope in regard to that aspect that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister when he goes overseas will be able to do a great service to these people, not merely by opening the doors of South Africa, but in using his great influence to have the doors of Palestine opened to them, and I am sure in doing that he will carry with him the support and goodwill of all sections in this House.

I mentioned immigration and our desire to see South Africa developed to the greatest possible extent. We have been warned already about our empty spaces. I mentioned it yesterday and the Prime Minister emphasised it. Let me say at once in my view those empty spaces and the rich internal resources we have in South Africa constitute a menace of a threefold nature. They constitute a menace insofar as the overcrowded, inscrutable East is concerned. They constitute a menace, as the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister rightly said yesterday, insofar as overcrowded and devastated Europe is concerned, and they constitute a menace insofar as the numerical disparity between the European and non-European population is concerned. In spite of what the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. A. C. Payne) said yesterday, I do believe both in the interests of the European population and in the interests of the non-European population we should throw our doors open in South Africa to a large European population, because we cannot replenish the European population by the birth rate. It is only by developing this country that we can minimise the menace to which I have already referred. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, I am sure, realises that is the position, and we are faced with the fact that in Europe today, in Great Britain, in Holland, in Belgium and in the Scandinavian countries, certainly in Germany and Austria, there are large numbers of people who are prepared and anxious to find pastures new and make new homes for themselves; and I hope we in South Africa will take advantage of that position and do nothing to discourage that immigration, and that we shall not be too late in trying to get those people, who are now being attracted by Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth. The Rt. Hon. gentleman referred to the small absorbing capacity of South Africa. Let me say without hesitation I am sure if he will enquire of soil erosion experts and economists generally, he will be told we have room for millions and millions of white people, and every immigrant carries with him or her a degree of absorptive capacity, by reason of their requirements in the way of food, clothing and shelter, and they bring the arms and the brains with which to help the development of this country. Unless we have a policy of encouraging not only a trickle of skilled labour—because that will not in any way answer the purpose we have in mind—unless we encourage to a great extent immigration of that kind, and unless the Prime Minister when he is overseas instructs our High Commissioner in London and our representatives in Europe to encourage people to come to South Africa, I fear the menace to which I have referred will become greater from day to day. I am afraid, in talking about this aspect of skilled labour, the Prime Minister, very unlike himself, was guided too much by caution and calculation. I ask him not to be led astray by the timidity of the Little Afrikaner in this country, I ask him not to be led astray by the timidity and selfishness of some of our trade unions, but rather to realise, as he did in September, 1939, that there are times, as at present, when precautions and calculations should be thrown to the winds and when there should be shown that boldness and courage which have added glorious chapters to our history. In dealing with immigration, I trust he will realise that the only way to encourage it is by a bold policy to build up a greater South Africa, and to take steps in the interests not only of the future of this country, but also towards our leadership of the African continent generally.

If the internment camps still have to be continued with, I wish to support the plea made by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper), and to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give his personal attention to the matter, in order to see whether the circumstances of the internees cannot be eased. I do not wish to quote any cases, but will mention a few to prove to the Prime Minister the necessity for his investigating the matter personally. Take, for example, the case of the internee Bade. He suffers from a fractured hip, asthma and rheumatics.

Which camp are you referring to?

These are all people who will go to Baviaanspoort. One cannot see the necessity for such a sick man to be detained in the camp longer. Take the case of Kalweit, who suffers so badly from diabetes that he has to receive three injections a day. A man like that can never be a danger to the State, even though he wants to be. Take the case of Mr. Stier. He suffers from pulmonary disease, and is already 70 years of age. I am just mentioning these few cases to show the Prime Minister what type of person is still being detained in the camps, and to prove that it is really worth while to investigate the matter and, in case certain people still have to be detained, to ameliorate the circumstances. Take the case of Mr. Rochotz. Here we have an inexplicable case. He personally was not interned, but his brother-in-law, a certain Carl Reimann, was interned. Dr. Rochotz’s wife, i.e., the sister of the internee Reimann, was very fond of her brother. Eventually she became mentally affected. Dr. Rochotz got no fewer than four medical men to certify that if Mrs. Rochotz were just to see her brother for a short period, it would undoubtedly bring about an improvement in her condition. Not only did the four medical men testify to that, but also the District Surgeon and the magistrate of Krugersdorp. But the request to release Reimann for a brief period was summarily refused. We just mention these few cases to show the Prime Minister what the position is. We accept that these things were done without his knowledge, and that they are not in accordance with his policy. To return to the statement made by the Minister of Justice last night, I think we all notice that the hon. Minister, when dealing with the Germans in the Union, was able to tell us quite a lot about the position, and we are thankful for the statement that these people will shortly be discharged from the camp.

Within approximately ten days.

But then the Minister dealt with the Germans in South-West, and said nothing further. One and all of us, including hon. members on his side of the House, were waiting for him to make a statement on this position, that he would give us details, and that we would learn what the real point of view of the Government is in that connection, but the Minister stopped there, and we could get to know nothing further from him. I want to put the matter this way: In view of the attitude adopted by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister as regards South-West—we know he is going to plead for the annexation of South-West by the Union—it will be a good thing if the Prime Minister were to make a statement. We know that there is an agitation in process in South-West to acquire the ground of those Germans who are today interned. Let us call the matter by its correct name. It looks very much like robbery. They want to acquire that ground. The Prime Minister may manage to have South-West Africa incorporated in the Union. What results will follow from that? It will be impossible for him to evict all the Germans now living in South-West. We must look to the future and try to create a better understanding between the various sections in South-West. In South Africa we had sabotage, quite a lot of sabotage, but I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether he can point to one instance of sabotage in South-West Africa, notwithstanding the presence of the Germans there, who he says are such great Nazis. Did a single case of sabotage take place there?

It could have happened had we not interned them.

But the Minister did not intern all of them. Many remained free. The fact is that no sabotage was committed. Now the Government wants to expel these people from the country, because they were Nazis or belonged to the Nazi Party. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether, if he were a German and a good German, he would not also have been a faithful German and whether he would not also have been a member of his party? I think we must look a little further into the future than today. It is an extreme measure to expel people who live on the ground from the country. We go further, and the other day we saw a newspaper report which really made one feel ashamed. We must direct representations to UNO in order to receive food. South Africa has already received certain quantities of foodstuffs. In the same newspaper we read of the terrible famine and hunger reigning in Europe. One really felt ashamed of the fact that it was necessary for South Africa to go and ask for food while so many millions of people are going hungry. I ask the Minister whether it did not make him feel ashamed also. I felt ashamed, and I think every right-thinking person felt ashamed because in such circumstances we had to go and ask them for food. We know what conditions are in Europe. We know that Germany has been converted into a Belsen Camp. The food they receive today is less than what was given to the inmates of the Belsen Camp. Now one comes to the Germans in South-West. In fact, it used to be their country. People who lived there cultivated and improved their ground, and now they must be sent back to a country where there is no food for them. It really seems to be the height of cruelty. It almost amounts to murder to send people there. There are certain people who are out for revenge. We are dealing here with people who committed no sabotage and made no trouble, but there is a small group of people in South-West who want to acquire the ground of those people and to expel them for motives of revenge. Let us not do so, but rather try to create a good feeling between the various sections with an eye to the future.

The question of water supplies, both in respect of irrigation and public health, has loomed large in the House during the last six months, and I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree to outline the policy in the matter of the water conservation and the appointment of a Water Supply Commission in which would be vested responsibility for all the supplies of water in the Union. The last Minister of Public Health took a very great interest in this matter, and a Bill was actually prepared and is ready to be placed before the House, if Government policy countenances it. The House and the country would be very grateful to the Prime Minister for a declaration of the Government’s policy in this matter.

I do not wish to discuss immigration as such, but I feel that I have to rise here to answer the gross insults emanating from people not born in South Africa, but who at some time or the other were immigrants. A certain person stands up here and pleads for immigration. He puts his case, before the House, and then proceeds to talk about the “little Afrikaners.” He himself was an immigrant, an immigrant who did not even want to retain his own name.

Cecil Rhodes was also an immigrant.

If that is the kind of immigrants for whom he pleads, I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that the fewer we receive of that class the better. Is the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister surprised that the people are chary of immigration when one finds such people coming here from other countries to make a living in South Africa, who enjoy the privileges of a free country, and who then refer to “little Afrikaners” in the manner in which the hon. members did?

You want a small, country.

What we want is that people who come here as immigrants should treat us with respect. We are proud of being Afrikaners, and we did not find it necessary to change our names.

Now there is something else which I should like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister, and I refer to South Africa as our only country. Normal times are returning. The official opening of Parliament once again took place in the usual manner, and I think that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will agree that the time has arrived when South Africa should have its own national anthem. I do not raise this matter from any political motives at all. South African troops participated in the war and went overseas. Would it not have been fitting if we were to have had our own national anthem just as we have our own flag? At the opening of Parliament we hear a song which is not our national anthem, but that of another country. South Africa has no national anthem of its own, and the anthem which is usually sung is just an anthem which perhaps at the moment is the most suitable for such an occasion, but it is not our official anthem. Cannot the Prime Minister take steps in view of the fact that he will be in power only for a short period, to try in consultation with Afrikaans cultural associations, to have an Afrikaans national anthem? I want to appeal to him to devote attention to that matter.

Then I should also like, together with the two hon. members who spoke about internees, to raise my voice in favour of the liberation of those people. We have now come to the so-called period of peace, and we should not follow the example of other parts of the world and wreak vengeance on people who only did their duty towards their own nation. They are busy trying and murdering people. We in South Africa do not try these people, but simply keep them locked up in camps. During the war the Minister, under whom internment camps resorted, stated that these people were a danger to South Africa. Can the hon. the Prime Minister, with his experience of the world, rise here and tell us what danger these people can create for South Africa today? What can they do to the detriment of South Africa? I am sure that the Prime Minister cannot mention a single reason for keeping these people in the camps any longer, except the fact that their parents were Germans. That is unreasonable, inhumane and un-Christian. I was given to understand that the Allies fought for Christianity. Well, this is un-Christian. We are now on a peace basis, and I wish to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to take steps immediately to liberate these people. I know of a certain case of a young boy. I think he was eighteen when he was interned. He spoke about Hitler near Cape Town. Perhaps he said things which youngsters sometimes say without reflection. People with more experience would perhaps have been more careful. Today he is still in the camp. Of what danger can such people be to South Africa? Why must a young life like that be ruined? He cannot be sent away and is being detained in the camp. I want to ask the Prime Minister to see to it that South Africa does not follow such a policy of revenge and hatred. After the Boer War certain people were also shot, and the Prime Minister was against it. Today there are again great and small nations powerless in the hands of the big victors, and in view of our own past history I wish to ask the Prime Minister to show mercy towards people who can no longer be a danger to South Africa. I hope that the plea I have delivered here on behalf of those people who are in the camps will be taken up in the right spirit. I do not wish to gloss over any mistakes which may have been made by these people, but I hope that the matter will be considered in the spirit in which I intend it.

I wish to appeal to the Minister with tears in my eyes not to take any notice of the crocodile tears which are being shed in this House on behalf of the German internees.

What is your “van”?

You will hear in a few moments. I am proud of my “van”. I maintain every German who has not tried to become a naturalised South African subject is not to be trusted, any more than we could not trust many of our friends during the war period. The question that has been put to me is: What is my nationality? My father was a German settler at East London. I was bom in South Africa, and am a South African; and loyal to South Africa I have always proved myself. My interrupters should be ashamed to ask me what my nationality is merely because of my name. What I want to get at is this. Being of German parentage I have quite a number of German friends, and it has been my experience, 100 per cent., that where an individual from South-West Africa has not tried to become a naturalised Union subject he cannot be trusted since each and every one of them wanted Germany to win the war. I know that the Minister is in possession of the fullest information regarding these men. Only a short while ago I had a German come to me from South-West Africa; he has been resident there for the last twenty years. He did not become a naturalised South African subject. He told me of the terribly unfair treatment which was supposed to have been meted out to him, but when I made official enquiries, I discovered that his son and daughter disappeared to Germany from South-West Africa just before the war commenced. If that does not prove that they are Nazis 100 per cent., I ask: What more proof does one want?. It is all very well after the war is over to plead innocence, but at the time the Prime Minister and the Government could not take the slightest risk. We all knew there was just a possibility of South-West Africa being the starting point of the war in so far as the invasion threat to South Africa was concerned. I would now like to get away from that subject because we have had too much of it, and the pleadings from the Opposition benches. I would like to say that it is somewhat regrettable that my friends on the Labour benches should make veiled unfair references to the representative of the Government, Mr. Ivan Walker, who was sent to Johannesburg in connection with the miners’ strike. I wish to remind those hon. members that they are wrong in trying to suggest that the Prime Minister did not send the right person. I would also remind them that when Mr. Ivan Walker was Secretary for Labour he was regarded as a very fine individual; but immediately their leader vacates his position as a Cabinet Minister, one hears whisperings about the ability and sincerity of Mr. Walker towards trade unionism and the working classes. I want to say that his long record clearly shows that he has always had the interests of the workers 100 per cent. at heart. I well remember when Mr. Walker was appointed as arbitrator in connection with the building industry dispute, and certain members on this side of the House did not like his award. I never heard any objection then from the Labour benches, no doubt for the reason that the award was in favour of the workers. Now they criticise the Prime Minister’s action in appointing Mr. Walker as his adviser. If some members on this side were wrongly against his building industry award, I feel also then that it is unfair to suggest that the wrong man was appointed, notwithstanding that his name did appear in the Press as being a candidate for Cabinet rank. I would appeal to the Labour Party to give credit where credit is due, and remind them that whén their leader entered the Cabinet one frequently heard from the rank and file very much the same jealous talk, but if the rank and file got the opportunity to fill such a post, they would be the first to jump at it.

It is a general phenomenon amongst the nations of the world that no one hates his own nation as much as a renegade. I do not want to say anything else in this regard, but I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to support in a few words the appeal which has been made here in connection with the internees. I am pleased that of late the Government has been showing signs that on this point, at any rate, it is inclined to make concessions. We all welcome the announcement which was made in this House yesterday by the Minister of Justice and that some progress is now being made—and I hope it will be rapid progress —with the release of the internees. The question which occurs to us is this: Since there has been a movement in that direction of late, why not release from the internment camps those people who were bom in the Union as well as those Germans who are still being detained in the internment camps? What reason is there for not making a final and speedy end to these internments so that South Africa may be rid of that problem? There are still three classes of persons who have been referred to here and in regard to whom a plea is still being made. In the first place there are those Germans who were released from the camp, who are resident in South-West Africa, but who are not being allowed to return to their homes. That is the one category, and one asks oneself why they should not be allowed to return to their homes. Is there any good reason why those 1,060 Germans from South-West Africa cannot be allowed to return to their homes? The other category consists of a number of Germans who were asked under quite exceptional circumstances whether they would like to be sent back to Germany. In circumstances which have already been described in this House, they signed what was submitted to them, signifying their willingness to be sent back. They were prepared to do anything which would save them from detention in the camps, detention which lasted for years. Those people are now anxious to remain. It does not affect them only; it also affects their families. In many cases they married South African women. Initially those women were allowed to remain in South Africa. Now they have to choose between going back with their husbands or staying behind. They chose to return with their husbands. I believe at one time they were informed that since they had once decided they would not be allowed to change their minds. I want to know what reason there is to break up these families in this way and to deport those women find children together with their husbands? Can it be done under the existing circumstances in Germany? It would simply be cruel to send them back at the present time and perhaps for a long time to come in the future. It is equivalent to sending these people to a starvation death, and in those circumstances I hope the Government will again go into this matter and decide to allow those people to remain in South Africa under certain conditions, to release them and to allow them to return to their homes. The Other category consists of those whose cases are now being investigated, and this category comprises a large section in South-West Africa, all people who, it is alleged, belonged to the Nazi Party and who, at the discretion of the Commission, may be deported. The question which has been asked on this side of the House repeatedly and to which no reply has come as yet, is this: Do those people constitute any danger to South Africa at the present time? If any danger became apparent during the war, it was very exceptional. As was said here a moment ago, as far as we know there was not a single German in this country who committed sabotage — not a single one. In those circumstances, we have the right to ask what danger there is. There is only one reason why this is being done, and that is that the German as a German, and particularly if he was a loyal German according to his views, must be punished. That is the only reply there can be. I said the other day that if we had been placed in the position that our Government and our people had believed in a certain ideology, if our nation had followed the road of Nazism under the circumstances in which Germany found herself, the members on that side of the House, with few exceptions, would have been Nazis, and if that is the case why should the German be punished simply because he was a Nazi and because he followed the ruling opinion. If you want to punish people because they believe in a certain ideology, I want to know why you are punishing the Nazi and why you are giving the Communist a free hand in this country and, moreover, in spite of the fact that the Communist constitutes a positive danger to South Africa, having regard to his influence on the nonEuropean population in this country, and the danger that he constitutes to the European civilisation and the future of South Africa. Why punish the one who believes in one ideology and allow the other who has adopted a more dangerous ideology to go free? No, there is a feeling in the minds of a section of the people in this country that those Germans ought to be punished merely because they are Germans, and for no other reason. In view of the speech which has been made here by the hon. member on the other side….

The member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge).

… In view of that speech, I just want to say that if the policy is adopted that a German must be punished merely because he is a German, the race to which that hon. member belongs is in very great danger in this country, because there is a strong feeling on the part of many that the Jew must be deported from this country because he is a Jew.

Especially when he is an English-speaking Jew.

I think he and others belonging to his race should be the last persons to advocate that the German must be punished merely because he is a German.

Have you ever heard me advocating deportation?

I just want to add what I said on the previous occasion, namely, that we in South Africa must set an example of a better spirit than the spirit which is being manifested in Europe. As far as the Germans in this country are concerned, I can only say that they are not poor colonists. I can tell the Prime Minister that if he goes, as he has probably done previously, to the Transvaal, to Piet Retief and towards Paul Pietersburg, where there is a large German settlement, he will find that there we have some of the best colonists in this country, and the same applies to other places in South Africa. They are people of high standing in all respects, people who command the respect of the whole country and of the whole neighbourhood.

They are not Nazis.

There we find some of the best colonists, and I want to know why, in those circumstances, the Germans in this country are being punished merely because they are Germans.

The late Colonel Deneys Reitz one day said of a member of the Dominion Party in the House: “He is the kind of man who would boil his grandmother for soup.” I want to pay that compliment to the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hopf).

I did not insult the Germans.

I spoke here yesterday with the intention of seeing how far we could influence the Government to act humanely, and in view of the fact that the Minister has intimated that they are in fact going to liberate portion of the internees in the camps, I want to say this, that the rest of his statement, to the effect that more than a thousand people are still being detained there, probably for a year, probably for more than a year, and that they will still further be martyred, is an act of vengeance and of sadistic control which dare not be tolerated in South Africa. I say that when in future the history of the real course of events in our time were ever to be written—and that history will never be written, but in fact that history will be there although it will not be written, because it will not be permitted to be written; that history will be under the control of those people who today commit atrocities in the world—I say that when that history will perhaps come to be written in fifty years or in a hundred years, it will not be a history of the atrocities committed by the Nazis or of what we are told was done in Europe as against the Jews and other people, but it will be the history of what happened to the German nation and other people after the war. History will stand amazed at that. We have here only a small subdivision of that sort of thing, but we have absolutely no excuse for further martyring those people. Twenty-one of the South-West Germans are already in mental asylums as a result of the treatment they received in the internment camps. As I indicated yesterday, large numbers of them have been mentally affected. The Minister knows that it is possible for the Government to release those people tomorrow, and if he were still to allege that he cannot send them back to South-West, he knows that nothing stands in the way of his immediately putting them at liberty in South Africa at least to a certain extent. That can be done, and I repeat that the reason is not that those people are a danger to South Africa. The reason is that there are ulterior motives, motives which will be condemned if the truth were ever to be known, namely, that there is an attempt to acquire the possessions of those people. It is an attempt to keep those people away from their businesses in South Africa, businesses which have come into the hands of other people, who are now afraid that the Germans will perhaps return. I say here that South Africa cannot and dare not allow this blot to remain on South Africa in future, and that we should be described by history as a vengeful, sadistic nation, who in a time, when we could have done otherwise martyred these people in this manner. No, the time has arrived that we should speak clearly and emphatically to the Government. One knows in whose interests these things are being done today. They are not being done in the interests of South Africa. They are not being done to protect South Africa. They are being done to acquire the possessions of those people, and to keep them out of businesses where they proved to be better business men and able to manage such businesses better than those who are there now. I am putting the matter clearly and emphatically. We ask that the Government should now put an end to the martyrdom suffered by these people. They are able to do it and ought to do so. I ask that the Government should take those steps and put those internees at liberty at least within the Union, or if necessary on farms in their own area. But why should these men be sent out of the country? There was no single act of sabotage. The people were disciplined. They subjected themselves to every burden laid upon them by the Government, and now when we in this far corner of the world have an opportunity to act humanely towards those people we refuse to do so. I ask that we should not permit that blot to rest upon the country, and I ask what powers this judicial commission which has been appointed to investigate the cases of these people will have. We do not know in which way it is proposed that these people should be put out of the country. We do not know what the policy of the Government is in that respect. Are those people going to be permitted to take their possessions with them or will they be sent out of the country empty handed? Why all the cries about the atrocities committed in the world during the last fifteen years if we are going to do the same thing? And it is not necessary for us to do it. We are a small country and we have the power to do the right thing in this regard towards those people. I ask the Government to give heed to this plea we are directing to it, and that these people should be treated in a humane manner, and not with a spirit of vengeance and worse.

Unlike the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) I do not think that history, when it comes to be written, will have much to say that is bad about our handling of the internees. I think that the verdict of history will be that a fair attitude was adopted by the Government in interning people who, just before our country went to war, were preparing to take over the Government of South-West Africa in favour of Germany, an attempt that was frustrated by the late General Hertzog, a fact of which I should like to remind the hon. member. But what I think history will find extremely odd, is that hon. members opposite, many of whom boast of their descent from the Huguenots, are against immigration. Many of them are proud of having descended from French Huguenot settlers. Let me remind the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) who so objects to any settlers unless from Germany or Holland, that a good many of the members opposite are very proud, and rightly so, of their French descent.

We do not need you to speak for us.

A good many are proud of being descended from the 1820 settlers and the German settlers, and it ill becomes a party of such descendants to object to immigrants.

But he never said that.

What I would like to do today is to support the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in regard to opening the door to immigrants from Europe.

From southern Europe.

I am not prepared to specify from where. Might I remind the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) that resorting to personalities is nearly always the last refuge of the man who has no good argument, so when he brings up personalities against the hon. member for Troyeville he betrays the weakness of his argument. What this country needs is immigrants. I am not here necessarily stressing the need for opening the door to Jewish immigrants, only although I believe and contend firmly that any unfortunate Jews in devastated Europe who have relatives here should at least have the right to enter in view of the prevailing conditions in Europe. But if ever a country had a need for immigrants it is this country. We are a small white population against ever increasing millions of natives. Yet the party opposite who are proud to claim descent from their forefathers, who in many instances came from England, will have nothing to do with it. I should like to say this also that the idea of importing only skilled artisans is not sound. I feel that every immigrant is a potential asset. Very often they bring money with them, and sometimes they are skilled and skill is of value to this country; it will help to provide work and opportunities for thousands yet unborn. I would like to ask the Prime Minister to declare to the country a positive policy of immigration. He has told us on many platforms that he is in favour of it. Speaking from this side of the House I want him to go further and in view of the unstable conditions in Europe, in view of the desire of many in the devastated areas to make South Africa their home, in view of the wishes of many of the R.A.F. and convoy men to settle here, to make a positive statement as to the Government’s attitude, and make it soon.

It is remarkable that the hon. member who has just sat down as well as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) should put up a plea in this House for immigration; that the doors of South Africa should be thrown open to overseas immigrants; and yet they do not say a single word to support members on this side of the House when we ask that those people who are in South Africa today should not be sent out of this country. Where is the logic of their attitude? It only goes to show that they want to get rid of certain persons merely because they are Germans. This morning the hon. member for Troyeville held it against the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and myself that we are supposed to have adopted the attitude yesterday that the Government should not admit Jewish immigrants into this country. May I just say that in my speech yesterday I did not use the words “Jewish immigrants” at all. What I did say was that the Government should not adopt the policy of unrestricted immigration, but that the Government should follow a policy of selective immigration and that when people come to South Africa it will be in the interests of South Africa in view of South Africa’s mixed population, so as to ensure that people who enter this country will be assimilated and that they are not unassimilable. And if the hon. member for Troyeville takes exception to that and interprets it as meaning that I do not want Jews in this country, he admits that the Jew is not assimilable. I want to repeat what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said this morning, namely that if the Jews in this country insist on Jewish immigration an anti-Jewish feeling will develop in South Africa, which will do the Jews more harm than they think, and if the Jews want to act in their own interests, they must not advocate the importation of more Jews into this country. That anti-Jewish feeling is not developing today amongst the Afrikaners. After all, the Afrikaner, more so than the English-speaking person, has treated the Jew in this country well, and it is the English-speaking people who feel that they are being pushed out by the Jew and for that reason an anti-Jewish feeling is rapidly developing today amongst ‘ the English-speaking people, and if those hon. members plead for Jewish immigration I just want to warn them that it is not in the interests of the Jew in this country. But if they want this country to have a bigger population; if, as the Prime Minister told us, the danger of the Union of South Africa lies in the empty spaces of this country, we want to ask him why he wants to deport the Germans who are at present in this country. I just want to remind him of a Dutch poet who said: “As jy oorlog voer dan moet jy skerp mik, maar as jy vrede maak moet jy sag skik”. (If you wage war your aim must be firm, but if you make peace the conditions of settlement must be lenient.) In view of that we want to ask whether the war is not a thing of the past; are we not living in a time of peace? And since there is peace today we ask that every effort should be made to establish a spirit of goodwill in this country. I want to tell the Prime Minister that that feeling of hatred and vindictiveness which exists today against the Germans is a passing phase, The danger which the Germans constituted to Great Britain in the past has now disappeared. Today Britain has no reason to fear that Germany will ever again become their enemy. What Britain as well as the whole Western civilisation should now concentrate on is to see how to make Germany an ally and friend as soon as possible in order to ward off a greater danger which faces the world, and in view of that I should like the Prime Minister to give a lead in this matter. In view of that danger, we must not make further enemies; we should rather make friends. He will remember the classic story which is told in the history books of the father who sent his son to conquer the enemy. When the son returned he told his father that he had conquered the enemy. His father then asked: “Did you kill them all; did you capture them all?” The son replied: “I did not kill anyone, nor did I capture anyone; I made them our friends.” The Western civilisation needs a friendly Germany if it wishes to continue its existence in the history of the world, and if it does not wish to be overwhelmed by the East. South Africa’s barren spaces constitute a danger to this country if they remain empty. That is what the Prime Minister told us. If that is so, do not let us adopt the foolish policy of deporting German citizens from this country. Yesterday I stated that we had learned that it is the Government’s policy to allow some of the Italian prisoners-of-war who are here to return to this country as immigrants. Since that is done in the case of the Italians who were also our enemies during the war, why are the Germans who are already in this country and who rendered good services to South Africa being deported from this country? No, there can only be two reasons why the policy is adopted to deport the Germans or to detain them in internment camps, the first being that they are a source of danger to this country. Can that be proved? We must remember that these people did not make themselves guilty of subversive activities. They did not commit any subversive act against the Government of the Union. They did sympathise with Germany, it is true. It would have been strange if they had not done so. They were Germans, and at that time South-West Africa had not yet been incorporated into the Union. It was a mandated territory, and the Germans in South-West Africa felt that they were still Germans. It would have been strange, therefore, if their sympathies had not’ been with Germany. They would have been poor Germans, and if they were such poor Germans and they had become citizens of the Union at some future date, they would not have become good Union citizens, because they would have owed no loyalty to what is their own. Things have changed. We hope that South-West Africa will be incorporated in the Union, and I am convinced that when the Germans in South-West Africa realise that South-West Africa has been incorporated, they, too, will feel that they should no longer return to Germany; they will no longer regard it as necessary to show their fidelity to Germany, because they will then associate themselves with the conditions of this country and they will become good Union citizens. I cannot see, therefore, that there is any danger to the Union, and that they should be deported for that reason. If they are deported, there can only be one motive, and that is the motive of persecution. Why should we do that? We should be lenient; we must not persecute these people. It would be a blotch on the history of South Africa if we treated these unfortunate people in this fashion during peace-time. The argument has been advanced that many of those people asked to return to Germany, and that they are not fit, therefore, to become citizens of the Union. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) has shown clearly that they signed for two reasons. They signed in the first place because they were in internment camps and because they were anxious to get out. The war is now over, and one can understand why they no longer want to return. The other reason is that some of the leaders of those people in the camps forced them to sign and made life impossible for them unless they showed their loyalty towards Germany and unless they supported the Nazis. The Allies have been victorious, and we are told that the Nazi danger has disappeared from the world. If that is the case—and we have no doubt that Germany as a strong nation or as a power in Europe no longer exists today; Germany will not be a power in Europe for a long time to come—and we need therefore have no fear that the Germans in South Africa will constitute a danger to our safety. In view of this, I would ask the Prime Minister not to adopt a policy of persecution.

There is only one other reason why the Germans are to be deported from this country, and that reason has already been mentioned on this side, namely, there are people in South Africa who have their eyes on the property of the Germans, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) indicated here. There are people who are casting envious glances at the possessions of the Germans. Is that the attitude we are going to adopt, and is the Prime Minister going to support it? Is he going to approve of the attitude of people who are anxious to obtain possession of these people’s land in South-West Africa; is he going to approve of these people being deported so that we may gain possession of what belongs to them today? If that is the motive, it would be a great blotch on our history, and if it is not the motive, what can the motive be? We make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister to give the assurance to this House that the Government is going to act differently and that a policy of peace will be adopted in South Africa. Do not let us wait until peace has been made in Europe, but let us set an example in South Africa by trying to establish a state of affairs where there will be co-operation and good faith amongst all in this country; let us realise that it is not necessary to deport people at a time when we need them in our own country. [Time limit.]

We on this side of the House most strongly deprecate the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition thought fit to describe the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) as a renegade. It can only be because being of German descent he associated himself with the national life of South Africa and became a true South African and because his son enlisted for military service and made the supreme sacrifice. He was killed in the war. If we follow that reasoning it means that if the Germans who come to South Africa do not remain Germans but become South Africans, they thereby become renegades.

You know that you are now distorting the facts.

No, that is not the case.

That, in fact, is the German psychology and ideology. That is the view of the Germans, and it is for that reason that there were so many Germans in South-West Africa who never became South Africans and who will never become South Africans. We still recall the speeches that were made in this House…

If that is your attitude, you should deport the entire Dominion Party.

In March, 1939, the Prime Minister with his prophetic foresight into the future deemed it necessary to send a police contingent to South-West Africa to quell the danger in that territory. Who were the people who were most voluble in their protests? It was the members on the other side. If the Prime Minister had not taken that step, the war might have started in South-West Africa. What was discovered there? A whole Nazi organisation was discovered, and if those Germans had not been interned, much more serious disturbances and acts of sabotage would have taken place. Those precautionary measures were taken for the protection of members on the other side as well as for our own protection. Moreover we must admit today that many of the people who are interned at the present time were interned on information which was furnished not only by members who support the Government, but also by members who were not favourably disposed towards the war policy of the Government.

What evidence have you got?

Why were those people not brought before the courts of law? If that had been done we would have known who testified against them.

It was a question of precautionary measures and not vengeance. We were in South-West Africa recently. Hon. members on the other side know as well as we do that the Germans in South-West Africa classify the local population as follows: First the Germans, then the Englishmen, then the Hereros and then the Afrikaners.

And then the Jews.

They regarded it as incest for a German to marry an Afrikaner. When they had the choice of accepting Union citizenship they refused. They preferred to remain Germans. When one speaks to the people in South-West Africa they give one the assurance that the greatest section of the Germans in South-West Africa do not ever want to become Afrikaners and that they are still Germans. We cannot take their present conduct as any criterion. We must go back to the past. Today they are crawling because they were defeated as a nation. But we know that before the war they were impudent. No, these people showed by their conduct in the past that they do not want to be associated with the national life in South Africa. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) spoke of people who do not want to be assimilated. These Germans showed clearly that they have no desire to become South Africans. They do not want to be assimilated into our national life. They are not, therefore, a desirable element in the population. Members on the other side say that members on this side who may advocate the cause of some interest or other are doing our country more harm than good. I say that the feelings in South Africa and in the whole world against the German Nazis are still running very high, because they caused a completé dislocation in the world. If they now manifest sympathy for the German cause, I am afraid they are doing that cause more harm than good. If they adopt that attitude they do the cause which is near to their hearts more harm than good. If they plead as ardently as the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) pleaded in this House for the Germans, they may possibly prejudice the German cause by doing so. Let me conclude on this note. After the victory in Europe a day of thanksgiving and humiliation was celebrated in Windhoek. One of the German pastors attended those proceedings. The proceedings were conducted with great solemnity, and when it was over he said: “I must congratulate and compliment you on having a day of thanksgiving and a day of humiliation,” and he went on to say: “If Germany had been victorious, how different the position would have been.” It is not a question of vengeance. It is a question of security measures, and we want to support the Prime Minister most strongly when he insists that any element which is a source of danger to this country shall not be allowed to live on the soil of South Africa.

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

I am sorry the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is not present. I think he has done a great disservice today to the Jewish community in South Africa.

Do not follow the bad example.

For the Prime Minister’s sake I would let the matter stand, but not for the sake of the hon. member for Troyeville. I am proud to belong to the little Afrikaners to which he referred. There are many little Afrikaners, not only Dutch-speaking but also English-speaking We are very proud of falling under the category of “little Afrikaners”. We would rather be little Afrikaners than men who should be in Palestine and who are now here. I want just to tell our Jewish friends what is really the past history. Many of them went around in this country very poor, with a bundle on their backs. They went round amongst the Boer people and the Boers invited them into their homes and showed them more hospitality than they received in any other country in the world. The old Afrikaners believed in their Bible and said they were God’s chosen people. They gave their best room to the Jew. They did this because they believed the Jews were God’s chosen people. But what did these same people do towards the Afrikaners? After they had experienced this hospitality, after, thanks to the Boers, the Jews are where they are today, the Jews never did anything to repay the Afrikaner for what he had done. The English-speaking people said at that time: “I will not allow the filthy Jew to come into my home.” This was the spirit. The hon. member has done a disservice to the Jews. I would just add to that that the history of the Jews shows that in many instances when they are masters they oppress other people. You will never find a brave soldier persecute a beaten enemy. But you get someone like the hon. member for Troyeville, and unfortunately also the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson), who wish to wreak vengeance on people who cannot defend themselves, poor people who are quite helpless. We come and ask that something should be done for these people, for these Germans. The attitude of the hon. member reminds me of Bela Kuhn, the Hungarian, who was also a Jew, and the cruellest brute who ever lived. He was a communist. I gained respect for our Prime Minister when he would not shake hands with such a fellow. The spirit of the Jew when he is master was exemplified in Bela Kuhn. I am sorry over the line taken by the hon. member. It calls to mind the Mayor of Port Elizabeth who a little while ago came and asked: What must we do to rehabilitate ourselves in the eyes of the Afrikaners? I then said that he must first be an Afrikaner and next a Jew. But unfortunately they cannot be Afrikaners first and Jews next; they must be Jews first and then Afrikaners. Then I asked him what about the English-speaking people, their friends. He replied: “They are a lot of hypocrites.” This is the spirit you find amongst them. Today as England is not so strong as she was in the past Englishmen are stigmatised as a lot of hypocrites. They did not say that when England was strong. Let me say that many English-speaking people, even during the war, contributed to the funds of the Greyshirts. There is a spirit abroad against the Jews, and the hon. member did his race no good with his imputations. Fortunately all Jews are not of this type. There are good and decent Jews, but unfortunately we get a large proportion from Eastern Europe. They have been kicked out of their homeland and they were also disloyal to their homeland because they were Jews first, and they have come here and today they want to teach us what is small or big. They are the little Jews, of which the hon. member for Troyeville is one. When they tell us about their good works we agree they have good points. There is, for instance, erosion in Palestine. I admit that in respect of erosion they are the world’s pioneers. In certain respects they do good work; but why should the hon. member give vent to his hatred of the Afrikaner?

Seeing I am referring to erosion I want to turn to the Prime Minister, who is the pioneer of erosion in our country. He made a start with schemes. I want to give him the credit, but I want to ask him now to go ahead a little more quickly with the work. Ten years ago we welcomed this scheme when he started on it, but since that time many tons of soil have been washed away from the face of South Africa. I said the other day that if we could solve the soil erosion problem and if we could store water this country could carry double its present population. We are still losing more soil through erosion than we are restoring. The Prime Minister brought Mr. Bennett to our country. He gave us many valuable hints and did a great deal to make the people of South Africa erosion-conscious. The danger of erosion is just as real as the danger of war. In war time you shoot men dead quickly. It ends there. But unfortunately if you do not put a stop to erosion our nation will be wiped out. I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that our subterranean waters are being reduced daily and parts of the country have become desert. The northwest must be rehabilitated, and if the Prime Minister will devote his attention to it and expend more money on it we shall be grateful. The war is now over and the Department under Dr. Ross has not sufficient staff. There are a number of good practical people who can help in connection with erosion works. I have recommended certain people, but he writes to me that the policy of the Government is that these people must not be engaged, only returned soldiers. There are not nearly enough returned soldiers to do the work, and seeing we have not sufficient competent people, and that the Department has not sufficient technical staff, they ought to be engaged. Let us rescind this provision that only returned soldiers should be engaged. Give the returned soldiers the first chance, but give other citizens a chance as well. The salaries being paid to the returned soldiers, even the foremen, will not attract the best class of person. A foreman receives 10s. per day or £15 a month, which can be increased to £30 a month. How long will the people remain there, and how many qualified people will we get at that salary. I want the Prime Minister not only to proclaim the Drakensberg, but he should also extend the scheme so that we can really begin on erosion works on a big scale. The level of subterranean waters is steadily dropping. Today it is much lower than 20 or 30 years ago, and we must institute erosion works to restore our subterranean waters. The Prime Minister conferred a great service on South Africa when he launched his scheme some years ago. We have benefited by it. The time has arrived to make a fresh start and to go much further with it. I hope the time will come when we will have £1,000,000 on our budget every year for erosion works. [Time limit.]

This debate has taken a deplorable turn in the last hour or two. I feel it is my duty to intervene on behalf of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and to point out to hon. members opposite that when he spoke about the Little Afrikaner he did not mean to cast any slur at all.…

Oh no, just like the “backveld”,

What the hon. member for Troyeville had in mind was the narrowminded Afrikaner, and if he had gone on a little longer he would have referred to the narrow-minded English-speaking person. There are narrow-minded people in the country, and we have been shown that there are narrow-minded people in this House. But it is unfortunate that the debate is taking the turn it has. The Nationalist Opposition are indulging in what is purely and simply pro-Nazi speeches. We have only just finished the war and now we are getting pro-Nazi speeches from them, while a certain element are bringing in anti-semitism, and I think all this is deplorable. I wonder whether those hon. members can cast their minds back to the time when their accusation against the Jewish people was that they would not allow themselves to be assimilated in any country that they wandered into or fled into and made the land of their adoption. I want to ask the Nationalist members whether we have a large number of Germans naturalised in this country, some of whom have been here for many years, and whose descendants have been here for generations, and I would ask them how many of the descendants of this old German stock joined up in the interests of this country in the last war. And on the other hand many members of the Jewish fraternity joined up.

Where did you join up?

Now we have personalities coming from our very narrow-minded friends. Many of them have shed their blood for their country and there are few who have not made great efforts to assist this country. A large number of the Jewish fraternity joined up, and as far as casualties are concerned there was as large a proportion of them who suffered as any other section of the forces. The figures cannot be denied. Can the members of the Nationalist Party opposite tell me who was the first member of Parliament to lose a son in this war? No, they want to forget it. It was the late member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander), a Jew, who was the first member of this House to lose a son in this war. They want to forget that, and directly after the war they want to plead the German cause. I sincerely hope the Prime Minister will stick to his guns. In regard to these people who are interned the Government have been very fair in deciding to give a trial to all of them, to give them a chance to vindicate themselves. In South Africa we do not want any undesirables wherever they come from, particularly of that type. I have been in two wars against the Germans, and I maintain that all Germans are Nazis. The Opposition members amongst the Nationalists are pleading there was no trouble in South-West Africa during the war. Why? If those police had not been sent there, and if we had not got in there first we would have had our hands full of trouble in South-West Africa. It would have been the same position if the Prime Minister had not stepped in as far as Madagascar was concerned. If we had not done that our Nationalist friends might have witnessed the horrors of the Japanese landing in South Africa. I have made a remark about all Germans being Nazis. [Interruptions.] Does the hon. member not read the newspapers? Has he not read how, when Goering was being tried, he said he did not know that millions of people had been annihilated? Those are the people the Nationalists are pleading for as the type to be assimilated.

Do you want to follow their example?

I will answer that any time the hon. member likes. When Germany overran Holland I never heard any members of the Nationalist Party pleading for Holland. But I do remember when Tobruk fell that celebrations took place in this House …

That is a lie.

It is not a lie, and you took part in those celebrations.

That is a lie.

To a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in order in saying that the hon. member’s statement is a lie?

The hon. member is not entitled to say that.

I did not say he was deliberately telling a lie, but that the statement that there were celebrations and that I took part in them is not true. And on a further point of order I think it is the rule that the hon. member must take my word and withdraw what he said.

No. That is not the application of the rule.

The rule, I take it, is if the hon. member makes a statement and I deny it, he must accept my statement.

No. That is not the practical application of the rule. The rule is that whatever a member says in explanation of a statement he has made, is to be taken as true and not called into question. The hon. member can quite realise that if one hon. member makes a statement and another says it is not true, and he makes another statement and the first hon. member says that is not true and asks that his own statement be accepted, there is no end to it.

The hon. member stated that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) was present on that occasion. The hon. member denied it, and I feel therefore that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) should withdraw his allegation.

The hon. member for Humansdorp said: “It is a lie.” The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) then asked on a point of order whether the hon. member was entitled to say that and I gave my ruling.

But then I raised a further point of order, which has nothing to do with the hon. member for Sunnyside. The hon. member for Rosettenville accused me of being present at certain celebrations and I denied it. He then repeated the statement and I demand that the hon. member for Rosettenville take my word for it and that he withdraw that accusation.

That is not the application of this rule.

I say definitely that the rule applies in this case. The hon. member made a certain statement about me. I denied the truth of that statement. The rule is that if a member makes a personal reflection on another member and the latter denies it, his denial must be accepted. I denied that I was present on that occasion; the hon. member for Rosettenville did not want to accept my denial and he repeated this accusation.

The hon. member has now definitely denied that he was present on that occasion, and the hon. member for Rosettenville must accept that.

May I rise to a point of order?

What is the point of order?

Whether those words were spoken or not spoken, will you now tell me, Sir, what is your ruling, when is a lie not a lie?

That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) may proceed.

I am sorry the hon. member for Humansdorp, who was apparently looking for the lash, now that he has got it is rubbing the salt into his own wounds.

On a point of order. I asked the hon. member to withdraw the accusation he levelled at me. I insist on his doing so.

After the explanation of the hon. member for Humansdorp to the effect that he was not present on that occasion, I think the hon. member for Rosettenville should withdraw that statement.

I should like to explain, as an explanation….

Order, order.

Order, order. I think the hon. member should withdraw that statement.

I will withdraw it, but if all the chairmen on the other side would only give you a chance to control the House instead of trying to control me….

Order, order.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is making a reflection on the Chair. It is a very serious matter to make a reflection on the Chair such as the hon. member has made. The only deduction one can make from his statement is that you are not capable of conducting the proceedings.

The hon. member may proceed.

I was saying that celebrations took place in this House to celebrate the German victory at Tobruk when thousands of our South African soldiers were captured.

May I point out to the hon. member that matter has nothing to do with the vote. I suggest to the hon. member he now comes back to the vote.

Very good, Sir. I am trying to point out that I feel there is a large number of undesirables amongst these internees, though the members of thé Nationalist Party are at present trying to retain them in this country, and we will not have it from this side. We have gone through a very bitter experience as far as the Germans are concerned, and I was a little surprised when I heard the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) also get up and plead the cause of those Nazis to remain in South Africa.

He is a human being.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has a happy knack of putting his foot into it at the wrong time. He is a human being. He is a doctor. But what did we find in the last war? That actually the doctors who are humanitarians are obsessed by the Nazi creed. A doctor who was thought very highly of in this country got up and pleaded the cause of the Nazis. [Time limit.]

I am surprised that the debate has sunk to the level at which it now is. I am deeply disappointed especially over the member who has just resumed his seat. When I think back to the incidents that recently occurred in Johannesburg on the occasion of the Nationalist Party Congress, and when I recall that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was one of the persons who incited those people, one cannot expect anything else than a speech like that from him. Today we have to deal with a nation against which the whole world is ranged. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) stood up here and with the utmost moderation pleaded for the release of the men who are interned. We from this side make an earnest appeal to the humanity of the Prime Minister. We admit that he has still a little human feeling left in him. The war has now been over for a year, and these innocent people are still sitting in the internment camps. When we listen to the speeches on the other side, we find it is nothing else than a case of Ahab coveting Naboth’s vineyard. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) have already pointed that out. We want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister to think about these things. We believe he can see things in a broader way. If he is as far-seeing as was stated during the war, that he looks not only at South Africa, but beyond the South African horizon to the whole world, we wish that he would do that also in this case. He should also look to the position of the home-life of these men. The Prime Minister has feelings on that, and he can realise in what a position these people are when their domestic life has been broken up in this manner. Can we blame anybody for being proud of his nation? Members on the other side have stated that the Germans cannot be assimilated with Afrikaners. That is the greatest rubbish in the world. In South-West a German married a niece of mine, who is an Afrikaans girl. Can that section on the other side who have pleaded for one group point to such things as proof that they can assimilate with the Afrikaans people? We on this side have never said anything against the Jews when they really meant well for South Africa. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has told us how they came into this country and how they enjoyed the hospitality of the farmers. I could also paint a picture to show the hospitality they received from the Boer nation, and how the Boer nation was later trampled underfoot by the Jews.

The hon. member must come back to the vote. That matter has nothing to do with the vote.

Then I will leave it there. We ask here that the Prime Minister should soften his heart and release these people from the internment camps. It is Very unjust of him to be hard towards these people. To place a man in an internment camp purely and simply because he is a German and because he is proud of that is a disgrace. The war is over. The Russians are today more friendly to the Germans than England and America. What is going to be the result of these things? I have already said repeatedly that I cannot understand in any way the diplomacy of England and America. Why do they not look to the friendship of Germany now? They continue steadily to make Germany a greater enemy while the Russians on the other hand do their best to make friends with the Germans. Stalin is misleading them. We do not want to make enemies of these people; we want to make friends with them. Consequently we appeal to the Prime Minister. The war has been over for a year. These people cannot do any harm to South Africa, and why must they still have a rough time in the camps and not be given their liberty? If they had committed great crimes we could acquiesce in their position. But what did they do? Have our friends opposite furnished proof of anything these people have done which has had far-reaching consequences? They have shown us nothing to indicate that these people had any intention to do harm to this country; so why should they be kept in those camps? The Prime Minister knows what home life signifies, so why does he make those people suffer in that respect? I am sorry the debate has fallen to its present level. That was not the intention of the hon. member for Kuruman. In all earnestness he pleaded and implored here for mercy to be extended to these people. But when these statements are made on the other side and accusations are hurled at us that we celebrated the fall of Tobruk we must point out that this is the greatest falsehood. We never celebrated during the war. These are false accusations I take exception to. They are only said by hon. members on the other side so that they may appear as big men in the eyes of the world. We appeal to the Prime Minister. He stated that we must safeguard peace in our country. We had peace in the country and the Prime Minister must now also show that he really wants peace here. Therefore we plead to him in all earnestness to extend clemency towards these people. If there are offenders among them I shall not resent in the least him taking steps against them and treating them as offenders. But there are people in the camps who are innocent. The Ahabs who want the vineyard are responsible for these innocent people being there. We earnestly appeal to the Prime Minister to deal with this matter in all good faith.

One regrets very much, Sir, that on a vote like this so much heat should have been engendered over a perfectly innocent remark by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). He was pleading for a wider immigration policy of the kind I think that is desired by this side of the House of the right type of settler, and in his remarks he made reference to the fact of opposition having come from what he describes as the Little Afrikaner. That has been taken up as an attack on the Afrikaans race, and an attack on that side of the House, and it has been a peg on which to make an attack on the hon. member for Troyeville and his race and the people he has sprung from. I submit that is totally unfair and totally wrong.

Why did he say those things?

The construction put on those remarks by hon. members opposite is quite unfair and unjust, and I will go further and say this, if a non-Jewish member had made those remarks that the hon. member for Troyeville made that side of the House would not have taken up the attitude it has. I say these attacks are unworthy and unfair. I would like those hon. members to cast their minds back a very long time ago—I was not out here then—but I can remember the very bitter attacks that were made in Great Britain at the time on the people called Little Englanders, and the Little Englanders in those days were the people who were fighting for and supporting the Boer cause in this country. I would like them to remember that. It is not always the case that these people are wrong, they are not necessarily wrong. In those days those Little Englanders caused a great deal of trouble. On the other side in England were the Patriots fighting the cause of their country, the cause they thought was right. But I ask hon. members opposite to remember they had no better friends in the British Commonwealth than those people who were called Little Englanders. When a reference is made to a section in this country and they are called Little Afrikaners it is a reference to the fact that their views may be very narrow, in this case on a question of immigration, that they may not think as we do; but you are not justified on that account in making an attack of the type you have made on the hon. member on the grounds of his language, his race and his religion. I say it has happened before, and it does nothing at all to promote good feeling in this House. Let me take another remark made by the member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) — I was not here at the time — a totally unworthy remark in regard to the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hopf).

He is a renegade and nothing else.

If you are going back into a man’s race, where he sprung from, and you make derogatory remarks because of the opinions he expresses now, and if you make derogatory remarks about the race he sprung from, I ask you to cast your minds over your own ranks and see how many of your own side of the House have sprung from English, Irish or Scots stock.

But we are proud of that.

Then what right have you to say that he should not speak against the Germans? What right have you to say because one of our members came from German stock, and is today as good a South African as anyone else in this House, that he is a renegade? Such remarks are uncalled for and I am sorry that the hon. member for Piketberg made it.

You were not even here.

Is it correct that that reference was made?

Did you hear what the member for Pretoria (West) said in fact?

He attacked his own father.

He said his father was a German and that he could not trust any German.

There were those born of British stock who also attacked their father-land in the last war. Do you mean to say that because members on this side of the House are of Afrikaans extraction and because they have views different from yours they are renegades? I say that the whole thing is totally wrong when a person cannot come into this House and say what he honestly feels. You have no right at all to impute that he is a renegade, and to impute unworthy methods to him.

Who started with that?

Never mind who started with this. I do not care, but let me point out to the hon. member that never since I have been in this House have I heard my own leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, impute such things to members. I have been in the House for seventeen years and under the very greatest provocation, when we were sitting in Opposition, when I heard attacks made on the present Prime Minister by the then Prime Minister, I never once heard the Prime Minister use language like that or make sneering reference to the country of origin of an hon. member. I say most emphatically that things like that and language like that do nothing at all to help the debate. There was nothing at all in the speech of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to call for the remarks and the attacks on him. On the whole the tone of this debate has been better than it has been in the past. There has been a better feeling all the time, but I earnestly appeal to our friends opposite, to get away from personal attacks on races and personalities.

Tell your own colleagues that.

Let us do something to uphold the dignity of Parliament.

The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) who has just sat down took exception to the criticism we passed on the remarks that fell from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Let me say that we are exceptionally sensitive when members of that race speak. I wish to refer to the observations made by the Mayor of Cape Town at the beginning of the year when he spoke about the backveld Afrikaners, and when he said that people should be sent to the platteland to teach the stupid farmers about their problems. But let that stand. Now the hon. member comes and objects to what our leader said about the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf). We find no fault with anyone who is proud of his origin, but the hon. member is contemptuous of his origin. No member on this side of the House despises his origin, but that is what the hon. member did, and we find fault with that. He said he was the son of a German father and that he did not trust the Germans. Is that not a disparagement of your own people and your own race?

I have risen specially in order to say something on the question of rifles. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister replied on this matter yesterday, and the reply was very disappointing. I am sorry that members of the House like the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) have urged that rifles should not be distributed as previously. In the past also a permit was necessary for a rifle, it was not free; but now the Prime Minister says that they are giving rifles to people they consider sound. I have here a letter written on 11th January this year to the commandant of the Burger forces in Pretoria—

The writer, Mr. P. N. Wiese, is a member of the Kerkraad of Loeriesfontein, and he is a member of the Calvinia School Board. He says in his letter that his request to buy a rifle could not be complied with. It was signed by the Chief Commandant of the Burger Commandos. Last year another person approached me, one of the most well-to-do farmers in our district, also in connection with a rifle. He, too, was refused a rifle. In all the cases I know of rifles were only refused to Nationalists. I do not know of a single instance where a rifle was refused to a member of the United Party. Here you have prominent citizens of our country, people you are proud of as Afrikaners, and they are unable to obtain a rifle. The war is now over. In order to be able to farm with success these people must have rifles. It is part of their lives. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will know that a farmer prizes his rifle next to his wife, and therefore I appeal to the Prime Minister to see to it that these people get rifles.

At 3.10 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 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 25th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

I wish to move an amendment to Clause 6 as follows—

I propose this in the first place with the idea of stopping the penetration of Indians in European residential areas. At the moment there is no provision for that, and the whole tendency in Natal is in that spirit. The new legislation in respect of Indian representation is also on those lines. We feel therefore that South Africa is heading in that direction. The Nationalist Party represents a policy of separation and this amendment is designed to set up separation, and consequently we feel it would be well to incorporate this amendment in the Bill. Bearing in mind the large-scale penetration by Indians that is occurring today and the high birth rate amongst the Indians—for every European child three Indian children are born— there exists the danger that Durban eventually and very likely the whole of Natal will later become Asiatic, if this amendment is not inserted. We feel therefore that the Indians should be excluded from European residential areas.

I would just express the view that bearing in mind the legislation the Government has introduced in connection with Asiatic land tenure, I regard this amendment as absolutely unnecessary and superfluous and I wish to express the hope that the amendment will not be accepted.

With regard to the amendment which I moved the other day and which is before us, the hon. mover did us the courtesy of speaking and he pointed out that to make it obligatory to invest a certain percentage of the amount on deposit in mortgage would create an impossible position as far as this Department is concerned. He went on to point out that there is no condition in the Building Society’s Act which makes investing in mortgage obligatory. I think I am correct in saying this, and here I want to point out to the committee that while there is no direct clause to that effect, the approach from the Building Society angle is somewhat different. Building societies start’ off by investing in mortgages. They would like to invest very substantially in mortgages.

Not every one.

If the hon. member will listen to me for a minute, I will answer him. In this particular case the whole object appears to be to avoid having to invest any money in mortgage. The position of the building society is just this; the Building Society approaches this matter from the standpoint of investing its money in mortgages. By legislation and in order to safeguard the situation we force the Building Societies to invest a certain amount of money in gilt-edged security and to hold a certain amount in cash against a rainy day. This is regarded as being in the interests of security and stability. Building societies do have to hold a certain proportion of money invested with them in long-term capital, and being of a long-term character that money carries a very much higher rate of interest than current and fixed deposits. In consequence, the building society is obliged to earn a profit on its operations, which will enable it not only to pay the interest on current and fixed deposits, but also to pay the dividend on the long-term capital. In this way, under the Act the building societies are obliged to carry a substantial liability in this long-term capital. That again is in the interest of security and stability, and when one reviews the accounts of building societies one finds that the amount paid in dividends on this long-term capital is not far short of the interest paid on deposits. Because of that, the building society cannot help but invest as much as possible in mortgage, and the practical implications of the Building Societies Act are to force building societies to invest at least 60 per cent. of their money in mortgages. They cannot escape doing so and at the same time meet their annual expenditure. So I want to point this out to the hon. member, because I am merely moving an amendment which is designed to ensure that not less than 30 per cent. of the amount held on deposit shall be invested in mortgage. At this stage I would like to refer to what the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) said the other day. He pointed out in a speech that it was an impossible condition to impose upon this Department, the condition that it should have to invest 30 per cent. in mortgage. I could understand his argument very much better if we had talked of a very much higher percentage, but I put it to him seriously that I fail to understand his argument when one talks about an amount of 30 per cent. on deposits. This is a vital matter in this whole Bill. This is no laughing matter at all. It is vital that in this Bill there should be some obligation on the Department to invest at least a reasonable percentage of the money it receives on deposit in mortgage. In the course of the evidence led before the Select Committee this very important point was raised, and the witness for the council was asked whether the council would agree to having to invest as much as 70 per cent. in first mortgage. He pointed out that that was an impracticable suggestion, and with that I am in entire agreement. But I join issue completely when it comes to a matter of investing 30 per cent. Those of us who have opposed this measure in season and out of season have felt that the promoters of this Bill have come forward and used the plea of housing as a popular plea to get this House to pass this measure, but it is extraordinary how at every point they have resisted the obligation to put money into housing. It is most extraordinary. Let us take the first Bill that came before this House. In that Bill it was provided that not more than 25 per cent. would be invested in mortgage. Mark those words, “not more than”. It is not a question of “not less than”. It was then provided that not more than 25 per cent. would be invested in mortgage. That first Bill provided, in effect, that not less than 30 per cent. should be available for the council’s free use as so-called cheap money. We have progressed. In the 1943 committee stage of a similar Bill we fought this question to make it obligatory to invest money in mortgage, and now we find ourselves fighting the same battle. We feel that we must fight this issue in order to ensure that if this Bill does pass the House it is made obligatory on the Department to invest a certain amount of its money in mortgage.

Do you know of a more profitable investment?

No. I agree it is a profitable investment, and that adds to my amazement when I see the way in which every effort to make mortgage investments obligatory is repeatedly resisted and strenuously resisted. I cannot understand it. It comes down to this: What is a reasonable figure; what would be a reasonable percentage? I have submitted to the House in my amendment that 30 per cent. would be reasonable. I have thought it over since the matter was last before the House, and I cannot help but think that this is more than reasonable. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) has moved an amendment which waters my amendment down considerably. I do not like his amendment, because he is providing that not less than 10 per cent. shall be invested in not only mortgage investments, but also in the further item of loans to depositors on the security of deposits, and I think that reduces the position to something that is absurd. I do not like his amendment at all, but I do appeal to the House, and I would appeal particularly to the mover, to consider very seriously the case I am putting before the House. Surely to ask the Department to invest not less than 30 per cent. of its deposits in housing is a request that can be described in no other language than as being completely reasonable, and in all the circumstances fair and right. If no amendment such as I have adumbrated is introduced, then we find the Department in the position, in the words of the witness who was giving evidence before the Select Committee, that there is no need for the Department to put a single penny into housing. This indicates that the whole approach to this matter is not so much from the housing angle, which I think is the angle which interests this House mostly, but the approach is from the angle of a bank. With the amendments, which have been introduced by the hon. Minister, linking this up with the Building Societies Act, the issue is no longer a bank; the primary function is one of housing, but by reason of the fact that the Department is not obliged to raise money of a long-term character on capital, by reason of the fact that it is released from that obligation, there is no reason to turn round now and to say: “We are going to release them from any obligation to invest money in housing.” [Time limit.]

I want to refer for a moment to the amendment of the hon. Minister of Finance, which reads as follows—

1. (1) The Department shall hold over and above the minimum amount of liquid assets required in terms of section twenty-three of the principal Act to be maintained against its deposits and other liabilities to the public a further amount of not less than five per cent. of such liabilities in cash, or upon deposit withdrawable on demand in a commercial bank approved of by the registrar, or with a local authority, other than the Council, which is so approved.

I want to point out that the use of those words “not less than 5 per cent. carries the implication that as much more as the Council sees fit to allocate to this purpose, may be so allocated. The meaning of the words “not less than” may be brought home by considering another phase of the use of those words. For instance, when it is stated in an Act that not less than three lashes shall be imposed for certain defalcations as a punishment, then it means that three lashes shall be imposed and as many more as the magistrate sees fit. When used in this context people would wake up to the importance of those words. And that is my objection to the use of these words in other parts of the Bill. This amendment gives the City Council of Durban a prescriptive right when they have deposited the amount of money in gilt-edged securities required by the Act—I am not quite aware what that amount is—and not less than 5 per cent. in cash, they can devote some of it to first mortgage or to loans to depositors or to the issue of a loan which has already been paid, and when we come to find out exactly how much can be allocated to a loan on first mortgage, we are confronted with the position that if the Council so desires there is no money left at all for advancing on first mortgage, none at all, and any amendment of this kind was strenuously resisted in the earlier stages. I can remember that some years ago when we first had this Bill before the House, the only reference to housing was in the preamble of the Bill. There were no clauses in the Bill dealing with housing, but there was at the end a schedule of rules which may or may not have applied to housing, but in so far as the Bill itself was concerned there was no reference to housing. The City Council of Durban wanted to put its fingers on £8,500,000, the unexpended borrowing power of Durban. That attitude has been continued throughout the succession of Bills placed before this House and placed before the Provincial Council of Natal. They have strenuously resisted any attempt to specify any amount which shall be devoted to housing and nothing but housing, and I believe that that is the attitude of mind of the City Council of Durban today. There is no specified amount which the Council is bound to devote to advances on first mortgage, and to my mind this has been the stumbling block right throughout to the passage of this Bill. I had no interest in the Bill except as a member of the Select Committee. I have no interest in any building society or anything of that sort, but I do think that in order to make this a good Bill and to justify the propositions put forward by the City Council of Durban and the sponsor of this Bill in the House before other bodies in Durban, where they made big play of the fact that this is a housing Bill, it is necessary to specify that a certain portion of the funds shall be allocated to advances on first mortgage, and it is most strange that they should strenuously resist any portion of the funds received as deposit being allocated to advances on first mortgage. That is an attitude of mind that I cannot understand. They want perfect freedom to invest it in any kind of security other than first mortgage on housing, and although we have been told that first mortgage on housing is the most remunerative direction in which the City Council can invest these funds, yet at the same time they do not want to be tied down. They want to be free to allocate these moneys to, say, loans to other municipalities, to gilt-edged Government securities, to securities of other municipalities—anything bar housing. And that is the position today. I would like the hon. member who is sponsoring this Bill to say to us candidly that it is the intention of the City Council of Durban to resist anything being placed in the Bill which will have the effect of directly allocating a certain amount of the deposits to first mortgage on houses.

I am afraid the Committee will not be convinced by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). I think his arguments are very contradictory. After all, as he is bound to admit, if mortgage is the most profitable investment self-interest will dictate to the City Council of Durban that as much money as possible should be invested in mortgage, and I do not see that it is necessary to have a provision in the Bill forcing them to set aside a certain amount of their deposits for investment in first mortgage. I would like the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) to reconsider their position. I do not think that they themselves are convinced by their arguments. They certainly carried no conviction, and if applications are forthcoming in sufficient numbers it stands to reason that the City Council will advance as much money as possible on first mortgage. I think we must leave it at that.

I wish to support the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) in what he has moved, to the effect that it should not be permissible for the City Council of Durban to lend money to nonEuropeans for housing purposes in areas which are predominantly European areas. We know that whatever legislation there has existed in the past, non-Europeans and particularly Indians have found it possible to obtain, by some means or other, properties in areas in which they were not allowed to obtain such properties, and for that reason I think it is most essential that an amendment of this kind should be incorporated in this clause. The Minister has replied that the Government in amending legislation will make this amendment unnecessary. I would point out, however, that this proposed legislation of the Government has not yet gone through the House, and until such time as it goes through the House, this amendment is most necessary. I therefore wish to support most strongly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Christiana.

I want to say at once that I feel most deeply over this matter, and not as the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) would indicate. This matter goes far deeper into the whole proposition than I have been able to indicate in the time available, and now I want to take another aspect of the case. The other day the hon. member for Ermelo indicated that I wanted 30 per cent. of the funds of the department to be frozen. When he says that, he evidently has in mind that they will have no avenue open for investment in mortgage, otherwise how can 30 per cent. be frozen? But now he says that mortgage being the most lucrative of the investments available, selfinterest will dictate that money will be diverted to mortgage, if mortgage is available. But there is something more than that. In this issue we have this one problem that all the money being borrowed is on deposit—current and fixed. Currént deposits are repayable on demand or at very short notice. Fixed deposits subsist for a maximum of two years. But mortgage investment will exist for anything up to probably 20 years. In order to meet the expense of running the department so as to ensure the objective that the Minister is aiming to achieve in the addition to the new clause 8, that the department shall in other words stand on its feet, it is necessary for the department to earn a certain minimum of revenue, because it will have to meet the expenditure of interest on deposits and the general expenses of operating the department, in other words, the running expenses. The amount of revenue, which may be derived from gilt-edged investments, is small in relation to these requirements and a surplus can only arise by investing a sufficient proportion of the funds in avenues such as mortgage, where the rate of interest will be higher and where that higher rate of interest will produce the margin of revenue that is so necessary.

Are you speaking in favour of the Minister’s amendment?

I will deal with the Minister’s amendment. It makes it all the more imperative therefore to ensure that a certain amount of money is definitely invested in mortgage, because not only have the expenses to be met but the Minister in his new clause 8 is providing that all profit shall be put into a reserve fund. The entire annual profit after making provision for expenses shall be put into a reserve fund. Unless there is sufficient revenue to yield a surplus over expenditure there can be no profit and to follow that to its logical conclusion we have the further problem that this Bill is seeking to allow mortgage advances up to 95 per cent. It is axiomatic that the greater the percentage of the loan the greater is the risk of loss, and, if this Bill is going to safeguard the interests of the burgesses of Durban, it is necessary to ensure that there will be a substantial margin of profit to go into this reserve fund. I think I am correct in saying the Registrar of Building Societies in his memorandum made reference to the fact that if that higher margin is not allowed it is necessary to have a bigger reserve fund than otherwise would be the case. Following this through, from one step to another, it is essential, in my submission, that at least 30 per cent. should be invested in mortgages. I believe far more should really be invested in mortgages, but as I said just now I am not prepared to go to the length of saying that 70 per cent. should be invested; that I accept as unreasonable. We find there is no provision in this Bill governing the interest chargeable on loans. We have passed the clause, which deals with interest on borrowings. In reviewing this matter it is essential to look at the whole picture. There must be sufficient revenue to meet expenditure and to produce a surplus for a reserve fund to meet the possibility of depreciation of losses. Property values at present are very high and will remain so for a period, but not for all time, and with 95 per cent. advances it is inevitable that losses will be incurred, and it is essential the next few years that certain reserves should be established. It all brings me back to the argument that this reserve cannot be established unless large sums of money are put into mortgages at sufficient rates of interest to ensure there is a profit to go to the reserve fund. I feel most strongly on this matter, and I have heard no argument yet put forward to show why the department should not be compelled to invest at least 30 per cent. in mortgages. I do not know whether in the light of the discussion today the hon. mover is prepared to alter the views he held the other day, because then he indicated he could not possibly accept it. But he gave this House no tangible and justifiable reason why the amendment should not be accepted, other than to indicate there was no similar obligation on building societies. May I point out that building societies could not exist unless they invested 60 per cent. in mortgages. One of the first and fundamental objects of a financial institution is to put up reserves, to ensure sufficient profit to establish reserves; and the building societies do not invest more in gilt-edged securities than they are bound to. I would be prepared to go so far as to modify my amendment to make the percentage to be invested in mortgage increase on a progressive scale as the years go by, so that the department will have more and more in mortgages up to a minimum figure. Provision would be made that 30 per cent. of profits should be invested in mortgages over three years, with 10 per cent. in the first year and 20 per cent. in the second year. I will be glad to hear what the hon. mover of the motion has to say to such a suggestion.

I hope the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) is not suffering from lockjaw. If he is he should consult a specialist. We have had this Bill before us for six Sessions and we can never get a word of explanation from him or any reason why he opposes practical propositions put before him. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) advanced a very necessary suggestion, that a certain percentage of money should be invested in houses. The title of this Bill indicates two things. First of all it indicates it is an opportunity for the small man to invest his savings in the savings bank; and secondly, the money is to be used for the provision of housing. Session after Session this question is brought up, and now the hon. member for Houghton has made the suggestion that the amount allocated for mortgages for housing should be progressive from year to year, and still we have no indication from the mover why he should not agree to this suggestion. I think he owes it to this Committee to explain why he cannot accept this very practical suggestion. I have a further amendment on the Order Paper to this clause, and I now wish to propose it—

The reason I move it is it seems to me that as worded the clause goes against the whole spirit of this Bill. The Bill is supposed to be designed to help the small man, and I am all in favour of its doing so, but the wording of the Bill does not meet that. The man who wants a small amount on mortgage is the well-to-do man; because he is a well-to-do man he only needs a small amount. But the needy man wants a bigger amount. That is the reason for my suggested amendment, which I think will be in keeping with the spirit of the Bill.

I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt). The two provisions which the hon. member wishes to delete by virtue of his amendment have only been inserted in order to show the Select Committee it was the Council’s intention in regard to this question of advances on the first mortgage, or loans, to help the small man; and, as the hon. member points out, it is conceivable that this might not operate in accordance with that principle. That being so, and as the Council has indicated its policy to the Select Committee, and it is the policy of the Council to help the small man, and as the amendment does not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, I am prepared to accept it. In regard to the argument used by the hon. members for Houghton (Mr. Bell) and South Coast (Mr. Neate) that the Bill should provide for a fixed amount being invested by way of first mortgage, I indicated when the House last discussed this question I was not prepared to accept that amendment; and, quite frankly, I am not prepared to accept any amendment calculated to alter that position. The reason briefly is that I am not prepared to depart from any accepted principle that has been well tried in this country for years, and that is the principle that operates in building society banks today. It is tied up with the question of “not less than” in regard to gilt-edged stocks. Obviously the extent to which the money must be invested in mortgages and in gilt-edged-stocks is the question of supply and demand. The municipality may find on occasion — we have just had a war — that they cannot find investments on first class mortgage, and the words “not less than” gives them the opportunity to place this money in gilt-edged securities. They prepared to freeze this capital, particularly where the market may be difficult at the time. Building societies may have 70 per cent., but they have to pay dividends. The last point I want to make is even if I was to concede the principle that a fixed amount of 30 per cent. must be provided in this Bill, let us compare building societies on the one hand in regard to the extent they can invest money on first mortgage, and on the other hand a savings department. Building societies can advance money on first mortgage on houses, hotels, industries, and not only in that particular town but throughout the Union. But in this Bill the extent to which municipalities can advance money on fixed mortgage is considerably limited. It is limited to dwellings only, and not only to dwellings only but to a particular class of individual.

When this debate was adjourned I was emphasising the necessity for laying down clearly in this Bill that it must be a Housing Bill, and to achieve that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) should be accepted by the member in charge of the Bill. He makes all sorts of excuses for not accepting it. I want to tell the House the real reason for the introduction of this Bill. It is a Savings Bank Bill and has little or nothing to do with housing, and the sponsors of the Bill are not concerned with housing. From beginning to end of the Bill housing is just an appendage. I want the hon. member to take the House into his confidence and tell us the reason for the change. He told the House that had the Bill been passed we would have had 600 houses erected in Durban.

Order, order. The hon. member is digressing from the clause.

No, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking on the amendment, and I claim that the money must be used for the purpose the sponsors of the Bill allege it will be collected for. It is not a Housing Bill.

Order, order. The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I respectfully suggest I am quite in order.

The hon. member cannot discuss the principles of the Bill.

I am not discussing the principles of the Bill. I am discussing an amendment that has been moved.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I do not think there is any language in which one can say that one can make it certain that 30 per cent. of the money is utilised for housing. If you want me to talk about something else and not housing I will be guided by your ruling. I maintain I am in order in suggesting to the sponsors of the Bill we should make this a Housing Bill. When we want to make it a watertight Housing Bill I submit I am within my rights in pleading with the House to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for South Coast may be perfectly satisfied that only 10 per cent. of the money should be utilised for this purpose, but I am not. I want to make it quite plain that this money will be used for housing, we do not require any savings bank. The people of Durban have a hundred and one other ways to save money. There is proof that most of the money subscribed to the funds over which the building societies have control is on mortgage. I feel that we have to be very careful in municipal undertakings not to give carte blanche to a municipality to use any funds for any purpose that they think they are within their rights of doing, and when we say we want 30 per cent. of this money used for this purpose I do not think we are asking for the impossible. I do not think the hon. mover is justified in refusing it. He states he fears we shall be freezing this money. This money will be set aside and cannot be used for any other purpose because it is laid down in this Bill it must be used for housing. Why have we been discussing the Bill all these years if we do not want to emphasise we must have a Housing Bill? Once the Bill is passed there will be no question, according to the hon. mover of not putting this money on first mortgage; the difficulty will be to get sufficient money to put on first mortgage. The hon. members say that is so. There will be such an avalanche of money and people will be clamouring to put their money into this wonderful scheme. It is perfectly stupid and the hon. mover knows as well as I do how stupid it is. For him to say: We are not prepared to set aside a certain sum of money for housing because it will be frozen and the people will not be able to take it up —well, I wonder who he thinks he is talking to? On the one hand he tells us the money will be frozen and on the other hand he conveys the impression that people from all over the world will be clamouring to take up this cheap money. [Time limit.]

I move—

The Committee divided:

Ayes—40:

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Faure, J. C.

Goldberg, A.

Haywood, J. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M,

Latimer, A.

Maré, F. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sullivan, J. R.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. G. Carinus and G. A. Friend.

Noes—15:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Bell, R. E.

Brink, W. D.

Christopher, R. M.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Hare, W. D.

Ludick, A. I.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stallard, C. F.

Tothill, H. A.

Tellers: E. R. Strauss and S. J. Swanepoel.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

First amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Neate put, and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt, Christopher and Neate) voted in favour of the amendment, the Chairman declared it negatived.

Second amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Bell put, and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt, Bell, Christopher, Derbyshire, Capt. Hare, Messrs. Neate and Tothill) voted in favour of the amendment, the Chairman declared it negatived.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Acutt put and negatived and the second amendment proposed by Mr. Acutt and the third amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Brink put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt, Bell, Derbyshire and Neate) voted against the Clause, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I wish to move the amendment as printed to negative this clause. I cannot see any justification for making a charge on the rates as far as this savings bank is concerned. We in Durban have had our rates increased four times since 1939. One year the rate is increased. The next year the value of the land is increased, and the following year the value of the building is increased, and so it goes on. Now here we have another charge on the rate, and as a ratepayer and representative of ratepayers I strongly object to this further liability being put upon the rates. I cannot see any justification for it. If this concern is established in Durban, it should be able to stand on its own legs and not be a burden on the rates of the city.

I want to deal with the matter on its principles.

Then the hon. member should have done it at the second reading.

I am just interested in this particular clause. Let us suppose that Durban makes a success of this Bill. You may then find lots of other municipalities throughout the Union wishing to adopt a similar measure. I have personally seen towns grow and dwindle, particularly in the Cape Province, where towns have sprung up solely as the result of successful diamond digging, and before long they have municipalities. In this case you might have money lent on all sorts of frivolous purposes for these so-called houses, because they think the place will be flourishing, and by and by it is a flop and then you find that the unfortunate people who still remain in the town are still burdened with the extra cost of these loans. I think it would be a criminal folly for this House to allow something like this to take place. In any case in the ordinary way if municipalities embark on any semi-government scheme, surely those schemes should pay for themselves and should not fall upon the rates. We have electricity and water schemes like that, and in a well-balanced municipality these schemes pay for themselves, and do not fall back on the ratepayers. The same policy should be adopted here. If you are going to embark upon a banking scheme, it should stand on its own legs, and not fall back on anything else. For that reason I shall vote against this clause.

I think in clause 4, which we have already passed, provision is made for fixed deposits up to £10,000. At the moment there is a tremendous amount of money in the country seeking investment, and if this Bill is put on the Statute Book, one presumes there will be a lot of idle money coming in for deposit for fixed periods on which interest has to be paid. It is quite certain that in the beginning, at any rate, there is not going to be a large number of applications for loans for houses, and the consequence of that is that for a considerable time this bank will incur a loss, which loss should rightly fall upon the bank itself. But here we are legislating to make provision for such losses to be borne by the ratepayers of Durban, not because they are going to benefit by it, but simply because it affords an outlet for idle money in the country. The time may, of course, come when there will not be so much idle money, and possibly much of it may be withdrawn. It cannot be withdrawn except by drawing upon the funds of the City Council. It seems to me that it is wrong to saddle the ratepayers of Durban with any prospective losses which may be incurred by the bank. After all, the City Council has to find an outlet for the money deposited. I doubt very much whether a very large amount of it will be put out on mortgage, and, as was pointed out by some hon. members, I see no provision here for limiting the deposit. A man may come along with £10,000 obtained in the black market, and think that he can obtain 24 per cent. on it from the bank, and the poor old ratepayer has to pay that interest, and he is probably paying for the Indian who acquires property in some subterranean way. I say that it is wrong in a case like this, where the whole of the provisions of the Building Societies Act are being applied to this savings bank—I do not call it a Housing Bill after clause 6 has been passed. People will come along and put this money into the bank, and I cannot for the life of me see why the ratepayers should be saddled with the prospective losses which I foresee will be made during the first few years, at any rate, of the operations of the bank.

Before we give power under this Bill to the municipality of Durban to inflict upon the ratepayers any serious losses which may take place through this Bill, I think the House will be justified in taking into account the activities of our municipality in Durban as far as past housing schemes are concerned. I think it would be folly for the House to give powers under this Bill, knowing what had happened previously when such powers as they suggest in Durban for building were used, and when they ventured upon housing schemes; because if we can persuade the House that they have indulged in housing schemes before which have been a complete failure, I think this House will be justified in coming to the conclusion that section 7 of this Bill should be deleted. If that is so, the municipality will be justified in indulging in these housing schemes, well knowing that their ratepayers would not be called upon to meet any deficit that may take place. That being so, I would like to give the House a little information that appeared in the “Natal Mercury” on Wednesday, 13th March, 1946. This was an article about Woodlands Estate. Woodlands Estate is a housing scheme that our municipality have quite recently embarked upon. Houses are being built in Durban now under this housing scheme of the municipality. I suggest it is not necessary for a Bill of this nature to be passed, because they have the money, the facilities and the legal rights to build as many houses as they want. This scheme, the Woodlands Estate, is in operation at the moment, and one of our city councillors states the whole scheme may be a failure. This is an abstract from an article in the “Natal Mercury” of 13th March—

In view of the dissatisfaction that is taking place in Durban in connection with our present scheme there, I suggest this House should be very chary in stating that any loss sustained through the scheme should be passed on to the ratepayers. If the sponsors of the Bill have such faith in it why not let it stand on its own legs? Why make it conditional that should any failure; take place in connection with the scheme the ratepayers must shoulder the responsibility? They are not consistent in the arguments they put forward. We have been told this is money for nothing, to build houses and get them practically interest free As responsible citizens of Durban we have to safeguard the interests of the community. I ask the hon. mover to delete the clause as suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). If the Bill is all that is claimed for it there will be no need for the ratepayers to shoulder this. Once this Bill is launched any sort of wild-cat scheme can be brought forward by individuals who will not be concerned about losing their own money—many have nothing to lose—and they will pass on the loss to the ratepayers. I suggest to the mover that this marvellous scheme far from showing a loss should be able to show a substantial profit. Why should the ratepayers be asked to foot the Bill for a scheme in regard to which they have had no say? I do suggest we must not take the risk of forcing on to Durban another white elephant.

I do not doubt many hon. members and many of the burgesses of Durban will agree heartily with what the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) said in regard to this clause. I think it is doubtfull in principle that the security afforded to the depositors should be made a lien or mortgage on the rates, rents and revenue of the city of Durban. While I sympathise with him, I realise a fundamental principle has been introduced into this Bill, and that is the principle of eliminating from it all long-term capital which, as I mentioned earlier, building societies are required to hold. This department can only take short-term current deposits and fixed deposits. There is no long-term share capital such as we find in building societies, and that being the case it is self-evident any depositor would be extremely wary of depositing money in this department unless he got something more in the way of security than his own deposit, which would be the position in the absence of long-term share capital. It is necessary to have share capital against which the depositor has a preferent claim, or alternatively to give the depositor in place of that share capital some other form of security, and in this Bill the other security is found in this clause 7. So whilst there may be considerable objection to this clause, if it is to be deleted it will be necessary to introduce further provision to establish longterm share capital. I think this is a position one has to accept, and in all the circumstances if this department is properly run it should constitute no liability on the rates of Durban. So I think this clause should be retained, but in the clause itself there is one weakness, where it states that “the rates, rents and other revenue of the city of Durban” is to constitute the security for any liability to depositors. I think it should cover all liabilities. There will be liabilities other than those to depositors, and I cannot see why a distinction should be drawn between liabilities to depositors and general liabilities. The general liabilities are not likely to be large. They are certainly not likely to be anything like the liabilities to depositors. But I think that those to whom money is owed by this department should be in some way equally secured along with the depositors. The matter could be easily met by means of a small amendment, by deletion of the words in line 40 “to depositors”. This simple amendment would meet the case and extend the provision to other creditors, who should be equally secure. I intend to move an amendment as follows—

You probably noticed, Sir, that I nearly lost the thread of my discourse. I was referring to the fact that the whole of the provisions of the Building Societies Act are to be applied to the savings bank. We shall be discussing at a later stage an amendment or proviso which will ensure that profits shall be allocated to a special fund which can be used in no other way but to meet the losses incurred by the bank. If that is so, then we have an alternative fund which will bear the losses, a reserve fund created from profits. For that reason I see no adequate excuse for retaining this clause 7, which puts a charge on the rates, rents and other revenue of Durban to make up any losses or liabilities to the fund. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) proposes to omit the words “to depositors”, and then the clause will read—

It puts the onus on the ratepayers to discharge all liabilities. But deposits to the extent of £2,000,000 worth of money have to be looked to. That is quite a large amount if the project should fail. I still maintain this clause should be deleted, and I support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt).

I am a little at a loss when I hear on the one hand members advancing the argument that this bank must stand on its own feet, and when I then hear the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) moving an amendment to the clause so that the liabilities that are a charge on the city shall include all liabilities, that borrowers shall also be a charge on the rates. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) spoke about borrowers, but actually this clause has nothing to do with borrowers. If the hon. member had read the amendment for the next clause he would find the Minister had made specific provision. I want to say in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) that that proviso is only for a period of five years. I hope the House will not accept this amendment. The hon. member for Houghton is quite right when he says that as there is no share capital the main advantage from a clause like this is as a stabilising factor. What I would point out, particularly to members representing the Durban constituencies, is that this is no new principle. In all ordinances Durban puts up to the Provincial Administration asking for borrowing powers this clause is inserted that the rates, rents and revenue of the city shall be a guarantee against losses. But the extraordinary point is we have hon. members taking exception to this, and in other words pleading that the clause must not protect people who deposited the money with their own local authority, but we never hear a word when the Provincial Administration passes an ordinance guaranteeing the depositors of building societies. I would remind the House that in the depression of 1932 the Provincial Administration passed an ordinance giving the Durban Town Council, with the consent of the Administrator, the right to assist any building society. It might be argued, of course, there were exceptional circumstances in connection with the gold standard at the time and much money was leaving the town, with the result that a particular building society collapsed. I have no particular complaint about guaranteeing the depositors of building societies against loss, but what I do complain about is that members should accept that principle in respect of the depositors of building societies, but not in respect of the depositors of their own institution. In addition, in 1942, Ordinance 21 passed a re-enacting clause, and that was that the Town Council may, with the assent of the Administrator, assist any building society having their principal place of business in Natal.

It does not say “shall”, it says “may”.

It means “can”, and that being so I ask the House to reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt).

I am sorry the hon. mover has not referred to my amendment and it is incumbent on me to say a few more words. I think the mover has made a good case for the retention of this clause, and whilst in the case of building societies the ordinance is admittedly permissive and here it is obligatory, I think it is correct as provided in the Bill. The position is this institution has liabilities to depositors. It will have other liabilities and its assets cannot be more than its deposits less surplus of expenditure over revenue. Intrinsically it will in early years be in an insolvent state until profits overtake losses, for the reason that until then assets will be less than liabilities. If this institution borrows a certain amount of money, and in its operations spends more money than it earns, it is provided that it can draw on the Council for funds. This means a deficit, it means a balance on the wrong side.

It has to be paid back.

I am not talking about it being paid back. Until then I am merely looking to security for creditors, and this clause only secures part of the creditors, namely, the depositors. This clause does not secure any other creditors. Let us examine what the position will be five years hence. The Council will have advanced money to the department to make good its losses until it gets on to a profit-earning basis. It is under an obligation to repay those losses within four months of the end of the fifth financial year. What is the position at the end of that period if it has not made good those losses? It means that in respect of its liabilities which do not constitute deposits there is no security. In these circumstances I submit that the security offered in this clause should be extended to cover all the liabilities of the department and not merely liabilities due to depositors. The mover was obviously under some misapprehension about my amendment. In the case of the building society the share capital constitutes the security because creditors are entitled to be paid out before the shareholders are paid out, but in this case those who are not depositors have no security whatever. After a period of five years further money can be obtained, and I do not know how the liabilities, other than the liabilities of depositors, are to be met in such a case. I think this is an important issue the mover should give his attention to. If you are going to give security it must be to all the creditors, otherwise those who are not depositors are subject to prejudice until such time as this department has got well on its feet and has accumulated a reserve fund, and that may be many years ahead. Let us look at the case of the Birmingham Bank. It was started under the most favourable auspices. Its money was collected by means of stop orders on the workers, and the whole of the proceeds were invested in Victory Bonds. After that institution had been operating for a period of 3 years it was showing a loss of about £7,000 when the bank was liquidated. After that it was reconstituted in its present form, and many years elapsed before that £8,000 was repaid to the City of Birmingham. One can reasonably expect a repetition of that in this case. It is not always possible to establish an institution on a profit-earning basis in a short time. The losses in the first few years may be substantial, and I should like to ask in those circumstances what security there will be for creditors other than depositors.

The argument put forward by the member in charge of this Bill was not very convincing. When I suggested to him he should accept this amendment as this fund will be overflowing with all the money possible under his scheme, with no losses being shown, and with an enormous demand for these houses, that he should safeguard the ratepayers by agreeing to the deletion of this clause, he turns up some provincial ordinance and states the city council “may” assist building societies.

We may have another slump in a few years and we may be in the same position as we were in 1933 when we went off the gold standard and South Africa was faced with a very severe slump, and this housing department may be showing very serious losses. If that is so, there is no question of going into the merits of the undertaking. There is no possibility of bringing people to book and showing that there has been malpractices and nepotism. Now we come back to the poor old ratepayers, and I maintain that it is not just and fair and reasonable to ask this House to saddle the ratepayers with something for which they will not be responsible and in which they will have no say and to ask the local authority or the Provincial Council to come to the assistance of the building society does not meet the position at all. I take it that when this scheme is launched and when they start to build houses, these houses will have to be most attractive. They will certainly have to be very different to the scheme that I have just recently quoted, the Woodlands scheme that is being built in Durban by our City Council. People are already saying that they do not want these houses. I take it that there will be an improvement in these houses, that they will be better built, and speaking from my experience of municipalities I say that they cannot possibly compete with private enterprise, and they will probably show a loss on every house in every block of the scheme that they embarked upon, and I think that it is only right that we in this House should make some attempt to protect the ratepayers of any city to which this Bill would apply. At the moment it will only apply to Durban, but in the course of time it may be extended to other municipalities. I do not think the hon. member is treating the House seriously when he says that there is no need for this clause to be deleted. I feel that it is the only safeguard that the ratepayers will have, and as the sponsor is so sure of his facts, as he is so certain that there cannot be any losses, what objection can there possibly be to delete clause 7 and to allow this scheme to stand on its own feet? If there is to be any doubt about it, let us put each local authority in such a position that we will say to them: “If you show a loss on this housing scheme or the banking scheme or any other scheme that will be undertaken under the Bill, you must not expect the ratepayers to foot the bill; you must not expect the ratepayers to make up any losses which may be suffered”; and it would not be the first time that such losses have been suffered.

The hon. member must advance new arguments and must not continually repeat himself.

Can you find any new arguments?

I think it is only right that the hon. Minister should give us his views upon this. He certainly has the welfare of our building societies at heart, and if it is true that you can get money for nothing and loan it for less than nothing, which hon. members are endeavouring to make out is the case, surely the Minister of Finance should make some attempts to protect the present building societies. It would be most unfair indeed if the municipality is going to be allowed to trade as a building industry and come into competition with the building societies under the more favourable conditions under which they will be operating. If a building society suffers a loss, can they turn round and say to the ratepayers: “We have embarked on some extravagant venture or other; we have suffered a loss and we expect you to foot the bill.” Is it right that we should put the building society in such a position that if any loss is suffered upon any scheme they embark upon, they will be able to look to the ratepayers to make up that loss? It will be their loss. Instead of saying that it will be their loss we give them carte blanche; we say to them: “Go ahead with your scheme and we are not interested whether or not you show a loss.” There is no guarantee under this Bill. This housing scheme must be embarked upon on strict business principles. There is nothing laid down in the Bill to say that you have to have experience and only experienced people handling this large amount of money which may be as much as £2,000,000. We have heard that the people are going to get houses for nothing, that they are going to get houses more cheaply than they can get them built through the building societies. But are they going to go to any building societies? Certainly not. They are going to go to the city of Durban and ask for these houses, because it is maintained that the people will be able to get them more cheaply than the building organisations are able to build for them. That being so, I do think it is not too late for the sponsor of this Bill to say: “Well, I have the interests of the Durban ratepayers at heart. I am going to look after their interests; I am going to make certain that we do not get a lot of irresponsible people bringing forward building schemes and houses being erected which may become white elephants.” [Time limit.]

The hon. mover of the motion has discussed my amendment with me, and in its present form there appears to be some little difficulty, but in a slightly amended form he intimates his acceptance of my amendment, and I therefore desire, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the amendment I have moved and to substitute another amendment.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) proposes to withdraw his previous amendment. Is there any objection?

With the leave of the Committee, the amendment was withdrawn.

I propose to move the following amendment in its place—

Order, order. The marginal note is not subject to amendment.

I then move the amendmentin line 40, to omit “to depositors” and after “incurred” to insert “by the Department”.

The clause will then read—

The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) has not improved the position a bit by withdrawing his former amendment and putting in this amendment, because it makes no change whatever in the meaning of the clause. At the moment the clause makes the rents and rates liable to the depositors only, but the amendment makes the rates liable for all the liabilities of the bank and the housing section and any other section, and for the life of me I cannot see why he has withdrawn the one and substituted the other amendment, because it makes absolutely no difference in the end—none whatsoever. But the hon. member in charge of the Bill made the point that in 1932 the Provincial Council made provision for municipalities assisting building societies in time of stress, and he states that that was re-enacted in the Consolidating Ordinance of 1942. May I say at this point that no actual use was made of the provision by the building societies in Durban at that time. But when we come to consider that the building societies, the rules of which are going to be applied to this bank, with the exceptions foreshadowed by the Minister of Finance, have reserve funds to meet any losses which may be incurred, this Bill is going to have a similar reserve fund to meet the losses which may be incurred after making provision for bad and doubtful debts, the depreciation of assets, gratuities and so forth, any profits are going to be put to the reserve fund to meet any losses incurred otherwise. And so far as this clause 7 is concerned, the deposits only are a charge upon the rates, and the other liabilities will be a charge upon the reserve fund, as is set forth in the amendment which the Minister will move at a later stage. But I do submit that the hon. member in charge of the Bill has not made out a case for the retention of clause 7, which makes the rates liable for deposits. We may have such a large number of deposits as to exceed the limit imposed, in these days when there is a lot of free money now seeking investment.

Those arguments have been repeatedly advanced. The hon. member must try to find hew grounds.

I am replying to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer). He justifies this clause….

Order, order. I cannot allow this endless repetition. The hon. member must confine himself to new grounds.

That is the point I wish to make and reiterate, and I leave it at that.

I want to give further reasons why I think the anticipated loss on this savings bank should not be a charge against the rates. I am surprised in the first place that the hon. member who is promoting this Bill found it necessary to insert this clause. It is a sign of weakness that he has to provide for anticipated losses of the department. But I see this situation arising. This department will come into competition with private enterprise, and, as we all know, when public concerns come into competition with private enterprise, private enterprise usually wins, and I expect the same will happen here, and when the municipal savings bank department finds itself being outwitted, shall we say, by private enterprise, they will be in a position to offer their depositors a higher rate of interest than the building societies are offering, and furthermore if they find themselves being outbid by the building societies in the matter of loans, they will be in a position to say: “We will lend money on mortgage or in other ways at a lower rate of interest than the building societies are prepared to do.” That would obviously mean a loss to this department.

Order, order. That is an argument that has been used repeatedly. The hon. member must try to find new arguments.

I have not heard this argument used in this debate. I am trying to show why the anticipated losses should not be a charge against the rates of Durban, and I think that is a very good argument to support my contention. I bow to your ruling, but I contend that I am within my rights. I say that with all due respect.

Order, order. The hon. member must not reflect upon the Chair.

Excuse me, Sir, I had no intention of doing so. The municipality of Durban is running various trading concerns, and they have a monopoly in these trading concerns. As far as the tramway department is concerned they have a monopoly and in spite of having a monopoly they run the tramways at very considerable losses. In years gone by the tramways paid handsomely.

There were no motor cars then.

But in recent years the tramways have been losing very heavily, and I feel that if this department ever comes into being there are likely to be further losses to the ratepayers of Durban; that is why I propose that this clause be deleted. I looked up the Mayor’s minute and I saw that it is shown in the 1943-’44 returns on the tramways that the loss was £43,373, and what it is today I am not in a position to say, but it only goes to show that even in a concern where they have a monopoly they cannot make it pay, and what chance has this department got when it has to compete with private enterprise? What I am afraid of is that this department will still further increase the rates. In this respect I would like to refer to the remarks that were made quite recently by the present Mayor of Durban. He was remarking on the increase in rates year by year, and he said that as things were going the rates, instead of being a minor tax on the property the rates would become a rental, and that people who have been paying instalments to the building societies for years will find that when they have eventually paid for the property the rates will be so high that they will be equivalent to a rental. Those words were used by the present Mayor of Durban who I regard as the father of this Bill, and that is a further reason why I consider that the Committee should support me for the deletion of this clause.

I move—

Division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt, Derbyshire, Capt. Hare and Mr. Neate) voted against the motion, the Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Bell was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt, Derbyshire, Capt. Hare and Mr. Neate) voted against the clause, the Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

On new Clause 8, proposed by the Select Committee,

I beg to move the amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper. The effect of these amendments will definitely be to separate the finances of the department from the finances of the City Council, except for the fact that provision is made for initial assistance to the department. During its initial stages such assistance is, of course, necessary, and provision is made that the council may make advances to the department in respect of the first five years of its operations, such advances, of course, to be repayable. I move the amendments as printed—

1. (2) The Department shall be liable for all expenditure incurred and liabilities undertaken in connection with the prosecution of its business in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as an entity separate from the Council, and as if it were in all respects an independent building society:
   Provided that—
   1. (i) the Council may out of its funds advance to the Department moneys sufficient to meet preliminary expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the Department and such further liabilities as may be necessarily incurred pending the profitable operation of the Department;
   2. (ii) the moneys so advanced and the interest thereon shall be a charge upon the Department and shall be repayable within a period not exceeding four months after the close of the fifth financial year of the Department, or within such extension of this period as the Minister may approve.
2. (3) The entire annual profits of the Department, after making provision for bad and doubtful debts, depreciation of assets, gratuities or other pension benefits for its officers and all such items as are usually provided for by building societies, shall be allocated to a reserve fund which shall not be drawn upon for any purpose other than to make good any losses sustained by the Department.

I do not know whether the Minister of Finance in moving these amendments has noticed an inconsistency with regard to the audit. In the Select Committee after a good deal of pressure we included the audit of the bank and of the housing section in the ordinary audit of the city council.

But that does not affect Clause 8.

It is going to. The city council suggested the amendment which appears there as Clause 8, that is to say, that the Provincial Auditor shall keep continuous audit on the accounts of the council including the accounts of the savings bank, and that was the intention of Clause 8, that it should be a part of the accounts of the council, but of course that it shall be kept separate from the accounts of the other department. May I just point out to the Minister that his amendment, the new Clause 8, to insert a new sub-section in the clause, can hardly be reconciled with the Select Committee’s Clause 8.

There is no conflict.

It is an entirely separate entity. I do not wish to reject it, but it looks to me as if you are making an unfair separation, in the one case treating it as a building society, not subject to the audit of the provincial auditor, but as something entirely separate, and regulated only by the Building Societies Act, which requires different regulations with regard to auditing. Then again there is this proviso that the Council may out of its funds advance to the department sufficient for the preliminary expenses. I do not know how that is going to square with the provision that the department shall not invest any portion of its funds in the stocks, shares, debentures, etc., of the City of Durban.

It is an advance from the Council, not to the Council.

The Council is going to advance this money to the department, but the department may not invest any portion of its funds in the debentures, bonds or stocks of the city. I have an idea that there is a slip-up somewhere which should be amended, because the one contradicts the other. I cannot formulate an amendment at the moment, but I want to bring it to the notice of the Minister to see whether he can reconcile the one with the other.

I see no difficulty whatever in respect of the two points raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). As regards the second point the position is simply that we have said that the department may not invest its money in the stocks, debentures, bonds or bills of the City of Durban, but that does not prevent the City of Durban from lending money to the department. Surely there is no conflict. As regards the other point, again the position seems to be clear. It is as contemplated by the Select Committee. The department is a department of the City of Durban, and therefore its accounts are part of the accounts of the City of Durban, and are audited in the same way as the accounts of the city, but they form a separate part of those accounts. They are a separate concern of the City of Durban. The Select Committee itself said that they were to be kept separate. So if there is no inconsistency in the clause as drafted by the Select Committee, there is also no inconsistency between that clause and the amendment moved by me.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the provisions in clause 9 also which state that the accounts of the department shall form part of the accounts of the council. That means that they shall be audited by the provincial auditor. But clause 9 states that as soon as possible and in any case within two months after the close of the financial year of the department the council shall prepare and render to the provincial auditor a balance sheet. That means that the provincial auditor is going to render a balance sheet himself.

We are not discussing clause 9 now.

I do not know how that can be reconciled. I do not object to this, but am only suggesting that possibly there is a slight inconsistency there.

The Minister’s amendments are unquestionably of a sound character, but there are just two points I wish to raise in connection with his own amendment, and then I want to deal with a further point.

In sub-paragraph 2 there is provision that the money so advanced and the interest thereon shall be a charge on the rates of the city. I do not know whether it is not wise that some limitation should be imposed on the interest charged, to ensure that it will be at a low rate, because as it stands here there is no limit and they can charge a high rate. The second point is in the same paragraph in the second and third lines. There appears to be a little ambiguity. Is the money repayable at any time before the fourth month after the fifth year, or only after the fifth year, but not later than the fourth month of that year? I have looked at it carefully. It says—

I raise this point because there appears to be ambiguity, and if this department should operate successfully, it may be in a position to repay the money earlier, whilst in terms of this clause, it might be precluded from doing so. In strict legal parlance, the clause may be interpreted to provide that the money could be repaid earlier. I just point that out to the Minister. I come to the next subclause (3). It is advisable and essential that a reserve fund should be established. I like the provision the Minister has introduced here that any profit made by this Department shall be put into a reserve fund and shall not be used for any purpose other than to make good any losses sustained by the Department. In itself that clause is perfectly sound, but what is the position if there are no profits to go into that reserve fund? Then there would never be any reserve fund, and that is an issue of paramount importance. [Interjection.] The hon. mover says that in the case of building societies they have to set aside only 10 per cent. if they have profits, but that is not quite the position. In building societies the position is this, that the profit is arrived at by deducting from revenue the expenses of management, depreciation and the payment of interest on deposits, but before dividends are paid on shares. It is in respect of that profit that it is obligatory to set aside 10 per cent. into the reserve fund, until that reaches a certain figure. After setting aside 10 per cent. from the profits, out of the balance the society is at liberty to pay dividends to shareholders on its shares. That means that the society is obliged to earn a profit sufficient to enable 90 per cent. of the profit to meet the liability to shareholders in respect of dividends. There is an obligation, therefore, on the building society to lend money at a rate sufficiently high to earn profits accordingly, but in this particular Bill there is no obligation whatever to make any profits. What I consider to be an omission of a serious character is the fact that whilst clause 5 provides safeguards for the interest payable to depositors, the Bill is entirely silent on the question of interest to be charged on advances on loans. It seems to me necessary to insert a provision to ensure that interest charged on mortgage advances will be at such a rate that revenue will exceed expenditure, and in addition will provide a margin which will constitute a profit and be applied to the reserve fund. I think the Minister will agree with me that there is no provision whatever in this Bill to ensure that the rate of interest charged on mortgage investments will be sufficient to produce that result.

This clause is not the place to do that.

I think that a provision could very suitably be incorporated to follow the Minister’s sub-clause (3) wherein he provides for profits, or it would not matter if if were in a new clause.

It would have to be a new clause.

I have drafted an amendment which might meet the case as a new subclause (4) to follow sub-clause (3). I move as an amendment to the amendment moved by the Minister of Finance—

1. (4) The rate of interest charged upon mortgage advances shall be determined with due regard to ensuring that the annual revenue accruing to the Department shall exceed the expenditure together with an amount which shall be equal to not less than one-half of one per cent. reckoned on the total amount invested in such advances.

We do not know how much will be invested in mortgages. That is the nigger in the woodpile, but we are told that mortgage investments are the most lucrative form of investment, and in consequence it seems to me essential to provide some safeguard so that in arriving at the rate of interest to be charged, the expenses plus a margin will be covered. This question becomes the more important when one has regard to the evidence laid before the Select Committee in 1942. The Department aimed at being relieved of high rates of interest on share capital with one object of lending money at a very low rate of interest. I think we are all in agreement with this objective, but with this proviso that the low rate of interest must not be so low that the stability of the Department becomes questionable. At that stage in 1942 it was suggested that they anticipated lending money at 3½ per cent., as against the building societies lending it at 4¾ per cent. to 5 per cent. If the objective is such a low rate of interest, it may turn out as entirely inadequate to meet expenses. The hon. mover interjects to ask what that has to do with this Bill. I submit that it has everything to do with the Bill, because the Minister has introduced an amendment, which I hope the House will accept, to provide that the entire annual profits shall be devoted to the reserve fund, and I am looking to see where this reserve fund is coming from. [Time limit.]

I must say that I feel very confused over this matter, and I would ask the mover of the Bill to give us an explanation of it. Here we have a further amendment by the Minister that the department shall be liable for all expenditure incurred in connection with the prosecution of its business, and we have already passed a clause to the effect that any such loss should be a charge on rates. Why is it necessary for this clause if losses are to be thrown on rates? I feel confused, and hope that the hon. member for Durban Point (Dr. V. L. Shearer) will give an explanation as to what necessity there is for this clause.

I think clause 7 should be reconsidered. The amendment by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) now makes the, people of Durban liable for all the losses of the Department, and here we have an amendment which provides for the losses of the Department in addition to liability to the depositors. I fear that the amendment inserted at the instance of the hon. member for Houghton in the previous clause was not intended to be accepted.

We cannot go back to the previous clause.

I suppose we could do that at a certain stage if we found that a mistake had been made.

This is not the appropriate stage.

I was pointing out that the objective seemed to be to lend money at a low rate of interest, but there is a further aspect, namely, that the money lent on mortgage will be lent for long-term periods, and here there is another deficiency in the Bill. There is no safeguarding clause that the Department should reserve the right after a certain period of time to alter the rate of interest. I submit that it is impossible to look 20 years ahead, and, if this Department starts off in a wave of enthusiasm to lend cheap money or if it finds that it has a lot of money on hand and wants to get it out, naturally the lower the rate of interest charged the quicker it will get the money out, it may saddle the fund with a liability while these mortgages are being redeemed. It is essential to safeguard the position from the outset, and it is all the more essential in view of this House having passed clause 7 where the rates and revenue of Durban are made liable for any losses. Having secured the depositors, it now becomes necessary to ensure as far as possible that there shall be no losses to be borne by the ratepayers of Durban, and that the Department stands on its own feet, as the Minister aims at in his amendment. Therefore there should be some safeguard. The rate of interest charged upon mortgage loans might be subject to the approval of the administrator or of the Minister of Finance, so that there shall be some safeguard against too low a rate and committing the Department to interminable losses whilst these investments last. I think the Minister should be sympathetic on the point.

Order, order! It does seem to me that the point which the hon. member is trying to make is to vary the terms of a contract made with the mortgagee, to vary the rate of interest. If that is so it seems to me that the proposed amendment is of a frivolous character.

I submit that I have raised that as an aspect. I will dilate on that aspect at a later stage. At this stage I am merely trying to ensure that such a rate of interest as is to be charged on mortgage investments will ensure that a stable position is maintained in future.

If the hon. member contends that the rate has to be altered at the caprice of the society from year to year, I feel that that is a frivolous suggestion, and I cannot allow him to proceed with it.

The purport of my amendment is that the rate of interest shall ensure that revenue will exceed expenditure plus a margin. I do not suggest that the rate of interest should be altered each year, but I submit that there is nothing frivolous in what I have said because there are societies who make provision in their bonds that after six years and upon six months’ notice the rate of interest may be varied. I do not say all societies do so, but some reserve to themselves this right, after a fairly lengthy period of time, but not an unduly long time, to alter rules. This is not brought in here, but it can follow later. My amendment is simple. The effect will be that expenses will be covered and at least ½ per cent. on the amount advanced will be available each year to go to reserve so that after some years the reserve will reach reasonable proportions. It is necessary to have this because of the further provision which authorises loans of 95 per cent. Something must be done to safeguard the rates and rents of Durban.

I hope the mover of this Bill will tell us what he thinks of the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). It was somewhat difficult to hear the argument put forward. I feel that some clarification of the Minister’s amendment will help us considerably in deciding this matter. His amendment states that the department shall be liable for all the expenditure incurred by the department as if it was in all respects an independent building society. [Reading Clause.] This is a very wide and important clause. First the Minister takes it for granted that this is going to be a profitable operation which is sure to show profits. Probably it will be just the reverse. The municipal undertakings have a monopoly and no competition; they more often than not show losses and are a liability on rates. I would like to suggest to the Minister that he limits the amount. What guarantee have we in this Bill as it is at present that all the money put into the fund is not absorbed in bringing the department into being. We give them carte blanche to use this money as they like, putting up elaborate buildings and furnishings, and possibly a large proportion of the money that was accumulated is used for bringing the department into being. We have no guarantee how many thousand pounds will be absorbed. It may be £250,000. There is nothing in the Bill to lay down that for the purpose of launching the scheme a definite amount will be provided. What is to prevent an extra charge on the votes in order to launch this very doubtful scheme? The Minister referred to “pending the profitable operation of this department”. Is it the intention of the promoters to exploit the poor working man? Are they going to charge exorbitant prices to enable them to show a profit, because profits are obviously expected from this undertaking. I would suggest to the Minister…

May I suggest to the hon. member that he confine himself to the clause and not traverse the principle of the Bill.

I am merely asking the Minister whether he will give us some clarification of the clause and how he is to limit the expenditure of ratepayers’ money in launching a scheme which has not a penny to its name. I do not know whether the promoter imagines that the money is going to fall down from Heaven. Where can it come from? It must be the ratepayers’ money that will bring this scheme into being and finance the equipment, building and staff necessary to run the fund. I suggest to the Minister he should state in this clause what he considers a reasonable amount to bring the scheme into being, and how he proposes profits will be derived from the scheme, especially as it will be in competition with concerns that have been in this business for generations.

I move—

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt, Derbyshire and Neate) voted against the motion, the Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Bell put and negatived and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt, Bell, Derbyshire, Neate and Waring) voted against the clause, the Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

On clause 9,

There appears to be an inconsistency between clause 9 and clause 10 in this respect. Clause 9 provides that the accounts be prepared and submitted to the provincial auditor, and goes on to provide they will be in such a form and containing such information as may be approved or required by him. In the following clause the accounts are to take the form laid down in the Building Societies Act. This raises the question of which form is to be adopted. I think the Minister will agree there is an inconsistency here. In these accounts there are a large number of items. There is a revenue account, a statement of assets and liabilities, and in addition a certain number of schedules are required under section 30 of the Building Societies Act. If my contention is right clause 9 requires a slight amendment in order to bring it into line with clause 10. I therefore move—

The effect will be to ensure the accounts will take the form outlined in section 30 of the Building Societies Act, and that the provincial auditor will have no right to call for any particular form as required by him.

From my point of view the amendment is not really necessary. As Minister of Finance I am merely concerned with the requirements of clause 10. If in addition to that the promoters of the Bill are willing to have the further requirement in regard to this submission of accounts to the provincial auditor, possibly in different form, that is their business. From my point of view the amendment is not necessary.

I appreciate the Minister’s explanation. The question is whether this department is going to be put to the trouble and expense of preparing two sets of accounts, one to suit the provincial auditor and the other the Minister of Finance under the Building Societies Act. It is a matter for the promoters, apparently, and I shall be glad to hear what the mover has to say on the matter as to whether he is aware of this particular condition. I am merely seeking to remove what would appear to be not a discrepancy but a complete anomaly.

I do not know whether it is common knowledge that there is a continuous audit of the accounts of the City of Durban, not only the provincial auditors, but there is a running audit all the time, and it seems to me there is a tremendous amount of work involved here, and that the two clauses are contradictory.

Question put: That the words “approved or”, proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Mr. Acutt) voted against the question, the Deputy-Chairman declared it affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On clause 10,

Amendment proposed by the Select Committee in lines 63 and 64 put,

I have two small amendments of a verbal nature as printed on page 175, and I move accordingly. I may further draw attention to the fact as far as the second amendment is concerned the Afrikaans version is not quite correctly printed, and the word “voornoemde” should also be deleted. I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

I have a small amendment which I think is desirable. The accounts are required to be signed by the City Treasurer and the official managing the department. I think it desirable that the chairman of the department should also sign accounts. I think it is well to fix the responsibility on one of the members of the committee, who will supervise this department, in addition to fixing responsibility in the administrative officials, and I think it desirable to include the chairman as one of those required to sign the balance sheet. I therefore move—

There is no reference in the Bill to a chairman.

The Minister says there is no reference…

The hon. member cannot speak twice in succession.

I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). It was the custom when I was a member of the City Council of Durban for the chairman of the Finance Committee to sign all accounts that are paid. I hope the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) will accept this amendment as a safeguard to insure the bank is run on proper lines.

The Minister has passed a comment that he does not think the Bill makes provision for a chairman. In its present form it does not, but in view of an amendment the Minister has tabled—I refer to the new clause 18 covering definitions— the Minister is taking steps to make a very necessary provision with regard to adapting the present Building Societies Act to this Department, and that amendment covers the definition of a Board of Directors by a modification of the definition under the Building Societies Act. It is absolutely necessary to have some body governing the affairs of this Department, and it is common practice in municipal circles to establish committees for the purpose, and the Minister is merely making the provision here to reconcile the fact that a committee will govern this Department with the fact that under the Building Societies Act the Board of Directors is the governing body. I submit that the Board of Directors must have a chairman, and therefore it is self-evident that this Department will and must be presided over by a chairman, so that I submit that the amendment to include a chairman as one of those whose responsibility it is to sign the balance sheet and the accounts is perfectly in order.

As there seems to be a little doubt about the desirability or otherwise about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell), I hope the Minister will advise the hon. member in charge of this Bill that this is really a very small amendment that can be accepted. In viewing this amendment, one must take into consideration that certain statements have been made in connection with the Bill. It has been said that malpractices have taken place in certain municipalities. I do not say that that is so in Durban, but there have been such cases. Thank goodness, the Durban Municipality is pure. But it has been proved that there are malpractices in many municipalities, and I think this is a safeguard in the interests of any city treasurer. We will not always have our present city treasurer. We have to protect our municipal officials to the best of our ability. We have to see that they are above suspicion, and if we can help them in any little way by a little simple amendment, that will result in someone else sharing the responsibility with the city treasurer as far as the accounts are concerned, it will be a step in the right direction. This is a safeguard that will help in the administration of a fund of this kind, and we have to realise that it is not a small amount that is involved. It may be anything up to £2 million. If we throw the responsibility upon the shoulders of the city treasurer, I do not think we shall be doing something that will be in the interest of the particular incumbent of the post, whoever he may be, and I hope the Minister will be able to advise the promoter of this Bill that there is nothing in this amendment that will be to the detriment of the Bill. It is very often the small amendments which greatly improve Bills, and I do think we should consider that question. This is a very important safeguard. I am sure that if I were the city treasurer handling large sums of money) I would be only too pleased to have someone sharing the responsibility with me, so that I can never be told that I am solely responsible. I am not asking that all the committee members should sign these documents. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) merely refers to the chairman and the treasurer. If there is any difficulty in accepting this amendment, I am quite sure that it can be met by a small amendment which the Minister can move, although I do not see anything inconsistent in this amendment. Any board of directors must have a chairman, and I think it is the desire of many members that this fund should not have any more privileges than the average building society, and it will help considerably if we can keep it within the framework of building society organisations.

I would like to support the idea of having a councillor, at any rate, to sign these documents and share the responsibility with the city treasurer, but I realise the difficulty which presents itself by including the word “chairman” as this Bill does not provide for a chairman, although it is fairly certain that when the bank is established, if it is ever established, a committee will be formed and that there will be a chairman. But in order to get over the difficulty I would like to suggest that the word “councillor” be substituted for the word “chairman”. I think that would get over the difficulty. You would then have one councillor signing the documents in addition to the city treasurer. I hope the hon. member will agree to that.

I think that the request made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) is a reasonable one. These councillors are divided into various committees and when the city treasurer prepares a document for the council the chairman of the Finance Committee signs the document and he takes the responsibility. From the executive point of view he is not responsible so much, but from the administrative point of view he is responsible and I feel that in this instance it is not unreasonable to suggest that the councillor who is the chairman of the committee which will undertake the administration of this work should support the treasurer’s report and the documents by appending his signature to it.

The Minister was out just now when I spoke…

I was not.

In that case he would have heard what I said, so I shall not repeat it.

I would like to say a few words in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). He has not stipulated exactly what chairman he refers to. Who does he mean?

Obviously the chairman of the Governor-General’s Fund.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether he would not improve his amendment by inserting the words “chairman of the Finance Committee” instead of just the word “chairman”.

Leave it to the free vote of the Finance Committee.

If he does that it will avoid any confusion that may arise in the minds of members. There are a dozen different committees and the word “chairman” may refer to any one of those committees, and I would suggest to the hon. member for Houghton that he should stipulate what chairman he would like these documents to be signed by.

I move—

Division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Derbyshire and Waring) voted against the motion, the Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

Mr. DERBYSHIRE called attention to the number of members present.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN having caused the division bells to be rung for two minutes and twenty-nine members including the Deputy-Chairman being found present, the Deputy-Chairman left the Chair.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported that on notice being taken it was found that there was no quorum.

Whereupon the House being counted, Mr. Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

House Resumed in Committee:

Amendments proposed by the Select Committee in lines 63 and 64 and amendment proposed by Mr. Bell put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On New Clause to follow Clause 10,

I beg to move the insertion of the new clause as printed. The first sub-clause will provide for the necessary publicity in regard to this department and the second sub-clause is taken from Clause 5, sub-clause 5, as submitted by the Select Committee. That particular sub-section is more appropriately placed here and on that account it was deleted when we were considering Clause 5. I move—

1. 11.
   1. (1) Any reports, notices or documents required by the principal Act to be submitted to members shall be—
      1. (a) submitted to the Administrator and the registrar;
      2. (b) displayed at the head office and any branches of the Department:
         Provided that the audited balance sheet of the Department shall in addition be published in at least one English and one Afrikaans daily newspaper circulating in Durban.
   2. (2) All application forms, notices, receipts and advertisements of the Department shall be in both official languages.

Agreed to.

On clause 11,

Amendments proposed by the Select Committee in lines 6 and 7 and in line 9 put and negatived.

I beg to move the amendments as printed on the Order Paper. These amendments are really consequential on the amendments previously adopted. The most important of them is the deletion of paragraphs a, b, c and d in sub-clause 2, that being necessary because those particular provisions are covered by the Building Societies Act which will now be applied to this Bill. I move—

Agreed to.

Amendment proposed by the Select Committee in lines 26 and 27, put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow clause 11,

I want to move a new clause which follows clause 11, as follows—

Speaking to this, may I say that in the Select Committee the Registrar of Building Societies submitted through the Treasury a practically new Bill, but this new Bill omitted practically every reference to the Administrator, under whose control all municipal institutions exist. The upshot of that was that I moved several amendments in the Select Committee which put the Administrator in his proper place, that is to say, that his approval in every case is essential in every phase of the Department’s activities. In the application of the Building Societies Act to this Bill with the exceptions moved by the Minister of Finance the function of the Administrator has been lost sight of and it is merely to safeguard the control by the Administrator of all the phases of the Department that I moved this amendment, and it will be seen that the prime object is that there shall not be correspondence between the Registrar of Building Societies and the City Council and the Department in Durban without the cognisance and the knowledge of the Administrator. I seek to put that matter right by inserting this new clause, and I trust that the Committee will be prepared to accept it.

I would like to move—

There is a motion that the House should be prepared to report progress. We have spent quite a long time endeavouring to improve this Bill, and to make it something of which we can all be proud, and for the sponsor of the Bill now to ask for the adjournment of the debate means that at least he ought to give further consideration to it. But I appeal to the mover of the Bill to have a little more consideration for members. We have one or two amendments to move which will improve the Bill and hope that they will accept it. Our members patiently stayed here during the dinner hour to improve the Bill and I hope an opportunity will be given to them to speak as many of them are anxious to give us their opinions even at this late hour, but have been prevented from doing so due to the exuberance of the mover of the Bill. I appeal that the House shall further consider the Bill.

Question put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Mr. Derbyshire and Dr. L. P. Bosman) voted against the motion, the Deputy-Chairman declared it agreed to.

House Resumed:

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